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

Skip to comments.

Why Does Porn Get a Pass?
Patric Henry Center for Individual Liberty ^ | 8/29/2002 | Gary Aldrich

Posted on 09/15/2002 10:28:57 AM PDT by traditionalist

Let’s talk about the facts of life. It’s a fact of life that we have lost the war to control pornography. The war was over years ago when the Supreme Court ruled that porn was legal if it met community standards. Whatever Conservatives or American society in general wished to do about this growing wave of filth has been for naught. It’s saddening to admit, but it’s true.

During the Reagan administration, I was part of a nationwide effort to try to make a dent in the pornography industry. The FBI had hard evidence that organized crime (OC) had moved into the pornography industry, just as they had into gambling, prostitution and drugs. OC thrives on the vices of humans.

After a year-long undercover case that more than proved the OC connection to porn, we brought forward our indictments. At that time, the community standard that allows federal prosecutions for obscene material gave us the hammer to put away many OC thugs – even the Liberal Miami juries agreed that some of the material being sold was a bit over the top. We fined these sleaze merchants heavily and sent them to the slammer.

You know what? We didn’t even make a dent.

Today, that same kind of material is routinely displayed on hundreds of Internet websites advertising their wares in an effort to get you to pay a fee to “peek” inside. What’s inside must really be filthy, but if it isn’t considered child porn, it won’t be prosecuted. Eight years of Bill Clinton in the White House and Janet Reno in the Department of Justice guaranteed that every community standard in the nation has been lowered. Today, both federal and local prosecutions of routine porn are a lost cause.

Whatever objections we had as a society to this porn garbage are moot at this point.

Hundreds of billions of dollars are made each year on the “sales” of horrible things, images that most of us want to keep away not only from our children, but from our communities. We want to keep this material from finding its way into the very fabric of our society. Yet, there is an enormous appetite for this stuff – so much so that it’s obvious that the flow from producer to consumer cannot be controlled. Conservatives need to understand this. We have lost this war, but is there something positive that can come from this? Do we just “give up,” or is there some way we can curtail the amount of porn being produced?

You bet there is, and here’s the answer: Tax the living daylights out of it! Tax every part of it. Tax the consumers who want to look at it. Tax the “actors” – mostly women, and some men – who are making money being “models” for these porn sites. Tax every network that allows this human sewage to flow through their switches, cables, phone lines – tax any entity that makes it easy for this material to go from camera lens to your living room where little Johnny can see it while you’re out at the grocery store.

Call it a Porn Tax.

Tax them federally, and tax them at the state level as well. Tax them county and tax them local. Tax them until it hurts, and tax them until they scream. Then, tax them right out of business.

Impossible you say? Wait a minute! Isn’t this the reasoning behind the tax on cigarettes? Cigarettes are considered to be a threat to the well being of humans. Is filthy pornography less of a threat to the minds and emotional well-being of humans?

We also tax alcohol heavily, reasoning that a heavy tax keeps the prices up, and thus, maybe out of the hands of too many drunks. As a society, we recognize that booze is not the best way to have a good time, but we acknowledge that it cannot be stopped, so we heavily regulate it, and we tax the grapes out of it!

Why does porn get a pass?

Regulating and taxing cigarettes is not a signal that society approves of the production, distribution and use of tobacco products – just the opposite is true. Our society has begun to frown on the use of cigarettes and has outlawed their use in many public places, including restaurants and bars in some states, yet we throw up our hands and claim impotence in our efforts to control porn. We can’t even keep it out of our public libraries! It seems we are unable to think of any solution, so we do nothing.

From now on, unless we have some kind of revolution or the installation of a dictator who has the power to chop off the hands of those who possess or produce porn, it’s here, and it’s widely available. Get over it! Sure you can regret that we cannot control this. Of course, you can do your best to keep it out of your life. I’m not saying we should give any indication at all that we accept this horrible environment that has been thrust upon us.

Most of us hate this deep injury to our civility. The least we can do is think of some way to lessen it.

Let’s face another fact: women are ill-served by allowing themselves to be filmed while performing the most intimate of activities, but they sure aren’t victims! There are thousands of them, maybe hundreds of thousands of women, young and old, who for some reason think it’s just fine to be a part of this scourge.

