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

Skip to comments.

Predators & Pornography. A disturbing link.
NRO ^ | May 19, 2005, 8:15 a.m. | By Penny Nance

Posted on 05/19/2005 11:05:47 AM PDT by .cnI redruM

On February 2, 2003, when seven-year-old Danielle van Dam disappeared from her family home in the middle of the night, every mother’s nightmare was played out on national television for almost a month while authorities searched for the girl. When Danielle’s body was found at the end of that month, the police and prosecutors discovered a frightening story about a neighbor of Danielle’s who had computer files filled with child pornography and even a sickening cartoon video of the rape of a young girl.

According to a report by Robert Peters, president of Morality in Media, on the link between pornography and violent sex crimes, the prosecutor in the Danielle van Dam case said “The video represented [the defendant’s] sexual fantasies and inspired the abduction, rape, and murder of Danielle.” According to Raymond Pierce, a retired NYPD detective who worked on the sex-crimes squad for many years and is now a criminal-profiling consultant, about 80 percent of rapists and serial killers are heavy pornography users. I was a victim of an attempted rape by a disturbed man who turned out to be involved in pornography.

May is Victims of Pornography Month. Today Senator Sam Brownback (R., Kan.), Rep. Katherine Harris (R., Fla.), Rep. Joe Pitts (R., Pa.), and leaders from the values community will participate in a summit to explore the troubling connection between pornography and violence against women and children.

Florida attorney general Charlie Crist advises parents that “we must never lose sight of the fact that sexual predators make the online world a dangerous place for innocent children. Parents must be ever-vigilant to make sure their children are not exposed to images and messages that would have been unthinkable just a generation ago.” Crist warns that we cannot allow the Internet to be a “pipeline for pornography aimed at children.” But while parents can use available means to protect their children when they are in their own homes, there is a cultural climate surrounding our children that threatens them the way Danielle van Dam was threatened. Because of the availability of pornography online, there is no way of knowing what lurks in the hearts of our neighborhoods.

More needs to be done to evaluate the connection between violent predatory behavior and pornography, and to crack down on these violent predators. Police and law-enforcement officers across the country report brutal instances in which those addicted to pornography utilized its sadistic images on their female and child victims.

Just this past February, the New York Times reported a story about a teenage babysitter who had raped three young children he was watching in their homes. According to the Times, his pattern was to watch pornographic videos with the oldest of the children, a 12-year-old boy, and intimidate them all by torturing them with a knife and threats to their family members. Perhaps one of the most notorious serial killers, Ted Bundy, participated in an interview with Dr. James Dobson shortly before he was executed. In the interview, Bundy explained, “I’ve lived in prison for a long time now. And I’ve met a lot of men who were motivated to commit violence like me. And without exception, every one of them was deeply involved in pornography — without exception, without exception — deeply influenced and consumed by an addiction to pornography.”

Since 1956, the Supreme Court has made clear that the First Amendment does not protect obscene materials. If we know from the perpetrators themselves how obscenity contributes to violence against women and children, what can we do?

We need to fund more studies of the addiction to pornography and its effects on violent behavior. Parents can install filters on any computer used by children and keep the family computer in a central location, not in a child's bedroom or someplace where parents might not regularly see it. We need to demand tougher law enforcement on the state and federal level. The Bush administration is stepping up federal enforcement of obscenity laws. This is a good first step. Contact the U.S. attorney for your district and ask what they are doing to enforce the laws. We need tougher state penalties against both possession and distribution of child porn and passing any kind of pornographic material to kids. Experts indicate that pornography is often used by pedophiles to break down the resistance of child victims. Parents should check out their state’s penalties for child rape and make sure offenders are going to jail and staying there for these offenses. Florida, for example, just passed a tough new law after the tragedy involving Jessica Lunsford, whose killer was a recently released violent offender. We should pass legislation to address the threat to children on the Internet. This includes chat sites, websites, spam, and peer-to-peer networks. Peer-to-Peer networks are of particular concern because they are widely visited by kids and offer porn for free without any age verification.

