Lily philips and the disgrace of pornography

[Szdfan]

And that’s the heart of it — you believe your moral views are objective truth, and therefore everyone else should be subject to them under law.

But the moment we allow one person — or one worldview —to define what is “absolute,” we’re no longer living under shared law. We’re living under imposed belief. That’s not justice. That’s the end of disagreement.

It was the absolute view of the majority of the voting public that pornography should be illegal until the Supreme Court overruled that.

And, don't worry, Szdfan - nobody has elected me as supreme dictator. If you have a wish to have a flood of disgusting pornography available to young children, it looks like you will continue to get that.

That’s not what I said. I’ve never advocated exposing children to pornography — only that we don’t criminalize adult behavior based on your personal sense of morality.

You’ve shifted from claiming objective morality, to appealing to majority rule, to throwing out sarcasm. But none of that changes the fact that you want to use the law to enforce your beliefs on everyone else. That’s not justice. That’s authoritarianism dressed in moral language.

[mike]

OK, I will rephrase.

With the current judicial precedents overriding laws against obscenity and pornography, that were passed through a democratic process, and overridden through a very un-democratic process...

We have a flood of pornography that harms everyone involved in it that in turn is easily accessible to children.

As I am not a supreme dictator, my opinions on how unlawful, immoral, and harmful this is will not be changing judicial precedents anytime soon. (The laws on the books are already in agreement with me.) I am not Master Judge, nor Head of the Very Supreme Court.

What I am shocked by is anyone who would defend this status quo. It seems like a very, very bad status quo, and it is not just me, as one man's opinion, that thinks this is bad.

One could also make a case that the legal situation in our country that allows for divorce and remarriage for any or no reason is also a very bad status quo, that it wasn't always this way, and that it is deeply harming our nation's children.

[JohnH]

OK, I will rephrase.

With the current judicial precedents overriding laws against obscenity and pornography, that were passed through a democratic process, and overridden through a very un-democratic process...

We have a flood of pornography that harms everyone involved in it that in turn is easily accessible to children.

As I am not a supreme dictator, my opinions on how unlawful, immoral, and harmful this is will not be changing judicial precedents anytime soon. (The laws on the books are already in agreement with me.) I am not Master Judge, nor Head of the Very Supreme Court.

What I am shocked by is anyone who would defend this status quo. It seems like a very, very bad status quo, and it is not just me, as one man's opinion, that thinks this is bad.

One could also make a case that the legal situation in our country that allows for divorce and remarriage for any or no reason is also a very bad status quo, that it wasn't always this way, and that it is deeply harming our nation's children.

It is, and there used to be laws against it. Then no fault divorce gradually creeped in.

(Remarriage after a divorce was never illegal, and thinking it’s somehow should be absolutely prohibited is confined to some plain Anabaptists - not all - and emerged in the 20th century. But no fault divorce certainly used to not be allowed.)

[JohnH]

That’s not what I said. I’ve never advocated exposing children to pornography — only that we don’t criminalize adult behavior based on your personal sense of morality.

While an 18 year old is technically an adult, it is shocking and disturbing we won’t let “adults” buy cigarettes or a beer until they are 21, but are perfectly fine with letting them participate in creating pornography and consuming it.

And why? Because an unaccountable, unelected appointments-for-life court said we must. Because they claimed pornography is “speech”.

It is not authoritarianism to want to help people aged 18-20 not get addicted to cigarettes. It is not authoritarianism to have severe legal punishments on someone who tries to make pornography of a 16 year old. And it isn’t authoritarianism to prohibit it for an 18 year old either.

You’ve shifted from claiming objective morality, to appealing to majority rule, to throwing out sarcasm. But none of that changes the fact that you want to use the law to enforce your beliefs on everyone else. That’s not justice. That’s authoritarianism dressed in moral language.

Can you refrain from telling me what I want or don’t want, please? I have never stated I wanted the law to enforce my beliefs on everyone else.

Pornography is bad, harmful, and was democratically decided it should be illegal. Those are all facts. That’s not authoritarianism.

[mike]

OK, I will rephrase.

With the current judicial precedents overriding laws against obscenity and pornography, that were passed through a democratic process, and overridden through a very un-democratic process...

We have a flood of pornography that harms everyone involved in it that in turn is easily accessible to children.