Being ill-served and engaging in harmful, risky activity has never stopped prostitutes from doing what they do. Obvious facts about the dangers are not going to stop the actors and actresses from appearing in porn flicks. But, we can lay on a heavy financial burden, just like we tax anyone else who’s engaged in a high profit enterprise. Maybe fewer will be available if we make it tough enough. Let’s take away the financial benefit.

At a time when government officials are pulling out all the stops to dream up taxes and penalties that honest, hardworking, decent citizens must pay, this idea seems like a no-brainer. If they can put cameras on tops of poles to catch those who run red lights, don’t tell me they can’t figure out how to tax porn and all who benefit from it.

Let’s tax porn back into the dark alley where it belongs.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government
KEYWORDS: firstamendment; porn; pornography; socialvirtue
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 241-248 next last
To: Jim Noble
If it was unwanted by "most of us", it wouldn't be a hundred billion dollar industry.

I've seen few more idiotic posts than this.

21 posted on 09/15/2002 11:38:31 AM PDT by traditionalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: IncPen
Because you can't legislate morality...

Why not?

22 posted on 09/15/2002 11:40:08 AM PDT by traditionalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: IncPen
Because you can't legislate morality...

"You can't legislate morality" is one of those idiotic rote-phrases which is completely false, but which millions of morons repeat mindlessly as though it were a hallowed TRUTH obvious and self-evident to all. It is not.

Every law ever passed in history has been an act of legislating morality. Laws against murder legislate the moral idea that murder is wrong. Laws against theft and fraud legislate the moral idea that property rights, contracts, and honesty and trust are good for society and must be protected. Traffic laws legislate the morality that certain acts on the road are dangerous, and therefore to be discouraged. Building codes legislate the morality that one should not build substandard and dangerously unsafe buildings. Zoning ordinances legislate the morality that communities should be organized in a certain way beneficial to the community as a whole. Drug laws and porn laws legislate notions of morality that acts can be injurious to the community, whether or not they are "victimless crimes" in someone's opinion.

An act of legislation may be mistaken about its moral effects or about the kind of morality it wants to instill, but the fact remains that law by its very nature is an attempt to legislate morality. And often it succeeds in legislating morality. It is only when a sufficiently large number of people do not think that something is immoral that laws fail to "legislate morality".

23 posted on 09/15/2002 11:43:20 AM PDT by Vast Buffalo Wing Conspiracy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: lainie
But it doesn't mean the goverment should take the role of forcing people to behave in moral ways or else. With that I certainly think they would agree.

Not at all. Most founders supported state laws outlawing sodomy, forbidding Sunday labor, prostitution, and the like. Federals such as those forbidding the transport of women accross state lines for "immoral purposes" have been around since nearly the begining. The US never was and never will be a libertarian society.

24 posted on 09/15/2002 11:44:36 AM PDT by traditionalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: parsifal
Erm, wrongo. Porn and negative birth rate are pretty closely correlated phenomena. Porn doesn't exactly enourage people to start families or have children; quite the contrary. Porn promotes the idea that sex is exclusively a matter of pleasure, unrelated to reproduction.
25 posted on 09/15/2002 11:45:56 AM PDT by Vast Buffalo Wing Conspiracy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: BulletBrasDotNet
A picture of a naked women is a "horrible thing." You better tell some of the world's greatest artists.

Nudity is not necessarily pornography. Vulgar depictions of human sexuality is.

26 posted on 09/15/2002 11:46:27 AM PDT by traditionalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

Comment #27 Removed by Moderator

To: Vast Buffalo Wing Conspiracy
Well said.
28 posted on 09/15/2002 11:46:49 AM PDT by traditionalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: traditionalist
...I'm a libertine, and I agree, As an individual, or a community, change the law. Tax it, if that becomes the law, OK with me. Otherwise, don't tell individuals to do in private what you think is best. Stay out of my home, and I'll stay out of yours...
29 posted on 09/15/2002 11:47:19 AM PDT by gargoyle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IncPen
I'm not sure that a body of legislators cannot be formed to provide ethical leadership which doesn't encourage every type of vice imaginable.

The printing press has been around a very long time and it's only been in the last 30 years or so, one generation, that such immorality has become so status quo in the US.

I'm in favor of outlawing pornography, fining those institutions practicing it at present, and bringing it back within constraints.

For those unable to control their emotions, others can control them if necessary. Prison sentances are a remarkable disincentive.

