Christians and Muslims Unite against porn

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

For the record, I am not against the political unity for the "common good".

I am against the intrusion of privacy.

Let freedom ring!


Legislating righteousness will only lead to a godless society. Compare Europe's history with Europe's present and you will see what I mean.

First, we legislate morality all the time. Don't kill, don't steal, etc. that stupid catch phrase from the left is worn out and makes no sense at all.

Second, and most importantly this isn't legislation, this is pressuring businesses not to make it available in their place of business.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

First, we legislate morality all the time. Don't kill, don't steal, etc. that stupid catch phrase from the left is worn out and makes no sense at all.

Second, and most importantly this isn't legislation, this is pressuring businesses not to make it available in their place of business.

I thought about that admittedly overused and "stupid catch phrase" after I typed it, but I don't know how else to express that I want LIMITED government intrusion and limited government mandates on moral matters.

I didn't read carefully enough and I am glad it's not the government pressuring for this.

The fact that private citizens have united for this cause is encouraging. The fact that private businesses have the choice to give in or stand their ground is encouraging.

[Dordrecht]

Mohammed married 12 times (including his adopted son's wife, Zainab) who is claimed to be a child
(Considered as incest in Arabia but a special case for the prophet, see Surah 33: 37-39).

And Christians are suppose to be working with these people to make a stand against porn? That's a joke!

Jesus: "He that is not with me is against me: and he that gathereth not with me scattereth."
He was talking about the ones that deny Him as Saviour.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Dordrecht

Mohammed married 12 times (including his adopted son's wife, Zainab) who is claimed to be a child
(Considered as incest in Arabia but a special case for the prophet, see Surah 33: 37-39).

And Christians are suppose to be working with these people to make a stand against porn? That's a joke!

Jesus: "He that is not with me is against me: and he that gathereth not with me scattereth."
He was talking about the ones that deny Him as Saviour.

Never read the bible? David the adulterer?
His adopted son's wife is not a blood relative. That's not incest.

It was very common for girls to marry very very young in those days even in Israel

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

First, we legislate morality all the time. Don't kill, don't steal, etc. that stupid catch phrase from the left is worn out and makes no sense at all.

You're right. However, I believe when legislating morality the GOVERNMENT should only address those issues that endanger the life, liberty, or property of another. For example, governments role isn't to ban women's pants. In keeping with this there are certain rights... such as free speech, press, privacy, etc.

Second, and most importantly this isn't legislation, this is pressuring businesses not to make it available in their place of business.

True. But it's like "mob rule". We don't like it when the church, as a private entity, is challenged by a mob to embrace or do something we disagree with, for example gay marriage. Yet these Christians are teaming up with Muslims to tell another private entity how to run their business. I think it makes it sound like unless the hotels ban this stuff in their business the poor Christians and Muslims are just too weak to resist. lol Why don't they just NOT purchase adult entertainment? This is supposed to be a free country. If I don't want adult entertainment, I don't have to buy it. If I want adult entertainment, I have the right to buy it.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Aquila

You're right. However, I believe when legislating morality the GOVERNMENT should only address those issues that endanger the life, liberty, or property of another. For example, governments role isn't to ban women's pants. In keeping with this there are certain rights... such as free speech, press, privacy, etc.



True. But it's like "mob rule". We don't like it when the church, as a private entity, is challenged by a mob to embrace or do something we disagree with, for example gay marriage. Yet these Christians are teaming up with Muslims to tell another private entity how to run their business. I think it makes it sound like unless the hotels ban this stuff in their business the poor Christians and Muslims are just too weak to resist. lol Why don't they just NOT purchase adult entertainment? This is supposed to be a free country. If I don't want adult entertainment, I don't have to buy it. If I want adult entertainment, I have the right to buy it.

You don't have to visit a church you don't like and certainly not support it.

They are telling businesses THEY patronize, we don't want porn available to anyone that rents a room. That includes children/teenagers who might be in a room alone.

Why can't the Hotel operators make it so, on request, a room has no access to TV?

It's called "accommodation".

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

You don't have to visit a church you don't like and certainly not support it.

True... so instead of forcing a business they patronize to do something... why don't they just go somewhere else?

They are telling businesses THEY patronize, we don't want porn available to anyone that rents a room.

