US court rejects FCC broadcast decency limit

[Marnie]

I'll say it one last time: people's hearts are changed by the Lord working IN them, not by imposing our morality ON them.

I don't see that we are trying to impose our moraltiy on them. Rather we seek to maintain an environment that prohibits them from imposing their immorality on us. Laws are meant to prevent criminals from imposing their immoral actions on others. We are not imposing morality on child molester, we are trying to keep pervertss from imposing their immorality on little children.

The same principle can be applied within the context of this discussion as well. They say we cannot leglislate morality, but the truth is that we don't legislate anything BUT morality.

Is someone forcing you to watch TV?

So the anwswer is that I do not get to enjoy the same things everyone else enjoys? Where does that end? I mean, your question highlights the point I was making to forrestkc. If smut is to be allowed on public TV on any channel, in the name of tolerance, why not any public venue? Why should I be forced to continually lose privliges just because of someone else's depravity? Why should I pay the price, especially in a country like the US?

I would also point out that your question doesn't really address the issue I raised.

Yeah, my water was boiling when I typed it, so I was a bit rushed.

First, what do you mean by "public TV?" Nobody owns the airwaves except for the sponsors; they are paying to broadcast whatever it is they are broadcasting. They have a perfect right to do that, do they not? Just as you have the right to not watch if you don't want to. I mean really, out of 300 channels, you're telling me you can't find ONE channel broadcasting something you'll watch?

See, the problem is, if we muzzle them because of profanity, which is highly subjective, by the way, then they have the exact same right to muzzle us if they deem our words (the Gospel maybe?) offense. We live in society, therefore we need to give and take; to get along with the greatest number of people possible. Now you're thinking, "But we give all the time!" If this is what you perceive is happening, then I suggest getting a group of investors together, applying to the FCC for a broadcast license and starting your own network. I am not trying to be smart here, I am serious. There is always room for more choice in America.

I would like to know how you lose privileges because of somebody's else's depravity. Are you meaning things like being overlooked for promotion? You don't have to be specific; are you blaming TV's influence on this?

[Marnie]

Okay, it was the water on the stove I was referring to.

[Matthitjah]

Grace to you,

Sister Marnie,

You are talking about the markeplace of ideas. That's great God can compete there. However It has been our marketplace for a long time. Only in recent times have we abdicated it because people keep saying, "Well times are different now and people are more progressive." I beg to differ, people are still sinners in need of Saving Grace, they aren't anymore sophisticated than they were when Paul stood on Mars Hill and proclaimed that the unknown God that they worshipping was in fact the Christ that he was Preaching.

Legislating morality and moral behavior does not equate to forcing ones views upon another. God commands us to protect the innocent, yet we scream womens rights all the while we abort the baby.

Legislating moral behavior does not equuate to legislating Christianity. That is where we will continue to differ.

What Shiloh is stating (I think) and I agree with him is that it should be a level playing field. Right now it isn't. Moral behavior is being shoved off into some dark corner for a panoply of sin all in the name of tolerance. Yet there is no tolerance for the moral viewpoint. It is shouted down, legislated out, and cut off from discussion.

We are talking about two different things as well. Those on this side are saying (I believe) that we always have legislated moral behavior for the good of society. Like the example with the perverts. Yet there are those who reside in the likes of NAMBLA and the ACLU. Who would argue that personal liberty and their right to it far exceed the mutual liberty of the whole. They argue from a standpoint of moral relativism. Yet their relativism does have a stop point when it comes to Judeo/Christian values. It would seem and holds to be true that all morals are not relevant.

There is a place where Liberty ceases and that is anarchy because no one wants to enforce the laws anymore lest it take away from someones personal Liberty. That's the danger with the Libertarian viewpoint. I have talked to some of those folks at the County Fair. They will not legislate anything, any behavior is okay as long as it does not affect them. However that is a falsehood as the society denigrates around them they will be affected.

This was spoken of in the Bible as an example of what hapopens when folks abandon their God and any moral Law;

Jg

[Guest shiloh357]

First, what do you mean by "public TV?"

Okay, that may have not been the best way to express what I meant. When I say "public" TV I mean the stuff that people don't pay for like NBC, CBS, etc. I am not referring to pay channels. Not everyone has cable. Not everyone can afford it. Some people can only afford what they can get on a regular antenna.

They have a perfect right to do that, do they not? Just as you have the right to not watch if you don't want to. I mean really, out of 300 channels, you're telling me you can't find ONE channel broadcasting something you'll watch?

Not everyone has that option. Its not about me, per se. I know lots of people who don't get to have every luxury they would like.

See, the problem is, if we muzzle them because of profanity, which is highly subjective, by the way, then they have the exact same right to muzzle us if they deem our words (the Gospel maybe?) offense.

Who is speaking of "muzzling" anyone???? Why is expecting them to be subject to the same principles of "tolerance" they want from us, considered "muzzling??"

I would like to know how you lose privileges because of somebody's else's depravity. Are you meaning things like being overlooked for promotion? You don't have to be specific; are you blaming TV's influence on this?

I was speaking to the lop-sidedness being applied to the issue of tolerance. So far, tolerance is being defined as, "Sit down and shut up while I say and do whatever the **** I want."

[Marnie]

Excellent post, Dave.

I am in agreement with most of what you wrote, by the way. Let me start with your last point first, because I think it's the best and most powerful thing you wrote. I am saying that you cannot legislate Christianity but if you will operate by it's tenants you will be blessed even as the Deists and Christians who founded this Nation found out. If you fail in operating this Nation the way that it has bee since it's inception. You will see manifest what is currently happening. Dave, that is so right on! The rain falls on the just and unjust, right? This nation has been extraordinarily blessed in the past purely because of its godly heritage.

You also said this, and equated it back to the dark time of the Judges in Hebrew history: To elaborate and stretch this a little they did not even magnify God as their King anymore, let alone a man. Thus leaving each man to what was right in his own eyes. I don't see where America and ancient Israel are the same here. We are still a nation of laws and even at our worst (so far) we are not nearly as bad as Israel was. Talk about depraved. We at least still have a large segment of the 300+ million who are born again and filled with the Spirit who do have influence. Plus they were under a form of judgment and we are not.

You know and I know that moral relativism is utter nonsense and should be rejected out of hand. What libertarians (small "L" libertarians) espouse is NOT moral relativism. As Mike has previously said, tolerating behavior we might find atrocious is not the same thing as condoning it, and I would add it is not the same thing as saying "they're just as good as we are." There is a moral high road and believers are on it. Believers ARE morally superior. But just as G-d gave Adam and Eve the choice to travel on the moral high road, we must also give our fellow citizens the same choice. Now, I am talking about free speech here, and of course that has its limitations, thankfully. Nobody can yell "Fire" in a crowded movie theater for example. We already have laws on the books governing our Natural freedoms.

Now, bear in mind I am referring ONLY to the OP and the FCC's decision of language. We can talk about porn or other issues at another time.

You also observed: There is a place where Liberty ceases and that is anarchy because no one wants to enforce the laws anymore lest it take away from someones personal Liberty. That's the danger with the Libertarian viewpoint. I have talked to some of those folks at the County Fair. They will not legislate anything, any behavior is okay as long as it does not affect them. However that is a falsehood as the society denigrates around them they will be affected. Sounds like an interesting County Fair. You may be speaking of what I call "big L" libertarianism. I'm not espousing anarchy; I refer back to a discussion on Natural Law a few pages back. Certain of our rights descend from our humanity (from our Creator) and those are the ones I am speaking of. You can't mess with those. I am not speaking of other so-called rights which have been created as society has evolved. Now, to a certain extent I am one who says, "I don't really care what goes on in your bedroom; I don't want to know about it." Unless your boorish behavior impacts me or my family in some way, go on and behave badly where I can't see you. I'll pray for you, I'll be salt and light around you, but ultimately if you want to cuss and be a pig, please respect me enough to not be that way around me. See what I mean? But the moment your behavior hurts me, you have overstepped the bounds and I won't tolerate you. And there are already laws on the books governing this.

What Shiloh is stating (I think) and I agree with him is that it should be a level playing field. Right now it isn't. Moral behavior is being shoved off into some dark corner for a panoply of sin all in the name of tolerance. Yet there is no tolerance for the moral viewpoint. It is shouted down, legislated out, and cut off from discussion. Of what playing field are you referring? Are Christians forbidden from starting their own TV stations, record labels, publishing houses? Can a moral movie never be made in America? I suggest that the moral viewpoint is being heard loud and clear. The whole "wardrobe malfunction" is proof of that! Parents and people complained and they were heard. We may not be happy with the result, but fines were levied and a national discourse begun. So how was our voice muzzled?

Dave and Shiloh and the rest of you, thanks so much for what you have contributed to this discussion. I think we have managed to keep it civil and I trust both of you, and others, understand that here and now, we are in realm of ideas. But Dave is bang on when he speaks of an enduring legacy. I put forth this notion: The culture war will, I doubt, never be won by either side. The legacy I would like to see left for successive generations is a legacy of liberty and tolerance, but with social and legislative responsibility on the part of governments and citizens. Sounds like a utopian idea. Actually it sounds a lot like things I read in the Federalist Papers and other writings of the period where these great men argued back and forth, trying to establish a nation unlike any other nation. Now that is quite a legacy!