Rick Santorum wants to ban hardcore pronography - agree or disagree (POLL)
- Thread starter zeroturbulence
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
U
Sorry Spacecowboy, if you're going to go on a pious rant, you should at least know the words you're throwing around.
Fornication - Consensual sexual intercourse between two persons not married to each other. Not all porn is about two people having consensual sex.
Also, i'm not going to hand over my freedom and rights to a secular government that's already trying to exert as much control over me as they can. The same government that you expect to take away peoples right and freedoms in the name of porn, is the same government that keeps leaning more and more into telling us to accept homosexuality and wants us to pay for peoples abortions, just for starters. You really want to give those people more control over our lives? So what happens when atheists decide Christians are superstitious, backwards thinking, hate-mongering extremists who are a detriment to this society? When they say we don't deserve freedoms of religion? Using government to ban sinful behavior in secular society doesn't stop sin, or save people.
Think, how is the US government going to ban porn? Its legal all over the world. The only way is for the government to start controlling our internet. If we give them that permission they will then have the power to choose anything we see or don't see. Its a dangerous precedent. There's more to a situation than 'its a sin its a sin'. God gave us brains to use them for a reason. Not to to spout off religious rantings that have no thought put into them.
Fornication - Consensual sexual intercourse between two persons not married to each other. Not all porn is about two people having consensual sex.
Also, i'm not going to hand over my freedom and rights to a secular government that's already trying to exert as much control over me as they can. The same government that you expect to take away peoples right and freedoms in the name of porn, is the same government that keeps leaning more and more into telling us to accept homosexuality and wants us to pay for peoples abortions, just for starters. You really want to give those people more control over our lives? So what happens when atheists decide Christians are superstitious, backwards thinking, hate-mongering extremists who are a detriment to this society? When they say we don't deserve freedoms of religion? Using government to ban sinful behavior in secular society doesn't stop sin, or save people.
Think, how is the US government going to ban porn? Its legal all over the world. The only way is for the government to start controlling our internet. If we give them that permission they will then have the power to choose anything we see or don't see. Its a dangerous precedent. There's more to a situation than 'its a sin its a sin'. God gave us brains to use them for a reason. Not to to spout off religious rantings that have no thought put into them.
S
Already true.
SOPA, PIPA. They already are on their way to controlling more and more aspects of our lives. I don't see how anyone can bring in all this crap about them controlling us more and more if they ban porn. Chances are porn will never be banned. But I refuse to compromise on my convictions that its vile filth that has no place in the lives of people and would be 100000x better if it were gone for good.
Period. Justifying it on any level only leads someone to assume a there's a hidden relationship with it. God DID give us brains for reason but not when that reason overrules the heart. They should be working together, and not hardended for some unexplained reason. Porn=vile filth=should be gone forever. That's how that thought process should go. Anything else is suspicious to say the least.
SOPA, PIPA. They already are on their way to controlling more and more aspects of our lives. I don't see how anyone can bring in all this crap about them controlling us more and more if they ban porn. Chances are porn will never be banned. But I refuse to compromise on my convictions that its vile filth that has no place in the lives of people and would be 100000x better if it were gone for good.
Period. Justifying it on any level only leads someone to assume a there's a hidden relationship with it. God DID give us brains for reason but not when that reason overrules the heart. They should be working together, and not hardended for some unexplained reason. Porn=vile filth=should be gone forever. That's how that thought process should go. Anything else is suspicious to say the least.
T
Umm. If all porn were made illegal, we'd have to throw out the Bible. You know, there's some pretty hot smut in there. King David was not the purest of men, and the entire book of the Song of Songs is kinda dirty if you read it literally rather than figuratively.
I guess there's a difference between writing and pictures. Most Bibles don't have pictures, so maybe Santorum is just talking about visual porn or something? But still, I'm very cautious of anything that takes us down a slippery slope like that, any thing that might lead us towards limiting my freedoms as a devout Christian to practice MY religion, in spite and in the midst of this sin-filled world. He comes in and bans porn, what's stopping "the next guy" from banning the Bible, or prayer, or all forms of worship?
