Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: mdmathis6
"well I have to let even the pornographers have their say cause its free expression and that trumps even 3000 years of accepted morality."

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.

489 posted on 11/26/2004 9:49:36 AM PST by Know your rights (The modern enlightened liberal doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't really believe it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 440 | View Replies ]


To: Know your rights; All

Well obviously we can't bring Washington et al back from the dead to ask him if the 1st amendment covers pornography. My question goes to the notion that if we could bring them back from the dead and ask as to their intent as to what the amendment should allow and should not allow, would we find them assenting to the way the amendment is currently viewed?

We know from reading the Federalist papers of the era that our founders believed that God was involved in the founding and nurturing of the nation, and that the practise of rather broadly agreed upon morality and religious dictates by the majority of the population would keep licentious factionalism in check!

You can poo poo my use of "generalities" as a weakness in my questioning but our founders themselves relied upon the generalities of accepted religion and morality in the population at large to keep the new republic strong.

They knew that to build a consensus based on the concepts of "rights" with-out the benign co-ercion of the latent morality of the Christianized population would be to produce a still-born nation, and at worst a nation of demoralized factions crawling back to Britain for order and security!

"With-out vision, the people are unrestrained" states Proverbs(or literally "go wild"). The culture war that is going on is about that vision of our selves as a great moral nation vs. those who would propose that we should not live under moral restraints; that Americans are nothing more special than animals who live by instinct and not by enlightened reason!


494 posted on 11/26/2004 11:46:58 AM PST by mdmathis6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 489 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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