Thursday, June 08, 2006

Standing on Principle

Here’s what bugs me about politics: inconsistancy. Conservatives yell and scream at the mere suggestion of excessive government regulation. They hurl epithets at those crazy liberals who, they say, would have the government raise our children.

But yesterday, the house passed a bill that sent indecency fines for broadcasters soaring, from $32,500 per incident to $325,000. Now maybe indecency isn’t the best thing in the world to have on TV, but maybe these parents who are so worried about nipples in prime time should follow their own advice and take some responsibility. Nobody is forcing your children to watch TV. Nobody says you can’t turn the TV off and have your kids read a book. Or, even less drastic, you could have your kids change the channel to more “decent” programming.

Perhaps I’m way to idealistic for my own good, but do people really have to act so self-servingly? Can’t politicians stand for whatever principle they get behind in campaigns even when its easier to pander to the masses?


At 6/08/2006 01:03:00 PM,

Drawing on the nature of your earlier post - "A Call For Prophetic Lawmaking" - I'm surprised the Bill even made it for a vote, let alone passed. :)

At 6/08/2006 07:30:00 PM,

This is one thing that I have heard Howard Stern say a few that I actually agree with. When asked if he would let his kids watch his show he always says no way, the follow up is usually something about if he wouldn't even think his own kids should watch it then how can he broadcast it to the kids of millions of others. The answer is like what Chris says in his post.

I think that the way the world is going, on TV or just in everyday life we are exposed to a lot of things that don't really build us up spiritually so we have to learn how to filter what we see for our selves anyway, maybe it is good for kids to learn early that there are a lot of bad things out there that they have to avoid and learn how to do it. Not that porn on TV is a good thing, but you have to face this stuff sometime, why not do it young. I bet it builds character too.

At 6/08/2006 08:11:00 PM,

Another pro porno argument, when I lived in south america there was nudity everywhere, regular TV, news stands, ads, but it's not really a big deal to them. Members of the church complain about it like we do about swimsuit issues and other tamer stuff.

It's like in those National geographic shows about Africa where the women don't wear shirts and the guys don't really seem to care because it is just normal. I often (yes often) have wondered what it would be like if in American society women never wore shirts but always covered their arms, would a little wrist be a big deal? Or like how for the Amish seeing some knee is probably inappropriate (if all the stereotypes i've seen are true) but it is no big deal for me. Maybe if we were inundated with nudity from the time we were babies nobody would be tempted. Mind blowing stuff.

At 6/08/2006 08:43:00 PM,

So are we saying standards of modesty are culturally relative then?

At 6/08/2006 09:56:00 PM,

Well, Chris is saying that standards are relatively applied and established. What Chris is doing is essentially making a descriptive rather than normative argument. I mean, if you asked the straightforward question, "are modesty standards different in the world, relative to... [insert arbitrary factor, e.g. culture, geography, etc]?" then the obvious answer is YES.

Whether they should be relative is the normative question, with metaphysical implications. Obviously the LDS response turns to the metaphysical for that answer...

At 6/09/2006 07:16:00 AM,

I think that one point in my (please don't take it too seriously) theory is that it isn't necessarily the nudity/any other indecent content of this stuff that is really a sin, it is the thoughts and actions that is might provoke. If it doesn't provoke anything then everybody wins. Which means that society is headed in exactly the right direction to eliminate sin all together, thank goodness.




<< Home