As Rep. Katherine Harris has pointed out, "Pornography displays human beings as objects, obliterating the wall between an individual's sick fantasies and the compulsion to act upon them. Often, the monsters who hurt women and children start with this malignant desensitizer." We need to all work together to find better ways to protect women and children against this violence.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Front Page News; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: amencorner; artorsmut; daniellevandam; mim; needlebutts; porn; violence
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 451-500501-550551-600601-645 next last
To: jjmcgo
This "Pepsi wins" urban-myth is the logical result of advertising. People believe it even though it isn't true.

Its' not an urban-myth. Pepsi kicks the crap out of coke. I had a coke the other day and ended up pouring it down the drain.
501 posted on 05/20/2005 3:35:32 AM PDT by Blowtorch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 268 | View Replies]

To: oceanperch

You are a cool mom!
Yep, kids have to grow up and make their own decisions, right or wrong. I would rather see my kids run home with their tail between their legs after having done something stupid rather than never leaving the house tied to my apron strings.

And FYI, my kids turned out GREAT! I'm a proud mom of 2 adults contributing to the general good.


502 posted on 05/20/2005 4:28:56 AM PDT by ExPatInFrance (Terri's Starfish- 1 Mrs. Ora Mae Magouirk, 2 Clara Martinez)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 494 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

lj
Obviously no one would ever condone or protect anything to do with exploitation of children, even fictionally, it's wrong, no one here will disagre with you. It is the adult behaviour that is under discussion, how adults interact with themselves or others.


503 posted on 05/20/2005 4:31:05 AM PDT by ExPatInFrance (Terri's Starfish- 1 Mrs. Ora Mae Magouirk, 2 Clara Martinez)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 486 | View Replies]

To: oceanperch

I don't know if you're a woman or man. I'm a woman. I thought you were a mom for some reason and based on that just thought it was weird for a son to ask. I don't want to get in your business so I'll leave my post at that. I didn't mean to be offensive.


504 posted on 05/20/2005 4:34:22 AM PDT by cyborg (Serving fresh, hot Anti-opus since 18 April 2005)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 494 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
And arguing with hardliners in either camp is also completely pointless. As I should have known better

Hard to make a your case under the monkier "dead corpse".

Necrophelia would realy be a tough one to defend.

505 posted on 05/20/2005 4:46:15 AM PDT by DainBramage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: .cnI redruM
So if life imitates art, and a piece of suppossed art models a destructive form of behavior that we would never want to see indulged, should that piece of art be banned?

No.

Is the inclusion of the word "supposed" supposed to influence my answer? Is this one of those editorials disguised as a poll that Rush has been going on about lately?

506 posted on 05/20/2005 4:59:23 AM PDT by laredo44 (Liberty is not the problem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ProudToBeGOP
So you are saying we aren't a secular state based on reason?

Let's take it a step further. Are you claiming we are a theocracy based on the revealed knowledge of a Christian god?
507 posted on 05/20/2005 5:02:35 AM PDT by Durus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 463 | View Replies]

To: .cnI redruM
Thus no one else would either...hmm...

Some people can't handle the liberty of gun ownership either therefore.......

508 posted on 05/20/2005 5:05:59 AM PDT by biblewonk (Socialism isn't all bad.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: .cnI redruM
So if life imitates art, and a piece of suppossed art models a destructive form of behavior that we would never want to see indulged, should that piece of art be banned?

No. There have always been predators, child molesters and killers. They just didn't get the publicity in the past that they do now. I question the corollary. If you go with your premise, wouldn't you have to also propose a ban on all advertising?

509 posted on 05/20/2005 5:42:16 AM PDT by arasina (So there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: frogjerk
I am not a libertarian. I do not believe anything goes in a free society so do not force your views upon the rest of us.

You've got it 180 degrees backwards.

510 posted on 05/20/2005 5:52:31 AM PDT by laredo44 (Liberty is not the problem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
Did I miss any other sophistries?

How about the one where you love liberty?

511 posted on 05/20/2005 5:57:21 AM PDT by laredo44 (Liberty is not the problem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: frogjerk
Alcohol is not immoral in and of itself, the abuse of alcohol is.

Name an abuse of anything you'd consider moral. Isn't it the abuse itself that constitutes immorality?

512 posted on 05/20/2005 6:00:46 AM PDT by laredo44 (Liberty is not the problem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
If your watching of football and taking a golf vacation causes your wife extreme emotional distress, you might want to think about it...

Or maybe the wife is the one that needs to do some thinking...

