[roscoestring]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Please don't patronize. You attempted to form a link between sex ed and venerial disease. That's not a statement of opinion.

Again, my apologizies to you. My attempted link was between sex and venerial disease. And that's still my opinion. However, I'll just drop out of this conversation because I have no desire to squabble.

Peace

[Folk_guy]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I hate being devil's advocate in this case but, well. Is teaching a child that medicine is thwarting God's will in the best interests of the child? So then members of the Church of Christian Science loose their children.

And does our "best interest" assume God (in which case atheists loose their children for teachings that condemn them to hell) or assume no God (in which case certainly YECs loose theirs and possibly all theists).

Perhaps "moral" is not a word we should toss around in deciding laws.

But our laws are moral codes, morality isn't only the realm of Christian's. We already have laws against stealing, killing, raping, etc. All of these are moral issues. Webster's defines moral as: 1. Dealing with or being able to distinguish between right and wrong. 2. of, teaching, or in accordance with the principals of right and wrong. There are other definitions but none of them say anything about religion. When I used the work moral in my post, I wasn't referring to Christian morality but societal norms for what is considered right and wrong.

I personally see a big difference in Christian Scientists (although I don't agree with them) withholding medicine for religious reasons, and showing a young impressionable child pornography.

[JerryLove]

[QUOTE=Folk_guy;3479262]But our laws are moral codes, morality isn't only the realm of Christian's. We already have laws against stealing, killing, raping, etc. All of these are moral issues. Webster's defines moral as: 1. Dealing with or being able to distinguish between right and wrong. 2. of, teaching, or in accordance with the principals of right and wrong. [quote] Or, they are about preserving "certain inalienable rights". Every example you've given is one of depriving another of a right (right to feel secure in person and property).

The fact that there are no laws against eating non-kosher, tripping your beard, premarital sex, etc would argue against your position.

I personally see a big difference in Christian Scientists (although I don't agree with them) withholding medicine for religious reasons, and showing a young impressionable child pornography.

I do appriciate consitancy

[kimberlyb0112]

That's creepy... I don't even like watching porn in the first place but to watch it with your parents..??

That's the weirdest most awkward thing that I have ever heard of

[Folk_guy]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

The fact that there are no laws against eating non-kosher, tripping your beard, premarital sex, etc would argue against your position.

As I said I'm using the word morality in it's general sense of the difference between right and wrong. not in the context of Judeo/Christian morality. The laws of our nation are a moral code that defines what is right and wrong to do for the people of that nation. Depriving someone else of their rights under the law is an immoral thing to do because it is a wrong to do. The word moral is perfectly fine to use in a discussion about what should and should not be legal, because as defined by the dictionary it's the ability to tell between what is right and what is wrong, not what religious beliefs deem to be right and wrong.

I know many people who are not religious who if you asked them if they were a moral person would say yes, although they would vehemently deny being religious. The moral majority have perverted the meaning of the word moral to say that only Christian's are moral, and if you don't agree with them you're immoral.

My point is that showing children pornography is generally accepted by both religious and non-religious people as being morally wrong. and it deprives that child of his or her right to a healthy happy childhood free from abuse, and can and should be illegal based on that.

And I believe I am being consistent in seeing a difference between a Christian Scientist denying medical treatment to their children, and in a pedophile showing pornography to a minor. We as citizens of the US are guaranteed under law freedom of religion, but I don't know any religion that would condone showing pornography to minors. I disagree with the Christian scientists regarding their belief that medical treatment is against God's will, but I agree with their right to believe it. I don't believe that some sick pervert has the right to show filth to impressionable children for the probable purpose of getting them ready for physical sexual contact in the near future. The Christian scientist's motives are honorable, in they believe they are saving the souls of their children, I strongly question the motives of an adult who shows sexually explicit material to minors. You can play devil's advocate all you want, but I would hope that you don't really believe that it is in any way appropriate or in a child's best interest to show them this type of material.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Folk_guy

As I said I'm using the word morality in it's general sense of the difference between right and wrong. not in the context of Judeo/Christian morality. The laws of our nation are a moral code that defines what is right and wrong to do for the people of that nation.
Depriving someone else of their rights under the law is an immoral thing to do because it is a wrong to do. The word moral is perfectly fine to use in a discussion about what should and should not be legal, because as defined by the dictionary it's the ability to tell between what is right and what is wrong, not what religious beliefs deem to be right and wrong.

I would point out that women were not given those rights, nor slaves, no indians, nor traditionally were they protected in foreigners (ask the guys in Gitmo).

Since the law originally protected the rights of adult, white, land-owning, American men; and very few others.... I'm sorry: what were you saying about morality?

[Ridley's Own]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I would point out that women were not given those rights, nor slaves, no indians, nor traditionally were they protected in foreigners (ask the guys in Gitmo).

Since the law originally protected the rights of adult, white, land-owning, American men; and very few others.... I'm sorry: what were you saying about morality?

All of that is beside the point, Jerry. Even if you allow that the gov't doesn't have a particular right to involve itself in the regular activities of parenting... Showing pornography to a 14 year old is a prelude to molestation, and the state has the right to protect children from abusers and people who seek to exploit children for their own sexual gratification.

Its not because pornography is 'bad,' it's because sexual abuse is bad.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Ridley's Own

All of that is beside the point, Jerry. Even if you allow that the gov't doesn't have a particular right to involve itself in the regular activities of parenting... Showing pornography to a 14 year old is a prelude to molestation, and the state has the right to protect children from abusers and people who seek to exploit children for their own sexual gratification.

14? I thought they said "grade school".

Its not because pornography is 'bad,' it's because sexual abuse is bad.

It is bad, and this case (based on the article, which if she is 14 is minimally somewhat misleading) is also bad.

The absolutes which have been used to justify this as bad are what I don't agree with.

I don't agree that laws are about morality. I don't agree that sex ed is bad for children. I don't agree that any child seeing anything naughty is bad. and I think that people should be very careful of how they choose to justify the lines before they end up the target.

[tlj009]

14? I thought they said "grade school"

The girls are 8 and 9. And this article says that the dad forced them to watch porn.

Dad escapes charges in child porn case

I don't agree that laws are about morality. I don't agree that sex ed is bad for children. I don't agree that any child seeing anything naughty is bad. and I think that people should be very careful of how they choose to justify the lines before they end up the target.

Morality does play into laws somewhat, but this behavior has been deemed harmful to the child, which is why it is against the law for an adult to show a child porn. So if it is harmful for other adults, it should be for the parents. Also, a child seeing something bad is life but a child forced to see something bad by their parents is abuse. And while there is a slippery slope issue for nearly anything that the government does, I don't think passing a law against parents showing their children porn is a bad thing.

[Folk_guy]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

14? I thought they said "grade school".

I don't agree that laws are about morality. I don't agree that sex ed is bad for children. I don't agree that any child seeing anything naughty is bad. and I think that people should be very careful of how they choose to justify the lines before they end up the target.

I can agree to disagree with you about laws being about morality, that's a very small part of the issue being discussed here. I don't recall anyone in this thread saying that sex education is a bad thing either, but I do think that sex education should be age appropriate, and not pornographic in nature, or a prelude to physical sexual abuse. There is always the chance that those governing may abuse their power and tread on the rights of those being governed (I thought G. W. Bush with his patriot act fell into this category, and it cost his party many elections last year), there is a fine line that the government has to walk between protecting us, and invading our privacy. The government's actions have to be reviewed on a case by case basis, and we need to be on the watch for abuse, and use our right to vote to show government officials that they have crossed a line. I think in this case the government didn't go far enough to protect these underage girls from a probable predator. Any father that would get drunk and show his 8 and 9 year old daughters graphic pornography involving three ways and other deviant sexual behaviors is not telling them about the birds and the bees and it should have been investigated further.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Folk_guy

I can agree to disagree with you about laws being about morality, that's a very small part of the issue being discussed here. I don't recall anyone in this thread saying that sex education is a bad thing either, but I do think that sex education should be age appropriate, and not pornographic in nature, or a prelude to physical sexual abuse.

At least one poster did... but yes, I agree with you.

There is always the chance that those governing may abuse their power and tread on the rights of those being governed (I thought G. W. Bush with his patriot act fell into this category, and it cost his party many elections last year), there is a fine line that the government has to walk between protecting us, and invading our privacy. The government's actions have to be reviewed on a case by case basis, and we need to be on the watch for abuse, and use our right to vote to show government officials that they have crossed a line.

And I think one step to that is to be careful how we justify our passing of law.

What I've heard described is disgusting, and should be illegal (again, as described); but the logic that has come out to support that, from some corners, I don't agree with.

[scarlet.starlet]

It's nice to see that almost everyone spent more time discussing the possible legal ramifications for Christian parents rather than the importance of protecting children from abuse. Skewed priorities, much?

[Travis]

Originally Posted by Bryan

DMN Investigates blog: Texas law lets parents show porn to their kids 11:13 AM CT | News for Dallas, Texas | Dallas Morning News | Latest News

as much as I don't think children should be watching porn, I'm not sure it is the state's job to tell them how to raise their kids.

thoughts?

No one has any right to tell parents what their kids can or cannot watch. It's a freaking movie. GET OVER IT, Pharisees!

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by scarlet.starlet

It's nice to see that almost everyone spent more time discussing the possible legal ramifications for Christian parents rather than the importance of protecting children from abuse. Skewed priorities, much?

Really? I thought we were discussing what was or was not an appropriate standard for custodial interference by the government using both this instance and some hypotheticals involving Christians as ways to explore the real-world ramifications of those decisions.

[bobthecockroach]

I don't mean to be excessively pragmatic, but how many cases of a parent inappropriately showing porn to their children can there possibly be? I don't see any way it makes sense trying to come up with a standard on this when it is almost certainly going to have to be handled on a case by case basis anyway.