Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Prohibiting Pornography -- A Moral Imperative
Morality in Media ^ | 1984 | Paul J. McGeady

Posted on 09/30/2004 1:56:48 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340 ... 641-654 next last
To: Tailgunner Joe
I won't try to argue the constitutionality of prohibiting pornography, because I believe both sides of the debate have valid points. I believe it is harmful - to the one using it, his or her family, to those being exploited and to their families.

As God has defined obscenity, my transgressions are first between Him and I, and I prefer they remain that way. He gave me free-will so that I can demonstrate my love to Him through obedience.

That said, I do believe that any well-intentioned effort to legislatively prohibit or define pornography will fail for the same reason that well-intentioned efforts at gun-control have failed. Simply put, trying to bring an environmental solution to a behavioral problem is rarely, if ever, successful.

Unless God Himself changes the environment.

301 posted on 10/01/2004 11:43:59 AM PDT by Hat-Trick (Do you trust a government that cannot trust you with guns?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

The ten commandments are a harmless symbol of Xtian principles, I don't disagree. The problem is not the ten commandments or even religion per se... it's what people like you do with them.

Here is what I mean by "protection from your religion"... I'll let TJ... spell it out for you.

"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity."

-Thomas Jefferson


302 posted on 10/01/2004 11:47:25 AM PDT by Levy78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 300 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
So the Supreme Court didn't throw out the law. So you lied. Now what?

"When did the Supreme Court enumerate and transfer State powers to the Federal government?"

They didn't. They're not allowed to do that.

But, back in 1789, the framers of the constitution transferred limited powers from the states to the federal government. And one of those powers was to regulate "commerce among the several states". But hey, I'm not telling you anything you don't know.

Why are you asking questions to which you already know the answers? Why are you lying about the constitutionality of the drug laws?

I think you're intentionally wasting my time. That's not nice. Therefore, I'm done with you.

303 posted on 10/01/2004 11:49:08 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 299 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

"I don't expect you to support it financially. Placing a Nativity scene in front of City Hall or in the town square requires no money from you."

Who do you think pays for the upkeep of those grounds and the contruction of the buildings? You and I do. The next thing you know, we'll have Islamic themed decorations all over the place. Put your nativity scene in your yard and let Habib keep his junk in his.

"Uh-huh. When was the last time Congress used their constitutional power to tell the federal courts to butt out of anything, much less a CHRISTian issue like the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance? "

The phrase "under god" is a relatively new addition (Being added in 1954) to the pledge of the allegiance. You're on the fringe as most people do not want Xtian symbolism or that of another religion in the public forum.

I'll leave you with another Jeffeson quote... considering, as you said, he probably knew a thing or two about what they meant.

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."

-Thomas Jefferson



304 posted on 10/01/2004 12:00:21 PM PDT by Levy78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 297 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
No. Fecal matter. The authorities are DNA testing it. Rush had the story, got a hearty chuckle from it.
305 posted on 10/01/2004 12:06:19 PM PDT by radicalamericannationalist (Kurtz had the right answer but the wrong location.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies]

To: Durus
Capital punishment itself is not a duty. The punishment of criminals is the duty. Society has a choice, i.e. rights, to decide how to carry that punishment out. Or are you arguing that the non-death penalty states are violating their duties?

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

The Constitution recognizes that rights are maintained both in the people, individuals, and the states, the community. As said before, banning pornogrpahy protects the rights of everyone who does not want to be exposed to it, just as banning dumping of chemicals into waterways protects those who don't want to swim in those chemicals.
306 posted on 10/01/2004 12:10:47 PM PDT by radicalamericannationalist (Kurtz had the right answer but the wrong location.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]

To: Levy78
"The problem is not the ten commandments or even religion per se... it's what people like you do with them."

Like what, honoring them? And that presents a problem to you?

Seems to me that "people like me" not honoring them would present a real problem to you -- especially the "Thou shalt not kill" one.

