Posted on 05/28/2004 5:25:59 AM PDT by Aquinasfan
Porn causes widespread harm and a general degradation of societal values.
Do you consider porn an 'intrinsic evil', Dan?
Can our society prohibit it as such?
If you agree, you end up in the same trap about 'evil' that A-fan did, wherein he claimed we can prohibit even lying, because "lies are intrinsically evil".
He left the fray, unable to answer the question below..
Can you?
"Try to answer the question, - how can you claim that a verbal attempt to mislead a nazi search for jews is an 'intrinsically evil' lie?"
Like most liberals, you have that exactly backwards.
What's more porn is not something that the nation generally tolerated until the late 20th century, when judicial activism began turning this country's values upside down.
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA! Your knowledge of the history of "porn" is woefully lacking.
What astounding ignorance! For the record, porn predates the Constitution. For that matter, it predates the Bible.
Any divine help isn't germane to the discussion. What is germane is that this is not a government ordained by God (a classic recipe for tyranny), but given its power by the people.
That makes no sense. It follows if heretics have some exposure to the Bible, which they do.
But as I said before, this has to be balanced against freedom of conscience, which is a natural right.
And here I thought you were of the opinion that there is no right to use your free will to choose evil. To hear the Gospel and reject it is evil, but if a right to freedom of conscience means anything, it means the right to reject the Gospel and reject Christ.
Good point. The founders didn't want a nationally established church, but they had no problem with established state churches.
As I pointed out (and as you feebly attempted to rebut; more on this in my next reply), this is simply false.
Otherwise, I think they would have agreed with my notion of the common good.
Obviously not. Your notion of the common good is incompatible with any form of limited government and rejects liberty -- except, apparently, the liberty to reject Christ.
Sorry, I'm not familiar with the Hussites.
Catholics killed the large majority of the Czech population after the Battle of White Mountain.
Faith in Christ is a gift of grace.
Embracing the "errors" of Luther, are you? Excellent!
Some who deny explicit faith in Christ do so out of ignorance.
And they still go to Hell. And not some painless limbo either.
There is not, and never has been, a "war" (in America) on drugs, porn, illiteracy, poverty or even crime.
- In a war, BOTH sides shoot at each other with the intent of killing. Are pornographers shooting at cops? Are cops shooting pornographers?;
- BOTH sides try to engineer the complete, total defeat of each other. In none of the so-called "wars" listed above is this the case.;
- In wars, you use B-52's, AC-130's, Marines, ships, tanks, and lots of ammo. You don't use, as a general rule, cops and lawyers;
- In war, you invade nations, kill their leaders, and take territory. Have we done that to Columbia or Peru yet? How about LA, where most porn is made?
- In a war, lots and lots of brave young men give their lives defending and serving their nations.
I'm sorry for ranting, but having now been involved in two real wars in my life, the misuse of the word just plain irks me.
I've even done some time down in South America on counter-drug operations. Let me be the first to tell you, no war is going on there, at least not against any drug lords.
Danny, I gotta tell ya, Brother, there are some Christians (not ALL) who most certainly are, and are quite proud of the fact. True, they give the rest a bad name.
I've been told some pretty wierd things by some of them. Hell, one guy once told me that if I was having sex with my wife using birth control, I was "treating her like a whore" Fortunately for him, it was online. I tend to get irritated when the word "whore" is used in the same sentence with "your wife". Where I grew up, you do not do that.
What you posted reminds me of one of the reasons I tend to get suspicious of Bible quotations. I've seen people use them a lot on FR to justify positions.
Thing is, you can find something in there to justify almost ANYTHING if you look hard enough and "cut-and-paste" with skill.
Going "line vs. line" against someone else rarely resolves anything, at least as far as I've seen. Also, too many people seem to twist and contort it to ends which, in the big picture, go against much of what it says.
Fascinating. So the whole TEXT of the Constitution matters nothing. The government evidently should take it upon itself to attempt to fulfill the purposes of the text (which necessarily involves violating the explicit commands of the text), and then fill in a new content for those purposes, consisting of Catholic nature law theory, to replace the Constitution's own content.
Have you read the Constitution? It promotes the general welfare mostly by restricting the state.
True. That doesn't obviate the principle.
Of course it does. Are you stupid? The fact that the word general appears before the word welfare in the Preamble does not mean the government must do as Catholic natural law theory dictates. It means, if you bother to read the whole sentence, that the Constitution is intended to promote the general welfare. It does this by its PROVISIONS, not by some woozy abstractions for everyone to read their own ideas into.
Uh, no. I know Thomas Jefferson, for one, objected strongly.
So? The fact is that many states had established churches well into the 19th century.
