Historical affirmation not equal eventual condemnation. I suppose this is what you refer to. OK. I spoke about the possible reason.
You are getting at the theocracy argument again? That’s a circle of reasoning. I’m afraid I can’t respond with reasons you would accept. If I told you, you wouldn’t believe me.
In the UK, they are trialing something. Some of the big internet providers have agreed to block graphic porn and make it something you have to opt-in to. I think this sort of initiative is a step in the right direction. It forces people to confront their habits.
Desensitizes in reference to what? What do you mean by morals? You are surely mistaken if you think the core principle and function of the legal system in America is to legally enforce Catholic moral truth. This is becoming so painfully obvious that i don’t understand why this thread even exists.
Secular law is not based on good and evil in the Catholic sense of the terms, and it is not its function to tell the difference between good and evil as presented by any religion. Secular law is essentially pragmatic and utilitarian in how it regulates human behavior. And in any case, evangelization is the proper function of the church, not Christian legalism.
What makes you think that it is the function of secular law to combat immorality in the first place?
People with personal beliefs. And they often express these personal beliefs in order to win votes in much the same way that some scientists promote their atheism in science books in order to make it appear that science is on the side of atheism.
If you voted because you thought that the state has the power and the legal justification to enforce your religious beliefs, then you are confused and deceived. There is no such thing as Catholic politics outside of a Catholic theocracy. The wide spread legalization of pornography is inevitable just like gay marriage.
They have moral consequences on the Personal Soul, and that is what the Church is here to combat; not the legal system.
So you are saying that the state should ban pornography because it promotes lust?
There is more than one way to win a war. Christian legalism lacks faith.
So what, we should just legalize drugs seeing as laws don’t stop people from producing them? Seems a bit airy-fairy, one-sided and contradictory.
Jesus said that if the master of the house knew when the house was going to be plundered, he would have stopped the thief. Christian legalism is like a guard dog on the grounds of the house. If you see the dog’s purpose as tearing to shreds the intruder, then legalism does lack faith. If his purpose is to alarm the master of the house that the hour of the plunderer has come, it is crucial to the house’s survival. These days, in Western democracy, Cesar solicits the opinions of his citizens, locally called denizens, and guard dogs are the norm. Christianity is so diffuse in the USA that one can scarcely say that there is anywhere existent a place where one could say “not in my backyard”. Therefore, legalism is essential, and gives Cesar exactly what he asks for, participation in democracy.
Nice point about economic paradoxes like in prohibition. But attempts to stop the spread of porn to vulnerable minds in particular (and we are all vulnerable) is an act of love on the part of those 1) who know its destructive power and 2) who realize that those struggling with and who acknowledge its destructive power likewise need help, even if in the mere “form” of a light shined in their eyes that does not bear the images. Its important for the opposing view to be there with constancy and for the benefit of the person who would otherwise lose their soul and dignity to such wastrel-like-activity. The battle cannot be fought alone, and where it can help is most appreciated.
You raise some points but sweeping what under the rug: appetites for lust? Admittedly, people do need to deal with the issues why people do things like act in pornography films. As another poster pointed out ages ago earlier in this thread, these are social issues. But what else is there to be swept under the rug other than lust: illegal trafficking and slave trade issues, sanctity of life issues, diseases, coercion and oppression and manipulation to be in those sorts of films…and then we have the big one: money!…
So what is a political system based on - thin air?
As I said: it is a duty for religion to be in politics but not politics in religion. Because love is the key to any properly civilised and self-sustainable community and nation.
Love for one’s neighbour, and peace.
Although the devil does exist people also have these things called consciences, and unless these consciences are educated, people can end up behaving like selfish animals.
Politicians may or may not do this. I suspect this sometimes but then I have heard stories from the families of government members and they are people with real lives, beliefs and feelings too.
As I said before the West was founded on Christian principles. I am in the U.K. btw…not the U.S.
Sanctity of life issues are very different from theocratic dangers. Not good to mix the two. We have to have government systems which allow freedom of movement and of personal choice. This does not mean that we relativize everything so we allow murder of the unborn through to seemingly aggressive belief systems (at least speaking for some of the members of these). Don’t mix atheistic communism up with Christianity.
Who said this?