We see it already, as some have noted here. Government limits on our right to practice religion. And you want government to have MORE control? Seriously? See, I'd rather the government stay out of my personal life. Let God punish the just and the unjust, and keep the government out of it.
I guess there's a difference between writing and pictures. Most Bibles don't have pictures, so maybe Santorum is just talking about visual porn or something? But still, I'm very cautious of anything that takes us down a slippery slope like that, any thing that might lead us towards limiting my freedoms as a devout Christian to practice MY religion, in spite and in the midst of this sin-filled world. He comes in and bans porn, what's stopping "the next guy" from banning the Bible, or prayer, or all forms of worship?
We see it already, as some have noted here. Government limits on our right to practice religion. And you want government to have MORE control? Seriously? See, I'd rather the government stay out of my personal life. Let God punish the just and the unjust, and keep the government out of it.
T
Government cannot legislate opinions and morality. It can only legislate actions. The whole concept of "hate crimes" is questionable. If person A kills person B, it's murder. The race or religion of either party should have no basis in the punishment of the crime. Otherwise, we're getting into the whole "big brother" thing, where a person's thoughts are criminal.
Sure, it's wrong to hate someone because of the color of their skin. But seriously: is killing someone because of their race any worse than killing someone for some other reason? And does the government have a right to judge your thoughts?
The government is not God, nor should it ever be thought for a moment to try to replace God. Anyone who thinks otherwise is committing the worst of sins, the sin of idolatry. If you think your government should be in charge of deciding what is right and wrong, from a moral standpoint, you have no need for God, and you are no friend to Jesus.
It's interesting that both democrats and republicans seem to miss the mark entirely on this issue. Both sides seem to bow to their government gods, thinking the government is going to save them. The government is fine for what it does: governing the every-day activities of its citizens. Beyond that, it's downright silly to expect, let alone demand, government to do more. While the people complain about "too much government" they turn around and want the government to be their god, their golden calf. It's sickening.
Sure, it's wrong to hate someone because of the color of their skin. But seriously: is killing someone because of their race any worse than killing someone for some other reason? And does the government have a right to judge your thoughts?
The government is not God, nor should it ever be thought for a moment to try to replace God. Anyone who thinks otherwise is committing the worst of sins, the sin of idolatry. If you think your government should be in charge of deciding what is right and wrong, from a moral standpoint, you have no need for God, and you are no friend to Jesus.
It's interesting that both democrats and republicans seem to miss the mark entirely on this issue. Both sides seem to bow to their government gods, thinking the government is going to save them. The government is fine for what it does: governing the every-day activities of its citizens. Beyond that, it's downright silly to expect, let alone demand, government to do more. While the people complain about "too much government" they turn around and want the government to be their god, their golden calf. It's sickening.
Spot on.
Rule of Man is a sorrowful combination of being fluidic and arbitrary (therefore oppressive).
In that I agree with our grungy friend. Her analysis of "hate crime" was also cogent.
That said, there is a difference between the Rule of Men and the passing of law based on moral presuppositions. Nothing occurs in a vacuum, that includes the formation of law. Decisions on law ultimately boil down to the worldview of those passing it, that worldview includes moral presuppositions, and they will fall back to these presuppositions, sometimes without critical thought (as I think is the case with Sen. Santorum in this instance).
The question is this: who defines that morality? If the government is given the power to define what is right and wrong, you have tyranny.
Rule of Man is a sorrowful combination of being fluidic and arbitrary (therefore oppressive).
In that I agree with our grungy friend. Her analysis of "hate crime" was also cogent.
That said, there is a difference between the Rule of Men and the passing of law based on moral presuppositions. Nothing occurs in a vacuum, that includes the formation of law. Decisions on law ultimately boil down to the worldview of those passing it, that worldview includes moral presuppositions, and they will fall back to these presuppositions, sometimes without critical thought (as I think is the case with Sen. Santorum in this instance).
The question is this: who defines that morality? If the government is given the power to define what is right and wrong, you have tyranny.
