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?
posted by Chris @ 6/08/2006 09:39:00 AM
3 comments
3 Comments:
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.
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.
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.