"America is suffering a pandemic of harm from pornography"

[timcsaw]

I was going to be silent in this 'debate" but I'm always curious about pornography vs. violence and children. How do some of y'all feel about children being exposed to violence in tv, movies, and video games? To me, it has never made any sense that it is "okay" for a child to be exposed to violent images in the aforementioned media but that nudity would be censored. Not even talking about porn, simple nudity is censored but one can see graphically accurate images of murder in various tv shows, movies and video games.....Of course, in many video games, not even nudity is censored.

It seems that violence etc. in movies/TV/theaters/video games is left in the hands of parents via the various "rating systems"... not that parents are all great at it.

[Fanglekai]

It seems that violence etc. in movies/TV/theaters/video games is left in the hands of parents via the various "rating systems"... not that parents are all great at it.

Why censor simple nudity if violence isn't censored at all and is left up to the parents? An exposed breast during the superbowl caused an uproar and coined the term "wardrobe malfunction", but tv shows depicting graphic violence are normal and totally ok. Santorum isn't going after violence on tv even though it probably causes more psychological harm than some exposed breasts ever could.

[Triton]

I don't believe Santorum or anyone else is going after anything in this regard. It would be a monumental failure and waste of time and I suspect he knows that. Again, this appears to be a distraction propogated mostly by liberals who have to do SOMETHING to get the focus off the obama's pathetic record, profligate spending and general incompetence. I expect that if Romney ends up with the nomination we will be hearing a lot more about his underwear and other nonsense.

[timcsaw]

Why censor simple nudity if violence isn't censored at all and is left up to the parents? An exposed breast during the superbowl caused an uproar and coined the term "wardrobe malfunction", but tv shows depicting graphic violence are normal and totally ok. Santorum isn't going after violence on tv even though it probably causes more psychological harm than some exposed breasts ever could.

But violence IS censored (via the ratings systems)... a person under a certain age isn't allowed to legally buy certain films/games/even music, or go into a theater without an adult... so you see, graphic violence (and other things the ratings cover) isn't "totally ok".

[Kiah]

I don't believe Santorum or anyone else is going after anything in this regard. It would be a monumental failure and waste of time and I suspect he knows that. Again, this appears to be a distraction propogated mostly by liberals who have to do SOMETHING to get the focus off the obama's pathetic record, profligate spending and general incompetence. I expect that if Romney ends up with the nomination we will be hearing a lot more about his underwear and other nonsense.

Oh please. If "the obama" (what grade are you in again?) said the same thing you'd be typing up a storm on how big a deal it is. It wasn't a random statement of "I don't like porn." The dude has a plan and will name his AG based on that according to his own words. While he may or may not be able to implement his plan, it shows that his main concern is molding the nation to his own restrictive ideals, not making it better.

And yes, you'll probably be hearing more about Romney's underwear when he gets the nom. Personally I think the guy with the nuke codes believing he's invulnerable because he has magic symbols on his drawers is kind of a big deal.

[jdm61]

Kiah, somebody on the left already floated the "magic underwear" balloon a few weeks back and got shot down majorly. As far as I am concerned, the Dems and Santorum can keep throwing these crazy irrelevant things out all they want. it only helps Romney in the end. The quickest way to shoot down any comments about Mitt's sacred long johns is to come back with something like "oh....so do you feel the same way about the Jewish guys who wear those coasters on their heads?" End of discussion.

Oh please. If "the obama" (what grade are you in again?) said the same thing you'd be typing up a storm on how big a deal it is. It wasn't a random statement of "I don't like porn." The dude has a plan and will name his AG based on that according to his own words. While he may or may not be able to implement his plan, it shows that his main concern is molding the nation to his own restrictive ideals, not making it better.

And yes, you'll probably be hearing more about Romney's underwear when he gets the nom. Personally I think the guy with the nuke codes believing he's invulnerable because he has magic symbols on his drawers is kind of a big deal.

[Kiah]

Kiah, somebody on the left already floated the "magic underwear" balloon a few weeks back and got shot down majorly. As far as I am concerned, the Dems and Santorum can keep throwing these crazy irrelevant things out all they want. it only helps Romney in the end. The quickest way to shoot down any comments about Mitt's sacred long johns is to come back with something like "oh....so do you feel the same way about the Jewish guys who wear those coasters on their heads?" End of discussion.

If an orthodox Jew were running for president do you really think his strong religious leanings wouldn't be brought up? Religious clothing tends to symbolize adherence beyond the majority and draws attention to that fact.

How about this? If a Wiccan were on the debate platform donning a robe and drawing a magic circle around himself should we ignore it? Should we just turn our heads and ignore symbols of religious entrenchment to no end as if they don't weigh on the ideas held by a candidate and it's meaning for their policies? I suppose no one would say a word if a candidate ran in a burka?

[OliverH]

Kiah, somebody on the left already floated the "magic underwear" balloon a few weeks back and got shot down majorly. As far as I am concerned, the Dems and Santorum can keep throwing these crazy irrelevant things out all they want. it only helps Romney in the end. The quickest way to shoot down any comments about Mitt's sacred long johns is to come back with something like "oh....so do you feel the same way about the Jewish guys who wear those coasters on their heads?" End of discussion.

And we all know how everybody is shot down when they make fun of the whole "72 virgins" thing, because after all, it isn't nice to say mean things about Islamic beliefs or practices. Right? Wrong.

Personally, I think the "magic underwear" (more properly known as "temple garments") is mostly a bum rap. It really is more like the yarmulke, a symbolic thing. At least I don't think there are too many Mormons, though probably some, who still think their skivvies endow them with any actual protection. However, there is a lot of stuff in Mormonism that's really susceptible to ridicule, so to the extent that people are ignorant about Mormon beliefs and doctrines--or sometimes former beliefs and doctrines, since God continues to hand down fresh revelations to the head of the church--Mormons are probably getting off pretty easy.

One of the problems facing Mormons has to do with when their religion was invented. It's just harder for people to give credence to a story about somebody in 19th-century New York state being directed by an angel to a box of golden tablets on a farm, inscribed in an language called "reformed Egyptian"--a language unknown to linguists and philologists--and then translating the tablets into English by dropping rocks into a hat, burying his face into the hat, and proceeding to dictate. Oh, and by the way, in case you're wondering what happened to the golden tablets, the angel took them back after the translation was done. Okay, so that's a story that's pretty easy for many people to ridicule--my uncle who lived in Utah for many years used to say "an intelligent 13-year-old wouldn't believe that stuff"--but when you think about it, it's certainly no less credible than, for instance, the story of God giving the Ten Commandments to Moses. But because the Old Testament story is about a faraway place in a far distant time, the magical and supernatural elements of the story feel more natural to us. In the same way, while the notion entertained by some Christians that Jesus will come back one day and establish his throne in Jerusalem to rule the world for a while seems pretty fanciful to us skeptics, it doesn't have the same comedic effect as the Mormon idea that Jesus will rebuild a New Jerusalem just outside Kansas City. Jerusalem is an exotic spot to most of us where miracles could still happen, while Kansas City is, well, Kansas City.

Another problem that Mormonism has is that because it was invented in a skeptical and analytical age, and because there are trails of artifacts, they've actually been busted on a couple of items. Somebody brought Smith some papyri that were found with a mummy, which the prophet dutifully translated in his usual clairvoyant fashion into some supplementary scriptures, and also claimed they were in the handwriting of Abraham himself. This was before the Rosetta Stone had been deciphered. The papyri found their way into the Metropolitan Museum, where in after years, when scholars had learned how to read the Egyptian script, they were subsequently translated and found to be pretty standard Egyptian funerary inscriptions and spells. This is the kind of scrutiny that miracle stories contained in ancient scriptures aren't subject to.

But even more, we tend to turn off (or at least turn down) our analytic and skeptical faculties when it comes to religions whose stories and miracles are familiar to us and part of our mental furniture from a very early age, and that are constantly reinforced by the culture through repetition, and/or whose adherents we know and deal with on a regular basis and recognize as more or less okay people. I have no faith, and though I don't believe whatsoever the notion that Jesus was born of a virgin and think it's a made-up ancient middle eastern story, the story itself seems normal to me, and I accept as normal (or at least common) that an awful lot of people believe it. Or, does my Catholic friend really think that the communion bread and wine turn into Jesus' flesh and blood? To Protestants that seems not just like superstition but also kinda creepy, but what the heck, Frank Callahan is a good normal guy in other regards, so what the hell, we just let it go. But when it comes to evaluating the details of unfamiliar or foreign beliefs, especially if we don't have much commerce with the believers in them, then it's a different thing entirely. 72 virgins in heaven? Give me a break, Osama. Magic underwear? Roll eyes at ceiling and snicker. Where are you hiding the other wives, Mitt?

Incidentally, I have a truly hilarious and rather off-color joke that centers on a yarmulke, if you're interested.

[OliverH]

If an orthodox Jew were running for president do you really think his strong religious leanings wouldn't be brought up? Religious clothing tends to symbolize adherence beyond the majority and draws attention to that fact.

How about this? If a Wiccan were on the debate platform donning a robe and drawing a magic circle around himself should we ignore it? Should we just turn our heads and ignore symbols of religious entrenchment to no end as if they don't weigh on the ideas held by a candidate and it's meaning for their policies? I suppose no one would say a word if a candidate ran in a burka?

Seriously. And would JDM have us believe that it would not be acceptable to crack jokes about the Wiccan religion if there were a candidate who was a Wiccan? Really?

[eyeeatingfish]

I have great difficulty finding material on the marriage/pornography connection that isn't religious based.

I have observed this to be true, that and perhaps feminist based as well. I do not find this troubling though for a number of reasons. If you do a search for marriage advice you will often find a religious base giving out advice. This is often not for financial reasons but a true desire to see people succeed in their marriages.

But if the premise is that in a healthy marriage there is less consumption of pornography, and in an unhealthy marriage there is more, which is the cause and which is the effect? Is it possible that men in a poor marriage tend to view more porn? Maybe they drink more also? Maybe they engage in behavior that they would not if they had a good relationship with their wives? It stands to reason that men in a good relationship with their wives would be less apt to cheat with other women (girl friends or prostitutes) does it not? Is there a reason why porn is more affecting than the availability of other women?

You know I would agree with this, and from my own readings and experience I think that it actually does go both ways, snowballing as it goes, not just with porn but other behaviors mentioned as well. Porn can be an outlet as well as a demon and there are many that can be both to men and women.
Now obviously an unmarried person does not suffer from a bad marriage that would lead to cheating but we still see negative things being correlated to pornography in single people so I think this shows that even though it could go the other way porn definitely has a role as cause as well. Some of the statistics I posted on the last page go to show this.

What bothers me is that people will deny porn's danger for whatever reason. Is it because there is just a lack of information going out to the public or is it that the public doesn't want to know? Cigarettes are dangerous, this is widely known and people still choose to smoke or have trouble breaking the addiction but you don't see people going around claiming that smoking is safe and improving the quality of their life.
Is it just the human emotional response when we are faced with the possibility that we are hurting someone with something we like to do?

I don't think we could ever get rid of porn, it will probably be here forever just as some will decide to smoke anyway knowing full well the dangers. I guess my hope in this issue is similar to that of the anti tobacco education aim, to inform the public that it is not harmless like they may believe and that they will freely choose to refrain from consuming it.

Is that what Rick wants?

I think the statement was more an emotional "liberal" type response to a topic than a serious thought out answer to the problem. I believe that if you confronted him on the constitutionality of his idea that his answer would change.

[Noctis3880]

Seriously. And would JDM have us believe that it would not be acceptable to crack jokes about the Wiccan religion if there were a candidate who was a Wiccan? Really?

Moot point since the odds of there being a Wiccan candidate is about as likely as the odds of having an atheist candidate. Really.

[shunsui]

... the odds of having an atheist candidate. Really.

I wouldn't mind being president. With the laws on the books these days I could get a lot accomplished before they impeached me. Then again, they might not get that far. <evil grin>

[timcsaw]

And we all know how everybody is shot down when they make fun of the whole "72 virgins" thing, because after all, it isn't nice to say mean things about Islamic beliefs or practices. Right? Wrong.

Personally, I think the "magic underwear" (more properly known as "temple garments") is mostly a bum rap. It really is more like the yarmulke, a symbolic thing. At least I don't think there are too many Mormons, though probably some, who still think their skivvies endow them with any actual protection. However, there is a lot of stuff in Mormonism that's really susceptible to ridicule, so to the extent that people are ignorant about Mormon beliefs and doctrines--or sometimes former beliefs and doctrines, since God continues to hand down fresh revelations to the head of the church--Mormons are probably getting off pretty easy.

One of the problems facing Mormons has to do with when their religion was invented. It's just harder for people to give credence to a story about somebody in 19th-century New York state being directed by an angel to a box of golden tablets on a farm, inscribed in an language called "reformed Egyptian"--a language unknown to linguists and philologists--and then translating the tablets into English by dropping rocks into a hat, burying his face into the hat, and proceeding to dictate. Oh, and by the way, in case you're wondering what happened to the golden tablets, the angel took them back after the translation was done. Okay, so that's a story that's pretty easy for many people to ridicule--my uncle who lived in Utah for many years used to say "an intelligent 13-year-old wouldn't believe that stuff"--but when you think about it, it's certainly no less credible than, for instance, the story of God giving the Ten Commandments to Moses. But because the Old Testament story is about a faraway place in a far distant time, the magical and supernatural elements of the story feel more natural to us. In the same way, while the notion entertained by some Christians that Jesus will come back one day and establish his throne in Jerusalem to rule the world for a while seems pretty fanciful to us skeptics, it doesn't have the same comedic effect as the Mormon idea that Jesus will rebuild a New Jerusalem just outside Kansas City. Jerusalem is an exotic spot to most of us where miracles could still happen, while Kansas City is, well, Kansas City.

Another problem that Mormonism has is that because it was invented in a skeptical and analytical age, and because there are trails of artifacts, they've actually been busted on a couple of items. Somebody brought Smith some papyri that were found with a mummy, which the prophet dutifully translated in his usual clairvoyant fashion into some supplementary scriptures, and also claimed they were in the handwriting of Abraham himself. This was before the Rosetta Stone had been deciphered. The papyri found their way into the Metropolitan Museum, where in after years, when scholars had learned how to read the Egyptian script, they were subsequently translated and found to be pretty standard Egyptian funerary inscriptions and spells. This is the kind of scrutiny that miracle stories contained in ancient scriptures aren't subject to.

But even more, we tend to turn off (or at least turn down) our analytic and skeptical faculties when it comes to religions whose stories and miracles are familiar to us and part of our mental furniture from a very early age, and that are constantly reinforced by the culture through repetition, and/or whose adherents we know and deal with on a regular basis and recognize as more or less okay people. I have no faith, and though I don't believe whatsoever the notion that Jesus was born of a virgin and think it's a made-up ancient middle eastern story, the story itself seems normal to me, and I accept as normal (or at least common) that an awful lot of people believe it. Or, does my Catholic friend really think that the communion bread and wine turn into Jesus' flesh and blood? To Protestants that seems not just like superstition but also kinda creepy, but what the heck, Frank Callahan is a good normal guy in other regards, so what the hell, we just let it go. But when it comes to evaluating the details of unfamiliar or foreign beliefs, especially if we don't have much commerce with the believers in them, then it's a different thing entirely. 72 virgins in heaven? Give me a break, Osama. Magic underwear? Roll eyes at ceiling and snicker. Where are you hiding the other wives, Mitt?

Incidentally, I have a truly hilarious and rather off-color joke that centers on a yarmulke, if you're interested.

And it's also "just a bit important" to bible believing Christians to remember two important verse which come at the end of the bible;

Rev. 22:18 - For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
Rev. 22:19 - And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book.

These two are kind of important to us.

[Codger_64]

And it's also "just a bit important" to bible believing Christians to remember two important verse which come at the end of the bible;

Rev. 22:18 - For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
Rev. 22:19 - And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book.

These two are kind of important to us.

My bold. To varying degrees according to each different Christian denomination. Catholics add many things. Protestants many different things. Both define scripture and scriptural commandments and prohibitions to suit themselves.

[timcsaw]

My bold. To varying degrees according to each different Christian denomination. Catholics add many things. Protestants many different things. Both define scripture and scriptural commandments and prohibitions to suit themselves.

Agreed. Not everyone gets the KJV "right".

[Codger_64]

Agreed. Not everyone gets the KJV "right".

How many versions are there? Some believe that study and ritual can only be accurately conducted in Latin, some say Greek, some say one of the dozens of early or late English translations. Some say their clergy can declare people to be saints, some say their clergy can send people to hell. Some say you have to eat, or can't eat certain food or food unless it is prepared a certain way. Some believe that their clergy can absolve people of sins and some say that absolution is a personal matter between the sinner and the Savior. Some pray to and/or worship other than the Trinity. Some hold that Mary is their intercessor, not Jesus. Some venerate statues and vestments, golden robes and ornaments. Some declare them blasphemy. Some allow and encourage singing and music. SOme refuse to allow music in their worship service. Some believe in free will offering of tithes and some demand a percentage of earnings as a "membership fee". Some include women in their clergy and services and some refuse to allow women to participate, even making them wear certain clothng and sit in segregated areas of their churches. There are far more differences than just the Bible translation used.

[Triton]

Oh please. If "the obama" (what grade are you in again?) said the same thing you'd be typing up a storm on how big a deal it is. It wasn't a random statement of "I don't like porn." The dude has a plan and will name his AG based on that according to his own words. While he may or may not be able to implement his plan, it shows that his main concern is molding the nation to his own restrictive ideals, not making it better.

How is that any different then what we've been dealing with the last 3.5 years? Except of course that the obama was actually able to implement his plans to restrict our freedoms.

And yes, you'll probably be hearing more about Romney's underwear when he gets the nom. Personally I think the guy with the nuke codes believing he's invulnerable because he has magic symbols on his drawers is kind of a big deal.

Do you have any actual evidence that Romney believes any such thing? Oh jeez, there I go getting sucked into this nonsense discussion as well.

[Triton]

And it's also "just a bit important" to bible believing Christians to remember two important verse which come at the end of the bible;

Rev. 22:18 - For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
Rev. 22:19 - And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book.

These two are kind of important to us.

The Bible has cobbled together by the Council of Nicea, where they decided which books to add and which ones to leave out?

[timcsaw]

How many versions are there? Some believe that study and ritual can only be accurately conducted in Latin, some say Greek, some say one of the dozens of early or late English translations. Some say their clergy can declare people to be saints, some say their clergy can send people to hell. Some say you have to eat, or can't eat certain food or food unless it is prepared a certain way. Some believe that their clergy can absolve people of sins and some say that absolution is a personal matter between the sinner and the Savior. Some pray to and/or worship other than the Trinity. Some hold that Mary is their intercessor, not Jesus. Some venerate statues and vestments, golden robes and ornaments. Some declare them blasphemy. Some allow and encourage singing and music. SOme refuse to allow music in their worship service. Some believe in free will offering of tithes and some demand a percentage of earnings as a "membership fee". Some include women in their clergy and services and some refuse to allow women to participate, even making them wear certain clothng and sit in segregated areas of their churches. There are far more differences than just the Bible translation used.

"Right" was meant to be a bit humorous (and a bit facetious) because nobody actually gets it 100% correct (we all just do what we can). Personally, I find certain things to be pretty universal among the many translations (like those verse from Rev.), but you'll rarely find any two people who understand things (anything) the same way... and I'm cool with that.

[timcsaw]

The Bible has cobbled together by the Council of Nicea, where they decided which books to add and which ones to leave out?

It's the whole "canon of scripture" thing... certain requirements had be met etc. for it to be included. And of course different sects have defined different canons. I find the KJV the best choice for me, but I also use other translations for comparison. I do follow the KJV if I find there to be major content differences in the other translations though. To each his own I suppose...