To: WesternCulture
after fears were raised that parishoners would stay home surfing for porn instead of attending services. Sounds odd, but I guess they know their parishioners.
2 posted on
08/16/2007 7:39:46 AM PDT by
sionnsar
(trad-anglican.faithweb.com |Iran Azadi| 5yst3m 0wn3d - it's N0t Y0ur5 (SONY) | UN: Useless Nations)
To: WesternCulture
Is their flock that bad? Why not put porn inside the church to boost attendance?
3 posted on
08/16/2007 7:48:26 AM PDT by
Jaysun
(It's outlandishly inappropriate to suggest that I'm wrong.)
To: WesternCulture
If you have the kind of parishioners that surf for porn...do you want them to come to church?
Sad to say, but in most large churches these days, it’s necessary to do a background check on children’s workers in the Sunday School, or nurseries, to prevent having a predator come in and volunteer for a job in the children’s ministries.
4 posted on
08/16/2007 7:54:27 AM PDT by
dawn53
To: WesternCulture
You would think the church would fully support the broadband tower. With broadband the parishoners could download their porn much faster than with dial-up and would therefore miss fewer services while waiting hours for a naughty video to download...
Or the church might believe that currently parishoners with dial-up are starting too download a porn video, then attending services and getting home about the time the video finishes downloading. Where, if they have broadband, the videos will download so fast they may skip services...
On the other hand, (no pun intended) with broadband they could download their porn, finish their uhhmm business, and still make it to service on time.
5 posted on
08/16/2007 7:56:50 AM PDT by
apillar
To: WesternCulture
... fears were raised that parishoners would stay home surfing for porn instead of attending services.
Somehow, I think that 'watching porn' on Sunday mornings would just be added to an already lengthy menu of reasons not to attend. This is Europe, after all. (The US doesn't appear to be too far behind.)
6 posted on
08/16/2007 8:12:13 AM PDT by
RobinOfKingston
(Man, that's stupid...even by congressional standards.)
To: WesternCulture
Yes, because you can’t do the same with dail-up. What genuises - these are the same kind of people who probably think your phone can catch a virus if it’s hooked to your tower.
7 posted on
08/16/2007 8:14:20 AM PDT by
arderkrag
(Libertarian Nutcase (Political Compass Coordinates: 9.00, -2.62 - www.politicalcompass.org))
To: WesternCulture
The church should never have opened this can of worms. Now when people go by the church and hear the congregation shout “Oh God I’m coming”, they’ll wonder.
9 posted on
08/16/2007 8:19:24 AM PDT by
tlb
To: WesternCulture
Porn is a dirty little secret with a lot of church goers - it's just a problem that few will admit to (for obvious reasons.)
While taking a stand against the means of accessing porn is understandable, it will not stop it. Congregations need to publicly acknowledge the problem, not only with the general public, but within as well and come up with ideas to wean people off this stuff instead of simply trying to block it.
10 posted on
08/16/2007 8:22:52 AM PDT by
reagan_fanatic
(Ron Paul put the cuckoo in my Cocoa Puffs)
To: WesternCulture
I think they are looking at this the wrong way. With the atenna right on the church, their churchmembers can surf for porn right there at the church where the signal is strongest.
That would bring attendance UP.
16 posted on
08/16/2007 1:53:11 PM PDT by
CougarGA7
(It's up to us to keep it all from unraveling)
To: WesternCulture
This is similar to the fears of homosexuality being accepted in society, that lowering restraints unleashes inborn perversion in the flock. Evidently, without someone telling us what to do, we’d all go feral.
17 posted on
08/16/2007 2:04:35 PM PDT by
gcruse
(Let's strike Iran while it's hot.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson