Should Baptists Defend Porn Perverts & Adult Bookstores?

http://www.oakcrestchurch.org/index1.htm

Peeping on Porn Purchasers

With the current backdrop of child molestation at the hands of religious leaders, if you heard that a pastor was installing digital cameras with zoom lenses around his church, would you be a little worried? Well, here's the twist: The members of Pastor Jim Norwood's Oakcrest Family Church are breathing a sigh of relief at the installation of five cameras around the church parking lot, because his cameras are for snooping out sexually deviant behavior, not instigating it.

Norwood spent $1,500 on five cameras to photograph license plates of vehicles parked at adult businesses (sex shops, strip clubs, etc.) down the street with the intention of blowing the whistle on these pervs to their family and friends. Here, the time-honored tool of public embarrassment is being used to combat the development of pornography commerce in small town life. The church will be sending out postcards with the identifying photos on them, alongside a schedule of church services, to the car owner's address (obtained through the license plates). The goal? To get the smut shoppers to stop patronizing the adult shops.

Steven Swander, an attorney who represents one of the strip clubs, says that his free speech-protected clients take offense to the snooping, calling it a "Scarlet Letter tactic." On the other hand, ACLU attorney Roger Albright says Norwood isn't breaking any laws by taking the pictures and sending postcards.

So, is it a violation of privacy to take pictures of people and send them as postcards? Or do the same laws protecting free speech and association that protect sex shops and strip clubs make Norwood's actions permissible? And isn't spying on people a form of sexual deviancy in itself? It's called voyeurism, folks. Does this make Norwood a peeping Tom?

In the long term, these tactics will likely lose effectiveness. Assuming porn becomes available from more outlets, and purchasing of such material becomes less stigmatic overall, embarrassment will fade -- or Norwood will run out of stamps.

THE ARTICLE ABOVE IS FROM THIS WEBSITE </font>[/QUOTE]What doy ou mean if it really were illegal. The state of TEXAS, the state they are in says it is illegal. There is no way you can say if it really were illegal, when in fact it really is illegal, theres a law that says it is!!!!!!!!!!
Are you advocating chritians breaking the law for their own purposes, anytime they feel like it. It sure looks like it.
You still have no addressed them breaking the law. You have quoted a lot of other people who evidenty have not even bothered to look and see that yes TEXAS says it is illegal. I even posted the TEXAS web site that says it is illegal. What more can you want then Tx itself to say it is illegal. Thats TX, not me. Apparently you have not been bale to think about this and form a real opinion that is not someone elses opinion. Should me from the bible where it says we can break the law if we want to, where does it say we are above the law of our country? Got scripture?????
Which laws is it ok to break just becasue we want to? Got a list? Which ones? Huh???
I have asked you over and over and still you have not responeded,and have not used scripture.

 

That is part of keeping the home.

 

???? I'm confused.

 

The only problem that I see, is your need to boast it.

 

Amen!

 

Her work was part of keeping the home. She was a seamstress, but that doesn't mean she was a career women.

 

And that in no way makes you not a keeper of the home.

 

You made me think, no where was she admonished for working either. They never told her she was disobedient or a bad christian.
Well I wonder why? </font>[/QUOTE]Because she wasn't a bobbed haired, feminist, career women who had her husband in submission.

 

Her work was part of keeping the home. She was a seamstress, but that doesn't mean she was a career women. </font>[/QUOTE]Maybe you should go back and read it again, theres much more to it then seamstress.
And she wasn't actually a keeper of the home she had servants who kept her home, although she participated in keeping her family.

 

You made me think, no where was she admonished for working either. They never told her she was disobedient or a bad christian.
Well I wonder why? </font>[/QUOTE]Because she wasn't a bobbed haired, feminist, career women who had her husband in submission. </font>[/QUOTE]It would really be soemthing if you actually once took a biblical view.
Ludia was a working woman, no where was she admonished for working outside the home. The rest you add.

 

You are wasting your time if you think that Wiedertaufen will change or even understand what you are telling him. These hyper-fundamentalist types are not capable of learning anything that their pastor or someone else in their click, such as Hyles, Ruckman, etc does not teach them. The similarities to Jim Jones are frightening.

 

Godly Christian women today keep their homes and work. The problem comes when this work becomes a career. Career women are an attack on the family. It forces kids to be put in daycare and Public education. This is the main cause of Baptist losing their children to the world.

 

Clique* All my Christian values come from the word of God. It says in plain English that women should be keepers of the home, in the King James Bible, in the Pauline Epistles which were written directly to the New Testement Gentile believers.


such as Hyles, Ruckman, etc does not teach them. The similarities to Jim Jones are frightening. [/QUOTE]

 

Her work was part of keeping the home. She was a seamstress, but that doesn't mean she was a career women. </font>[/QUOTE]Maybe you should go back and read it again, theres much more to it then seamstress.
And she wasn't actually a keeper of the home she had servants who kept her home, although she participated in keeping her family. </font>[/QUOTE]The Proverbs 31 women was a seamstress, planted a garden, and sold merchandise. All of these are jobs that be done while keeping the home.

 

Your still missing it, there even more to the proverbs 31 women.

 

There problem seems to be that they do not know how to do bible study. It shows that scripture is not taken seriously. The real shame is there are people weak in faith who listen to them and think they and they alone are biblical, thus cheating themselves of a real knowledge of scripture.

 

Name just what you are talking about.

The Proverbs 31 women is virtuous. (one with morals) vs.10 She is not a lover of riches as a career women would be.(vs.11)Verses 13-15 tells us she cooks and sews. So far she is still a keeper of the home. She plants a vineyard. (vs.16)Vs. 17-19 goes back to sewing again. It looks like she might sell some of the things she sews. In vs.20 she helps the poor. In verse 21 we see she makes all the clothing for her household. A career woman wouldn't have the time. She makes herself coverings. (vs.22) Verse 24 confirms that she makes linen and sells it. Take not that early verses talk of her keeping her house. So she is not a career woman. Vs. 27 clearly tells us she is a keeper of the home. "She looketh to the ways of her household, and eateth not the bread of idleness." You are pulling these verses out of context. No where does it speak of a career women.

 

[/qb][/QUOTE]There problem seems to be that they do not know how to do bible study. It shows that scripture is not taken seriously. The real shame is there are people weak in faith who listen to them and think they and they alone are biblical, thus cheating themselves of a real knowledge of scripture. [/QB][/QUOTE]

Actually, that is the problem with the anti fundamentalist "Christians." They have been indoctrinated with the idea that you can't take scripture literal.

 

There problem seems to be that they do not know how to do bible study. It shows that scripture is not taken seriously. The real shame is there are people weak in faith who listen to them and think they and they alone are biblical, thus cheating themselves of a real knowledge of scripture. [/QB][/QUOTE]

Actually, that is the problem with the anti fundamentalist "Christians." They have been indoctrinated with the idea that you can't take scripture literal. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Actually I am fundamentalist. I beleive in the fundamental teachings of the bible. Some peoples vision of scripture is clouded by extreme fundamentalism which goes beyond scriture and adds men's opinions as if they were themselves scripture. In other words they become legalists. Theres a fine line that seperates the two, we have to make sure we stay on the biblical side. Legalism worships self opinion, not God.

 

Wiedertaufen

I was wondering why you post in a baptist only section of the BB if as you say you are 'baptistic'? And not baptist.