As I am not a supreme dictator, my opinions on how unlawful, immoral, and harmful this is will not be changing judicial precedents anytime soon. (The laws on the books are already in agreement with me.) I am not Master Judge, nor Head of the Very Supreme Court.

What I am shocked by is anyone who would defend this status quo. It seems like a very, very bad status quo, and it is not just me, as one man's opinion, that thinks this is bad.

One could also make a case that the legal situation in our country that allows for divorce and remarriage for any or no reason is also a very bad status quo, that it wasn't always this way, and that it is deeply harming our nation's children.

It is, and there used to be laws against it. Then no fault divorce gradually creeped in.

(Remarriage after a divorce was never illegal, and thinking it’s somehow should be absolutely prohibited is confined to some plain Anabaptists - not all - and emerged in the 20th century. But no fault divorce certainly used to not be allowed.)

Nevertheless, the idea of marrying someone else while your first wife is still living is reprehensible to many Christians. This is not confined to 'some plain Anabaptists.' I work with and am acquainted with Christians who are not and have never been Anabaptists (and who are not likely to have been led to their view by Anabaptist influence) who have the same view - Wesleyan Holiness and conservative evangelicals.

But the point here is that there are many other things besides pornography that are repugnant to Christians and are legal in this country.

[JohnH]

Nevertheless, the idea of marrying someone else while your first wife is still living is reprehensible to many Christians. This is not confined to 'some plain Anabaptists.' I work with and am acquainted with Christians who are not and have never been Anabaptists (and who are not likely to have been led to their view by Anabaptist influence) who have the same view - Wesleyan Holiness and conservative evangelicals.

But the point here is that there are many other things besides pornography that are repugnant to Christians and are legal in this country.

Outside of some plain Anabaptist groups and a very small number of other groups like the ACF (a Pentecostal denomination), Christians do not find it reprehensible to marry another woman after your first wife divorces you and marries someone else.

Personally, I wish plain Anabaptists were as repulsed by husbands who are very cruel to their wives as they are by the idea of some seeker who has a divorce in their past joining their circles, which is one of the reasons I stopped fellowshipping with such plain Anabaptists. I got tired of the smug self righteousness of taking a bold stance against seekers with a divorce in their past, yet not being equally as harsh with:

- Husbands who chronically consume pornography and refuse to quit. (Bonus points when said pornography is, well, illegal, and the church still tried to cover it up and/or blame the wife.)
- Husbands who kept trying to talk to other women online in an obscene or flirtatious way, despite these other women complaining about it and informing the wife.
- Husband grooms / sexual assaults multiple women including girls his daughter’s age (right down to confessing this to the police).
- Husbands who would try to meet up with prostitutes - sometimes getting caught by the cops. Church then tried to cover it up and complained about anyone “gossiping” about it, despite it being in a public court case with a conviction.
- Husbands who would sexually harass, grope, etc. their female employees - all the way to losing a court case over this and having to pay damages to one of their former female employees.

Stopping divorces is good. Stopping the above things is even more important. It is frankly quite cruel and unbiblical to teach someone to stay with a husband or wife who repeatedly commits adultery, sexually assaults others, or repeatedly brings pornography into the home. At the very least, the church could excommunicate them, instead of blaming the wife for not being more “submissive”.

My knowledge of most of the above is due to public records, and before anyone asks, yes, it’s multiple people.

[mike]

Nevertheless, the idea of marrying someone else while your first wife is still living is reprehensible to many Christians. This is not confined to 'some plain Anabaptists.' I work with and am acquainted with Christians who are not and have never been Anabaptists (and who are not likely to have been led to their view by Anabaptist influence) who have the same view - Wesleyan Holiness and conservative evangelicals.

But the point here is that there are many other things besides pornography that are repugnant to Christians and are legal in this country.

Outside of some plain Anabaptist groups and a very small number of other groups like the ACF (a Pentecostal denomination), Christians do not find it reprehensible to marry another woman after your first wife divorces you and marries someone else.

