Saturday, May 26, 2007

The modern sickness

It's funny how sometimes, someone you've never met, never spoken to and never ever communicated with can still somehow make you feel they have something in common with you.

That's how it was for me when I read this article from Timothy Payne in the Niagara Gazette.

I am sick of not being able to take my family to a movie without having them exposed to nudity, homosexuality and the glorification of sex and narcotics. I am sick of reading so-called modern literature filled with language once found only on the walls of public toilets.

I am sick of fighting for freedoms overseas, but being helpless to prevent the erosion of our own citizens’ freedoms in our country. I am sick of drug-using entertainers appearing on television shows, deluging me with their condemnations of God’s moral standards. I am sick of dirty, foul-mouthed entertainers receiving gratitude for their performances. I am sick of the decline in personal honesty, integrity and human security.

I am sick of being told policemen and honest citizens should not have weapons, but criminals who use guns to rob, maim and murder should be understood and helped back into society before they are ready. I am sick of paying more and more taxes for schools that teach secular humanism with moral standards that are destroying our country. I am sick of paying more and more taxes to provide support for people who are able to work. I am sick of being told that God is the opiate of the people but that all kinds of sin should be legalized.

I am sick of being told that pornography is the right of free press, but that freedom of the press does not include being able to read a bible on public school grounds. I am sick of cynical attitudes toward patriotism and immoral politicians whose decisions are made with greed.And, most of all, I am sick because my country is growing sicker when we have the greatest nation ever established on the face of this earth, a country where most of the world’s people would love to trade places with the most underprivileged amongst us.

Yes, I may be sick, but I can get well, and I can help society and America get well. You will not find me taking to the streets, throwing rocks or making bombs. You will find me, however, at work within my community, expressing my concern in letters to our leaders.

You will find me at the polling place, to cast my votes for an America where people can walk the streets without fear, for an America that will be educated, not indoctrinated. You will find me voting for an America of brotherhood and understanding, for an America that is no longer embarrassed to speak to it motto: In God we trust!

I agree with every word.

4 comments:

xoggoth said...

Every word? I think you should sometimes read a little more critically.

His family is exposed to nudity, homosexuality and glorification of narcotics at the cinema? Funny, never seen those in a U film personally. I believe they have stricter categorisation of films in the US than we do in the UK so he has a clear means of avoiding it. I conclude that what this really means is that NOBODY should be able to view these things. None of his damn business is it?

Some of these are simply not moral issues at all so why turn them into one? Like many others, I personally have no objection to the principle that a man should be abe to defend his family with a gun, violent criminals are no loss at all, we just have grave reservations about the practicality of it, specifically whether more are killed through accident or due to easier access by social misfits.

I would certainly agree with some of it, about loss of freedoms and honesty and integrity. Believe me, that does not need religion, I am as honest as you are.

I suspect part of the anti-religious movement in the US is because people are rather sick of having their lives dictated by religious views they do not believe in. If I was a young pregnant girl being prevented from getting an abortion or a gay man being told he should not legally live with the man he loved I would be pretty pissed off too.

Unfortunately that is now happening here too, largely because of immigration, both Islam and Evangelism. I never see the point of religious proscription, if there is a god, he will certainly deal with sinners and unbelievers in his own good time. But if some Christians insist on lobbying to impose their views on the rest of us, they can expect opposition.

For a more tolerant society we should draw a very clear distinction between private and public lives in my view. It is perfectly reasonable that porn, say, should not be freely available. It is nothing to do with religion, simply with the majority exercing their democratic right not to have their families exposed to it. However, provided such safegaurds exist adults should not be prohibited (with the obvious exceptions) from obtaining it.

Stan said...

Not every person in a family is a child, xoggoth. His family may include his grandmother who - though she may well be old enough to watch nudity, homosexuality and the glorification of narcotics - may not want to.

I do agree with every word and I don't agree that just because some people don't mind it it he should shut up. Some people don't mind watching much more extreme visual images - violence, sexual violence, child sex - should that not be any of our business, either?

They may not be moral issues to you, but they are to many. It seems to me that you are saying, for example, that it is right for those who oppose guns to prevent those who favour them from legally obtaining them (which has happened and has done nothing to prevent gun crime) - but not right for those who oppose abortion to prevent those he want them from obtaining them (which hasn't happened and which has led to an explosion in teenage pregnancies and std's).

If you were a young pregnant girl being prevented from having an abortion then why should you be angry at society for your situation. Who CHOSE to have sex? Why would you be blaming society for your lack of moral courage and responsibilty? This strikes me as the sort of abrogation of responsbility that is all pervasive in modern Britain - it's always someone elses fault, someone elses responsibility. If a young man or woman isn't ready for parenthood, they are not ready for sex - end of story. If they think they are then they should understand that their actions have consequences and that those consequences carry responsibilities.

I'm not aware, either, that it has ever been illegal for two men to live together, but I'd like to remind you what the author, Lord Aaran, of the (private members) bill legalising homosexuality said about it when it became law.

