Another oppurtunity to stand.

I'd have to disagree. If I think it is impacting society negatively, then it is appropriate for me to tell sponsors of such things that I am aware of it and will shape my buying decisions accordingly.

Karen

 

Mike, I would not disagree with this statement. I would never make any attempt to make the decision for anyone.

HOWEVER, we really need to send a message to Daimler-Chrysler on this one. From what I have seen/read/heard, Dodge already acknowledges that they are appealing to the lowest common denominator. Senior Management at Daimler-Chrysler needs to hear the message, but not necessarily one of outrage. Rather, we need to let them know that since Dodge has targeted the lowest common denominator, we will be going elsewhere when the need for a new car/minivan/SUV/truck arises.

Jailminister, I am with you on this one.

 

As much as I respect your right to do that - and I respect your right to speak out against perceived moral issues as much as I do their right to show it and the viewer's right to watch it - I still don't agree.

As for myself, if I were to preach individual liberty out of one side of my mouth and then, out of the other, attempt to regulate the moral choices that people make or a producer's right to market his product, I'd be a hypocrite. So, I'm afraid you guys are going to have to count me out on this one.

 

As Dr. Logan Carson here at SEBTS says,

"THAT'S THE POINT!"

 

I agree very much that we are to be salt and light to the world. I just don't believe that this is the correct way to go about it.

 

Dr. Bob, you never cease to amaze me. That post made me smile.

 

Mike, I love you like the Brother in Christ that you are!!!

Jailminister, I am really enjoying the fact that we are in complete agreement.

 

Okay, how about my individual liberty to complain to high heaven (both literally and figuratively)? How about allowing me my moral choice to oppose the spreading of that which is frequently associated with harmful actions. These are public airways that I help pay for and as a taxpayer and a citizen I get a voice in how these things are played out.

It IS my business what is being poured out over the airways. It IS the business of the government. The fact that they have forgotten their former use of stopping trash like this from spewing out all over those of us who don't want it, is beside the point. It IS the business of every citizen to take a stand for that which is right and to denounce that which is wrong.

Hyperbole, if I were stating that this will happen to anyone watching. Reality, if I were stating that this scenerio is played out way too often all across this country.

You mean the fascism of John Adams:

"Public virtue cannot exist in a nation without private virtue, and public virtue is the only foundation of republics. There must be a positive passion for the public good, the public interest, honour, power and glory, established in the minds of the people, or there can be no republican government, nor any real liberty: and this public passion must be superiour to all private passions." --John Adams

Or the fascism of Samuel Adams:

"He therefore is the truest friend to the liberty of his country who tries most to promote its virtue, and who, so far as his power and influence extend, will not suffer a man to be chosen into any office of power and trust who is not a wise and virtuous man.... The sum of all is, if we would most truly enjoy this gift of Heaven, let us become a virtuous people." --Samuel Adams

Freedom without responsibility is not freedom but licentiousness.

 

A-Men

 

As I said, I support your right to be a complain as much as I support their right to speak but having the right to do something doesn't mean that it's the best way to approach this and it doesn't mean that there won't be unintended negative consequences.

Actually, they're not. Remember, this is pay per view we're talking about.

So you believe that it's the business of the government to decide what people may or may not watch in their own homes? That's a disturbing thought, isn't it? In mean, if the government can tell me what to watch or not watch, how long will it be until they tell me what I can read? What I can say? How long will it be until they can influence my political actions? My religious liberty?

Actually, that's not why the FCC was created.

I agree and I believe that we should do this but when did this come to mean legislating the moral decisions of others?

Actually, what you implied was that any kid who sees this will grow up to be a rapist.

I agree but neither of the quotes you provided say anything about regulating how people choose to express themselves and both of these men would be horrified at that thought.

If the government imposes moral "responsibility", that's not responsibility, that's totalitarianism.

 

What these men would be horrified of is what this country has turned into.

 

What would be the "best way to approach this"? Doing nothing and letting it continue is certainly not working. Left to their own devices, mankind will always sink to the lowest level and it behoves the moral among us to see to it that they don't drag the rest of us with them. If you don't seek the highest virtue you certainly won't reach it.

Actually, they are still public airways that the "public" (FCC) has leased to pornographers because they don't have the wisdom to distinguish between free speech and immorality.

Yes, it is a disturbing thought. I am not saying that. I am saying that it is the business of the FCC what goes OUT TO the public. You know, Garbage In-Garbage-Out.

Perhaps not as their primary purpose but it certainly was a positive aspect of their function.

We have always legislated the moral decisions of others. Gambling, pornography, drinking, smoking, prostitution, lying, slander, libel, honesty, etc.

Actually, what I was doing (and I know best my intent) was making up a story to illustrate a real and very reasonable possibility of the effects of such immorality of a portion of the population.

Neither man would have been "horrified" that laws would be, could be, or should be, enacted to prevent the crudest of men from inflicting their basest of desires on the rest of us.

It isn't totalitarianism when "We the people" are telling them (the FCC) what we want done.

 

No, they're not public airways. No, taxpayers don't pay for them. No, the FCC doesn't lease them.

But so then, you do believe that the FCC should regulate what people watch in their own homes.

There's a difference between legislating against an act that is harmful to society and not allowing children access to inappropriate materials.

In addition, we have legislated against a great many thing which the Constitution did not give the government control over such as gambling and prostitution. Like it or not, as distasteful as we may find these activities, there is no Constitutional basis for making them illegal.

Yes, your intent was clear.

First of all, no one is inflicting anything on anyone. The viewer has to make a conscious decision that this is something that he wants. If he decides that he does, he has to order it. It's completely his choice and I support his right to make that choice, even though it's not something I would do.

Perhaps you should read their writings of the Founding Fathers sometime. I'm pretty familiar with them and I don't know that they ever advocated such intrusive acts.

That's not what I said, now, was it?