[little jeremiah]

Moral Absolutes Etc. Ping List -

Here we go, on a journey to find out what are the limits of set in stone morality - are there absolute limits to right and wrong, moral and immoral behavior? Are such limits sectarian in nature? Should religious or spiritual absolutes be the guide to laws or not? If not, where do guidelines for right and wrong come from?

(I haven't read the article yet, will later this evening.)

One thing for sure, FR has a bunch of rabid pornography supporters. Gird your figurative loins, roll up your figurative sleeves, and have at'em.

Did the founders of this country envision naked titty dancing and the most graphic of graphic sexually explicit pornagraphy being protected under the label of "freedom of speech"? If not, why not?

Let me know if anyone wants on/off the Moral Absolutes Ping List.

[Ksnavely]

Hey you are misinterpreting this, there are not a bunch of rabid porn supporters, but rather a bunch of people who want a small and limited government who stays out of our lives financially, legislatively, and yes even personally. Using the government to impose morality is so antithetical to conservatism. We conservatives shouldn't want to government to impose much of anything except what is defined by the constitution.

[DirtyHarryY2K]

One thing for sure, FR has a bunch of rabid pornography supporters. Gird your figurative loins, roll up your figurative sleeves, and have at'em.

Sure they support it vehemently, Until they wake up to the reality that the next adult video they rent or download has their daughter or niece starring as "DEBBIE"

The "consent" factor goes right out the window at that point.

[JeffAtlanta]

Did the founders of this country envision naked titty dancing and the most graphic of graphic sexually explicit pornagraphy being protected under the label of "freedom of speech"?

They didn't envision a lot of things. The founders aren't gods, they were people that wrote what they meant.