30 posted on 09/15/2002 11:47:50 AM PDT by Cvengr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Comment #31 Removed by Moderator

To: Tall_Texan
A lot of folks have a hard time grasping that the internet is an *international* entity. I can access websites in Australia or Moscow as easily as I can one in my own town. Even if the internet were thoroughly regulated by the U.S. government (something I hope nobody here really wants), they can't stop international porn any better than they can stop international spam mail.

True, but if you made it virtually impossible or prohibitively expensive to put up a porn site in the US, the availablility of porn in the US would be decreased dramatically.

Finally, on the idea of taxing it to death. Let's not let the government camel get their nose under that tent shall we? Once the government feels it has the okay to tax your internet (because they surely can't/won't tax the porn producers), can censorship and taxing *all* internet activity (even e-mails) be far behind?

The internet is already taxed. You pay sales tax for your ISP, and more and more BTC sites are charging sales tax as well. Nothing can escape taxation. That is a fact of life.

32 posted on 09/15/2002 11:50:42 AM PDT by traditionalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: traditionalist
You mistake me, sir.

I would ban it without a second thought. My rule of first amendment construction is, if Madison would have banned something, banning it is fine.

However, where do you think all that $$ is coming from? Do you think it would be hundreds of billions of dollars if it was not consumed, or tolerated, by "most of us"?

33 posted on 09/15/2002 11:52:32 AM PDT by Jim Noble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: traditionalist
True, but if you made it virtually impossible or prohibitively expensive to put up a porn site in the US, the availablility of porn in the US would be decreased dramatically.

Check out the photography section of your local barnes & Noble sometime. There books there about porn, with photos from the turn of the century. The internet is just another avenue.

34 posted on 09/15/2002 11:53:34 AM PDT by Bella_Bru
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr
I'm in favor of outlawing pornography, fining those institutions practicing it at present, and bringing it back within constraints.

I agree, but it may not be feasible to do it this way. Prohibitive taxation, I think, is a better route.

35 posted on 09/15/2002 11:53:36 AM PDT by traditionalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
You don't need the majority consuming a product to make its production and sale a billion dollar industry. Econ 101.

A majority of people certainly does not consume pron.

36 posted on 09/15/2002 11:56:12 AM PDT by traditionalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: traditionalist
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court in 1815 Decided the Case Commonwealth V Sharpless and Others.

The defendant argued that since his acts were "private," not "public," the law could not reach him. The Court disagreed. Here are the facts:

Jesse Sharpless . . . designing, contriving, and intending the morals, as well of youth as of divers other citizens of this commonwealth, to debauch and corrupt, and to raise and create in their minds inordinate and lustful desires . . . in a certain house there . . . scandalously did exhibit and show for money . . . a certain lewd . . . obscene painting representing a man in an obscene . . . and indecent posture with a woman, to the manifest corruption and subversion of youth and other citizens of this commonwealth.

Many things occurring in private have a public effect and therefore are punishable.

The court is . . . invested with power to punish not only open violations of decency and morality, but also whatever secretly tends to undermine the principles of society. . . . [W]hatever tends to the destruction of morality in general may be punished criminally. Crimes are public offenses not because they are perpetrated publicly, but because their effect is to injure the public. Burglary, though done in secret, is a public offense; and secretly destroying fences is indictable . . . hence, it follows, that an offence may be punishable if in its nature and by its example it tends to the corruption of morals; although it be not committed in public.

The defendants are charted with exhibiting and showing . . . for money, a lewd . . . and obscene painting . . . . [I]f they privacy of the room was a protection, all the youth of the city might be corrupted by taking them one by one into a chamber and there inflaming their passions by the exhibition of lascivious pictures. . . .

[A]lthough every immoral act, such as lying, etc., is not indictable, yet where the offence charged is destructive of morality in general . . . it is punishable at common law. The destruction of morality renders the power of the government invalid. . . . The corruption of the public mind, in general, and debauching the manners of youth, in particular, by lewd and obscene pictures exhibited to view, must necessarily be attended with the most injurious consequences . . . . No man is permitted to corrupt the morals of the people; secret poison cannot be thus disseminated.

37 posted on 09/15/2002 12:07:30 PM PDT by FF578
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: traditionalist
You are exactly Right!!