Personally, I wish plain Anabaptists were as repulsed by husbands who are very cruel to their wives as they are by the idea of some seeker who has a divorce in their past joining their circles, which is one of the reasons I stopped fellowshipping with such plain Anabaptists. I got tired of the smug self righteousness of taking a bold stance against seekers with a divorce in their past, yet not being equally as harsh with:

- Husbands who chronically consume pornography and refuse to quit. (Bonus points when said pornography is, well, illegal, and the church still tried to cover it up and/or blame the wife.)
- Husbands who kept trying to talk to other women online in an obscene or flirtatious way, despite these other women complaining about it and informing the wife.
- Husband grooms / sexual assaults multiple women including girls his daughter’s age (right down to confessing this to the police).
- Husbands who would try to meet up with prostitutes - sometimes getting caught by the cops. Church then tried to cover it up and complained about anyone “gossiping” about it, despite it being in a public court case with a conviction.
- Husbands who would sexually harass, grope, etc. their female employees - all the way to losing a court case over this and having to pay damages to one of their former female employees.

Stopping divorces is good. Stopping the above things is even more important. It is frankly quite cruel and unbiblical to teach someone to stay with a husband or wife who repeatedly commits adultery, sexually assaults others, or repeatedly brings pornography into the home. At the very least, the church could excommunicate them, instead of blaming the wife for not being more “submissive”.

My knowledge of most of the above is due to public records, and before anyone asks, yes, it’s multiple people.

And it's all peripheral to my point.

[the-real-steve]

- Husbands who chronically consume pornography and refuse to quit. (Bonus points when said pornography is, well, illegal, and the church still tried to cover it up and/or blame the wife.)
- Husbands who kept trying to talk to other women online in an obscene or flirtatious way, despite these other women complaining about it and informing the wife.
- Husband grooms / sexual assaults multiple women including girls his daughter’s age (right down to confessing this to the police).
- Husbands who would try to meet up with prostitutes - sometimes getting caught by the cops. Church then tried to cover it up and complained about anyone “gossiping” about it, despite it being in a public court case with a conviction.
- Husbands who would sexually harass, grope, etc. their female employees - all the way to losing a court case over this and having to pay damages to one of their former female employees.

I have found that usually the men with money get away with this for a long time. Sad, but they often do.

[JohnH]

- Husbands who chronically consume pornography and refuse to quit. (Bonus points when said pornography is, well, illegal, and the church still tried to cover it up and/or blame the wife.)
- Husbands who kept trying to talk to other women online in an obscene or flirtatious way, despite these other women complaining about it and informing the wife.
- Husband grooms / sexual assaults multiple women including girls his daughter’s age (right down to confessing this to the police).
- Husbands who would try to meet up with prostitutes - sometimes getting caught by the cops. Church then tried to cover it up and complained about anyone “gossiping” about it, despite it being in a public court case with a conviction.
- Husbands who would sexually harass, grope, etc. their female employees - all the way to losing a court case over this and having to pay damages to one of their former female employees.

I have found that usually the men with money get away with this for a long time. Sad, but they often do.

An accurate observation.

I can add another one to my list of grievances: in the very rare case a divorce does happen, the wife is criticized for getting a lawyer, filing, etc. but the husband got no criticism for repeatedly filing against her, doing nonsense like demanding sole custody, refusing to ever pay child support (she was quite nice and didn’t pursue legal methods of enforcement to make him pay up), under the excuse of “I can’t pay her because that would be supporting her sin”. Despite not paying anything, he claimed his wife had made him financially destitute.

I would have preferred to see the church put some accountability on both sides. Or take action sooner so a divorce doesn’t happen.

Incidentally in one of these situations… the wife’s family supports her 100%, and they are part of a more conservative denomination that some of y’all here are members of. An open question is who gets into heaven, now: the husband or the wife? Apparently, the church is unable to adjudicate these matters.

[Szdfan]

Can you refrain from telling me what I want or don’t want, please? I have never stated I wanted the law to enforce my beliefs on everyone else.

Maybe you could practice that yourself?

And, don't worry, Szdfan - nobody has elected me as supreme dictator. If you have a wish to have a flood of disgusting pornography available to young children, it looks like you will continue to get that.

I have never stated I wanted the law to enforce my beliefs on everyone else. Pornography is bad, harmful, and was democratically decided it should be illegal. Those are all facts. That’s not authoritarianism.

Genuinely curious how these two ideas fit together -- on the one hand, you’ve said you don’t want the law to enforce your beliefs on others. On the other hand, you support laws banning pornography, which you describe as harmful and morally wrong. Isn’t that a case of the law enforcing a moral belief? I’m trying to understand where the line is.