Free Republic

Whorehouses are legal in Nevada. The issue is not whether these businesses are tolerated under the law but whether or not they attract or increase criminal activities (such as littering of biohazardous materials and public indecency in an adjacent church parking lot). They certainly do at least attract crime, which is why most states have zoning regulations providing for protective, porn- and strip-club- free zones (e.g. 1,000 feet radius) around churches, schools, etc.

Perhaps the non-churchgoers would understand the issue more clearly if they saw the "church" as their daughter's high school, the parking lot as the school parking lot, those forced to see the naked bodies of lecherous men as the schoolchildren, and the school principal as the one who had come up with the postcard idea after state officials ignored repeated requests to clean up the vice.

You're right that these sentences are key. Reading the whole story carefully shows that the churchgoers minded their own business for years while suffering the consequences of others' vice. It was only after the proper state authorities refused to do their jobs to protect the church's property and members that the church leadership took their own creative measures to address the problems.

The postcards may fail as evangelical tools but they should make the porn patrons be more careful to avoid creating a nuisance on church property. And the media attention may lead to more police patroling of the neighborhood. Both of these outcomes are worthy.

It should be. But it's not under current insurance laws. In a fair world, those who choose to smoke or drink to excess and/or be sexually promiscuous would have their own insurance pools for which they would pay higher premiums. And those who choose to abstain would be able to purchase insurance with lower premiums. Right now that's not the case, with the exception of smoking.

Why? Because the same liberals who insisted on the right of consenting adults to sleep around with who/whatever they please whenever they please also passed laws in the name of fairness preventing insurance policies from excluding from coverage the typical results of such behavior (abortion; STDs, many of which incurable; other diseases from STDs, etc.) Thus instead of having separate insurance policies and premiums for those who prefer risky behavior, companies must include everyone (except smokers) in the same pool.

Just how much does this coerced inclusion cost the non-promiscuous? At least $200/month in increased health insurance costs alone. I can say this pretty confidently, because that's how much less certain religious medical cost-sharing services charge for comparable coverage. These cost-sharing plans can charge less because, not technically being insurance, they can and do exclude coverage of abortion, STDs, etc.

Of course, this quick estimate doesn't even include higher life insurance premiums. It also doesn't include the impact of the uninsured promiscuous on higher emergency room expenses which are passed on via higher general hospital bills to the non-promiscuous insured...

Thus, given current laws, what consenting adults do is properly everyone's business.

Actually, they appear to be trying to associate with pagans who are sexually perverted, which the verses you cite permit. That may not be wise if the congregation is home to any vulnerable young ladies (and may be sinful in that regard), but it hardly violates the text you cite, which requires Christians to shun Church members who are unrepentant of public vice.

What consenting adults do in private is their business alone if it doesn't hurt other people (e.g. not adultery and no public health problem from promiscuity as is the case with AIDS) but public activities are, by definition, not public. And visiting a porn shop in public is, well, public.

As for public look-up of license plates, I don't think it's permitted in most states. If it is in your state, then lobby the legislature to change the law.

Thoughtful Baptists are in a difficult position with respect to consumption of alcoholic beverages, because their church teaching so clearly contradicts the Bible, which says that "God gave wine" as a gift to men and records Jesus' first miracle as turning water into wine at a wedding celebration. The sin is drinking to excess, i.e. drunkenness, not drinking at all.

Not at all. If the individual lives alone, he should receive the postcard alone. If he does not live alone, there is a risk his private vice will become public and bring shame on his name. But no one has a special right to keep private vice private. And no one has a right to avoid the natural consequences of that exposure.

Current Supreme Court silliness may endorse a right to view porn but it hasn't gone so far yet as to endorse a requirement that everyone else must keep secret the identity of those who patronize porn in public view.

That, of course, would depend on the jurisdiction. I haven't heard of a jurisdiction in which the postcard would qualify. If you have so heard, please let us know which it is and quote the applicable legal text. Otherwise, please drop this argument.

This form of mail could very well spark domestic fights at the recipients home, and even seems intended to do so.

It could only spark such a fight in a home where one spouse (or live-in lover) has not told the other of his porn consumption. If the significant other has been duly informed, there should be no problem. The problem would arise only if there has been sneaking around. And, in such case, doesn't the other person have a right to know?

Obviously, there is a difference between posting such a pic on the Web, which could theoretically be seen by millions anywhere on earth, and mailing the pic to the residence of the person in the photo. The second -- which is what the church did -- is not an invasion of privacy.

You may be aware, but most Americans aren't, that this maxim is from Ben Franklin's Poor Richard's Almanac and not the Bible. It's a thoroughly unbiblical notion. Ever since Creation, God has always been the one who acts first. The most man can ever do is respond and, even then, do so only using the ability and strength previously provided by God.

Perhaps. But think about the unsuspecting spouse. If that person gets the mail first, he or she would then have the opportunity to escape the relationship sooner rather than later. Isn't that a likely and desirable outcome?

Not so. Married women (and especially married women with children) are Republican. Only the single women vote Dim.

Not good. Government school shouldn't be reformed; it should be replaced. It's bad policy to do anything to restore credibility to socialist education. Gov. Owens should instead promote tax credits for home and private schooling, so those who prefer to keep their children free of secular/socialist education don't have to pay for it anyway. "Full state funding" is just politically correct expression of stealing from the people.

Just how is the chap going to do that? By extra-Constitutional means? LOL.

Abortion was 'legalized' by extra-constitutional means (black-robed oligarchs inventing rights). Likewise sodomy. As all presidents take an oath to support and defend the constitution, they must use the full power of the executive branch to actively resist unconstitutional court rulings. Especially when those rulings legalize murder. Anything less is shameful cowardice.

How about George Allen? A good record as governor of Virginia AND now a good Senate record.

How is this wrong?

If there's nothing wrong with patronizing porn, why sound so defensive? Is this the voice of a guilty conscience?

It's only human nature - a man will prize a woman more who saves herself over one who is easy to get into bed.

Indeed. I have heard this put more bluntly as: "Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?" The question is quite vulgar, I realize, but all too many women don't have a clue as to "Why won't he commit?" and they need to know the answer.

So what more substantive thing have you done to reduce big government or socialism?

As a former marketing professional, I disagree with the first part of your post. Repetition is how Sean gets his point across. It's by far the most effective way to get one's point to stand out in the flood of media babble on the airways and on the Internet (especially when most of the media don't support one's perspective).

That's how marketing and communications work, for better for worse. Sean should receive credit rather than blame for recognizing that reality and working with it effectively.