Stones Cry Out

Let's not make censorship the law, those books are in a way viable because those relationships do happen, we just have to tell our kids what the context is and what God's best plan is.

Wow, I guess the slippery slope can go the other way as well. On the one extreme, people are allowed to marry whoever or whatever they want. On the other, all non-Christian activity is banned or burned.

This is exactly the sort of thing that the non-religious left is afraid of, and why they get all huffy whenever the religious right throws its weight around - even when the religious right doesn't think it's doing anything wrong.

Now, I can't quite tell, is the Bible exempt, or do we just need to rip out the story of Lot? I'm also a bit worried about some of the narrative that leads up to the Flood.

Mark Sides writes: ...is the Bible exempt[?]

The other end of that thread is where you will find the real problem. Who decides what content is exempt from the law? How will the people who decide that be chosen? What happens to all the prohibited content already in the possession of the state of Alabama?

I'm supposed to believe there is no organized movement to make the United States into a theocracy. Meanwhile, here is a state legislator in Alabama trying to establish something like a Committee for the Protection of Public Decency. I think evangelicals should be more than a little embarrassed— they should be outraged.

s9, I'm trying to decide if you missed that I was mocking said legislator. It was tongue in cheek. There's a lot to be outraged about these days. Hard to open the paper without finding a half dozen things to be outraged about. A silly man in Alabama whose program, even if he is a legislator, will never get any traction at all, is not quite going to make it for me today. Sorry.

Mark Sides replies: A silly man in Alabama whose program, even if he is a legislator, will never get any traction at all, is not quite going to make it for me today. Sorry.

Oh. Right. Okay, I get it.

This is another case of the It's-Okay-If-You-Are-A-Believer theorem. But let a liberal secularist get just a little bit silly with the political correctness and suddenly the whole of Civilization is coming to an end if something isn't done about the ongoing main-force atheist assault against traditional Christian moral guidance.

At least, Matt is admitting he's embarrassed by this guy. It means there is hope he can eventually be shamed into denouncing this sort of nonsense. Baby steps, I guess.

I'm thinking, s9, that you still don't get it. Perhaps it was late when you read my clarification above. I am mocking this guy. Not a great thing for a Christian to do, granted, but that is what I am doing. How you cannot see this as criticism is beyond me. Are you being intentionally obtuse?

Mark Sides clarifies: I am mocking this guy. [...] How you cannot see this as criticism is beyond me. Are you being intentionally obtuse?

Nope. I would say that choosing to mock this legislator is an effort to avoid confronting the issues raised by the introduction of his bill in anything resembling a serious manner.

You may prefer to believe that the bill in question raises no issues requiring serious attention. If that's true, then why should you feel embarrassed by its sponsor or see any reason to mock him? Is it that you think that mockery might be more effective at addressing the problem of theocrats in the statehouse than engaging in an open confrontation?

s9, I am truly sorry that I have not reacted in a way that you feel appropriate to the situation. My judgement tells me otherwise. In six months, nobody will ever remember this guy's name. That's what my judgement is telling me. You feel otherwise, that's just fine. You are doing what you feel is necessary. Good for you. I feel I am doing what is necessary as well. Sometimes mockery is an effective method. Jonathan Swift, among others, thought so.