T
I don't think our government tries to legislate morality. At least, those who have the best intentions within our government recognize that it is not morality they are legislating, but safety.
Murder is illegal in the US not because it is morally wrong to kill, but because it takes away the right of the victim to live.
Racial discrimination in hiring, housing, etc. is illegal not because being racist is wrong, but because non-whites should have the same rights as whites when it comes to jobs and housing. That is why I don't mind EOE laws, but I am a bit concerned when those laws are extended to say that preference should be given to the non-white person, or that standards should be lowered for women and/or non-whites in university admissions and the military, for two examples. (I think if a woman wants to fight on the front lines, she should be just as rugged as a man. Don't wimp down the rules so she can fight ... make her "man up." Plenty of women are capable of doing that. In fact, to "wimp down" the rules is insulting to women. It says that women can't make it without cheating, and excuse me, but I resent that.)
Government legislates actions of justice, not behavior of good will. If you want to be a racist pig, you will continue to be a racist pig, you just won't be able to treat the other person poorly, legally. Their rights are protected, and your right to be a racist pig is protected.
Let the neo-nazis march in Skokie. Let the black panthers hold a rally in Los Angeles. Let the protesters have their little camp-outs in the park. (But make sure they don't devolve into chaos and petty crime.) I'd rather the bigots be out in the open where I can see them, than hiding in the dark corners, scurrying for cover like cockroaches when you turn on the light.
Murder is illegal in the US not because it is morally wrong to kill, but because it takes away the right of the victim to live.
Racial discrimination in hiring, housing, etc. is illegal not because being racist is wrong, but because non-whites should have the same rights as whites when it comes to jobs and housing. That is why I don't mind EOE laws, but I am a bit concerned when those laws are extended to say that preference should be given to the non-white person, or that standards should be lowered for women and/or non-whites in university admissions and the military, for two examples. (I think if a woman wants to fight on the front lines, she should be just as rugged as a man. Don't wimp down the rules so she can fight ... make her "man up." Plenty of women are capable of doing that. In fact, to "wimp down" the rules is insulting to women. It says that women can't make it without cheating, and excuse me, but I resent that.)
Government legislates actions of justice, not behavior of good will. If you want to be a racist pig, you will continue to be a racist pig, you just won't be able to treat the other person poorly, legally. Their rights are protected, and your right to be a racist pig is protected.
Let the neo-nazis march in Skokie. Let the black panthers hold a rally in Los Angeles. Let the protesters have their little camp-outs in the park. (But make sure they don't devolve into chaos and petty crime.) I'd rather the bigots be out in the open where I can see them, than hiding in the dark corners, scurrying for cover like cockroaches when you turn on the light.
The notion of rights is, in and of itself based on what are or at least were considered truths. It all goes back to epistemology and axiology: What do we know? How do we know? How do we organize what we know? How do we judge what we know? How do we act based on what we know and how we organize it?
Anytime you have questions of this nature, some level of moral standard is applied as is, I think, fairly clear in your post.
Your analysis of why murder is illegal in the US appears to be a retroactive grasp for straws. Murder is illegal in the US because it was considered wrong for centuries. When colonists first settled our shores and outlawed murder within their ranks it is probably safe to assume they didn't couch their reasoning in terms of right.
Anytime you have questions of this nature, some level of moral standard is applied as is, I think, fairly clear in your post.
Your analysis of why murder is illegal in the US appears to be a retroactive grasp for straws. Murder is illegal in the US because it was considered wrong for centuries. When colonists first settled our shores and outlawed murder within their ranks it is probably safe to assume they didn't couch their reasoning in terms of right.
while i hate pornography, banning it wont make it go away...
first - the 1919 US Prohibition tried to get rid of alcohol, but failed miserably. it just led people to illegally distribute it. in 1933, when it was dropped, and made legal, people stopped making it illegally... there was no need to make it since they now legally sold it to those who were of legal age. "banning" pornography would not make pornography go away at all... it would simply make it worse. Look at the drug war. making drugs illegal on a federal level still doesnt stop drugs from coming in.
second - Rick Santorum explicitly says "hardcore pornography"... ok, fine, here's another question: what is hardcore pornography? i 100% guarantee you "hardcore pornography" is going to be different when it comes to every person'e perspective of pornography... I'm sure Rick "fake" Santorum has his own personal perspective on what "hardcore pornography" is.
