Replies

Ksnavely opined...May I ask who gets to define what is moral? you keep pulling these quotes about morality then assigning them to your cause of abolishing pornography based on the assumption that since you believe it is immoral then it is there by qualified as immoral. I do not agree with the way you are twisting the founding fathers words.

Little Jeremiah's sense of right and wrong is based solidly in God's transcendant moral law. Since you've questioned the legitimacy and/or veracity of his moral claims, one must assume that you base your sense of right and wrong on something else. Will you share with us what that is?
And where it comes from?

Hey I will one up you, I will not only share it with you my view of morality, I will force you to live under it via government regulations (oh wait nvm because that is not what I believe that is what you believe) because apparently that is what the founding fathers wanted in your twisted interpretations of their intent.

I believe in God, i am a Christian, I would probably agree with every moral edict that JM would say. But look, God's transcendent law states that we should worship no other God before him, now do you see the state enforcing that? Would you be comfortable with the state enforcing that? Of course not, the founding fathers weren't either (even though you have all these nice quotes from the founding fathers talking about morality and religion being the crux of a free republic). There is a reason they chose the road they did and kept government from enforcing religious morality. The reason is simple, yes a moral society is essential, yes a people who exercise restraint is essential to a free republic I agree with you on all those points.

Where I disagree with, however, is by what means our society takes to assure those moral restraints are in placed. I believe that for a society to exercise moral restraint, it has to come from the bottom up, not from the government. It has to be a society who is moral because they chose too, not because they are forced too. It has to come from a society who is affected by a strong church and obeys God commandments of sex because they have been converted by God's love, not because the Nanny state took away their porn. Like prohibition proved, you will not fix the problem of an immoral people by taking away their vice, you can only fix the problem by changing the hearts of the people who have free will. This is all very Biblical, free will, God not forcing us to follow his commandments, you recognize any of these words from scripture?

The fact is I am extremely uncomfortable with this whole notion of government controlled and enforced morality. I think it misses the point. Should the government outlaw divorce, lying, smoking, drinking, eating McDonald's just because they are also bad for society? At what point is enough? At what point is too much freedom stripped in the name of morality?

I believe it is the Christlike response to try to change the hearts and minds of a nation by witnessing, and reaching out, not through government regulations and restrictions.