Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Lurker
It's not your right to force others to follow Him. It's called "liberty". You might want to look into it.

Is that so. OK, how about this. Let's say a town decides it's going to be porn-free. The citizens vote in favor of the no-porn ordinance and the local government enforces it. Do you believe that a few porn-hounds in the city have the right to call in federal government to have the ordinance overturned?

Simply put, do you think you have a God-given right to view pornography?
22 posted on 01/28/2010 11:58:28 AM PST by Antoninus (The RNC's dream ticket: Romney / Scozzafava 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]


To: Antoninus
Um excuse the intrusion, but your post made little sense. You asked, “Simply put, do you think you have a God-given right to view pornography?” But the previous verbiage posited an ‘unto Caesar, from Caesar, for Caesar’ scenario. I mean, the community has a right to write law based upon the community values, else you are no longer sovereigns of your community. Yet what you tried to posit was a transmogrification of unalienable rights and community sovereignty. Want to try again?
23 posted on 01/28/2010 12:04:27 PM PST by MHGinTN (Obots, believing they cannot be deceived, it is impossible to convince them when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]

To: Antoninus
Let's say a town decides it's going to be porn-free. The citizens vote in favor of the no-porn ordinance and the local government enforces it.

How would such an ordinance be enforced? Would the local Police Dept demand access to my home to make sure it's porn free? Would the town somehow monitor what I get from DirectTV? Would they be opening my mail to see what movies I've ordered?

How will the Town Council decide what is and what is not 'porn'? Will they keep a list or will they have some criteria? Will they come up with some kind of Porn Matrix?

Do you believe that a few porn-hounds in the city have the right to call in federal government to have the ordinance overturned?

Absolutely.

24 posted on 01/28/2010 12:12:42 PM PST by Lurker (The avalanche has begun. The pebbles no longer have a vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]

To: Antoninus

What do you think of this? I wrote it a few days ago and posted it on two or three threads that needed it.

If we take the word “religion” to be mean a belief system and world view determined by said belief system*, there are two religions in the world. Everyone, regardless of label, falls into one category or another**.

1. Those who not only believe in God, but accept and try to follow the rules set out in the scriptures of the world; which are, in the main, largely in agreement over the basic rules of morality, behavior and values for human society. For instance, prohibitions of sex before and outside of marriage, against homosexual acts, against murder, theft, false witness, blasphemy, and so on. And finer concepts as avoiding lust, greed, anger, envy, covetousness, and so on.

Another aspect of this meaning of religion is the world view that this mortal world is not our eternal home, but a sort of testing ground; with the real home in the eternal Kingdom of God, and that true happiness can be found only in relationship with the Supreme Godhead.

2. The other world view and belief system is based on atheism, hedonism and moral relativity - which is based on hypocrisy, since what it really means is that only their view point is valid.

This world view is not just espoused by outright atheists*** but many who claim to believe in “God” - but the “God” they supposedly worship does not have the actual qualities of God. For instance, various denominations who allow homosexuals to be priests and ministers, consider abortion perfectly okay, and so on. Up to the Metropolitan Community “Church” that is focused solely on homosexuality, or Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity Church which is merely a racist and marxist political group using sort of Christian sounding slogans occasionally.

Religion #2 views this world as all in all, and seeks to find perfection in this world; perfection in their eyes meaning the most enjoyment possible (in their view) before the worms take over. “Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow you die”. There is no God in control (other than a superficial label pinned on), you make your own rules, each sees his own desires and whims as the guiding light in life, or the whims of others who have similar values and world view.

The really bad news is that Religion #2 is completely intolerant of any of the viewpoints, morality or world view of religion #1 having any sway in public life. They pretend that there is “neutral ground” for public life, and that Religion #1 should not have influence over public policy, in supposed deference to “secularism” or “neutrality”.

But, the problem is that there are only two world views, or two religions. If theists cannot influence public life, than atheism and hedonism are the standard. There can only be one standard, there is no neutral ground.

* Of course, there are other meanings of the word “religion” but leaving that for another day.

** I am also leaving Islam aside for now as that is a whole ‘nother category in a sense. Or a subset.

*** An interesting point is that there atheists who are content to live in a world peopled by group #1 with the morals and values of group #1. Such atheists are another subset. :-)


30 posted on 01/28/2010 1:45:32 PM PST by little jeremiah (Asato Ma Sad Gamaya Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


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