I know of no current crusade going on in the United States, burning, torturing, fining and imprisoning "people like you" in an effort to convert them to Christanity. If there is, I'll go on record as opposing it.

Feel better now? Can I have back my freedom to exercise my religion?

307 posted on 10/01/2004 12:11:45 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 302 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

Of course you may..... but keep it out of THE PUBLIC's courthouse, otherwise I'll laugh at you when Habib puts quotes from his Qu'ran in larger type size than your commandments. Sorry, in the public arena, YOU, Mr. Paulen, are not better than Habib (considering he is a citizen). I guess you're arguing his right to display Islamic themes all over gov. property as well?


308 posted on 10/01/2004 12:20:50 PM PDT by Levy78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 307 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras

That is perfect! I'll have to remember that one!


309 posted on 10/01/2004 12:30:33 PM PDT by smcmike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
But, back in 1789, the framers of the constitution transferred limited powers from the states to the federal government. And one of those powers was to regulate "commerce among the several states". But hey, I'm not telling you anything you don't know.

And the available evidence is that their understanding of, and the nature of the power "to regulate commerce among the several states" they transferred to the federal government is not consistent with what Congress and the USSC now claim that power is. But I'm not telling you anything you don't know.

310 posted on 10/01/2004 12:31:06 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 303 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
you are making a pointless, nitpicking observation

No. He once again exposed you as a liar and fraud who constantly distorts the Constitution in order to mislead people as to what it says.

311 posted on 10/01/2004 12:31:37 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 274 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Why are you asking questions to which you already know the answers? Why are you lying about the constitutionality of the drug laws?

I think you're intentionally wasting my time. That's not nice. Therefore, I'm done with you.

I think you're wanting to declare victory and run away before you get your butt kicked again.

312 posted on 10/01/2004 12:32:49 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 303 | View Replies]

To: Levy78
"Who do you think pays for the upkeep of those grounds and the contruction of the buildings? You and I do."

With or without the Nativity scene.

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
-- John Adams

313 posted on 10/01/2004 12:33:01 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 304 | View Replies]

To: steve-b

If you want to whore yourself out to white slavers, go to the Netherlands and introduce yourself to some Arabs, punk.


314 posted on 10/01/2004 12:34:29 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 271 | View Replies]

To: steve-b

It's straight patriotic Christians who will free the world from Islamic terror, not faggot punks like you.


315 posted on 10/01/2004 12:37:01 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 279 | View Replies]

To: Levy78
"Sorry, in the public arena, YOU, Mr. Paulen, are not better than Habib (considering he is a citizen)."

I never said I was. You, on the other hand, appear to be claiming to be better than both of us in that you don't want any religious symbol in the public courthouse.

It should be left up to the residents of the community -- it's their public courthouse, their City Hall, their town square. They may decide they don't want any. They may decide they want all. Or some.

That is the way the Constitution and the Rill Of Rights were originally written. And I know you're real big on the thoughts and opinions of the Founding Fathers.

316 posted on 10/01/2004 12:44:05 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 308 | View Replies]

To: mvpel
If you want a Iranian-style theocracy, just say so.

Bzzzt. You have used an incorrect adjective in your reply.

If you want to be taken seriously, just say "an."

317 posted on 10/01/2004 12:45:01 PM PDT by Chunga
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Levy78
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."

"Christianity, general Christianity, is and always has been a part of the common law...not Christianity founded on any particular religious tenets; not Christianity with an established church, but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men... ." Updegraph v The Commonwealth, 1824

318 posted on 10/01/2004 12:48:20 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 304 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

Go to Monticello and tell that to Jefferson, considering it's his quote that I used.... I am sure he's dying to meet you.


319 posted on 10/01/2004 12:51:16 PM PDT by Levy78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 318 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

My tagline is my reply to this idiocy.


320 posted on 10/01/2004 12:52:18 PM PDT by Hank Rearden (Never allow anyone who could only get a government job attempt to tell you how to run your life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340 ... 641-654 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson