Replies

Knock off the personal attacks

Thanks for not removing the thread just yet!!! It's been interesting. I agree with Joe on the basic premise (the main article), but I can see the sense in a few (although very few) of the arguments against it. How DOES one define "decency" or "obscenity" in a world that denies moral absolutes? Although I believe in and love the Bible, I don't think the laws of Christianity as found in the bible should be adopted as the laws of the nation. (That is for a future time.) But if you don't adopt the Bible's concepts of morality, how do you settle on definitions of "decency" and "obscenity"? Morality can be and must be legislated (morality, meaning behavior), but what is the Standard of what is moral?

(Hope this makes sense.)

it does, more than you know.
this is indeed the holy grail of personal liberty to be an american.
YOU have the privilege of making moral judgements on your own. and the responsibility. Gone is the era of a supposed 'God ordained' monarchy or lordship, ruling as to what is an dwhat is NOT moral. YOU have the responsibility to do so on your own.

some folks, here, think it is a failure because people can 'sin' and ostensibily 'get away with it' unless government becomes the moral God of our lives.

I think it is a success because WE can choose NOT to do what is wrong and instead what is right WITHOUT being held at gunpoint.

I will never willingly trade the latter for the former.
And to some, that makes you a pervert. To most americans though, it just means, we are free to make our own choices.

and screaming that "this causes that" is not enough to make it a law that "this" is or should be illegal. It's just the experiment of freedom following it's God ordained course, where men can choose to sin, or not... without coercion from others. Trying to figure out where lines MUST be drawn to protect lives and property is the dilemma and conundrum of republican government. And wrestling about it will never, must never, reach the point of satsifaction.

the folks who want to regulate sin, will never do so successfully. and those who want to turn us all into perverts by fiat of law, won't succceed either.

we will all...
just have to choose.
"choose ye this day whome YOU will serve"

it's up to people what they want or refuse to do.
not government.

--- if you don't adopt the Bible's concepts of morality, how do you settle on definitions of "decency" and "obscenity"?

You are going around, trapped in a 'moral' circle, believing that:

" Morality can be and must be legislated" (morality, meaning behavior),

It is. It's over regulated. -- We have thousands of years of common law that 'legislate behaviors'.
Not all of these 'laws' are Constitutional under our system. Arguably, we need less such law, not more.

but what is the Standard of what is moral?

The 'standard' is the golden rule. Do onto others is a valid guide to what you would have done onto you.

Do you really want your neighbors to be able to dictate their concept of morality to your family? Under our Constitution, your neighbors do NOT have that power.

Your faction here have been insisting that they do. -- Ask yourself why.

Morality can be and must be legislated (morality, meaning behavior), but what is the Standard of what is moral?

I disagree, at least in part. I'll grant you at all legislation is based on morality. However, not all morality is fit to be legislation.

Any reasonable person understands that limits on personal behavior have to be set by society, or society itself will cease to exist. I wouldn't presume to argue otherwise. However, there is plenty of room for legitimate debate about where (not if) those lines should be drawn. As with with converse, reasaonable people have to admit that some latidude must, absolutely must be given to the individual in moral decisions, in order for a soceity to remain free.

With that in mind, I think it's important for a free society to thoughfully and carefully consider not only the possible from moral legislation, but the possible detriment to liberty as well. No one is asking that stability be thrown to the winds in the name of freedom, but I fear that some here are willing to throw liberty to the wind in the name of conformity. I find this deeply troubling.

Personally, I would rather live in a society with Playboy on the rack than return to the days of Dick and Mary sleeping 3 feet apart in seperate beds. Your mileage may differ.