Posted on 03/21/2007 9:14:58 AM PDT by Frank Sheed
if enough people cared, similar definitions could be made for porn. just like every non-natural death is not premeditated homicide, there are various degrees of porn
more could be done to discourage porn. a lot could be done by private individuals, groups, and companies, if we were free from government forcing us to be "morally neutral" how we could enforce a social stigma.
I appreciate your comments to this thread. They are very much on target.
See #98.
The fact is that there are people here who consider the entire Dutch Baroque era and Michelangelo's David to be "pornography" and there are (probably) a few here that believe that Penthouse, Hustler, etc. are not immoral.
Don't get me wrong--I'm opposed to smut. What I'm saying is that we need to define what it is, and that's half the battle.
Why?
"Pornography" is largely subjective and taken by the individual. For example, I personally don't find naked paintings from the 17th century to be obscene, but I do find most nudie media as being obscene. It's entirely possible you might have a completely different idea as to what's acceptable.
Of course, this isn't to say that there is some guidance (IMHO, Scripture and Pope John Paul II's Theology of the Body are excellent). Those can, and I believe will prove invaluable in trying to define "pornography."
what you say is true enough, but porn is an interstate business too. There is a federal role given 2007 standards
Porn is defined as #2354 in the Catechism. It is made all the more offensive and heinous when it includes minors, for example.
Exactly. There are some who would object to King David on display.
So the same can be said for just about any other issue in the world (poverty, disease, etc.).
"just like every non-natural death is not premeditated homicide, there are various degrees of porn"
I agree. And that must be a necessity
And while I'm personally in agreement with the Catholic Church's (and Abp. Chaput's letter), we live in a society where the criminal law, while based on Christian values, must be somewhat secular to be compatible with a democracy which upholds freedom of belief.
IIRC, Lord Devlin made similar remarks in 1965, a few years after the infamous Wolfenden Report came out...
Given 2007 standards, we're never going "roll back decades of federal government largesse", we're going to live with it, and more. I know, you think it's just too hard to actually change it, and we should just take our cut and write the rest off, but I disagree.
For us Catholics, yes. As a Catholic, I agree completely with that (and that's what governs my personal belief on the topic).
However, Catholicism is the religion only 80 million or so of the 300 million who live in this country, and it wouldn't be an illogical guess that a good number are lapsed or non-practicing. While that makes us by far the largest single religious group in the U.S. (a full quarter of the population), that doesn't give us free rein to implement that across the board.
This is the onus of why I believe we need to have a secular definition of porn if we are going to combat it in this country. Do I believe that porn needs to go by the wayside? Absolutely.
But I also believe that if we are in disagreement as to what needs to go, then it's wasted effort on the part of all of us. Whereas, if we define what smut is, it makes it a lot easier to regulate and/or eliminate.
Damage done by porn has been documented, including promoting of rape.
I have very personal experience with how intertwined rape and porn really are.
Three wrongs don't make a right. While the bishop's comments on porn and sexuality in America have some major elements of truth, the proposed cure is worse than the disease.
Nobody chooses to have cancer. People choose to view porn.
I am not a Catholic, but I do appreciate the efforts of your Church on this matter and others. I do believe this is a condition of the heart and soul and not government per say, but we do need the former "polite society" we once had in this country.
Thanks for your post to me. Good definition IMO.
Actually I think you and I are in agreement on this.
You wouldn't know it by this thread. So far, all I've seen is allegations of what the porn made the people do. Apparently there is no free will or personal responsibility involved.
Yes, we do.
Sadly, we now live in a society that explicitly needs things spelled out to them. Most of my peers haven't the slightest idea of sexual morality, for instance...
As just a single example in a sea, is the Kama Sutra pornography ?
That is the moral and proper way to combat porn. Goobermint edicts are not.
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.