To a 29 yr old man, incest mixed with bestiality and pedophilia would be considered hardcore pornography to him...
to a 19 yr old boy, vaginal or anal sex could be considered hardcore pornography to him...
to a 65 yr old man, seeing a woman with a really short skirt, a semi see-thru top and high heels would be considered hardcore pornography to him...
yes, pornography is bad, very bad... God deals with it in our own hearts, convicts us, and to those who monger it, He will judge on Judgment Day... but pornography is subjective to the eye of the beholder. to one male/female artist, drawing the body of a naked woman shows art... another man or woman can come by, see it as hardcore pornography, and be utterly offended. From a political level, the real problem is not pornography or "hardcore" pornography... the REAL problem is minors being able to freely access it. that is the real heart of the issue. i was exposed to it at the age of 14. When I'm a father, I'm going to make sure that he is restricted from sexual immorality as best as i can.
this is a morally subjective issue, and SHOULD NOT be decided on a federal level. The problem with this is that people find pornography offensive... i find it offensive too... but banning it is not going to make it go away. IF you do end up banning it, that leads to other big question:
what else offends people?... paintings? movies? music?... religion?
this is very dangerous, because when we ask these questions, and then try to ban them, we start to tread on our own liberties and civil rights.
The First Amendment of the US Constitution gives us the right to free speech, press, and religion, and the Fourth Amendment lets us be secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects. when we start asking these questions and start banning things that are subjectively offensive, there's no stopping our government from the beginning of banning movies, music, and Christianity...
i hate pornography just as much as any Christian on here... i despise it, and i want it to not exist... but pornography is subjective, not objective. Every person is going to see it differently.
The Constitution of the United States protects pornography lawfully because of its subjective matter...
it also protects us, our faith, and our command by God to proclaim it, and our freedom to exercise it within our home and country
we cannot use the US Constitution to protect ourselves, then turn on another person and deny them their civil rights and liberties simply because we disagree with them. They are protected just as much as we are under the law.
this should not be decided at a federal level. this should be decided at the state level.
first - the 1919 US Prohibition tried to get rid of alcohol, but failed miserably. it just led people to illegally distribute it. in 1933, when it was dropped, and made legal, people stopped making it illegally... there was no need to make it since they now legally sold it to those who were of legal age. "banning" pornography would not make pornography go away at all... it would simply make it worse. Look at the drug war. making drugs illegal on a federal level still doesnt stop drugs from coming in.
second - Rick Santorum explicitly says "hardcore pornography"... ok, fine, here's another question: what is hardcore pornography? i 100% guarantee you "hardcore pornography" is going to be different when it comes to every person'e perspective of pornography... I'm sure Rick "fake" Santorum has his own personal perspective on what "hardcore pornography" is.
To a 29 yr old man, incest mixed with bestiality and pedophilia would be considered hardcore pornography to him...
to a 19 yr old boy, vaginal or anal sex could be considered hardcore pornography to him...
to a 65 yr old man, seeing a woman with a really short skirt, a semi see-thru top and high heels would be considered hardcore pornography to him...
yes, pornography is bad, very bad... God deals with it in our own hearts, convicts us, and to those who monger it, He will judge on Judgment Day... but pornography is subjective to the eye of the beholder. to one male/female artist, drawing the body of a naked woman shows art... another man or woman can come by, see it as hardcore pornography, and be utterly offended. From a political level, the real problem is not pornography or "hardcore" pornography... the REAL problem is minors being able to freely access it. that is the real heart of the issue. i was exposed to it at the age of 14. When I'm a father, I'm going to make sure that he is restricted from sexual immorality as best as i can.
this is a morally subjective issue, and SHOULD NOT be decided on a federal level. The problem with this is that people find pornography offensive... i find it offensive too... but banning it is not going to make it go away. IF you do end up banning it, that leads to other big question:
what else offends people?... paintings? movies? music?... religion?
this is very dangerous, because when we ask these questions, and then try to ban them, we start to tread on our own liberties and civil rights.
The First Amendment of the US Constitution gives us the right to free speech, press, and religion, and the Fourth Amendment lets us be secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects. when we start asking these questions and start banning things that are subjectively offensive, there's no stopping our government from the beginning of banning movies, music, and Christianity...
i hate pornography just as much as any Christian on here... i despise it, and i want it to not exist... but pornography is subjective, not objective. Every person is going to see it differently.
The Constitution of the United States protects pornography lawfully because of its subjective matter...
it also protects us, our faith, and our command by God to proclaim it, and our freedom to exercise it within our home and country
we cannot use the US Constitution to protect ourselves, then turn on another person and deny them their civil rights and liberties simply because we disagree with them. They are protected just as much as we are under the law.
this should not be decided at a federal level. this should be decided at the state level.
J
You know, banning porn sounds great. Eliminating gay marriage and making abortion illegal sounds great, and part if me wishes I lived in a society 1. who would believe those things and 2. Actually follow the laws... But the fact is Jesus did not go to the government to make immorality illegal. He dealt with each person individually on a heart to heart basis. It's unfortunate that controlling morality with government policies is very likely to do more damage than good, if it changes anything at all.
I do not believe in abortion at any stage. While I would not judge a woman for using birth control (chemical forms) I believe that it is also in the category of abortion. I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. I believe porn of any sort is lust driven, victimization of all people involved even though they are often willing victims, and is a form of infidelity. Child porn in addition takes victimization to whole new level. Porn in general contribute to addictions and pathologies of all kinds. Even legal porn is constantly pushing the envelop on how young they can pretend their girls are, or how they can pervert sacred relationships like those between parents and children.
But we have to deal with people. A porn addict will still be a porn addict if it's illegal. An abortion will still be had if the mother feels its necessary. Homosexuals will still exist and live "married".
We must see people. We must speak to people. I'm not saying that we leave the government out altogether, but there is a limit to what it should do... Or what benefit it can have. Laws have NEVER regulated morality.
I do not believe in abortion at any stage. While I would not judge a woman for using birth control (chemical forms) I believe that it is also in the category of abortion. I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. I believe porn of any sort is lust driven, victimization of all people involved even though they are often willing victims, and is a form of infidelity. Child porn in addition takes victimization to whole new level. Porn in general contribute to addictions and pathologies of all kinds. Even legal porn is constantly pushing the envelop on how young they can pretend their girls are, or how they can pervert sacred relationships like those between parents and children.
But we have to deal with people. A porn addict will still be a porn addict if it's illegal. An abortion will still be had if the mother feels its necessary. Homosexuals will still exist and live "married".
We must see people. We must speak to people. I'm not saying that we leave the government out altogether, but there is a limit to what it should do... Or what benefit it can have. Laws have NEVER regulated morality.
Wow, I hope and pray you dont consider yourself to be a Christian, I dont send this to be harsh, but your comment isnt coming from a true child of God, I urge you to repent, do your first works, and get born again.
The dangers of Porn!
1Co 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor abusers, nor homosexuals,
1Co 6:10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
1Co 6:10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
Today we are seeing a vast array of professing Christians and ministries who treat sin that will lead to death as a calamity and not a crime against God. Gal 6:7 Do not be deceived, God is not mocked. For whatever a man sows, that he also will reap.
Gal 6:8 For he sowing to his flesh will reap corruption from the flesh. But he sowing to the Spirit will reap life everlasting from the Spirit.
I can confess from being in bondage to this sin for over 30 years, what I needed to do to put it to death. Most in the Christian circles will tell you its a disease, its in your nature, or you were born a sinner and will not be able to put it to death once and for all. The pastors would tell me its ok, we all fall short, try not to do it again, and all your sins are forgiven, past, present, and future!
This gave me some comfort, as I joined other men, married and single, who were in the same boat I was in, falling continuously to porn and lust, but again I was good with God, because at least I confessed I do it, and am seeking help from those who know more than me!
But I knew something was amiss in the church system, and could not figure out what these verses meant:
The soul who sins shall die! Eze 18-20
Those who sin are of the devil 1 John 3-8
The unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God! 1 Corin 6-10-11
Flee all sexual immorality Rev 21-8
He who does what is right is righteous 1 John 3-7
Stop loving this evil world and its lustful attractions 1 John 2-15-16
To be carnally minded is death Romans 8-6
Be perfect Matt 5-48
And many more scriptures that clearly contradict what is being taught in the liberal churches today, such a Promise Keepers, and those who write the many books to help one who struggles with porn to do it less!
Here in lies the problem, keeping literally millions of men in bondage to this vile sin and their flesh. No one is preaching true biblical repentance from the get go! The whole gospel is backwards, and upside down, where they tell you to just accept, believe, and confess your sins to Jesus, receive Him into your heart, feel sorry for your sins, BUT you will always be a poor sinner saved by grace! God will clean you up later, you will remain defiled, worldly, and double minded, but try not to sin if you can!
Where does it say this in the scriptures? Where are the few who are brave enough to call the sick to repent or perish, as Jesus and John the Baptist did. Luke 13-3.unless you repent, you will all likewise perish!
The sin of porn watching will kill you spiritually, and If you refuse to repent, and seek the mercy of God, 2 Corinthians 7-10-11, and die with Christ, ,Gal 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ, and I live; yet no longer I, but Christ lives in me. And that life I now live in the flesh, I live by faith toward the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself on my behalf. then you will remain in bondage to this vile sin, it must be cut off at the roots! Put to death once and for all in repentance, then you must guard your heart each and every day, count the cost, resist to bloodshed if you have to striving against sins of the flesh, do your part in repentance and all mighty God will do His! James 4:8 Draw near to God, and He will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, sinners; and purify your hearts, double-minded ones.
Draw near to God, He will give you all the power and strength to remain pure and holy before Him, you cannot serve two masters, you cannot be double minded, full of darkness and guile and lust and possibly think you will inherit eternal life!
Those who forsake their sins will be given mercy, and not grace to continue in sin! remember the grace of God teaches us something!
Tit 2:11 For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men, Tit 2:12 teaching us that having denied ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live discreetly, righteously and godly, in this present world,
Tit 2:13 looking for the blessed hope, and the appearance of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,
Tit 2:14 who gave Himself for us that He might redeem us from all iniquity and purify to Himself a special people, zealous of good works.
You now have a choice to make! Seek first His kingdom and righteousness, or your own and suffer the grave consequences of your choices! Either you kill the sin in repentance, or it will kill you!(spiritually)
Gal 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are clearly revealed, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lustfulness,
Gal 5:20 idolatry, sorcery, hatreds, fightings, jealousies, angers, rivalries, divisions, heresies,
Gal 5:21 envyings, murders, drunkennesses, revelings, and things like these; of which I tell you before, as I also said before, that they who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
Please repent of this sin, and all others that will kill your soul!
Tommy 2-25-12
You believe from your heart. You obey to receive the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:32) He comes into a clean vessel. A heart made pure by faith (obedience) Acts 15:9) you obey and keep obeying, daily, to keep your heart pure and undefiled from the world! (1 Peter 1:22) That's how it works! Genuine repentance involves humility, brokenness and is a humiliating experience. When the true light of God's word floods into your soul, you see yourself as you are, in rebellion to God! This is what godly sorrow is all about. Deep regret for your sin's, a season of sorrow, leading to salvation! (2 Corinthians 7:10) not getting saved in your disobedience and sin's, but out of them, through true repentance first where the flesh is crucified with Christ, and put to death! (Galatians 2:20) cleansed to receive the Holy Spirit!
Now you got salvation!
T
Ah, but what is the purpose of our penal system? Is it to punish those who have "done wrong," or is it to protect the rest of society from threats?
