Posted on 06/09/2006 5:07:23 PM PDT by wagglebee
Being a cardinal, he is guilty through complacency. Go ahead and pretend the crazy aunt in the basement isn't noticed. Shame on them all and the fact they covered it up for years.
To have them preach morals at the rest of us is disgusting.
Pick the nits all you want. Teen age boys are still children when the "seducing" was by much older men. I define that as molesting and I'm sure the boys and their families do also.
Of all people the Cardinals knew what was going on. Sweeping it under the rug is disgusting. Sounds likes the depths of the Democrats with Clinton.
Yes. Catholic priests are inundating our society with smut. There are 42000 priests in the U.S. Did you know that in 2005, there were NINE allegations made that Catholic priests had abused a minor. NINE! How will our country survive this onslaught?!?!?
If one of the family members had to resort to porn, then the family wasn't intact to begin with anyway.
Perhaps instead of blaming porn, you busybodies should focus on the real destruction of families - high taxes, anti-family government policies, and, of course, busybodies who want to tell grown folks what they can or cannot do.
"How do you reasonably propose to effectively enforce a law against the electronic importation of pornography without undermining the Fourth Amendment or severing all Internet connections to the outside world?"
As I have said several times, and as you continue to ignore (which is no surprise because it is fatal to your argument) it doesn't matter to what degree such a law can be enforced.
It doesn't matter if it's only enforced when somebody's wife turns him in, or when he's stupid enough to download porn at work. It doesn't matter if we only catch one person a year.
No matter what difficulties are encountered in enforcement, the law must exist because legalization constitutes endorsement, and no moral society can endorse pornography.
"busybodies who want to tell grown folks what they can or cannot do."
No one who indulges in pornography should be called "grown folks."
"Pick the nits all you want."
Those aren't nits. It's an important distinction.
"Teen age boys are still children when the "seducing" was by much older men."
No, they are not children. They are adolescents. That is an important distinction that must be made if we are to understand the nature of the problem.
"I define that as molesting"
Yes, molesting, statutory rape, what have you. What it is *not* is child molesting or pedophilia. That's important.
"Of all people the Cardinals knew what was going on."
All of them? You sure? How do you know that? Do you even know what a cardinal is? A bishop?
"Sweeping it under the rug is disgusting. Sounds likes the depths of the Democrats with Clinton."
What motives do you ascribe to people who knew a priest was a molester, and didn't go to the police? Were their motives all the same?
"When law and morality contradict each other the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law."
Legalization of pornography contradicts morality.
Perhaps that's why "conservatives" who indulge in pornography seem to be losing their moral sense.
"There is a difference between saying people should follow the narrow path, and saying that they should be forcibly prevented from leaving it."
So...we should legalize theft? How about rape?
Ah, right, decent people are responsible for all the world's problems. You and Howard Dean should do a road show.
All laws are based upon morality. Why should pornographers be given a pass and not, say, counterfitters?
Pedophiles, sex offenders and some serial murderers oftentimes have an obsession with pornography. The pornography acts as a catalyst and propels their fantasies, which eventually they "act out". It acts like a drug, distorting their rational, thinking mind and also desentitizes them to increasing amounts of perversity leading them farther and farther away from what most of society would consider "normalacy".
It is a huge sin.
I did respond in post 130, and saw no need to repeat myself.
If a law prohibiting an activity cannot be enforced well enough to act as a meaningful deterrent against those contemplating the activity--at least not without attaching unreasonable punishments for violations--the lack of enforceability would suggest that it is a bad law.
No matter what difficulties are encountered in enforcement, the law must exist because legalization constitutes endorsement, and no moral society can endorse pornography.
The notion that failure to prohibit something constitutes endorsement is an extremely dangerous one, and probably does more harm to society than does pornography.
Not everything that was forbidden under Mosaic law had prescribed punishments. Earthly punishments exist for actions that would cause certain types of harm to society; other sinful actions could be more than adequately punished by God.
Unless I'm forgetting something, all of the laws establishing earthly punishments existed to do one of the following:
As I recall, all the pro-=pornography rulings by the SCOTUS were basically 5-4 decisions....I know I have been on the losing side for a long time...but, eventually, America will come to her senses
What has that to do with anything? The court is sometimes right, and sometimes wrong. If nine-judges say something that's false, it's false. If five judges say something that's true, it's true.
Trying to codify all of morality into an legal code of earthly punishments is a bad idea for so many reasons it's hard to know where to begin. If the legality of something implies that it is morally acceptable, then it would follow that moral acceptability is a function of popular will, rather than any concept of right and wrong. I would hope you aren't meaning to imply that, but your apparent argument "Porn is immoral, ergo it should be illegal", seems to stem from a belief, "All that which is immoral should be illegal". Such a belief would imply as its desired condition, "All that is immoral is illegal", which in turn would imply "That which is not illegal is not immoral".
Also, I'd like to re-ask my question: under biblical law, what sins have earthly punishments, other than the four types I listed in #154?
"I did respond in post 130"
No, you didn't. You merely restated your already-rebutted argument, without addressing the rebuttal in any way. That is not an adequate response.
"If a law prohibiting an activity cannot be enforced"
And here again you just repeat yourself, without in any way acknowledging the arguments that have been mounted against you.
"The notion that failure to prohibit something constitutes endorsement is an extremely dangerous one, and probably does more harm to society than does pornography."
There are a number of problems with that, but I'm tired and will probably only bring up a couple.
1. There is a subtle but vital distinction between the practical act of prohibiting a thing and the symbolic act of publicly declaring it to be unacceptable.
2. Failure to prohibit something means, "We don't mind if you do." That's an endorsement. The notion that we can legalize a thing without that having the effect of increasing it is risible.
"If nine-judges say something that's false, it's false. If five judges say something that's true, it's true."
Nonsense. The truth is not subject to vote.
Or perhaps you do wish to endorse Dredd Scott.
*It was an attempt to get at the same end travelling a different rhetorical road.
Amd I wasn't arguing about all immorality. I was trying to focus on pornography. I really don't understand where you are headed but it asppears to be down a road a long ways away from the topic.
You don't think pornography should be prohibited,I do. It is obvious I am unable to convince you otherwise, so I concede. You win.
It's just burning these guys up that the war against Islamofascism is going to do to their Big Government Comstockery what the war against Naziism did to genteel anti-Semitism (i.e. banish it from polite society because it has been perceived to be merely a "lite" form of an unspeakable evil).
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.