But it is the arguement in our country...an arguement that people are avoiding. In order to allow free speech for every perversion under the sun, Christians are being told to essentially "sear" there own consciences by accepting the premise that free speech also protects their rights to speak/assemble as well.
Men are truly free only when they act within the dictates of their own God regenerated consciences. There-fore Christians are going to find themselves increasingly under attack as they face the choices as to whether they should wilt under that assault or whether they should stand firm against the libertine excesses occuring in this nation.
The thought consciousness that allows for porn in the first place is decidedly anti-religious and anti morality. It does not allow for Religious free expression, (as the motive for the push for "Hate speech/crimes legislation" would denote). You've seen the movements on many college campuses to stifle the religious rights of students while allowing for every crass leftist idea and pornographic perversion. Democrats are openly pushing such hate speech legislation as a means of marginalizing the religious conservatives and tamping down their influence in the elections.
The 18th century framers never envisioned the envelope being pushed this far with respect to the 1st amendment. Washington stated that "Religion and morality" were the "twin props on which our liberty rests"(of the 18th century fashion by which he meant "religion and morality). He knew that it was the moral consensus of a nation's people that would keep societal factionalism in check. When you have a break-down in consensus, the nation becomes weak and disunited.
So to the question I keep asking..."Did the founding fathers intend for the first amendment to be stripped of all moral/religious coloration of the 18th century that influenced its adoption into our constitution?"
That's not the argument; the argument is that "accepted morality" doesn't include using force to make others avoid immoral acts that violate no rights.
But it is the arguement in our country
Who's making that argument? I'm not.
Men are truly free only when they act within the dictates of their own God regenerated consciences.
Nobody proposes to make anyone view porn.
The thought consciousness that allows for porn in the first place is decidedly anti-religious and anti morality. It does not allow for Religious free expression
My pro-freedom argument allows for religious free expression.
The 18th century framers never envisioned the envelope being pushed this far with respect to the 1st amendment. Washington stated that "Religion and morality" were the "twin props on which our liberty rests"
Sorry, but generalities about morality aren't sufficient to show that the Framers didn't really mean what the plain language of the First Amendment says.