Censorship in arts 'healthy,' Pat Boone says

washington times ^ | 4 23 04 | Steve Miller

[nopardons]

I posted NO "straw man"!

Again...how old are you, do you have any children,and why are you szo afraid to take on any/all of my posts to this thread?

[kms61]

The Constitution doesn't guarantee your right not to be offended.

[nopardons]

Libertarian,are you?:-)

It is patently obvious that you don't know the history of American censorship,are just fine with things olf the gutter,And don't understand that with "LIBERTY",comes responsibility.;^)

Funny just how bereft of common sense you and your ilk are.

[nopardons]

Yes,actually it does.What it doesn't do,is guarantee YOU the right to be a supercilious moral relativist.

[kms61]

43, no children but I have nieces and nephews. I don't think all the things you enumerated are "find and dandy" for them (thanks for putting words in my mouth. I worry about the world they're growing up in. However, I trust their parents to exercise responsibility.

Personal responsibility, what a concept.

[nmh]

"I don't think censorship is a bad word, but it has become a bad word because everybody associates it with some kind of restriction on liberty,"

Unfortunately people lack common sense and taste so some censorship maybe necessary since what is considered "art" is often offensive to a decent person. OTOH those without any moral boundaries or common sense get offended by the very thought of possessing these normal attributes. I suppose those who support an anything goes mentality feel confused when others object to a bohemian mindset.

[nopardons]

WRONG! The airways ARE owned by the government, for noncable broadcasting.

Ever hear of the FCC?

Haven't you read about the Janest Jackson and Howard Stern dustups?

[kms61]

Well we clearly aren't going to change each other's minds on this, and it's late. have a good evening.

[nmh]

Sometimes I wonder how conservative this forum is. Pat is right, yet some posters here belong on a liberal forum.

[chance33_98]

There's NO good reason NOT to go back to that.

See my previous post. While there may be no good reason to not go back to it, it could take a long time to get there - and if it is as damaging as some say it is then why expose someone to it while you're waging the battle? If it takes 5 or 10 years to battle back up hill why not pull away from it for the good of the family until it gets back to where it should be?

My other thoughts are not that we need the laws, we need to change the hearts and minds of the people. Change that and there will be no market for such things, and you do that one soul at a time. These things exist because people want them, are we as christians (or pick a faith and insert) doing our job of winning people over? Is it that the core of this problem that satan has turned the tide and we hope that the best way to turn it back to is take control of the airwaves, et al?

We can battle in the courts and congress all day long, but we should also be working hard to set examples and point out the resultant evil brought about the things which we find wrong. Legal battles come and go, and change from decade to decade, getting the minds of the people to repent and not desire such things would accomplish more.

I understand both sides of this issue, and I wish things would change in some ways - but the apostles did a darn fine job living in a seriously corrupt time and place because they were not of the world.

[GSHastings]

It's all simple except the law stuff. That is where things tend to get weird sometimes. The leg up the amish have is they are not mired by who is sitting as a judge most the time, their schools can have prayer all day long.

The "law stuff" is where things tend to get weird?

Sorry. But it's quite the contrary. The "law stuff" is what keeps the "weird stuff" away, and out of our lives. And we have the right to expect that.

The amish have done nothing more than form a very small, and very controlled local government. People obey the rules, mostly, because they have a sense of shame that is instilled in them from birth.

In our culture, in the not very distant past, people didn't use to avoid saying F**K Y**U on TV just because some "GOVERNEMENT" meanies wouldn't let them. They would have been ashamed of doing it. Society wouldn't tolerate it. And if they didn't have any shame, the governement was the PEOPLES tool of correcting the problem.

[kms61]

"Sometimes I wonder how conservative this forum is. Pat is right, yet some posters here belong on a liberal forum."

I also wonder how conservative this forum is. Some posters are awfully eager for government solutions to the problem du jour.

[nopardons]

It's late,but you're a coward,with absolutely NOTHING in your arsenal,with which to refute me.

Come back, when you've managed to grow up some,learn a lot more than you now know,and we'll try again.I do so hate trying to debate with an inept,ill educated (on the topic at hand),unworthy opponent.;^)

Happy dreams......................

[little jeremiah]

Just checking back to this thread - your comment about sewage reminded me of how I've tried (probably without success) to explain this same point to people who didn't get it (and probably don't WANT to get it!):

If people create a garbage dump, and you have to live in it, because they've thrown their filth everywhere, no matter how clean you keep your house and your person, you're going to have flies, rats, and stench, because OTHER people insist on distributing their garbage everywhere.

The filthy atmosphere that is being created by the so-called freedom of speech excuse for obscenity and pornography is inescapable. The stench is omnipresent.

[Robert_Paulson2]

yes he has.
he's a holy roller these days... jan and paul crouch variety.
What did you expect?

[kms61]

No, I generally don't engage in dialogue with people who can't debate without relying on ad hominem. You evidently need that crutch. Have a nice life.

[little jeremiah]

Libertarians are pretty crazy. All utopian philosophies suffer from the grave defect which is that because they base their phantasmagoria of a future perfect society on the fallacy that people, if just placed in the right atmosphere, will be all improved. Will be all different (from how they've been all throughout history).

But libertarians are particularly noxious because of their uncontrollable yet not not openly admitted (although obvious to everyone else) strong attraction to vice, at least in theory. And, one would assume, often in practice.

How on earth the libertarian utopia would work with so many people addicted to various vices is hard to imagine!

[budwiesest]

But some forms might be. Yet, as you say a particular community has the right to decide which censorship it wishes to embrace in it's attempt to reduce harm to it's citizens. FRankly, the boob with pastie, displayed amongst the 'community' of 19 million football viewers was out of line. Not to mention the bump-and-grind preceding it, nor the crotch grabbing before that, and the treatment of our flag, as well.

The answer would have been to have each and every person associated with this half-time production mortaging their homes to pay fines for their breach of faith contract that viewers expect from a professional sporting event.

This was no-less than a bait-and-switch event. When I want to see breasts or simulated sex acts I'll not be tuning into a football game. If I said I was going to build a pool for you and put a roof on your house instead, you'd have plenty of reason to complain.

[nopardons]

It's all a matter of the pendulum swinging back and forth.We just haven't quite hit bottom...yet.

No,some people have ALWAYS wanted pornography and worse.Some past eras were filled with it;some went far too far in the other direction.

Tiberius Caesar was fond of pornography,as well as being a pedophile.He was laughed at and reviled ( behind his back of course)for both.He was also BRIBED with rare and ancient porn.

Restoration England was one endless porn/lascivious/decadent era.Cromwellian times was the complete opposite of the spectrum.

Victorian England lent it's Queen's name to a time now used, along with "Puritanism" (shades of Oliver Cromwell!)with prudery;wrong in both cases.Some of THE best written exotica/sexually laced books,comes from the late Victorian period.

And,FWIW,the pull back from debauncery and prurient things, actually started when Queen Victoria was a tiny child,at least a full decade prior to ascending the throne,in reaction to lascivious/free for all times.

It's the swing of the pendulum,is all. Winning over hearts and minds,by people, is NOT what changes the culture.It's when it gets so bad, that there is a moral outcry,from just about everyone,that things change.Unfortunately,we just haven't hit bottom yet and it's patently obvious, from some of the posts to this thread,that some will NEVER see the "bottom",no matter HOW low it all gets.

[nopardons]

Learn American history,before you start posting silly stuff.:-)

And grow up.:-)