THE CHALLENGE OF PARENTING IN AN X-RATED WORLD

It's a shame that we live in an X-rated world anymore --such that parents have to stand over the TV and find ways to filter that and the internet --and have to watch when we go to Disney that it's not "gay days" and have to be careful about when and where we go lest we run into a gay pride parade with people behaving obscenely --all because unwholesome things are being demonstrated and promoted that should not be viewed by children.

Should the porn purveyor or the gay activist, either one, have the right to flood the world with the obscene --such that children are exposed to it because there are no restrictions --and no self-restraint by people who care only about their own desires and tastes --rather than what is good for children?

Activists say, "Who's to say what is good for children?" Hopefully, enough good parents will rise up to say and prevent the complete public licentiousness that the so-called free speech champions are willing to see, justifying their right to wrongs on the basis that none can decide what is moral for society or for children.

Instead, we ought to make sure that "adult entertainment" is not accessible on TV, radios, phones, internet, strip joints and streets. Use heavy fines, blocking,etc. to shove the obscene back into the closet where the innocent cannot be caught unaware and corrupted, lured into a sex addiction. In fact, what a way to get gov't. revenue!

There has always been sleaze --but it was limited and restricted to certain areas of town where decent citizens could avoid it--where the really determined and jaded would have to seek it out. Folks attempting to live moral lives ought not be confronted with the X-rated fare in their neighborhoods and homes or on outings with the kids --and not in schools either --as in college "porn and sexuality studies."

The best remedy, of course, would be for people to stop buying or watching the indecent --but more and more of our citizens are proving to be "weaker brethren," easily stumbled by prurient interests. Woe unto the nation that won't restrain people's evil impulses. I'm not wishing woe upon us; I'm fearing it. I think many of our national problems, the escalating violence and immorality, the family breakdown, are results of our loss of biblical faith. As for the natural disasters, these may be allowed by God to get our attention back where it belongs --on our dependence on Him. We have been blessed for so long in the USA that we thought it was all our own doing.

"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible

NEW LOW AT SO. PARK --New Zealand Catholic Bishops, you go!

from Howard Friedman at Religion Clause (see my link list)

"Today's Dominion Post reports that the New Zealand Catholic Bishops Conference has filed an appeal in the High Court at Wellington seeking reversal of a June 2006 decision (full text) by the New Zealand Broadcasting Standards Authority. The Authority rejected a challenge to CanWest TVWorks' televising last year of an offensive episode of the adult cartoon show, South Park. The show, mainly about an alcoholic's struggle to stay sober, contained one scene-- the so-called "Bloody Mary" episode-- showing the Pope being squirted with menstrual blood from a statue of the Virgin Mary."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Appalling use of freedom. Licentiousness! South Park has always contributed to the "coarsening" of culture. This episode is sickening --as is much of So. Park and "there oughtta be a law!"

Just like Gay Rights parades should be penalized for the grossness and offense to religion that they parade out --their mockery of nuns, e.g.

It's a foolish people who can't restrain by law these worst excesses of juvenile obscenity, including porn.

It's really ironic to call such immature humor "adult entertainment."

I would not want my kids to grow up around people who think South Park is funny. It may have funny elements, but the program obviously crosses the line of decency, and thus is unfit for anybody of decent morals to support.

I confess, however, that I have been known to laugh uproariously at The Simpsons –and appreciate Homer’s loyalty to Marge –and how she conquored her struggle with gambling. How Christian neighbor Ned Flanders was willing to stand outside the storm shelter to save Homer’s worthless hide. But why does that otherwise, often (but not always) good cartoon, have to use God’s name in vain? Some years back, we read that many artists working on this show were Christians--but obviously, there are writers of various world views contributing.

I hope the Catholic bishops prevail.

CATHOLIC UNIVERSITIES, HOWEVER --are among those who are sponsoring The Vagina Monologues for their students and others --along with a long list of state schools --and some other supposedly? religious schools like Bluffton College, Ohio University, Manchester College and Illinois Weslyan.




"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible

the Culture War Rages ON

As you know, slavery was eliminated in the U.S. at the initiative of the GOP and many Christians --and it was the Christian Wilberforce who got it outlawed in England first.

Granted, the Democrats did more to promote the Civil Rights Act --and some Christians were active in that also --but that was before legalized abortion, wasn't it?--I'm talking about changes in the last 35 years if you'll notice what I wrote. That's not one of the changes I'm complaining about that liberals want to make now --and made since 1973.

Re: civil rights act, I wouldn't have supported segregated restaurants, buses, restrooms, etc. --such as the south had. However, history was not well served by riots and looting as public demonstrations of protest. Peaceful demonstrations were fine --until the pro-life people did it. Then the liberals hollered about access to the clinics. It was OK if it was the civil rights folks restricting access. But people trying to save babies were outlaws and hauled off to jail.

I also didn't like integration by busing -and that has never been enforced much, has it? I'd favor integration by vouchers and parental choice --for attending the religious schools (or any other) that do so well in educating their students.

As for the Unions, don't blame me for their demise; I had nothing to do with that. However, my parents didn't like union thuggery, forced strikes, brutality to those who would cross the picket line, vandalism to their cars, and protection of ineptitude and excessive absenteeism of some union workers. I remember when a union leader keyscratched the school sup't.'s car. I also didn't like how unions would get built-in raises in their contracts PLUS the increase from union negotiations --and then turn right around and start working on the next increase. The whole process was too adversarial --nasty. That's not to say, however, that I agree with the inflated multi-million dollar benefits of administrations of various companies as they lay off workers.

Also, I agreed when the GOP said it wasn't right to take compulsory union dues and give it to candidates who were not the workers' choice. I knew workers who resented that.

So, LD, if it isn't gay rights and abortion rights you think are constitutional and threatened --(you complain that I bring these up) --and Microdot says I accuse you all of promoting those two issues --so if that's not the case, what ARE the rights you are worried about losing if we have social conservatives as a majority in this country --or in office --or on the bench? Don't say we OWE the liberals support because of some good thing they supported in the past. Really, what ARE you worried about --if not that we will go back to the previous standards of our culture regarding abortion and gay rights --if not that we might restore the right to pray in schools where the parents want it? Or have vouchers for ALL educational choices?

The Constitution does not explicitly prohibit a lot of things that the majority of people have ruled unlawful in this country. That doesn't mean that such laws made by majority rule are inevitably unconstitutional. Like restrictions on abortion and gay marriage.

I know the ones you are worried about are those 2 because they are the main hot button differences between the two parties --although the Republicans have also been more trusted with national defense in recent history --because of the left's ACLU edge, always protecting the criminal's rights and the suspect's privacy --often tying the hands of law enforcement and intelligence operations --opposing any racial, ethnic profiling, e.g. --when we know, e.g., it is Muslim young men who are most likely to be terrorists.

That "we" I use which microdot refers to, refers to the people that LD maligns along with me. The Bible believers --WE. Jesus gave us some assignments --to be salt and light and stand up for biblical principles.

Well, microdot, we agree on something --we BOTH want honest judges who will interpret cases by the Constitution. To me that means they will not make new law against the majority will of the people --like the legalization of abortion by striking down existing laws that have been on the books for years and written into the culture for centuries.

I KNOW from what you all post here that you are afraid that religious belief will influence legislation as it did prior to 73 --yet it is ALWAYS a BELIEF system --be it secular or religious --that influences how people vote.

We are in a cultural civil war.

8:52 PM EST