Again, incorrect. You are mistaken if you think that any politics that is just and freedom-giving stems from anything other than what are contained in Christian principles. If you don’t believe me, read the Bible.
For now. Because of a lack of self-control. Look at the nerdy idol-worship of technology as if people’s lives depended on gizmos. And that is the point. This all stems from a person’s heart which doesn’t believe it is loved. It points to a massive section of society who is not God-centred and who try to make out that because they believe life is meaningless and so might as well go hell-for-leather, then everyone else ‘should’ as well - a misconception (to use the word correctly) - and they make fun of anyone who has a deeper notion of what life might mean.
How can you combat the moral consequences of the soul without combatting the reasons?
No. This is not the reason I want it banned.
It is sad to see someone speak so hypocritically as to try and defend women’s rights by speaking against oppressive religious and cultural set-ups then on the other hand defend pornography that is the culmination of men’s egos deriving from centuries of mistreatment of women.
This is not a thread specifically about lust…
What, by pretending there is nothing wrong? Good luck with that war!
I explained what it is based on. Its not morality as you understand it.
Love in the Christian sense might be the key, but its not the essential principle of secular politics. The legal system is their to maintain order insofar as ones physical survival and material prosperity is concerned, not to condemn that which is offensive to God. If you find a law that is consistent with Christian ideals that is just because some pragmatic decisions are consistent with Christianity. It is not because the state supports Christian legalism.
That is not true. I am simply showing you that state law is not Christian in function regardless whether or not some laws are consistent with Christianity. Christianity is not the standard by which secular laws are made; that is if it is to remain consistent with the fact that it is a secular democracy in principle and not a Christian theocracy.
Well i know that too much drinking is bad for my health but what has that got to do with the responsibility of the state? The state can say that the physical evidence supports the idea that it is bad for my health and so i shouldn’t drink so much. Thats about it.
Strange how their Christian beliefs are not considered a democratic basis to create laws. Have you noticed that?
It may have been founded on Christian principles (not that i am an expert), but that is no-longer true and never will be again so long as secular democracy exists.
You have to prove that an embryo is a person in the Christian sense of the word. The state See’s no evidence of this and in fact does not have the capacity to. Thus the state is unable to protect the unborn from the moment of conception. Isn’t that obvious to you?
Its not good to confuse Christian moral law with secular ethics either.
Moral relativism is meaningless in the context of secular law because secular laws do not presuppose the existence of objective moral values…
You don’t seem to understand. Whether you like it or not secular law is not Christian in principle regardless of whether or not the existence of some law is inspired by Christian beliefs. It is not their to fulfill the Christian understanding of whats right or wrong. I am saying that Christian morality is irrelevant to a secular democracy when considering whether or not some particular human behavior should be legal or illegal.
A secular democracy simply does not have the legal capacity to create the kind of laws that you want in the first place.
This is a cultural problem, not necessarily a legal one, or at least not one that can be helped by the legal system.
Isn’t that what the Church is for? You act like the gospel has no power at all.
You are called to speak out against immoral behavior. The system is unjust relative to your personal beliefs; it is not necessarily unjust in the legal sense of the word or in respect of what it means to live in a secular democracy.
Nothing wrong with people speaking their minds. But there is a right way to do it and a wrong way.
Until you find a good pragmatic reason to ban porn, it won’t be.
I wasn’t trying to defend womens rights. I was showing you what happens when religion gets involved in politics
.If the porn industry is forcing women to do porn, then that state can act to protect those women. However, the state cannot force women not to do porn.
I never said it was.
I don’t understand. Are you excusing me of thinking that porn is a good thing.
Thats a nice conspiracy theory, but its ultimately false. Also, i am not an atheist, and i am against porn, abortion, and gay marriage. I am morally offended by these things. I am just not against the legalization of these things. They do not qualify as criminal offenses in a secular democracy.
Prohibition worked beautifully. Before prohibition, alcohol was accepted in all aspects of society. After prohibition, alcoholism became considered a disease, drunk driving was considered seriously wrong, and there were manifold interventions to rescue people from it. Moreover, without prohibition, we would have been less likely to make drugs like cocaine illegal in the first place.
Well said. Anything goes thinking feeds into man’s fallen nature and always leads to bad consequences. Calling graphic pornography good is one example.
Hot air. Of dubious origin.