So, Hays, Chan, and you other guys, where are all the Obama supporters from the "Christian Left" who voted for this clown?
Seriously, where does this end? Who has the guts to step in front of this Marxist zealot and say, "No, you stop right there!"
Someone, either in the Christian community, or the Conservative community, better come up with something soon, or this guy is going to sell us all down the river!
That abortion video was terrific, but it needs to be viewed by a bigger audience than us. What kind of money would it take to put that thing on prime time on all three major networks? I would be willing to pitch in for that.
We gotta stop preaching to the choir on these things. It's the masses that must be reached.
"..Ogden has long had an ideological agenda in favor of obscenity and pornography and that he has sought to use his position in government to twist the law to advance his agenda."
And does he do this in the name of freedom of speech I wonder?
That's usually where the battle lies. "I have the freedom to watch fornication in all it's filthiness, and to those who make these filthy disgusting films, and all the other porn stuff out there, freedom reigns.
Not that I'd watch it, or am for it.
Just like abortion. I not for it, but the woman has the right, the freedom to kill, or not kill.
How do we adress this freedom of a citizen argument?
Just because something is "free" to do doesn't mean it's just or right to do so. And just because something is legal doesn't make it moral.
So I'd address it this way:
In 1800, I would have been free to own a black slave. Not just in the South--anywhere in the United States. I could have even owned a black slave in England at the time. It would have been within my rights.
But just because it was legal then, and just because we had the "right" then, doesn't mean that it was the moral thing to do. Nor does it mean that those who did do such a thing should escape condemnation for their actions.
So it's only relevant that "I am free to do X" in a legal sense. It has nothing to do with morality.
“How do we adress this freedom of a citizen argument?”
There are several different issues here:
i) There’s the question of original intent. What did the framers have in mind regarding freedom of speech?
To my knowledge, this clause was intended to protect political speech. Speech which might otherwise be prosecuted as seditious speech by the party in power.
ii) There’s also the question Federalism. Is this a restriction on gov’t per se, or on the scope of the Federal gov’t in particular?
iii) There’s a difference between decriminalizing something and making it a legal or Constitutional right. The law permits many things which, however, don’t rise to the level of legal or Constitutional rights.
The law permits me to own a Lamborghini. That doesn’t mean I have a Constitutional right to own a Lamborghini.
iv) There’s a difference between adult porn and kiddy porn. Even if we legally permit the consumption of adult porn on the grounds that this is a consensual transaction, that doesn’t mean we should tolerate kiddy porn—which is in a class by itself.
To take an obvious example, kiddy porn violates the legal age of consent. It’s a form of statutory rape. And it’s not just a legal technicality. There’s a natural reason for shielding prepubescent boys and girls from this sort of exploitation.
I appreciate the responses Peter & Steve they help me a lot. Mucho gracias.
I'm learning, but it's difficult for me to be articulate out in the public arena. But by our Lord's grace, and the help of gifted brothers, and my church, I am equipped better to do so. All for the honor of our Savior and our God.
So, Hays, Chan, and you other guys, where are all the Obama supporters from the "Christian Left" who voted for this clown?
ReplyDeleteSeriously, where does this end? Who has the guts to step in front of this Marxist zealot and say, "No, you stop right there!"
Someone, either in the Christian community, or the Conservative community, better come up with something soon, or this guy is going to sell us all down the river!
Oh, and one more thing -
ReplyDeleteThat abortion video was terrific, but it needs to be viewed by a bigger audience than us. What kind of money would it take to put that thing on prime time on all three major networks? I would be willing to pitch in for that.
We gotta stop preaching to the choir on these things. It's the masses that must be reached.
"..Ogden has long had an ideological agenda in favor of obscenity and pornography and that he has sought to use his position in government to twist the law to advance his agenda."
ReplyDeleteAnd does he do this in the name of freedom of speech I wonder?
That's usually where the battle lies. "I have the freedom to watch fornication in all it's filthiness, and to those who make these filthy disgusting films, and all the other porn stuff out there, freedom reigns.
Not that I'd watch it, or am for it.
Just like abortion. I not for it, but the woman has the right, the freedom to kill, or not kill.
How do we adress this freedom of a citizen argument?
Don,
ReplyDeleteJust because something is "free" to do doesn't mean it's just or right to do so. And just because something is legal doesn't make it moral.
So I'd address it this way:
In 1800, I would have been free to own a black slave. Not just in the South--anywhere in the United States. I could have even owned a black slave in England at the time. It would have been within my rights.
But just because it was legal then, and just because we had the "right" then, doesn't mean that it was the moral thing to do. Nor does it mean that those who did do such a thing should escape condemnation for their actions.
So it's only relevant that "I am free to do X" in a legal sense. It has nothing to do with morality.
DONSANDS SAID:
ReplyDelete“How do we adress this freedom of a citizen argument?”
There are several different issues here:
i) There’s the question of original intent. What did the framers have in mind regarding freedom of speech?
To my knowledge, this clause was intended to protect political speech. Speech which might otherwise be prosecuted as seditious speech by the party in power.
ii) There’s also the question Federalism. Is this a restriction on gov’t per se, or on the scope of the Federal gov’t in particular?
iii) There’s a difference between decriminalizing something and making it a legal or Constitutional right. The law permits many things which, however, don’t rise to the level of legal or Constitutional rights.
The law permits me to own a Lamborghini. That doesn’t mean I have a Constitutional right to own a Lamborghini.
iv) There’s a difference between adult porn and kiddy porn. Even if we legally permit the consumption of adult porn on the grounds that this is a consensual transaction, that doesn’t mean we should tolerate kiddy porn—which is in a class by itself.
To take an obvious example, kiddy porn violates the legal age of consent. It’s a form of statutory rape. And it’s not just a legal technicality. There’s a natural reason for shielding prepubescent boys and girls from this sort of exploitation.
I appreciate the responses Peter & Steve they help me a lot. Mucho gracias.
ReplyDeleteI'm learning, but it's difficult for me to be articulate out in the public arena. But by our Lord's grace, and the help of gifted brothers, and my church, I am equipped better to do so. All for the honor of our Savior and our God.