Posted on 06/01/2005 9:27:48 AM PDT by UltraConservative
Paris Hilton is at it again. The 24-year-old hotel heiress is the feature attraction in Carl's Jr.'s new Spicy Burger ad campaign, aimed at the horny male TV-watching population. Scantily clad in a one-piece leather outfit plunging down to below her navel, Hilton struts into an empty warehouse, licks her finger, then suds up herself and a Bentley automobile, as a stripper-styled "I Love Paris" rendition slowly plays in the background. At the end of the spot, Hilton bites the burger and sucks her finger clean. The commercial closes with Hilton's tagline flashing across the screen: "That's Hot."
The spot is pure, soft-core pornography, beginning to end. The website for the commercial, spicyparis.com, touts the "too-hot-for-TV spot." And while Carl's Jr. CEO Andy Puzder defends the ad as "a beautiful model in a swimsuit washing a car," it is clearly designed to capitalize on Hilton's target audience -- porn watchers.
As I explain in my upcoming book, "Porn Generation: How Social Liberalism Is Corrupting Our Future," the plain truth of the situation is that Paris Hilton would be a relative nobody today were she not incredibly rich and profligate with her favors. Hilton made perhaps the most infamous porn video outside of Pamela Anderson and Tommy Lee. That hard-core work, starring then-boyfriend Rick Solomon, brought her international fame. At least nine other sex tapes are said to be floating around somewhere, including a lesbian sex tape with Playboy playmate Nicole Lenz. The sexually uninhibited Hilton became a target for Larry Flynt of Hustler fame, who released pictures of Hilton sharing some lesbian tongue at a nightclub. As Conan O'Brien observed, "Hustler magazine announced that it will feature photos of Paris Hilton making out with another woman, while the woman fondles Paris' breasts. So the search continues for a photo of Paris Hilton not having sex."
Because of her pornographic involvement, Hilton has grabbed an endorsement deal as the Guess? Jeans girl (the New York Observer reported that "her bad-girl image jibes with the clothing company's porn-lite ad campaigns"), endless tabloid headlines, and now, this deal with Carl's Jr. As Brad Haley, marketing chief for Carl's Jr., stated, "Paris was chosen to star in the ad because she is an intriguing cultural icon and the 'it girl' of the moment."
Here's the big question: How, as a society, did we allow Paris Hilton to become a cultural icon? Clearly, no one likes her very much. Liberals and conservatives alike agree that she is vacuous and silly. Media commentators all over the map label her "spoiled" and "stupid." Maureen Dowd, hardly a cultural right-winger, lumps Hilton together with "vacuous, slutty girls on TV sitcoms."
No, Hilton is today's "it girl" for one reason and one reason alone: Individual scorn, though that opinion may be shared by a vast majority, does not control the river of a culture. It is those who push the envelope who do. Over the past few decades, we have implemented a "live and let live" culture whereby abhorrence for immorality is seen as illegitimate if promoted through governmental means. Instead, we are supposed to let our culture be poisoned slowly -- and if we protest, we are told that as long as we turn off our own TV's, all will be well.
That's why it should come as no surprise that Hilton's spicy ad has ardent defenders, who proclaim that just because you don't like pornography doesn't mean that it can't make someone else very happy. One man's pornography is another man's means to happiness. And so Keith Olbermann of MSNBC ripped the ad's detractors: "I'm reminded tonight of H.L. Mencken's definition of Puritanism: the haunting fear someone somewhere may be happy. Is that at the bottom line here, I mean, that the people who have to protest crap like this ad -- and it's crap -- but are they afraid it will corrupt somebody, or are they afraid somebody will enjoy it?" Paul Begala labeled the offended "the sanctimonious Republican right." And Michael Hiltzik of the Los Angeles Times simultaneously condemned the commercial as "a new high (or low) in television crassness" and slammed the ad's opponents as members of the "manufactured outrage industry."
This is the new pattern: individual condemnation and societal acceptance. The moral among us have been forced into tolerance of immorality. Paris Hilton is a cultural icon because of it. As long as the moral majority is impotent, the lowest common denominator will continue to define us.
©2005 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
There is not a law in existence that doesn't do exactly that.
How can you not? Four of the ten address nothing other than religion. No other gods than God, No graven images, no taking the Lord's name in vein, and keeping the Sabbath. Those are strictly relgiious, and they're the first four commandments given.
As a Christian myself, I cannot in good conscience lie and say the 10 Commandments don't endorse a religion, because the first four things only apply to Christians and Jews. There is nothing universal there that can be applied outside of the Judeo Christian sphere.
"Everytime I see her face in profile it looks like 'Snoopy' to me."
Please, don't insult snoopy. :)
I don't think of Judism or Catholicism or Protestism when I see the 10 Commandments. I don't worship the 10 Commandments, I worship the God who wrote them. In an of themselves, the 10 Commandments are not a religion.
Where do you find "freedom from religion" in the Constitution? If you're referring to the 1st Amendment's establishment clause you're misinterpreting it the same way liberal "living document" judges do and not the way the authors intended it, as shown by the language they used.
How does a 1st Amendment prohibition on Congress passing laws regarding an establishment of religion "provide freedom from religion"? It only places a prohibition on a specific action by the U.S. Congress. It doesn't have anything whatsoever to say about what the people of the respective states and/or their legislative bodies may or may not do regarding religion.
Amendment 10: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 states are not prohibited by the Constitution from enacting laws regarding religion, the establishment clause applies only to Congress. Therefore the 10th Amendment reserves to a state and it's people the right to establish a religion if that state's people acting through their elected representatives decide to do so. Of course no federal court has paid any attention to the intent of the Constitution's authors since Lincoln usurped unconstitutional powers for the federal government during the War Between the States, so any such law would be struck down by the first court it came to.
I am not at all arguing for a state religion or an official role in government for any one religion or for religion in general. That arrangement would be disastrous for both religion and the people, and neither the people of any state nor any religious group would want such a law. I just want the Constitution to be interpreted according to the intent of the very wise men who comprised the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia ca 1789 and following. If that were done, everything else concernng the people's rights and government's responsibilities would naturally fall into the proper place.
You're confusing denomination with religion. The first 4 commandments apply to the worship of solely the God of Abraham. They're not applicable to Buddhists, Taoists, Shintoists etc etc.
Should the community have the power to shut him up?
No. The 1st Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the jackass the right to publicly express his jackassiness, or else words on paper have no meaning.
Now if you can get the USSC to honor the jackass's right to free speech on public property, maybe it would also honor the right of pro-life protesters to hold up signs on public sidewalks in the immediate vicinity of abortuaries instead of hundreds of feet away.
France and Sweeden and the left coast of the US.
Point noted.
Just got the mental image of someone worshiping the ten commandments, and this cracked me up. I would opine that reading the ten commandements, as any part of God's Word, is a form of worship.
Ah, but your previous post implied that it is only Congress has the obligation to honor free speech. The people or states are not expressly bound by this requirement, and therefore freely able to shut him up.
To hopefully clarify my reasoning and sum up my opinion, since no Constitutional right would be violated by a STATE government, NOT Congress, granting some type of official recognition to a religious organization, the 14th Amendment would not come into play and that recognition would not violate the 1st Amendment prohibition on Congress granting such recognition. I realize that my explanation of my opinion is not very clear and that it's phrasing is clumsy, but it's the best I can do when my wife is impatiently calling me to dinner.
I'm quite sure that no court today would agree with my opinion on the matter, but I still think I'm right until someone points out to me where I'm misreading the authors' words. As Rocky Balboa said, I'm always ready to learn what I'm doing wrong. Gotta run.
Your take is intriguing, and definitely worthy of thought, but what I'm not understanding is why freedom of speech is extended to the state and level, and freedom from religion is not.
True, he doesn't have 'Marty Feldman Eyes'
I guess I haven't been understanding your term "freedom from religion" in the same way you understand it. As I'm sure you know, the 1st amendment doesn't specifically mention a "freedom from religion" in those exact words, but it does protect the freedom to practice one's religion of choice, or not to practice religion at all.
If that's what you meant, then I agree that there is a 1st Amendment right to "freedom from religion" as you put it. And if that right is protected from Congress by the 1st Amendment, according to incorporation doctrine the 14th Amendment also protects it from state and local government. But, if you meant something like the mythical "wall of separation" between religion and government that the anti-Christian MSM constantly bandies about, I don't believe the authors intended the establishment clause to erect any such structure. Jefferson's meaning of that phrase was almost the exact opposite of what the liberal courts have said he meant. The letter he wrote containing that phrase was meant to reassure a worried Baptist congregation that the Constitution protected their religious beliefs and practices from government intrusion, not the other way around.
In any case, it's just an academic fine point anyway. Because in reality any law enacted by any government body at any level that required the practice of or assent to any religious system or belief would be dead on arrival at any court in the land, and rightly so.
The "wall of separation" is mythical in that there is no way to expect religious values not to permeate the policy process, or influence the tough decisions that lawmakers face. In fact, I would be concerned if legislators were not grounded by a strong moral foundation that religion shapes (at least in part).
However, I do believe the government has no business promoting one religion over another. This includes display of religious symbols like the ten commandments, Torah, Qu'ran, or anything else.
As we have discussed, the constitution requires neutrality from Congress, and you now state that protection is extended to the states through the 14th Amendment. On first read, I'm not convinced of this, the language is a little vague. I would be happy if this were 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.