513 posted on 05/20/2005 6:02:23 AM PDT by laredo44 (Liberty is not the problem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: laredo44
Isn't it the abuse itself that constitutes immorality?

Well done. For the anti-porners on this thread, it seems that "use" = "abuse".

514 posted on 05/20/2005 6:04:49 AM PDT by Hemingway's Ghost (Spirit of '75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 512 | View Replies]

To: laredo44
How about the one where you love liberty?

I do. "Liberty" isn't about the freedom to do evil. That's kind of absurd, doncha think?

515 posted on 05/20/2005 6:11:28 AM PDT by Aquinasfan (Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 511 | View Replies]

To: ElkGroveDan
If those who advocate "protection" of this kind of pornography ever looked one of these parents in the eye and seen the awful, tortured pain that never goes away, the issue would be settled.

Who is advocating protection of child pornography??!!

516 posted on 05/20/2005 6:22:18 AM PDT by laredo44 (Liberty is not the problem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: QuiMundus
I fail to see how anyone's free speech impinged in this way would do any real harm to anyone.

How about someone's pursuit of happiness? Can you see how that might be impinged by banning something they enjoy?

517 posted on 05/20/2005 6:26:01 AM PDT by laredo44 (Liberty is not the problem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide

Again, for you argumentative slow types.....

Relations between husband and wife are private because of modesty, not because they are dirty or immoral.

Again, just for you scum.


518 posted on 05/20/2005 6:26:25 AM PDT by TheGunny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 411 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan; cyborg
Just curious - would video of a married couples sexual activity be pornographic in your mind, if only they watched it? Or does it only become "porn" when it's distributed for public use? Is it the medium, the act, the participants, or the viewer that makes it porn?

Would it be a sin to use such tapes in sex therapy to improve a marital sexual relationship?

If a married couple should watch each other in the mirror and enjoy it, is that un-Christian?

519 posted on 05/20/2005 6:51:11 AM PDT by xsrdx (Diligentia, Vis, Celeritas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 515 | View Replies]

To: cyborg
Would you want YOUR female children in the porn industry? I sure wouldn't. I don't want anyone else's daughters in that business either.

So you'd be OK with your male children (or the male children of others) being in the porn business?

The parameters you place on your nannyism are interesting. You have very little confidence in the ability of the rest of us to run our lives, do you.

520 posted on 05/20/2005 6:52:38 AM PDT by laredo44 (Liberty is not the problem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: xsrdx

I would NOT allow myself to be videotaped at all. Also, if my husband asks I'd wonder where his mind is at. That's leaving open a big gateway. Plus tapes can be LOST and get in the hands of other people. Vulgarity so YES I think it's just another compromise and is part of the whole lure of pornography.


521 posted on 05/20/2005 6:53:37 AM PDT by cyborg (Serving fresh, hot Anti-opus since 18 April 2005)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 519 | View Replies]

To: laredo44

It will not be OK for ANY of my children at all. Take your libertinism eleswhere.


522 posted on 05/20/2005 6:54:48 AM PDT by cyborg (Serving fresh, hot Anti-opus since 18 April 2005)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 520 | View Replies]

To: cyborg
No Offense taken cy.

I am a female (birth mother).
I am also his interpretor.
Think of a hearing impaired person who has a translator.

I translate his augmentative language to others.

Trust me. I know more than any Mom would want to know but being his full time careprovider it is more of a job and I put the Mom hat away when working. I have also been trained by his medical specialists to do proceedures at home that use to require day surgury stays or trips to Corvallis for care (all day road trip). I won't go into those areas as it is off topic but I guarentee you it would make you cringe. I have to shut down the Mom part for those proceedure and do a job. The end result is he is living life to the fullest and without a doubt without the game plan we have used he would of had complications and passed away a long time ago. Read the Newspaper article about his life on our bio if you care to get the whole picture. He is an amazing person and I am very proud of him.
523 posted on 05/20/2005 6:55:24 AM PDT by oceanperch ( Monday May 23, 2005 King Vanity Celebrates #26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 504 | View Replies]

To: ExPatInFrance
Again a difference between looking and "lusting looking"

Bingo - a difference transparent to many on this thread.

524 posted on 05/20/2005 7:00:16 AM PDT by xsrdx (Diligentia, Vis, Celeritas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 464 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
"Liberty" isn't about the freedom to do evil.