I think if you ask different people, you will get different answers. So, too, not everyone will agree that the right to do something necessarily means that doing it is right. In fact, I think most people would agree that the word "rights" as pertaining to freedoms is different from the word "right" as pertaining to moral propriety. It is, perhaps, unfortunate that in English they are the same word. There are many languages in which the two words are completely different, and indeed they are not synonyms at all.
This is actually an important question: what is the purpose of our justice system? You may have heard of "the three R's" Rehabilitation, Retribution, or Removal from society. If the purpose is rehabilitation, then prison is NOT the answer. It has become patently clear that putting people in prison does NOT rehabilitate anyone; if anything, it makes them worse (the "hardened criminal" syndrome). If it's retribution, how does rotting in a cell pay back for a crime? Does it restore the victim to his or her prior condition, before the crime was committed? Not even.
Clearly, the only honest purpose for our penal system is removal from society. As such, it does not assume any particular morality. (Or at least, the potential is there for it to be.)
There are certainly many laws on our books that are based on morality. Many of these are problematic to me. They assume one particular culture's assumption of morality. What is moral to one person may or may not be moral to another. Throughout the ages, there are many examples of how laws have been passed according to one religion's rules that have gone against what God wants. Remember in the Old Testament when the King insisted that "morality" insisted all people bow to him, but of course God's chosen people could not do that? More recently, many Christians feel that killing, even in times of war, is immoral, but many countries have required military service. There is a tradition among some Christian groups of civil disobedience when "morality" and "legality" are at odds with each other. We are facing another example today, where some employers may find themselves required, legally, to provide health insurance to their employees that includes birth control, even if that goes against their moral beliefs.
See, as soon as you say it's okay to pass laws based on your religion, you allow for "the next guy" to come and pass laws based on his own religion. I would rather have laws based not on morality, which is subjective, but on safety and protection of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, which is objective.
I think if you ask different people, you will get different answers. So, too, not everyone will agree that the right to do something necessarily means that doing it is right. In fact, I think most people would agree that the word "rights" as pertaining to freedoms is different from the word "right" as pertaining to moral propriety. It is, perhaps, unfortunate that in English they are the same word. There are many languages in which the two words are completely different, and indeed they are not synonyms at all.
This is actually an important question: what is the purpose of our justice system? You may have heard of "the three R's" Rehabilitation, Retribution, or Removal from society. If the purpose is rehabilitation, then prison is NOT the answer. It has become patently clear that putting people in prison does NOT rehabilitate anyone; if anything, it makes them worse (the "hardened criminal" syndrome). If it's retribution, how does rotting in a cell pay back for a crime? Does it restore the victim to his or her prior condition, before the crime was committed? Not even.
Clearly, the only honest purpose for our penal system is removal from society. As such, it does not assume any particular morality. (Or at least, the potential is there for it to be.)
There are certainly many laws on our books that are based on morality. Many of these are problematic to me. They assume one particular culture's assumption of morality. What is moral to one person may or may not be moral to another. Throughout the ages, there are many examples of how laws have been passed according to one religion's rules that have gone against what God wants. Remember in the Old Testament when the King insisted that "morality" insisted all people bow to him, but of course God's chosen people could not do that? More recently, many Christians feel that killing, even in times of war, is immoral, but many countries have required military service. There is a tradition among some Christian groups of civil disobedience when "morality" and "legality" are at odds with each other. We are facing another example today, where some employers may find themselves required, legally, to provide health insurance to their employees that includes birth control, even if that goes against their moral beliefs.
See, as soon as you say it's okay to pass laws based on your religion, you allow for "the next guy" to come and pass laws based on his own religion. I would rather have laws based not on morality, which is subjective, but on safety and protection of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, which is objective.
My worry would be that a ban on porn would push it underground making the industry dangerous. It would make people go to extreme lengths to get what they wanted which could easily turn very nasty.
If you want an example of how this can happen...prostitutes in Amsterdam are safer than say those in the UK because they operate within the law in Amsterdam meaning that they are protected by the law.
If you want an example of how this can happen...prostitutes in Amsterdam are safer than say those in the UK because they operate within the law in Amsterdam meaning that they are protected by the law.