Supreme Court of New York 1811, in the Case of the People V Ruggles, 8 Johns 545-547, Chief Justice Chancellor Kent Stated:

The defendant was indicted ... in December, 1810, for that he did, on the 2nd day of September, 1810 ... wickedly, maliciously, and blasphemously, utter, and with a loud voice publish, in the presence and hearing of divers good and Christian people, of and concerning the Christian religion, and of and concerning Jesus Christ, the false, scandalous, malicious, wicked and blasphemous words following: "Jesus Christ was a bastard, and his mother must be a whore," in contempt of the Christian religion. .. . The defendant was tried and found guilty, and was sentenced by the court to be imprisoned for three months, and to pay a fine of $500.

The Prosecuting Attorney argued:

While the constitution of the State has saved the rights of conscience, and allowed a free and fair discussion of all points of controversy among religious sects, it has left the principal engrafted on the body of our common law, that Christianity is part of the laws of the State, untouched and unimpaired.

The Chief Justice delivered the opinion of the Court:

Such words uttered with such a disposition were an offense at common law. In Taylor's case the defendant was convicted upon information of speaking similar words, and the Court . . . said that Christianity was parcel of the law, and to cast contumelious reproaches upon it, tended to weaken the foundation of moral obligation, and the efficacy of oaths. And in the case of Rex v. Woolston, on a like conviction, the Court said . . . that whatever strikes at the root of Christianity tends manifestly to the dissolution of civil government. . . . The authorities show that blasphemy against God and . . . profane ridicule of Christ or the Holy Scriptures (which are equally treated as blasphemy), are offenses punishable at common law, whether uttered by words or writings . . . because it tends to corrupt the morals of the people, and to destroy good order. Such offenses have always been considered independent of any religious establishment or the rights of the Church. They are treated as affecting the essential interests of civil society. . . .

We stand equally in need, now as formerly, of all the moral discipline, and of those principles of virtue, which help to bind society together. The people of this State, in common with the people of this country, profess the general doctrines of Christianity, as the rule of their faith and practice; and to scandalize the author of these doctrines is not only ... impious, but . . . is a gross violation of decency and good order. Nothing could be more offensive to the virtuous part of the community, or more injurious to the tender morals of the young, than to declare such profanity lawful.. ..

The free, equal, and undisturbed enjoyment of religious' opinion, whatever it may be, and free and decent discussions on any religious subject, is granted and secured; but to revile ... the religion professed by almost the whole community, is an abuse of that right. . . . We are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply engrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines or worship of those impostors [other religions].. .. [We are] people whose manners ... and whose morals have been elevated and inspired . . . by means of the Christian religion.

Though the constitution has discarded religious establishments, it does not forbid judicial cognizance of those offenses against religion and morality which have no reference to any such establishment. . . . This [constitutional] declaration (noble and magnanimous as it is, when duly understood) never meant to withdraw religion in general, and with it the best sanctions of moral and social obligation from all consideration and notice of the law. . . . To construe it as breaking down the common law barriers against licentious, wanton, and impious attacks upon Christianity itself, would be an enormous perversion of its meaning. . . . Christianity, in its enlarged sense, as a religion revealed and taught in the Bible, is not unknown to our law. . . . The Court are accordingly of opinion that the judgment below must be affirmed: [that blasphemy against God, and contumelious reproaches, and profane ridicule of Christ or the Holy Scriptures, are offenses punishable at the common law, whether uttered by words or writings].

The Supreme Court in the case of Lidenmuller V The People, 33 Barbour, 561 Stated:

Christianity...is in fact, and ever has been, the religion of the people. The fact is everwhere prominent in all our civil and political history, and has been, from the first, recognized and acted upon by the people, and well as by constitutional conventions, by legislatures and by courts of justice.

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 1817, in the Case of The Commonwealth V Wolf stated the courts opinion as follows:

Laws cannot be administered in any civilized government unless the people are taught to revere the sanctity of an oath, and look to a future state of rewards and punishments for the deeds of this life, It is of the utmost moment, therefore, that they should be reminded of their religious duties at stated periods.... A wise policy would naturally lead to the formation of laws calculated to subserve those salutary purposes. The invaluable privilege of the rights of conscience secured to us by the constitution of the commonwealth, was never intended to shelter those persons, who, out of mere caprice, would directly oppose those laws for the pleasure of showing their contempt and abhorrence of the religious opinions of the great mass of the citizens.