What an absurd statement. Whoever defined liberty as the right to do whatever you please?

525 posted on 05/20/2005 7:02:53 AM PDT by laredo44 (Liberty is not the problem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 515 | View Replies]

To: laredo44
Who is advocating protection of child pornography??!!

Well for starters, post #1 asks the question:

So if life imitates art, and a piece of suppossed art models a destructive form of behavior that we would never want to see indulged, should that piece of art be banned?

Since the article opened with the example of David Westerfield and his collection of kiddie porn, I would say the writer of the rhetorical question above.

526 posted on 05/20/2005 7:04:30 AM PDT by ElkGroveDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 516 | View Replies]

To: cyborg
Take your libertinism eleswhere.

When you do the same with your tyranny.

527 posted on 05/20/2005 7:05:41 AM PDT by laredo44 (Liberty is not the problem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 522 | View Replies]

To: laredo44

Have your porn. Just remember what holds this civilization together and it sure as hell isn't your precious losertarian ideals.


528 posted on 05/20/2005 7:06:41 AM PDT by cyborg (Serving fresh, hot Anti-opus since 18 April 2005)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 527 | View Replies]

To: cyborg
Have your porn.

Not if it were up to you.

Just remember what holds this civilization together and it sure as hell isn't your precious losertarian ideals.

And it sure as hell isn't tyranny.

529 posted on 05/20/2005 7:10:03 AM PDT by laredo44 (Liberty is not the problem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 528 | View Replies]

To: laredo44
How about someone's pursuit of happiness? Can you see how that might be impinged by banning something they enjoy?

Happiness, or just a happy penis?

In the strictest sense, then yes, I suppose it ought to be upheld since it may constitute the pursuit of happiness - although who's kidding anybody - porn is not going to bring anyone true happines...

530 posted on 05/20/2005 7:10:08 AM PDT by QuiMundus (Learn, Act, Educate, Repeat - http://www.smithism.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 517 | View Replies]

To: TheGunny

Then you should have made a different argument.


531 posted on 05/20/2005 7:15:26 AM PDT by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (Give Them Liberty Or Give Them Death! - Islam Delenda Est! - Rumble thee forth...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 518 | View Replies]

To: ExPatInFrance

Kudos to you being a proud parent too!

I agree with you.
I also can say that my son can never come back and say he hates me for controlling his life.

His life is his own and I see my being his care provider as a job which I enjoy immensly.

My plan was to go into the medical field when I was a young person so in a twist I have been able to fufill my passion of practicing medicine in a full spectrum of areas with one patient who is in himself a case medical history.

One of his most fave Biblical passages is:
Love is faithful, Love is Kind and ends (I am having a mental geezer lapse) in Love is like a resounding Gong.

But yes I agree with you. Also when they are mature enough to be honest with you that they have muddied up you can support them but not coddle them back on their way and then leave that in the past never to bring up as a way to badger them. Of coarse with humor intended there are events that are always good for a laugh looking back.


532 posted on 05/20/2005 7:21:38 AM PDT by oceanperch ( Monday May 23, 2005 King Vanity Celebrates #26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 502 | View Replies]

To: xsrdx
Just curious

Don't patronize me.

- would video of a married couples sexual activity be pornographic in your mind, if only they watched it? Or does it only become "porn" when it's distributed for public use? Is it the medium, the act, the participants, or the viewer that makes it porn? Would it be a sin to use such tapes in sex therapy to improve a marital sexual relationship? If a married couple should watch each other in the mirror and enjoy it, is that un-Christian?

Lust is "the inordinate craving for, or indulgence of, the carnal pleasure which is experienced in the human organs of generation," and can occur even within marriage, when a spouse is considered simply as a means of gratifying one's sexual impulses. This contradicts the purpose of the marital act, which is two-fold: the unity of the couple and procreation.

This information is sufficient to answer your sophistries.

533 posted on 05/20/2005 7:23:24 AM PDT by Aquinasfan (Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 519 | View Replies]

To: laredo44
Whoever defined liberty as the right to do whatever you please?

The pro-porn, prostitution, and drug crowd.

534 posted on 05/20/2005 7:24:15 AM PDT by Aquinasfan (Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 525 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
Just trading one man's hand for another. Pretty sick if you ask me.

Yikes. THAT's an interesting viewpoint.

535 posted on 05/20/2005 7:49:29 AM PDT by xsrdx (Diligentia, Vis, Celeritas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 492 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus

I know the verse, and in my opinion, I think you are misreading--I don't think the Jesuits did me a bad turn; that would be very difficult indeed.

I never said that Jesus says that porn is healthy and its not a sin, but he says do not judge--that is clear. The verse that you mention, on the Sermon on the Mount (I can't imagine the Jesuits not teaching the Sermon on the Mount in your 8 years....) is again, like I said before, the guidelines for a Christian to live by. Yes, a married person who lusts after another woman has committed adultery, but here Jesus just defines the rules of adultery--he doesn't say we should condemn the person; indeed, his teachings both on the Sermon on the Mount and in John 8:1-11; Jesus specifically does not condemn the adulterer.

Remember what I was saying: in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus gives a guide to Christians for their behavior. He says some things are bad--lusting in your heart after women, certainly--but he also recognizes that we are all humans, and we err and we sin. Because of that, a good Christian should not condemn or judge others for their failings, because we all have failings of our own.

Which brings us to pornography. Assuming for a moment that it is a sin, God gave us all free will, and whether or not to view pornography--and sin--is a moral choice for all of us to make; as such, Jesus tells us that we should not judge others for the moral choices that they make. If nothing else, the Gospels make that clear. Assuming, however, that viewing pornography is not a sin--because it just simply isn't sinful or Christianity is wrong--well then, no harm, no foul, and society has no legitimate interesting in banning a practice, which, in and of itself, is not socially harmful.

As for St. Paul, he is not Jesus.


536 posted on 05/20/2005 7:49:43 AM PDT by Publius Valerius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 487 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
In your opinion, then, from the time the Constitution was written until the Cultural Revolution 1960s, we lived with laws that were patently unconstitutional.

Pretty much. There were many instances where the actions of American government did not live up to the Constitution.

537 posted on 05/20/2005 8:02:09 AM PDT by Modernman ("Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 491 | View Replies]

To: QuiMundus
In the strictest sense, then yes, I suppose it ought to be upheld since it may constitute the pursuit of happiness - although who's kidding anybody - porn is not going to bring anyone true happines...

If only everybody would be just like you, eh? Your way is the true path to true happiness...got it. Variation is the source of all misery. I have an idea, let's legislate that everyone behave just like you then see how many concur that they are truly happy.

538 posted on 05/20/2005 8:03:53 AM PDT by laredo44 (Liberty is not the problem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 530 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
"Freedom" isn't the ability to do anything you want when you want with whomever you want.

No, freedom is the ability to do whatever you want so long as you do not harm the person or property of another without their consent.

539 posted on 05/20/2005 8:10:57 AM PDT by Modernman ("Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 493 | View Replies]

To: Modernman

The basis of liberty is not that permission to do legitimate things is granted to the people by the government. Rather, the government is empowered by the people to do a limited number of legitimate things. All else the people are free to do. We do not need to justify our choices.


540 posted on 05/20/2005 8:13:44 AM PDT by Liberal Classic (No better friend, no worse enemy. Semper Fi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 539 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
Whoever defined liberty as the right to do whatever you please?

The pro-porn, prostitution, and drug crowd.

How so? Do prostitutes argue that because they have sex for money they are also permitted to murder their johns -- or do anything else? Or do hookers simply assert that murder should be permitted for everyone?

I be a lot more convinced of the sincerity of your position if I heard you arguing that because of what it does to people like Eric Rudolph, the Islamic Jihadists (and the Crusaders), religion should be banned.

541 posted on 05/20/2005 8:14:11 AM PDT by laredo44 (Liberty is not the problem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 534 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
"Liberty" isn't about the freedom to do evil.

Sure it is, so long as your evil does not harm another. That's the downside of liberty- sometimes people are going to engage in pursuits you might consider evil. However, unless that evil harms other people, you and the government have no power to ban such activity.

542 posted on 05/20/2005 8:15:30 AM PDT by Modernman ("Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 515 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic
We do not need to justify our choices.

I agree wholeheartedly. Unless someone's actions harm another, the government has no power to ban such actions.

Nobody needs to justify owning a gun. However, if you commit crimes with that gun, the government can punish you and limit your right to own firearms. Similarly, nobody needs to justify the ownership of pornography. However, if your use of the pornography leads to you violating the law, the government can punish you and limit your access to pornography.

543 posted on 05/20/2005 8:21:23 AM PDT by Modernman ("Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 540 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
This information is sufficient to answer your sophistries.

Oh, hey, thanks for the enlightenment, your eminence.

Lust is not at issue, which should be obvious, had you taken the time to read my post, rather than dismiss it as sophistry.

It must be possible to have marital sex without lust, otherwise any sex would be "inordinate craving" by your definition. So, is videotaped, lust-free sex, still porn?

Looking forward to your patronizing response.

544 posted on 05/20/2005 8:22:30 AM PDT by xsrdx (Diligentia, Vis, Celeritas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 533 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
Whoever defined liberty as the right to do whatever you please?

The pro-porn, prostitution, and drug crowd.

How so? Do prostitutes argue that because they have sex for money they are also permitted to murder their johns -- or do anything else? Or do hookers simply assert that murder should be permitted for everyone?

I be a lot more convinced of the sincerity of your position if I heard you arguing that because of what it does to people like Eric Rudolph, the Islamic Jihadists (and the Crusaders), religion should be banned.

545 posted on 05/20/2005 9:10:43 AM PDT by laredo44 (Liberty is not the problem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 534 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
Lust is "the inordinate craving for, or indulgence of, the carnal pleasure which is experienced in the human organs of generation," and can occur even within marriage, when a spouse is considered simply as a means of gratifying one's sexual impulses. This contradicts the purpose of the marital act, which is two-fold: the unity of the couple and procreation.

Sanctimonious posturing aside, you've done a noteworthy job painting yourself into the "sex is dirty" corner.

546 posted on 05/20/2005 10:01:56 AM PDT by xsrdx (Diligentia, Vis, Celeritas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 533 | View Replies]

To: Melas
As for the bit about living under tyrany for the first 180, years, I wouldn't have chosen those words. But...I would say enthusiastically that we've improved as we went along. The first 80 or so of those years were marked by slavery, which is surely a form of tyrany. The next 60 or so were marked by the exclusion of women from political life....so please, spare me the "we were perfect from the beginning" speech. We weren't.

The preceeding was brought to you by a grant from Liberal Intellect Education Systems, (LIES) Inc. We've been brainwashing Americans for nearly 40 years now into thinking that the "rights" to view porn, get abortions, marry another man or men, etc. are simply extensions of emancipation, women's sufferage, and civil rights.

I'm amazed at how many of you have swallowed the 1960s ethos hook-line-and-sinker.
547 posted on 05/20/2005 10:42:55 AM PDT by Antoninus (Benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini, Hosanna in excelsis!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 496 | View Replies]

To: laredo44
How so? Do prostitutes argue that because they have sex for money they are also permitted to murder their johns -- or do anything else? Or do hookers simply assert that murder should be permitted for everyone?

No, but they engage in prostitution, which is evil.

I be a lot more convinced of the sincerity of your position if I heard you arguing that because of what it does to people like Eric Rudolph, the Islamic Jihadists (and the Crusaders), religion should be banned.

I'm not a religious freedom absolutist. The purpose of government is to promote the common good. At times, this may entail the suppression of particular religions or religious practices.

For example, it would be wise for our nation, and most European nations, to restrict or prohibit Mohammedan immigration, for the overall good of society. Libertarians can't justify taking such a position, and would slit their own throats by allowing a Mohammedan takeover by immigration.

548 posted on 05/20/2005 10:47:15 AM PDT by Aquinasfan (Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 541 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
Libertarians can't justify taking such a position, and would slit their own throats by allowing a Mohammedan takeover by immigration.

Small "l" libertarians would have no problem with that.

549 posted on 05/20/2005 10:49:01 AM PDT by JeffAtlanta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 548 | View Replies]

To: Modernman
Sure it is, so long as your evil does not harm another.

There's no such thing as personal sin. But regardless, I say otherwise. And here we stand, because it's all just people with different opinions.

550 posted on 05/20/2005 10:49:18 AM PDT by Aquinasfan (Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 542 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 451-500501-550551-600601-645 next last

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

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

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson