1

I got one word for your technology-bashing bible-followers: hypocrisy!

Without technology you wouldn't be able to write this blog entry now, but most importantly, without technology such as architecture and engineering, churches would for instance never have been build.

If everything were to be after you Christians' eyes, we would still be trying to invent the wheel.

I rest my case, illiterate morons.

2

why are christians so obsessed with people making love? yet, they are so ready and willing to go to war to push a secular state's power and push for world domination. is american christendom becoming a bit like rome?

3

Tommy the Cat,

Do you think children should be allowed or encouraged to watch pornography on T.V.?

If your answer is no, does that mean you are obsessed with sex?

If your answer is again no, then how is your position so different from what Joe is talking about?

4

I'm sorry, who is arguing that children should be allowed or encouraged to watch pornography on TV?

5

Boonton,

No one is. That would be absurd.

But Joe is talking about maintaining healthy sexual attitudes by declining to watch junky stuff, and by keeping junky stuff away from children.

Tommy the Cat is accusing Joe of being obsessed with sex because Joe wants to talk about that.

But if Joe is "obsessed", it is an "obsession" that almost all of us share with doing what is right and not doing what is wrong. Joe's concerns about sex, character, culture, and technology may be greater than Tommy the Cat's concerns, but they don't seem to be qualitatively different.

If Tommy the Cat would like to explain why Joe's concerns are so different, then I would like to hear what he has to say.

6

Cyber censoring-virtual gommarah.
IMHO it is so easy to bypass "Content filtering" sw that except for kids its just not worth the bother. Anyway as the most horrible sites are outside the control of governments, it usually isn't possible. This summer I stayed at a house where the BB was "censored." I had trouble with my Tiscali account but NOT with violent Al-Qaeda supporting sites showing beheadings.
Also using "1"s for i and zeros for "O"s soon bypassed the filter system.
Techn0l0gy 1sn't the answer to p0*n s1tes!

7

There is also the problem of accidentally stumbling upon something you normally would be able to resist were someone simply to ask you to partake. An example:

I have filtering software that was easily foiled by clicking on the wrong link in a Google search. I was looking for the Web site for Werther's candy but absent-mindedly clicked on a different link in the Google result. It took me to a German erotica site that my filter did not stop because (a) all the photos were B&W (the filter looks for the amount of flesh tones on a page) and (b) the text was in German, foiling the word-search portion of the filter.

I instantly realized my mistake--and yet. The temptation to linger was strong. My male, visually-oriented mind seized on the images on that web page, and my libido screamed for me to explore further. Prudence finally won (what if my wife caught me?), even as my moral sense sought to rationalize looking at the porn.

I didn't enjoy being put in that situation, all brought about by an innocent mistake anyone could make.

8

Tommy the Cat writes, "why are christians so obsessed with people making love?"

As a Christian, I am not "obsessed" with this issue. As a Christian, and as someone who believes the Bible, I find instruction that teaches God desires and encourage sexual activity but only in it's appropriate place - that is within marriage. This would be enough for me by itself, however, there are also legitimate health reasons for this as well. For example, if the only sexual activity occurs within marriage ( and not the serial marriage which so often occurs today ) then virtually all of the veneral diseases will be eliminated.

In addition, there are the issue of bearing and raising children - which takes place best in a stable, committed, two parent home. There are many additional reasons for anyone who is actually interested in real debate and thought.

Additional reasons "christians are so obsessed with people making love" is that we believe that they are often not "making love" but simply engaging in sex. Often this is not for the purpose of valuing, caring, or helping the other person but simply because they are horney and want to get some for themselves.

As Christians, we believe there are some real, absolute moral values which transend how a person might be feeling at any given moment. If you do not believe that such things exists, then you are obviously going to view Christians as "obsessed" over a great many things.

As to your second point - "yet, they are so ready and willing to go to war to push a secular state's power and push for world domination."
There are Christians who are pacificist and there are Christians who are not. This is a theological question that Christianity has been struggling with for 2000 years. In America, there is no christendom but only a free association of individual Christians who gather together to worship and cooperate. Many believe that God has granted the state power to enforce justice. Many believe that when faced with countries doing evil things, the state should be encouraged to intervene. Others argue that all force is wrong even to the point of self-defense. The point is that this is a on-going debate that occurs among groups of individuals.
The connecting thread between the two points you were asking is the framework of absolute morals and authority. Unless you agree they exist, Christianity will never be understandable.

9

We are simply living now in a society much like the one the Christian Church at its birth experienced. Porn was on pottery and paganism pervaded life. We are not that unique, in terms of morality nor were there really any "good ol' days" as such is a myth.

What I think history teaches is that technology magnifies the efficiency of both good and bad. The printing press brought scripture and literacy to the masses as well as hate. Science has brought us medical solutions but also "safe" abortions and mass genocide.

10

technology magnifies the efficiency of both good and bad.

Upon hearing of the first successful testing of the atom bomb, Einstein said, "This changes everything ... except human nature."

11

tom, you state that you didnt enjoy being put in that situation yet you also said that you lingered on the site until the the thought of your wife catching you scared you did leave it.
It wasnt the site that made you linger, it was your own curiosity and lust. There are temptations of every manner in life that everyone has to choose to succumb to or refuse.
Your decision to finally leave the site wasnt based on some deep conviction or moral standard, it was based on you being caught like a child. Would it really be so wrong to stare at something you cannot touch which might even stimulate you into giving it to your wife extra hard?

12

I am more concerned about kids watching violence than porn. I always scratch my head and wonder why moral authority types are so concerned about porn that is on cable TV

Most of the time guys watch porn and rub one off. Big deal.

13

I doubt if you could say that Marquis de Sade would have found today's p*rn beyond the pale, he was the precursor of the materialist 'what is, is good'.

I think it is a mistaken notion that "virtues such as moderation, discernment, and humilty" could protect from this particular avenue of sin. Mainly because the whole idea that "we were protected against immorality by moral and religious instruction" is false.

Moral and religious instruction protected the larger group of society as a whole from the freefall into sin. In the individual case it was never so. What protects the individuals morality is the inner conviction and stance of standing apart in lifestyle and in practice of virtue. This is what is called the "power of godliness". The real inworking of God's grace upon the soul.

The shell of instruction and society's values is exactly what has given way to the readily accessible immoral activities that technology makes easily available. It is what a man is inside and not what he assents to that forms his morality. The outward restraints were never sufficient for the problem. Doctrinally we know this, but it is time to take the doctrine out of academics and put it into our lives.

Two things are at stake here. The case being made -not for filtering- but for censorship for the sake of society as a whole. That it not further degrade. And second, the indictment of Christians who have made it a habit to be whitewashed on the outside while never giving themselves wholeheartedly to becoming persons of integrity. That is what makes them(us) easy targets of seduction.

We do nto interact enough with each other to have safeguards of personal accountability. We do not take seriously enough our faith to have inner fortitude against moral corruption. We want to further foist the crumbling shell of a "Christian Society" upon our neighbors while we ourselves mire every bit as much as we want in the mud we proscribe for others.

To borrow from Paul, "brothers, it ought not to be so".

I do not believe we should apologize for calling for a certain amount of censorship. At the same time I do not think we should at all trust that this is sufficient means to have a healthy society. Some things are so vile and corrupting that they should be proscribed- and few of those who voice outrage at the 'idea ' of censorship would gainsay restraints on child p*rn or snuffing out the life of someone for the sake of other's pleasure as being outside the right of censure and censoring. It is simply a matter of where the line, not whether.

The bigger problem is for Christians to get the beam from their own eye- which we have the means to do, if only we will. That will perform a much greater effect on our own community and society at large than the broken fences of rules and 'filtering'. And in the meantime, yes, there is need for some censorship...which is not a four letter word in any thinking persons dictionary.

When will we take on the mantle of being a power for good by our lives and example in our society?

When?

How about now?

14

And, lo, check out this article in yesterday's Washington Post about another form of Internet "porn," although of a different variety.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/21/AR2005102102315.html

15

acha wrote There are temptations of every manner in life that everyone has to choose to succumb to or refuse.
Your decision to finally leave the site wasnt based on some deep conviction or moral standard, it was based on you being caught like a child.

And that is part of my shame at the incident. Basically, I did the right thing but for the wrong reason. Christians will understand, but it's also well described in James 1:14-15, "But each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death."

Would it really be so wrong to stare at something you cannot touch which might even stimulate you into giving it to your wife extra hard?

If you require something like that to love your wife, you have much bigger problems than I can address here.

16

IMHO it is so easy to bypass "Content filtering" sw that except for kids its just not worth the bother. Anyway as the most horrible sites are outside the control of governments, it usually isn't possible. This summer I stayed at a house where the BB was "censored." I had trouble with my Tiscali account but NOT with violent Al-Qaeda supporting sites showing beheadings.

True, 'filtering' doesn't really work all that well because it's so subjective....however it does have some usefullness just for minor matters of taste. For example, if i'm searching Google images at work I might put 'moderate safe search on' just to make sure I don't accidently get some nude pic when doing a search but the filters are not all that great when used beyond that. As was demonstrated in the recent library filtering case that went before the SC filters are usually deeply imperfect leaving many bad sites unblocked and many ok sites blocked.

To be honest with you I have never 'accidently' stumbled onto porn. Never. I have done a lot of work on the web including working for a company that did search engine optimization for web sites. I'm have plenty of time on the net. I guess I could see how it can happen accidently if you're new to the internet but to be honest the only porn I've seen I saw because I looked for it. As such I'm not really very sympathetic to claims that porn is 'all over'. It's really not. The "it just popped up! must be hackers!" excuse doesn't go very far with me :)

My advice, the best filter possible is to have the computer in a public room in your house. Teens aren't going to spend a lot of time looking at hardcore porn if you're sitting in the living room with them and could look at the screen any time. Believe it or not many people were able to grow up perfectly healthy without a private computer in their room with high speed net access. If you must give this to your kids then you can buy software that monitors what sites they visit. If you see them getting too deep into stuff they shouldn't you can then address the issue then.

I think it is a mistaken notion that "virtues such as moderation, discernment, and humilty" could protect from this particular avenue of sin. Mainly because the whole idea that "we were protected against immorality by moral and religious instruction" is false.

I think you're confusing sin with porn, the two are different things. Sexual attraction is healthy and normal. Even Joe wrote a post here not too long ago exploring the position that masturbation is not in itself a sin. I doubt the population is any more sinful today than it was in say 1990 when very few people had fast internet connections and the internet was still more academic than commercial.

Like all pleasures in life they must be addressed in moderations. The ancient Romans knew that very well and despite the fact that sex was very free in their society they mocked anyone who seemed to be having sex too often. They mocked him for the same reason we would mock someone who loved junk food so much that they couldn't go an hour without some in their hand.

17

Why waste time wringing one's hands about the march of time when you can emigrate to the deep woods of South Carolina and pretend that history never happened?

From Reuters:

----------------------------------------
CHARLESTON, South Carolina (Reuters) - Cory Burnell wants to set up a Christian nation within the United States where abortion is illegal, gay marriage is banned, schools cannot teach evolution, children can pray to Jesus in public schools and the Ten Commandments are posted publicly.

To that end, Burnell, 29, left the Republican Party, moved from California and founded Christian Exodus two years ago with the goal of redirecting the United States by "redeeming" one state at a time.

First up for redemption is South Carolina.

Burnell hopes to move 2,500 Christians into the northern part of the state by next year and to persuade tens of thousands to relocate by 2016. His goal is to fill the state legislature with "Christian constitutionalists."

The push comes at a time when Christian fundamentalism is a growing force in U.S. politics, displays of the Ten Commandments in government buildings are spurring litigation and President George W. Bush is touting the evangelical Christian credentials of Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers.

Christian Exodus officially started in May 2004, reaching people mainly through the Internet. Since then, five families and two individuals have relocated to South Carolina, Burnell said.

The organization, which claims about 1,000 members, held its first conference October 15-16 to promote its agenda. About 50 people from as far away as Ohio and Oregon attended.

Burnell picked South Carolina partly for its Christian majority and conservative politics.

"Historically, Southerners do have a states' rights mentality," he said. "Christians in the North are experiencing the most liberalism, or you could say persecution."

Christian Exodus hopes to throw off what it considers unconstitutional burdens imposed by the federal government. Examples, Burnell said, are federal spending on public education and the National Endowment for the Arts, and the use of the courts "to teach that Heather has two mommies."

"We (want to) force Washington, D.C., to reform itself by not going along with it," he said.

The organization's Web site says if it does not meet its goal of change, it will work to secede from the United States.

South Carolina was the first state to secede from the union in 1860, and the first shots of the U.S. Civil War were fired from Charleston's Battery onto Fort Sumter.

The group's reception in South Carolina has been mixed.

Arthur Bryngelson, chairman of the Dorchester County Republican Party, spoke at a Christian Exodus' conference and said he would encourage Christian Exodus members to become Republicans.

"I consider myself to be a fundamental Christian," he said. "I'm with (Christian Exodus) all the way up to secession. ... I'm not in favor of going down to the Battery and firing on Fort Sumter again."

State Sen. Mike Fair, a Republican who described himself as "a narrow-minded, right-wing, fundamentalist fanatic," said he was suspicious of Christian Exodus.

"I had huge credibility problems with them," he said. "Their plank for this perceived buckle of the Bible Belt, they're so far off the mark. I don't think they're going to get much traction."

Joel Sawyer, spokesman for Republican Gov. Mark Sanford, would not comment except to say, "We have a great state with a great quality of life that's certainly open to anyone."

Columbia attorney Herbert E. Buhl III, who does legal work for the American Civil Liberties Union, said he received "a nasty little letter ... calling me a liar" from a Christian Exodus representative.

Buhl said the letter came after he had represented Wiccan Darla Wynne, who successfully sued the town of Great Falls to remove the name of Jesus Christ from pre-meeting prayers. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed in 2004 with a federal judge that the town's prayers were an unconstitutional endorsement of religion by government.

"This should be a nonissue," Buhl said. "It's separation of church and state. This is black-letter law."

18

There's nothing wrong with a little humility when it comes to battling one's temptations. I'd liken technological crutches such as you list to a recovering alcoholic who refuses to enter a tavern.

I agree that priority should be given to spiritual growth and filling your mind and heart with "whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure". But until heaven, we are all still prone to sin. In addition to being transformed by the renewing of our minds, a good safety net in whatever one's biggest area of weakness is seems prudent and wise. Avoiding the near occasion of sin, we Catholics call it. It's the way I interpret the admonishment that "if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out".
But yes, ultimately, technology cannot keep us from sinning, only a pure heart filled with God's grace can do that.

19

If Christians don't want to see porn then perhaps they should stop watching it. If you want to control what your kid is seeing on TV then take charge of the TV set. Is your child physically preventing you from doing this? Did they win the wrestling match for the remote control?

Whats wrong with simply turning it off and leaving it off? Are you and your children allergic to books? Christian writers have produced a great body of literature over the last few 1000 years, so you should find no end of entertainment to choose from. Or unplug the TV from the cable and antenna. Then you can choose what it shows via DVD.

And I do practice what I preach, I haven't turned on the TV in over a month. I have also somehow made it to my early 40's without ever seeing an episode of "Survivor" or "American Idol", etc. And yet my life is not a great cultural void.

I'm sure there can be some arguments made for censorship, although I can't think of any. But by and large those that want to control what you see and hear don't want just censorship, they also want to indoctrinate everyone with their particular set of ideas. Be those Christian ideas, or be it Islamic Sharia.

If you want to live in a Christian society, then create it the old-fashioned way. By convincing everyone else to become a Christian. I realize thats a lot harder than outlawing everything that in your view isn't Christian, but I think it's more of a truthful victory in that "Spiritual Warfare" thing I'm always hearing about.

As far as video games go, "The Sims" has made a heck of a lot more money than "Grand Theft Auto". But that's something that always gets left out of the debate. That and where the kids are getting the money to buy video games in the first place. Who controls the purse-strings in your family? You or your kids?

20

Tom,
Firstly, I dont quite understand how it is that you did the right thing. Was it by confessing your sins on an evangelical blog? Or was it not being caught and shamed by your wife who might have interpreted your p*rn viewing as repugnant behavior? Or is it simply something that your esoteric christianity wont allow me to to ponder?
Quite pious, I believe, of you to assume you are speaking to a "non-believer" and feel the need to recite scripture in a condescending manner.
Secondly, if technology is bringing you to a place of self-loathing and disgust, try reading a book. How about some Tolstoy? The Kingdom Of Heaven Within You. How about the Kama Sutra?
Last, I have not a wife because I am a wife.

21

Thank You Patrick!!!!

22

acha

I did the "right" thing by clicking out of the erotica web page. And there was nothing "condescending" about my citation of Scripture. It was simply showing how something written 2,000 or so years ago so insightfully captures the human condition--or at least my human condition. I think a lot of people would agree with me, though.

You read waaay more into my post than was there. The only point of my post was to show that technological solutions still can fail and the ultimate check, as others have posted here, is in our own minds and consciences.

Finally, whether you're a wife or a husband, if you need porn to goose your sex life, you have bigger problems than can be dealt with here.

PS. I read lots of books. I do it for a living. Oh, and I write them, too.

23

I'm always a bit taken aback by the bitterness and venom of the secular left. I wasn't always a Christian - far from it - and I distrusted the Christian right, but I don't ever recall being motivated to spit venom. Although, until I was about 50, I thought Christians in America were bigoted and silly, it really didn't affect my life and I didn't develop a lot of anger and hatred for them. I just avoided them.

Having had some experiences that proved me to be oh-so wrong in my assessments of the body of Christ, I've joined them. And much to my amazement, they are not the bigot bloc that I had once believed they would be. I've been a pretty successful guy by most standards. I was able to retire in my late 40s, I'm reasonably affluent, I have several advanced degrees, I'm happily married (albeit married late, at 40), nice friends, and I've seen most of the world, lived abroad, and still travel extensively. In short, I've been right about a lot of things that result in good result on the usual socio-cultural-economic metrics, but I was dead wrong (no pun intended) about Christ, God, and the Christian church (broadly defined).

One thing I can say, however. I've been greatly bothered by the tsunami of sexuality and gratuitous violence in media (including the internet) for a long time. Both before and after I accepted Christ as my Savior. I'm not a clinical psychologist, but I am a professional psychophysicist, and I was required to take my share of graduate-level social and clinical coursework. Before I ever thought about sin, I worried that exposing massive numbers children to a barrage of sex and violence was an historically unprecedented and culturally dangerous experiment.

Some will tell us that merely looking and watching does not affect behavior. Hollywood and the porn industry (assuming there is a difference between the two) has long made this claim. It is true that attempts to study the behavioral effects of watching sex, violence, and sexual violence have only yielded weak correlations. In the types of studies that must be done (we can't do controlled experiments for obvious ethical reasons), the correlations are always weak. The purveyors of the material fall back on the Cigarette Executive Defense: correlations don't imply causation. Well, that's true. But major corporations spend billions of dollars annually on advertising and product placements betting that there is a causal link. My view: follow the money.

Regarding the view that the First Amendment guarantees the a woman's the right to publicly expose her labia inches from my face if I want to gaze thereon... Well, that's one interpretation that has been hammered into law by justices with a legislative bent and a social agenda, but to suggest that such an interpretation would have been viewed as correct by those who actually wrote the Constitution is risible on its face. But, combined with SCOTUS's decision on McCain/Feingold, I suppose we've come full circle. If the left wants to nominate sympathetic "progressive" justices to jam such nonsense down my throat, then I respond by doing everything I can to nominate "originalist" judges that will jam the opposing view down your throat. I'm delighted to work with you on the precedent you set with Mr. Bork! We can truly work together and play by the same rules!

It's interesting that the left calls itself "progressive". I challenge you: what is "progressive" about legitimizing video of women being chained and whipped? This is progress? Why, if so, the lunatic wing of the Muslim faith or Torquemada wannabes would feel right at home. To them, beating women is the most natural thing in the world. Of course, they may also throw homosexuals off buildings, but you may object to that only because you haven't "progressed" far enough. If that's "progress", I think civilization has had quite enough, thank you.

24

George

"Regarding the view that the First Amendment guarantees the a woman's the right to publicly expose her labia inches from my face if I want to gaze thereon... Well, that's one interpretation that has been hammered into law by justices with a legislative bent and a social agenda, but to suggest that such an interpretation would have been viewed as correct by those who actually wrote the Constitution is risible on its face."

Tell me more about those who actually wrote the Constitution. Any adulterers or slave-owners among those white folk? What did they think about women's right to vote? Are women mentioned in the Constitution?

I'm just curious as to why I should give a hoot, George, about what they thought about a women's right to do anything. Did those enlighted white guys who wrote the Constitution remember to include a statement saying that it should be interpreted based on their personal beliefs as of the time the Constitution was written?

I'm curious.

That's why I ask questions.

25

Tom,
I didnt intend to offend you. I guess my point was/is that technology isnt what has failed. In my humble opinion, if p*rn wasn't pursued by the masses it wouldnt have become the monster that it is. It hasnt been a pervasive problem for my family because we have avoided it in our childs presence. It would however become a problem if we invited it into our home and lifestyles. I actually prefer that it is online now as opposed to the many adult entertainment facilities that were in our city. It is much easier to keep it out of sight when you dont have to walk or drive past it to get where you are going. I guess it is just not as lucrative to have a peep show or video/bookstore or bath house because technology has made it more easily accessible for the perverse at home.

26

I guess it is just not as lucrative to have a peep show or video/bookstore or bath house because technology has made it more easily accessible for the perverse at home.

Okay, peeping is a little weird. But what is perverse about taking a bath, watching a video, or reading a book?

27

Curious Larry: Not to beat a dead horse here, but as long as asking questions is what your here to do, do you really have a Ph.D.? If so, who granted it to you?

I'm curious.

That's why I ask questions.

28

The silence is deafening . . .

29

Patrick is correct in his first 4 paragraphs.

I wished he expanded/clarified on what he meant when he said, “If you want to live in a Christian society, then create it the old-fashioned way. By convincing everyone else to become a Christian.”

What if people don’t want to be Christian? Why cannot Christians live Christian lives without trying to convince everyone else to become Christian?

As pointed out, do Christians believe individual Christians are so weak to resist temptation that they must make change society via converting others to the faith or through censorship remove as much temptation as possible?

30

The ignorance of this blog is staggering. The author gives no point to his opinion and simply states that everything that he is against is evil because it is mentioned in The Bible. If he is so against all these "Virtual Temptations" why does he know of them? How does he know that anyone can just go on the net to find any of these things unless he has "indulged" in said activities?

Instead of blaming technology, kind sir, why do you not instead look inside your own "pure soul" and find the tarnished essence inside of yourself.

I believe one of Jesus' teachings, you will find, was not to place yourself or your own opinions above others.

Choke on that.

31

Cheesehead:

It is obvious that you ask questions because you want to defame and indulge in peripheral theatrics, with the aim of evading the reality that L.Lord just eviscerated George's oh-so-quaint prognostications about what the founding fathers would or wouldn't have thought legally about women's labias. When they themselves were keeping mistresses, some of them who were their own slaves, and generally considering women not much at all legally, other than as property.

Man it would do you all good to occasionally admit when you've got some argumentative egg on your face, particularly when it's dripping onto the floor in front of you. But I forgot that these sorts of reality checks only matter in the communities based upon that frame of reference. Not at all in vogue these days. Retreat, revise, reload.

32

Who has more hate: Larry Lord or Patrick? It's pretty close. Every knee shall bow gentlemen, every last one.

33

Kelvinius & Patrick,

I think you both miss the point of Joe's post. His audience in this case is people who have already decided they don't want to view prn, violence, gamble, etc. To that group of people, the topic is what's the best way to go about it on your own. He's not advocating censorship or even arguing whether others should or shouldn't partake.

K: "Instead of blaming technology, kind sir, why do you not instead look inside your own "pure soul" and find the tarnished essence inside of yourself."

Original post: "But while technological means may be appropriate for technological problems, the ultimate “filter” for Christians is a sanctified nature."

34

I don't understand the level of venom on this blog.

Is it not possible to have a civil, adult conversation about philosophy, theology and culture without people attacking one another?

I've been lurking here for about a month, and every topic has the same cast of characters attacking people. What's the point? If Christians are so offensive to you, can't you find another blog to read?

I don't really expect my post to change anything, I just find it sad that supposed "intellectuals" so quickly degrade into children on the playground.

35

Regarding the view that the First Amendment guarantees the a woman's the right to publicly expose her labia inches from my face if I want to gaze thereon... Well, that's one interpretation that has been hammered into law by justices with a legislative bent and a social agenda, but to suggest that such an interpretation would have been viewed as correct by those who actually wrote the Constitution is risible on its face.

Difficult to say if you're really honest. In order to figure out what the Founders would have thought about this you would have to:

1. First inform them that pictures have moved to photography & video.

2. Inform them about the Internet, TV, video and DVD.

3. Inform them about the idea of mass culture & the arguments for regulation of mass media in this regards.

I doubt you could really predict what individual founders would say about this. Some would probably say the First Amendment or other parts of the Constitution would make it a state matter...but you'd have to add:

4. The post Civil War amendments effectively incorporated much of the Bill of Rights to apply to the states and local gov'ts.

If the left wants to nominate sympathetic "progressive" justices to jam such nonsense down my throat, then I respond by doing everything I can to nominate "originalist" judges that will jam the opposing view down your throat. I'm delighted to work with you on the precedent you set with Mr. Bork! We can truly work together and play by the same rules!

I'm not sure if you're referring to First Amendment rulings of McCain Feingold but if it is the latter I don't see how anything is getting jammed down your throat. How often do you encounter pubically exposed labias inches from your face? Unless you're a medical professional you almost certainly never encounter such things unless you took a fully informed step to seek them out (either visiting a web site or going to a nude club).

It's interesting that the left calls itself "progressive". I challenge you: what is "progressive" about legitimizing video of women being chained and whipped? This is progress? Why, if so, the lunatic wing of the Muslim faith or Torquemada wannabes would feel right at home. To them, beating women is the most natural thing in the world. Of course, they may also throw homosexuals off buildings, but you may object to that only because you haven't "progressed" far enough. If that's "progress", I think civilization has had quite enough, thank you.

I'm not sure what you mean by legitimizing. Are you confusing legal with 'good' or 'quality'?

36

Terence, yeah, the silence is deafening.

What happened to our friend, George? Suddenly he's disappeared leaving us all to wonder how are we are to divine what was going in the minds of wealthy 18th century white human males when they scrawled out the skeleton outlines of a country. Is it possible they had their own interests in mind? Do groups of human beings ever behave in a self-interested fashion?

We'll wait and see what George has to say. In the meantime, obscure figures should feel free to pipe in with strange comments about the levels of "hate" in the comments. I mean, why contribute any constructive thoughts to the conversation?

As for cheesehead, he won't be satisfied until he sees my diplomas. A Ph.D. in molecular biology doesn't make me "special," cheesehead. All it means is that when I tell you about professional scientists and their work and how they deal with deities in their professional lives, I am not reciting from a script. But the smarter folk amongst you already know that.

Speaking of which, if anyone here wants to join those of us who are happy to claim an overabundance of knowledge relating to the point where creationist propaganda intersects with First Amendment jurisprudence, here's some essential reading:

http://law.wustl.edu/WULQ/83-1/p%201%20Brauer%20Forrest%20Gey%20book%20pages.pdf

Enjoy!

I look forward to hearing your thoughtful comments on this article.

37

"Who has more hate: Larry Lord or Patrick? It's pretty close. Every knee shall bow gentlemen, every last one."

If you think what I wrote exemplifies "hate", then you have been truly blessed never to have encountered that emotion.

My main point was simply that usually most people, Christian or not, are not "victims" of pornography or whatever it is that offends you. "To take offense", means exactly that. It's an action that you, the individual undertakes. You are the one with the control.

This is especially true when the discussion turns to raising children or teenagers. 9 times out of 10, parents have all that they need in order to prevent their children from seeing things they don't want them to see. But they would rather use the TV as a babysitter. Or send them off to the movies or the mall to get them out of their hair.

If someone breaks into your house while you are all seated at dinner and starts lobbing labia's at you, then you have cause for complaint. But I just don't have much sympathy for parents who won't turn off the boob tube, or who do not control what video games, DVD's etc. that their children buy. Especially video games. They are not cheap, especially on what should be a child's supposedly limited income. These games are bought by or paid for by adults, not children. It would be far more effective to hold those people responsible, not the makers of the games or store owners.

Parents should also be less worried with what things their children are "exposed" to, and more concerned with giving their children a solid frame of reference and morality to fall back on. Because at some point, sooner or later, your children are going to run across ideas you don't approve of. Whether it's same-sex marriage, or Barney the purple dinosaur. You didn't create your children, God did. So they have everything that He has given them, not just what you wanted. That includes free will. They will make their own minds up, and there is not one thing you can do about that fact. So you should be more concerned with teaching them how to think, rather than what to think.

38

Larry: "Did those enlighted white guys who wrote the Constitution remember to include a statement saying that it should be interpreted based on their personal beliefs as of the time the Constitution was written?"

No. Did they include a statement saying it should evolve?

I'll grant you that we wouldn't want to live exactly as they thought was right in the 1700's. Some FF were against slavery, some were for it - women couldn't vote, etc. Some FF were mean and nasty - others had a measure of character we'd all aspire to. That's all irrelevant to how we should govern ourselves and interpret the Constitution.

Whether or not abortion should be legal, whether or not we should have gay marriage, whether or not we should be able to collect AK-47's is all irrelevant to the underlying question of taking an originalist position or believing that the Const. is a living document that can evolve.

Before women had the right to vote, I suspect we all here believe the Constitution was deficient in that matter. But the proper recourse was what the American PEOPLE did in passing the 19th Amendment. A benefit is that women's right to vote today is not dependent on a group of 9 justices, but that right is secured by the 19th Amendment, and ultimately the PEOPLE of the U.S. instead of the Supreme Court or any other unit of gov.

If someone doesn't think individuals should be able to own guns, then pass an amendment that repeals the 2nd Amendment. Don't just try to skirt around it through judicial activism. Otherwise you strengthen the court and weaken the Constitution, which is what guarantees our basic freedoms of speech, assembly, religion, etc.

Being an originalist puts the foundation of our rights in the hands of the constitution. Not doing so puts our rights in the hands of 9 justices.

But, in the little bit that I understand the orginalist argument, I believe that it can only take us so far. Where this idea gets complicated is in those cases where the Constitution is ambiguous.
The 8th Amendment says "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. " Well - what IS excessive bail? What's cruel and unusual? The electric chair seems cruel and unusual to me. You can consult the other writings of the authors of the amendment or the Const. to get a clue, but probably the reason it was ambiguous is that a majority couldn't agree on the specifics, so they needed to water it down. Also - perhaps an evolutionist approach is correct here. Maybe they suspected that more humane methods of punishing criminals would be available in the future. Maybe hanging wasn't cruel and unusual punishment at that time, but it would be considered so today. Perhaps there are more cruel methods to be dreamt up in the future that they also wanted to stave off by using ambiguous terms. This is where judges must interpret and apply the law to today that might be a little different than how they'd applied it back then.
Well - maybe I've argued both sides of the coin, and poorly at that. But I think that in those cases where it is unambiguous, we should stick as close as possible to the original intent. Not only of the founders, but also any amendments passed in the 200 yrs since. And even 100 yrs from now if we pass a future amendment in 2012. Judges in 2105 should then look, to the best of their ability, at what the majority of Americans meant by passing an amendment in the first part of the 21st century. If Americans don't like it at that time, then repeal it through the amendment process. So it's not just what those enlightened white men of the late 1700's thought, but everyone who's participated through the years. We the People.
To me, it comes down to this. If the founders didn't intend the Const. to be interpreted with original intent, but rather to let judges adapt it to fit any need, then why even write Article V, the amendment process, into the Constitution? It wouldn't be needed.

39

Follow-up thought... I've heard it said that the Constitution and Bill of Rights protects the rights of the minority from the majority and how great the Constitution itself is and the people that wrote it, etc. For the most part, I agree. But, ultimately, I think the founders must have thought higher of "the People", than they did of the document itself. Because the people had to approve it. The majority had to agree to put the protections of the individual or the minority into law. And where there was a failure of the founding fathers to protect the rights of women and slaves, it was also a failure of the People. Not only were some of the founders on the wrong side of history on the slavery issue, so also was about the same proportion of the People.

The same is true today. On one level, our rights are guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, but on a deeper level - we are still dependent on the good will of our neighbors. We still need to have an educated and moral society in order to guarantee our freedoms. If 75% of the country would become neo-Nazi's and start doing the one-armed salute, the Constitution wouldn't protect us one bit. It is a powerless piece of paper when it comes down to it. In the end, people have power. It's only because we agree to abide by the compact we've made in the Const. that individuals' rights are protected.

40

I was rather surprised when I read this. Here's an excerpt:

Things are getting better, not worse. Despite Janet Jackson, Internet porn, and Desperate Housewives.

What I found:

• Sex crimes against children: Down 39% overall in the last decade. Crimes against 12−17 year olds are down 79% over the same period.
• Abortion: The number of abortions per live births has trended downward since 1987. That year, there were 356 abortions per 1,000 live births. By 2001 — the last year for which the federal government has data — the number had dropped to 247.
• Teen pregnancy: The number of live births per 1,000 women aged 15−19 has dropped from 60 in 1990 to 40 in 2003.
• Divorce: The percentage of marriages ending in divorce has dropped from 47% in 1990 to 38% in 2002.
• Crimes Against Women: Violent crime against women has dropped from 41 victims per 1,000 women in 1994 to just 17 in 2004.
• Rape: Incidence of rape has dropped dramatically, despite decreasing social stigma against rape victims, which would make rape more likely to be reported. There were 2.5 rapes per 1,000 women in 1984. By 1993, the number had dropped to 1.6. By 2004, it was down to just 0.4.

If porn's corrupting our culture, it doesn't seem to be showing up in any of the obvious demographic or crime statistics.

41

Well said Elwood, regarding amendments. It always irks me to no end hearing/reading constitutional debates wherein "progressives" imply that an original approach means we are locked in 1776 until the end of time, and they are not corrected--In fact, the literal words of the constitution are binding until a sufficient majority of people (and states) enact the lawful process for updating it, making clear what the new law of the land is, which is then binding as written until something else is ammended.
Changing the constition through changing what the words mean that make it up, via a court, makes the country an oligarchy and demolishes the rule of law.

And a point to be made about the original post--avoiding movies or TV is not a "technological" solution to take when lacking morals, but what having those virtues may often entail.

[quote]In our day, we assume that the solution to immorality is an online filter or giving away the TV, avoiding movies, etc.. I do think filters have their place and indeed, there are many TV shows and movies I won't watch.
[/quote]
should have left it at filters, imo

42

Elwood

Not only were some of the founders on the wrong side of history on the slavery issue, so also was about the same proportion of the People. The same is true today.

Undoubtedly. That is why gay bigotry and excessive fetus loving are going to go the way of the dodo.

Do you doubt that?

That would be very silly of you.

But go ahead and amend the Constitution to give embryos a "right to life" and take away the rights of gay people. And while you're at it, include an amendment stating that the ultimate source of authority for all matters is "God." I think you said that such amendments would make the Constitution "strong".

Do you really think so? Or are you just reciting a neocon script? You know, like the one that neocons recited a few years ago about how Saddam was going to nuke us. Remember that one? If so, I congratulate you. Too bad about the 2000 soldiers and the scores of thousands of innocent men, women and children that were killed because of the neocons fears.

What were we talking about again? Oh yeah, "activist judges." You do realize that phrase is pure propagandistic crap, don't you? Please don't tell me you are so naive as to believe we really have a "problem" with "activist judges" in this country.

43

Elwood

"But the proper recourse was what the American PEOPLE did in passing the 19th Amendment."

Just out of curiosity, Elwood, how would you characterize the people who opposed the passage of the 19th amendment?

Were they "progressives"?

44

Let's say that fundamentalist Christians get their way and manage to censor all impious media. Let's say they manage the full grand slam:

No pornography on DVD, VHS, film, print, drawings on damp sand, none of it - all gone.

No indecent literature, no prurient clothing, no offensive music - all gone.

Seems to me that'd be a kind of Disneyland, a sanitized Christian-friendly and family-oriented kind of place. Perfect for good Christian lifestyles and a society of exaltation, right?

Problem is, that kind of world would relegate we atheists, artists, writers and creative types into a living hell. It would be a life equally as painful and difficult as this one, but just more boring, tedious and mind-numbingly vapid. Our taboos, the things we hold to be "adult" and the stuff of vice, are things that allow many of us to endure the curse of life and knowledge of our own impending deaths.

By sanitizing the environment, you'd strip it of the things that define its boundaries. It would be a place of total, unrelenting and unmitigated misery. By killing off the creative spirit, you'd be stuck with art no better than what adorns such places as Dollywood and Marriot's Great Adventures.

And could it even be possible? No, I don't think so, since people would find other ways to indulge in forbidden behaviors and blasphemous conduct. They might make dirty shadow-puppets on walls, or whisper naughty limericks to each other. Worried about what your children might be exposed to? Then don't park them in front of electronic babysitters and leave the rest of us alone.

Just... leave us alone.

45

Larry,
Yes, I think I found it on page 283 of the Script. Except for the part about the death penalty and the 8th Amendment, just thinking out loud there. Truly, the stuff about amendments through the years and how it's not just about enlightened white men was an original thought...uh.. just a sec. My phone's ringing.... Oh - it's Karl Rove. I suspect he'll help me get back on the Script.

46

Seems to me that'd be a kind of Disneyland, a sanitized Christian-friendly and family-oriented kind of place.

Except on Gay Day.

47

My phone's ringing.... Oh - it's Karl Rove. I suspect he'll help me get back on the Script.

Ask him if he got a letter from Patrick Fitzgerald today.

48

Changing the constition through changing what the words mean that make it up, via a court, makes the country an oligarchy and demolishes the rule of law.

I agree, show me how the constitution has been changed by altering what words mean?

49

Boonton,
I think the most obvious example is the establishment clause of the 1st Am. If the founders, or the country in general, intended the 1st Am to mean what the ACLU and some lower court judges thinks it means, then why did all 3 branches of gov. do all the Christian and/or theistic stuff they did at the beginning of this country up until possibly the 1930's. Purchasing bibles, opening with prayer, hiring a chaplain, inscribing stuff about God into our gov. buildings, "In God We Trust" on the money, etc. The list goes on and on. I guess they just got immediate amnesia about what they'd written into the 1st Amendment just a few years earlier. It's clear from their actions, the conditions at the time, and the words of the amendment that Congress shall pass no law establishing a religion meant Congress couldn't say you must be this or that religion, as happened in some of the European countries they had left behind. Establish as in set up or mandate as THE religion you must belong to. It didn't mean that government couldn't acknowledge or foster an environment that was pro-religion. Since any quote I come up with you've probably already heard and discounted as bogus, I challenge anyone to find any official act of any of the 3 branches of government prior to 1930 that supports the ACLU view.
If the ACLU view is correct, then we need to start renaming cities like Corpus Christi, St. Paul, St. Louis, San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, San Antonio, and the state of Maryland.
But - I guess that's job security for the ACLU lawyers. They start with little tiny crosses on the seal of the county of LA and city seals of small towns of 500 people in New Mexico. I suppose they'll work up to changing the names of cities. Are they really concerned about civil liberties? Or just trying to keep busy? So many lawyers, so little real work to do.

50

I think the most obvious example is the establishment clause of the 1st Am. If the founders, or the country in general, intended the 1st Am to mean what the ACLU and some lower court judges thinks it means, then why did all 3 branches of gov. do all the Christian and/or theistic stuff they did at the beginning of this country up until possibly the 1930's.

1. Some of the stuff they still do today (such as hiring a chaplain).

2. The Founders applied the 1st to the Federal Gov't (read it carefully, it says "Congress shall make no law...".). Much of the Bill of Rights was incorporated to apply to the states by the post-Civil War amendments. So some of the things you may find some of the Founders doing (such as supporting a state giving direct support to a Church) may have been perfectly fine by 1795's Constitution but not today's.

3. The Founders, like all of us, were human beigns who were not consistent in following ideals. Right after the Bill of Rights many of the 1st Am's supporters wrote the Alien and Sedition Act which basically criminalized criticism of the Federalist Party. A bold violation of free speech that was fought tooth and nail by the likes of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Nevertheless, they were willing to violate the Constitution in the face of harsh criticism so why would they not violate the Constitution when there was hardly anyone around to object (very few athiests existed in those days and just about everyone was some type of Christian)

4. there's no evidence the Founders believed the status quo was being enshrined by the Constitution. For example, just because a state may have had a law still on its books mandating torture for witches doesn't mean the Founders felt torture wasn't prohibited by "no cruel or unusual punishment". While the Constitution is short & easy to read it is hardly simple. As you read about each part & the numerous cases that have arisen from them you realize how many areas there are for people to disagree as well as questions no one ever would have thought would be asked. It's pretty silly to believe the Founders didn't realize this and it is silly to believe the Founders had thought about every possible question that could be asked from the day they wrote the Constitution until the end of history!

It didn't mean that government couldn't acknowledge or foster an environment that was pro-religion.

Which it does by securing domestic peace, protecting free speech, refraining from violating privacy, freedom of association etc. Is there anything else you feel the gov't should do to 'foster an environment that (is) pro-religion'? Please be specific.

The rest of your post veers off into a rant against the ACLU. First the ACLU is highly decentralized with local chapters taking cases they see fit. Not surprisingly quite often one chapter will generate some sensationalistic headlines by taking a radical position or making an extreme argument. In general, though, the ACLU is pretty good at fighting mundane violations of civil liberties by the gov't. I say mundane because even well meaning officials can easily slip into a tyrannical mode (IMO, school districts are notorious for this...willy nilly enacting feel good policies that are actual violations of civil liberties such as trying to punish students for speech/writing done outside of the classroom or something like that).

IMO they sometimes pick fights they are technically right on but aren't worth the effort. "Acknowledging God" is a good example. It is either meaningless pap or an establishment of religion by gov't.

51

Elwood

They start with little tiny crosses on the seal of the county of LA and city seals of small towns of 500 people in New Mexico. I suppose they'll work up to changing the names of cities.

Is changing the name of a city a sign of the apocalypse? Are city names "sacred"?

Cities have changed names throughout history. No big deal, really.

Ending bigotry: that's a big deal. Of course, ending bigotry is difficult when some people teach their children that certain kinds of bigotry are mandated by a powerful deity who will allow them to fry in hot oil for eternity if he is disobeyed.

Do you disagree, Elwood? If so, please explain why. This is an important point which relates to the appearance of tiny crucifixes on government seals, etc.

52

Boonton,
"First the ACLU is highly decentralized with local chapters taking cases they see fit. Not surprisingly quite often one chapter will generate some sensationalistic headlines by taking a radical position or making an extreme argument."

That's a good point to consider. I was ranting against the ACLU. But you're right that the cases that get the headlines are likely a minority of what they do. I'll go so far as to say that if I were to look at every case they take up, I wouldn't be surprised to side with them in over half the cases. If I remember correctly, they were even on Rush Limbaugh's side in his case in FL. (While I agree with Rush on some things I'm not a Ditto Head - so please nobody lecture me about RL's faults)...but the ACLU does surprise you and go against the stereotype of who they are sometimes.

Thanks for a reasoned reply - even if we still disagree on what 'establish' means.

53

LL: "Are city names "sacred"?"

Certainly not. I just throw that in as another example of actions taken by Americans throughout our history that is consistent with my view of the meaning of 'establish a religion'. What I argue is, if the ACLU or whoever wants to make their argument, let's get it all out on the table now instead of the incremental fighting over county seals and Christmas decorations in county courthouses that will go on and create more bitterness between the camps and frankly more defensiveness among us Christians over the next 10 years. Let's just be honest and consistent on where these changes will lead us.

"Ending bigotry: that's a big deal."
Yeah, I agree. Let's go for it. But let's also end the bigotry that assumes that because I'm a Christian or I'm part of a community made up of mostly Christians that wants to display a nativity scene that I/we "teach their children that certain kinds of bigotry are mandated by a powerful deity who will allow them to fry in hot oil for eternity if he is disobeyed".

IOW - it's bigoted to think that a Christian community must be bigoted. Or to think that all Christians must agree with Falwell or Oral Roberts or the worst by far Fred Phelps.

54

What I argue is, if the ACLU or whoever wants to make their argument, let's get it all out on the table now instead of the incremental fighting over county seals and Christmas decorations in county courthouses that will go on and create more bitterness between the camps and frankly more defensiveness among us Christians over the next 10 years. Let's just be honest and consistent on where these changes will lead us.

More defensiveness among Christians? Is that possible?

let's also end the bigotry that assumes that because I'm a Christian or I'm part of a community made up of mostly Christians that wants to display a nativity scene that I/we "teach their children that certain kinds of bigotry are mandated by a powerful deity who will allow them to fry in hot oil for eternity if he is disobeyed"

What steps are being taken by the most prominent leaders in the Christian community in the United States to counter the admittedly stereotypical view of Christians which you just presented?

55

Elwood,

Did Larry answer yet where he got his PhD from?

I'm curious to know who gave Larry his PhD.

56

A good reply Elwood. I think establishment is often in the eye of the beholder. To a believer it is shocking to hear what seems like common sense or the way things have always been done be accused of being an establishment. One good test I like to use is to imagine the same 'alleged establishment' with a different religion.

For example, imagine instead of "One Nation under God" in the pledge we swapped "One Nation under Allah". Despite the fact that you are just using an Arabic word for God in place of the English one I do not doubt that many would feel Islam was being established on them and their children. Yet is if that's the case then is it unfair to ask if "under God" really isn't a form of establishment? Sure no one is being burned alive or raked over coals but that's simply a matter of degree.

No long after 9/11 I recall a case supported by more than a few religious conservatives alleging a gov't had violated establishment. The crime? A college had a required class on 'world cultures' or something like that and it included a book about Islam. Even though the book's purpose was descriptive the critics thought that it was too nice in its descriptions and therefore rose to the level of establishing Islam!

Now imagine if a group of Pagans, Muslims or even worse, athiests & agnostics filed suit asking that a piece of literature with a strong Christian theme (say Milton's Paradise Lost or Dante's poems) because it might get some people into Christianity! The response from those who cried establishment in the previous example is highly unlikely to be 'we we caught them now they fairly caught us!'.

57

eric & lisa, cheesehead, et al.:

"gee, if larry won't tell us where he got his pee-h-dee, then that means we can repeatedly focus on that, thus avoiding having to contend with the substantive arguments he-- and others-- present.... which, if we were really intellectually honest, we'd have to reconcile with our own faith-based 'worldview'".

aka: "hey people, look at this shiny object over HERE"

cheaper than cotton balls, or a head-sized bucket full of sand. forge ahead bretheren!

58

Windbag,

Why would anyone want to focus on that? For the very reasons you state, it seems like a bad idea.

Best thing would be to tell us and get the question out of the way.

Wonder why he's not telling us.....

59

e & l

Wonder why he's not telling us.....

Maybe I'm the devil.

BOOGA BOOGA!!!!

Or maybe I just don't want to wake up some night and find Kevin W. taking a leak on the side of my house.