So you're wrong. You say the Founding Fathers didn't object. Thomas Jefferson was a Founding Father, and he objected. That's it. There's nothing to be said in defense of your claim. You can modify it to a claim that a majority of their contemporaries didn't object, but 1) that's irrelevant, and 2) we have no way of knowing how everyone other than property-owning white males would have voted.
True enough, if you let the discussion bog down on petty detail.
Arguing opinions on how to interpret reality is futile.
- Try to establish a common reality, -- [IE, there is a 'War on Drugs'] -- pin your opponent down as to exactly why he promotes that reality; -- and then argue the errors of his philosophy.
Works every time, if you have the patience. They scuttle away.
Of course, most return the next day, with a massive memory loss, and want to rehash the whole issue.
If it were in fact a war, we would have blockaded drug-producing countries, incinerated the fields with bombs, invaded them, and removed their leaders. Then, we would've killed the drug lords.
We also probably would have arrested drug importers here as "enemy combatants" or somesuch.
The fact is, the term "war" means something, and it is something far different than what we are doing regarding drugs.
Like I said, I spent some time in Central and South America doing drug-ops. Not only did we never fly with any weapons, not even pistols, there were none even in theater.
I also participated in ENDURING FREEDOM. Guess which one they gave out medals for? Hint...it had nothing to do with drugs.
That only works well when someone is willing to acknowledge the errors, once pointed out. As we have seen here, there are fanatics who are SO convinced of their correctness, no amount of reason, logic, or facts can shake them.
Yep. -- And at that point, you have no option other than to dismiss them.
That REALLY gets them to display their irrationality.
The fact that this has to be explained on this forum staggers the imagination.
That's the beauty of the internet for some cowardly people: You can say whatever you want without worrying about real-life consequences. People feel free to act like jerks since they know there's no chance they'll get popped upside the head.
No. Not necessarily. See my Post 449. Looking at the definition of porn, "Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal. ", I would have to say that there is a case for certain of these materials, from an informative, medical and therapeutic nature.
That said, the majority of porn falls under the sinful conditions listed in post 449, where you are encouraged to lust after others, instead of your own wife.
"Can our society prohibit it as such?"
Certainly we can prohibit it. It's simply a matter of defining what we want to allow and what we don't. We already do that with child pornography. Many jurisdictions have restrictions on what adult material can be displayed in public or in bars, etc.
What has changed over time is that in the 1960's, certain publishers began a successful court battle to change the definition of porn and get their works retitled from obscene to art.
"Try to answer the question, - how can you claim that a verbal attempt to mislead a nazi search for jews is an 'intrinsically evil' lie?"
I would not claim that a lie in that case is evil.
Murder, Homosexuality, Prostitution, Theft all predate the Bible too. Doesn't make them right.
However, the nature and prevalence of porn has certainly changed over the years, particularly since 1960. Prior to that most porn was either written word or hand drawn illustrations. The following link describes the search by a doctoral student for porn in colonial America. It is instructive on what was available.
I agree if you "cut and paste" with skill you can justify almost anything. I dissagree that going line vs line with others rarely resolves anything. The key to resolving different interpretations is usually to step back and view the big picture. The lines can always be reconciled when you do that.
But there is a fatalism about your post that I really don't like. It seems to say that we should give up discussing the Bible, because we will never agree. Or that the proper interpretation can't be determined through careful study.
Too the contrary, I think the Bible is our main guidebook, and we should be able to discuss it, and examine what it says or doesn't say about oral sex or anything else.
Do you consider porn an 'intrinsic evil', Dan?
Can our society prohibit it as such? If you agree, you end up in the same trap about 'evil' that A-fan did, wherein he claimed we can prohibit even lying, because "lies are intrinsically evil".
Certainly we can prohibit it. It's simply a matter of defining what we want to allow and what we don't.
Majority rules? Whatever the majority defines as 'evil' we can prohibit? Does that principle also apply to guns, Dan?
We already do that with child pornography. Many jurisdictions have restrictions on what adult material can be displayed in public or in bars, etc.
Yep, reasonable regulations are just fine. Everyone can agree on that. But prohibitions?
What has changed over time is that in the 1960's, certain publishers began a successful court battle to change the definition of porn and get their works retitled from obscene to art.
Yep, - far to many state & local 'lawmakers' were abusing their power to reasonably regulate. Not much has changed, imo.
"Try to answer the question, - how can you claim that a verbal attempt to mislead a nazi search for jews is an 'intrinsically evil' lie?"
I would not claim that a lie in that case is evil.
But you still claim such an effort to prevent an evil act is a 'lie'?
- Is there an intent to defraud involved? Are you obligated to cooperate with an evil government act?
Sadly, I'm not sure that's true.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.