Isn't that the business of the next person who rents a room??? Why not tell these hotels not to rent a room out to unmarried couples??? I find it interesting that they are more interested in porn being available for viewing than actual fornicators and adulterers. Oh... and Muslims are highly offended by pork... maybe they should tell the business NOT to sell or provide any pork products. Maybe, since both groups have a high tendency to lean on public modesty, they should tell the hotels not to provide a pool with mixed swimming. Maybe the Christians and Muslims can tell the business that they have to be closed on both Fridays and Sundays. C'mon. This is stupid Prax and you know it. If I was a hotel owner I'd be concerned that if I met this demand... what demand comes next. A Koran and a Bible in the nightstand??? lol I'd then politely explain that they are only a small portion of patrons and that most patrons haven't expressed similar concerns. I'd explain that I am in the hospitality business and that the desires of my patrons is what I am here to provide. What they desire in the privacy of their rooms is entirely their business as long as it is legal.

That includes children/teenagers who might be in a room alone.

I'd say that parents need to parent their kids. Teach your kids better or supervise them. Hotels aren't daycares. Wa, wa, wa. They're your kids. And from a parental perspective... kids and teens ARE going to get curious and look this stuff up. Watch the kids. That's your job. You're the parent.

Why can't the Hotel operators make it so, on request, a room has no access to TV?

It's called "accommodation".

I'd see nothing wrong with a business providing television only by request. But then I'd charge for just basic television services. Someone has to make sure the requests are properly handled. That takes time and attention from other duties. That means... money. For an extra $5 dollars we can limit or perhaps allow television in a room (depending on how a business wants to do it).

Or... you can simply not turn the stupid thing on! Hey, go figure. Personal responsibility. lol

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by Aquila

You're right. However, I believe when legislating morality the GOVERNMENT should only address those issues that endanger the life, liberty, or property of another. For example, governments role isn't to ban women's pants. In keeping with this there are certain rights... such as free speech, press, privacy, etc.



True. But it's like "mob rule". We don't like it when the church, as a private entity, is challenged by a mob to embrace or do something we disagree with, for example gay marriage. Yet these Christians are teaming up with Muslims to tell another private entity how to run their business. I think it makes it sound like unless the hotels ban this stuff in their business the poor Christians and Muslims are just too weak to resist. lol Why don't they just NOT purchase adult entertainment? This is supposed to be a free country. If I don't want adult entertainment, I don't have to buy it. If I want adult entertainment, I have the right to buy it.

As point one, what the heck are you talking about? What does free speech, press, and privacy have to do with anything? We legislate morality, to say the government shouldn't is asinine. To point to limits or things they should not legislate doesn't change anything.

It is not like mob rule. This is not about free speech, or weak Christians. It is about letting a business know that they would prefer they not provide the smut in their rooms. Giving businesses incentives to do what is right is not mob rule.

Will they be successful? Doubtful. There is too much profit in it. The only way it will be successful is when it costs them more than they make.

[bbyrd009]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

The only way it will be successful is when it costs them more than they make.

And unfortunately, that bill is paid by the people, in this life.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

As point one, what the heck are you talking about? What does free speech, press, and privacy have to do with anything? We legislate morality, to say the government shouldn't is asinine. To point to limits or things they should not legislate doesn't change anything.

You're position is open ended. I was simply putting bounderies on it. Yes, it's moral to protect life, liberty, and property. However, governments power should end with life, liberty, and property. It's power to legislate morality shouldn't extend into being able to legislate against women's pants, makeup, and other specific religious dogmas. In some forms of liberal Christianity, erotic entertainment isn't viewed as a sin. Is the "government" now going to legislate AGAINST a religious interpretation that may not be historical? Oh... if so... why not deny Oneness churches tax exempt status because the Oneness doctrine is a historical heresy???

My point is simple... the government should protect life, liberty, and property. Not ever increasingly policing what law abiding citizens are watching in private.

It is not like mob rule. This is not about free speech, or weak Christians. It is about letting a business know that they would prefer they not provide the smut in their rooms. Giving businesses incentives to do what is right is not mob rule.

That's the most loaded big of garbage EVER. You know, Muslims believe pork is an abomination. Maybe they should use their mob tactics to give Bob Evan's incentive to "do what is right" and stop serving sauage, bacon, and sausage gravy!!!

The point is... "what is right"... is all subjective. I like my sausage gravy at Bob Evan's and I'd be highly insulted if they tried to pressure Bob Evan's to stop selling it. Selling sausage doesn't endanger another's life, liberty, or property. Selling Playboy doesn't endanger another's life, liberty, or property.

Will they be successful? Doubtful. There is too much profit in it. The only way it will be successful is when it costs them more than they make.

And that's far better than allowing a bunch of religionists tell a business what to do in a free country. I respect the belief that one shouldn't endulge in those things. However, I believe in personal responsibility. It's not the job of a business to see to it that I only watch what is moral. It's their job to provide me hospitality and privacy at a decent price.