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 1824, in the Case of Updegraph V The Commonwealth 11 Serg. & R. 393-394, 398-399, 402, 507 (1824) recorded the Courts Declaration that:

Abner Updegraph . . . on the 12th day of December [1821] . . .not having the fear of God before his eyes . . . contriving and intending to scandalize, and bring into disrepute, and vilify the Christian religion and the scriptures of truth, in the Presence and hearing of several persons ... did unlawfully, wickedly and premeditatively, despitefully and blasphemously say . . . : "That the Holy Scriptures were a mere fable: that they were a contradiction, and that although they contained a number of good things, yet they contained a great many lies." To the great dishonor of Almighty God, to the great scandal of the profession of the Christian religion.

The jury . . . finds a malicious intention in the speaker to vilify the Christian religion and the scriptures, and this court cannot look beyond the record, nor take any notice of the allegation, that the words were uttered by the defendant, a member of a debating association, which convened weekly for discussion and mutual information... . That there is an association in which so serious a subject is treated with so much levity, indecency and scurrility ... I am sorry to hear, for it would prove a nursery of vice, a school of preparation to qualify young men for the gallows, and young women for the brothel, and there is not a skeptic of decent manners and good morals, who would not consider such debating clubs as a common nuisance and disgrace to the city. .. . It was the out-pouring of an invective, so vulgarly shocking and insulting, that the lowest grade of civil authority ought not to be subject to it, but when spoken in a Christian land, and to a Christian audience, the highest offence conna bones mores; and even if Christianity was not part of the law of the land, it is the popular religion of the country, an insult on which would be indictable.

The assertion is once more made, that Christianity never was received as part of the common law of this Christian land; and it is added, that if it was, it was virtually repealed by the constitution of the United States, and of this state. . . . If the argument be worth anything, all the laws which have Christianity for their object--all would be carried away at one fell swoop-the act against cursing and swearing, and breach of the Lord's day; the act forbidding incestuous marriages, perjury by taking a false oath upon the book, fornication and adultery ...for all these are founded on Christianity--- for all these are restraints upon civil liberty. ...

We will first dispose of what is considered the grand objection--the constitutionality of Christianity--for, in effect, that is the question. Christianity, general Christianity, is and always has been a part of the common law . . . not Christianity founded on any particular religious tenets; not Christianity with an established church ... but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men.

Thus this wise legislature framed this great body of laws, for a Christian country and Christian people. This is the Christianity of the common law . . . and thus, it is irrefragably proved, that the laws and institutions of this state are built on the foundation of reverence for Christianity. . . . In this the constitution of the United States has made no alteration, nor in the great body of the laws which was an incorporation of the common-law doctrine of Christianity . . . without which no free government can long exist.

To prohibit the open, public and explicit denial of the popular religion of a country is a necessary measure to preserve the tranquillity of a government. Of this, no person in a Christian country can complain. . . . In the Supreme Court of New York it was solemnly determined, that Christianity was part of the law of the land, and that to revile the Holy Scriptures was an indictable offence. The case assumes, says Chief Justice Kent, that we are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply engrafted on Christianity. The People v. Ruggles.

No society can tolerate a willful and despiteful attempt to subvert its religion, no more than it would to break down its laws--a general, malicious and deliberate intent to overthrow Christianity, general Christianity. Without these restraints no free government could long exist. It is liberty run mad to declaim against the punishment of these offences, or to assert that the punishment is hostile to the spirit and genius of our government. They are far from being true friends to liberty who support this doctrine, and the promulgation of such opinions, and general receipt of them among the people, would be the sure forerunners of anarchy, and finally, of despotism. No free government now exists in the world unless where Christianity is acknowledged, and is the religion of the country.... Its foundations are broad and strong, and deep. .. it is the purest system of morality, the firmest auxiliary, and only stable support of all human laws. . . .

Christianity is part of the common law; the act against blasphemy is neither obsolete nor virtually repealed; nor is Christianity inconsistent with our free governments or the genius of the people.

While our own free constitution secures liberty of conscience and freedom of religious worship to all, it is not necessary to maintain that any man should have the right publicly to vilify the religion of his neighbors and of the country; these two privileges are directly opposed.

The Supreme Court of the State of South Carolina in 1846 in the case of City of Charleston V S.A. Benjamin cites an individual who broke the Ordinance that stated: "No Person or persons whatsoever shall publicly expose to sale, or sell... any goods, wares or merchandise whatsoever upon the Lord's day." The court convicted the man and came to the conclusion: "I agree fully to what is beautifully and appropriately said in Updengraph V The Commonwealth.... Christianity, general Christianity, is an always has been, a part of the common law; "not Christianity with an established church... but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men."

"The Bible is the Rock on which this Republic rests."President Andrew Jackson

"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers. And it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest, of a Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." First Chief Justice of Supreme Court John Jay

"Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is divine....Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other."James Wilson, a signer of the Constitution and an original Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court

"Let the children...be carefully instructed in the principles and obligations of the Christian religion. This is the most essential part of education. The great enemy of the salvation of man, in my opinion, never invented a more effectual means of extirpating [removing] Christianity from the world than by persuading mankind that it was improper to read the Bible at schools."Benjamin Rush

"It is no slight testimonial, both to the merit and worth of Christianity, that in all ages since its promulgation the great mass of those who have risen to eminence by their profound wisdom and integrity have recognized and reverenced Jesus of Nazareth as the Son of the living God."President John Quincy Adams

"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were.... the general principles of Christianity."President John Quincy Adams

"The Bible is worth all other books which have ever been printed."Patrick Henry

"The religion which has introduced civil liberty is the religion of Christ and His Apostles.... This is genuine Christianity and to this we owe our free constitutions of government."Noah Webster

"Whether this [new government] will prove a blessing or a curse will depend upon the use our people make of the blessings which a gracious God hath bestowed on us. If they are wise, they will be great and happy. If they are of a contrary character, they will be miserable. Righteousness alone can exalt them as a nation [Proverbs 14:34]. Reader! Whoever thou art, remember this, and in thy sphere practice virtue thyself and encourage it in others."Patrick Henry

"I have lived, sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- God Governs in the Affairs of Men, And if a Sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, Is it possible that an empire can rise without His aid?"Benjamin Franklin

"Except the Lord build the house, They labor in vain who build it." "I firmly believe this."Benjamin Franklin, 1787, Constitutional Convention

"Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station, it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being, who rules over the universe, who presides in the council of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States.." "...Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation, seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency" From President George Washington's Inaugural Address, April 30th, 1789, addressed to both Houses of Congress.

President Washingtons Thanksgiving Day Proclamation, 1789

"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible"President George Washington, September 17th, 1796

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports . . . And let us indulge with caution the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion . . . Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail to the exclusion of religious principle." President George Washington

"...The Smiles of Heaven can never be expected On a Nation that disregards the eternal rules of Order and Right, which Heaven Itself Ordained."President George Washington

It is hoped that by God's assistance, some of the continents in the Ocean will be discovered....for the Glory of God. Christopher Columbus

The Mayflower Compact, November 11th, 1620

"All persons living in this province, who confess and acknowledge the One Almighty and Eternal God to be the Creator, Upholder, and Ruler of the world, and that hold themselves obliged in conscience to live peaceably and justly in civil society, shall in no wise be molested or prejudiced for their religious persuasion or practice, in matters of faith and worship; nor shall they be compelled at any time to frequent or maintain any religious worship, place or ministry whatsoever." April 25, 1662- William Penn signed this to establish religious liberty in the new provence of (Pennsylvania).

Excerpts from the Declaration to take up arms, July 6th, 1775

Declaration of Independence, July 4th, 1776

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians, not on religion but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.","Give me liberty or give me death."Patrick Henry of the Constitutional Convention

"A general dissolution of Principles and Manners will more surely overthrow the Liberties of America than the whole Force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue they will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader . . . If virtue and knowledge are diffused among the people, they will never be enslaved. This will be their great security."Samuel Adams, 1779

"The philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next." Abraham Lincoln.

"The only assurance of our nation's safety is to lay our foundation in morality and religion."Abraham Lincoln.

"Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance, are still competent to adjust, in the best way, all our present difficulty" Abraham Lincoln.

"The fundamental basis of this nation's law was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teaching we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul. I don't think we emphasize that enough these days. If we don't have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally end up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in the right for anybody except the state.President Harry S. Truman.

"Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand. John Adams

"The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People in a greater Measure, than they have it now, they may change their Rulers and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting liberty." John Adams

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams

"Religion and virtue are the only foundations, not only of all free government, but of social felicity under all governments and in all the combinations of human society." John Adams

"The highest glory of the American Revolution was this; it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity. John Quincy Adams

"From the day of the Declaration...they (the American people) were bound by the laws of God, which they all, and by the laws of The Gospel, which they nearly all, acknowledge as the rules of their conduct." John Quincy Adams

"Man, considered as a creature, must necessarily be subject to the laws of his Creator, for he is entirely a dependent being....And, consequently, as man depends absolutely upon his Maker for everything, it is necessary that he should in all points conform to his Maker's will...this will of his Maker is called the law of nature. These laws laid down by God are the eternal immutable laws of good and evil...This law of nature dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity if contrary to this... Sir William Blackstone

"Blasphemy against the Almighty is denying his being or providence, or uttering contumelious reproaches on our Savior Christ. It is punished, at common law by fine and imprisonment, for Christianity is part of the laws of the land. Sir William Blackstone

"The preservation of Christianity as a national religion is abstracted from its own intrinsic truth, of the utmost consequence to the civil state, which a single instance will sufficiently demonstrate. Sir William Blackstone

"I have carefully examined the evidences of the Christian religion, and if I was sitting as a juror upon its authenticity I would unhesitatingly give my verdict in its favor. I can prove its truth as clearly as any proposition ever submitted to the mind of man. Alexander Hamilton

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here." Patrick Henry

"The Bible is worth all other books which have ever been printed." Patrick Henry

"Bad men cannot make good citizens. A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience are incompatible with freedom." Patrick Henry

"It is when people forget God that tyrants forge their chains." Patrick Henry

"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers. John Jay

"Religion is the only solid basis of good morals; therefore education should teach the precepts of religion, and the duties of man toward God." Gouverneur Morris

"If thou wouldst rule well, thou must rule for God, and to do that, thou must be ruled by him....Those who will not be governed by God will be ruled by tyrants." William Penn

"By removing the Bible from schools we would be wasting so much time and money in punishing criminals and so little pains to prevent crime. Take the Bible out of our schools and there would be an explosion in crime." Benjamin Rush

As we can see here, our founders did not endorse or embrace libertarianism in the least. Our Founders understood that laws must reflect Almighty God's Moral Precepts.

Libertarianism is a religion of self indulgence and hedonism. It teaches that the person can decide for himself what is right and wrong, and has to answer to no one.

It is humanistic to the core.

Libertarians believe abortion, homosexuality, fornication, adultery, sexual perversions, prostitution, drug use, gambling ect... are all things that should be practiced and enjoyed.

They hate and despise authority, and they blame government and laws for their problems.

GOD MAKES LAW. MAN's LAW MUST REFLECT GOD'S LAW.

Our Founders understood this principle. They had laws that protected the moral fabric of our nation, because they understood that a good nation must have morality. They took it for granted that the people were moral, that is why the constitution worked.

The hippies of the 1960's were not moral, their immoral/ammoral lifestyle is incompatable with the constitution.

If our founders had only known what we have become, they would have drafted a much different constitution.

38 posted on 09/15/2002 12:10:12 PM PDT by FF578
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: traditionalist
I missed the part where it's a conservative value to advocate the government taxing industries you don't personally agree with into submission.

The March of the Brigade
Here is the march of the Brigade
The Live Like I Do Brigade
We know you think it's your life but you're wrong
And that is the very reason for this song
To demand you do what we think is best* and you will see
The only "good" kind of life is lived by me
And those who think like me regarding this issue of course

* Those who do not agree with the Live Like I Do Brigade subject to kidnapping and false imprisonment at the hands of the Imperial Federal Government

39 posted on 09/15/2002 12:14:22 PM PDT by Jonathon Spectre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BlazingArizona
So your libertarian Ideology states that If I want to raise skunks in my backyard, so be it, if you don't like the smell Move???

How about if I want to turn my radio all the way up so the windows are shaking for 6 blocks? If you don't like it put some earplugs in???

How about if I want to operate A Smelter in my backyard, if you don't like it don't breath????

The fact is we are affected by those who do look a pornography. Every single rapist and child molester STARTED With Pornography. Bundy and his ilk all started with Pornography.

The moral fabric of a nation is it's most precious possession, if it is destroyed the nation cannot exist. Our founders understood this, that is why they said the Constitution was ment only for a moral people who had virtue. That is why they banned sodomy, fornication, adultery, blasphemy, and pornography.

No man is permitted to corrupt the morals of the people!!

40 posted on 09/15/2002 12:15:49 PM PDT by FF578
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 241-248 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

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