"I ask those [homosexuals] to show their thanks by comporting themselves quietly and with dignity… any form of ostentatious behaviour now or in the future or any form of public flaunting would be utterly distasteful".

The point of the law was to deciminalise an activity which was tolerated anyway and do away with a law that was largely unenforceable - but I, and many others, believe it has gone well beyond that and that the response of the gay community has been to indulge in ostentatious behaviour and public flaunting.

I'm not opposed to homosexuality, but I am opposed to the promotion of homosexuality as a relationship or lifestyle which is equivalent to that of the traditional family - and I am strongly opposed to the way some gay behaviour has become not just tolerated, but deemed acceptable - like cottaging. I don't care what they get up to in private, but when they start performing lewd acts in a public toilet just yards from a children's playground at 2 o'clock on a Sunday afternoon in the heart of Windsor with th playground full of young children who - occassionally need to use that toilet - then I draw a line. Unfortunately, the policeman I complained to just shrugged his shoulders and said "I wouldn't make a fuss if I were you, sir".

As sick as you or others are with the views of the reiligious, the religious are just as sick with the views of the unreligious. It's not a question of honesty - I'm sure you are as at least as honest as me as are the vast majority of people, but we have a right to our opinion as much as anyone. However, we are increasingly being told that we do not have that right. Why, for example, is lobbying by Christians any worse than lobbying by gays? Why shouldn't gay lobbying be opposed as well?

The last sentence of your last paragraph demonstrates, for me, the flaw in your argument. You mention "obvious exceptions" - but why are those exceptions obvious? And obvious to whom? Who decides they are obvious? What right have those making that distinction got to make that distinction? Presumably you mean child porn - but 50 years ago that same sentence could have been written about gay porn.

Finally, you say it is about the democratic right of the majority - but, for example, the majority have never been asked whether they want to legalise homosexuality or abortion. Both became law through private members bills and were not, as far as I am aware, ever part of any manifesto of any party that won a General Election.

In the case of both homosexuality and abortion - the government that enacted the legislation was thrown out of office at the next election suggesting that the people were not particularly enamoured with either idea. Neverthelss, forty years later the people have still never been asked to decide on the issues.

Of course, you could argue that it was the action of a democratically elected government and that is democracy in action - in which case we can not complain about any other issue like ID cards or MP's giving themselves an opt out of FOI.

xoggoth said...

But this idea that homosexuality and promiscuity are continually promoted is utter drivel anyway.

Without looking it up, kindly tell me how many major films of the past ten years, other than Cold Mountain, have made a big thing of homosexuality. That dreary film only attracted public interest because the theme was so unusual. I would be most grateful if you will point me to all these mainstream films with lots of gratuitous normal sex too, because I seem to miss them all. Love scenes I see never seem to be any more explicit than a brief flash of bum or boob. The last pube I recall noticing in a fim was Glenda Jackson's in Tchaikovsky.

In any case, the content of all films is widely reported in umpteen reviews, I cannot for the life of me see how anyone should ever end up taking their child or granny to anything unsuitable. There are plenty of good mainstream films for kids or adults, just the last week we have the new POTC film and Oceans 13. What's wrong with those?

Where is all this gay flaunting? In South London my local next door was a gay haunt but apart from some leaflets you would never have known it. They didn't get up to public sex and apart from a couple of shaven headed girls they looked just like us. On TV too (apart from the obnoxious one-joke Julian Carey) I do not see gay presenters or actors flaunting their sexuality during normal viewing times. That idea that children are all being taught to accept gay sex in schools is nonsense too, my wife is a teacher and they are not. Some PC dipstick flies a kite in the Guardian and suddenly civilisation is at risk!

The difference between abortion and gun availability is pretty obvious I would think. Guns are a matter for society because they can kill people other than the owners. Abortion is a private matter that should be a woman's own choice because it is her body. I quite agree that abortion should not be viewed lightly as an alternative to contraception but these things do happen and I see no reason why anyone should seek your approval to rectify the problem. Never made any mistakes in your life?

You misunderstood my point on democratic right. People have a right not to be publicly offended and what is offensive is rightly determined by the majority. That does not mean that they should have the right to prevent what they consider offensive behaviour by individuals in private.

I think that sums up your lack of ability and that of that chap you approve of, to distinguish between being allowed your own beliefs and being allowed to impose them on others. How very nice of you to allow gays to live together provided they do it very quietly to avoid offending YOU. What are they campaigning for? freedom to have group sex on your living room carpet? No, just to live quietly as a legal family, just as you do with your wife.

Most of all I object to the warped sense of values of men like that. Mustn't have a bit of nooky in videos and yet any amount of violence appears to be of no great concern. They support gun laws and capital punishment, they support invading others' countries killing upmpteen. Ah yes, they are doing god's will of course.

I am not anti religion, I was raised as a Catholic and still have the greatest respect for that Church but I have none whatever for the malignant and intolerant brands of Christianity, if you can call it that, that you appear to support.

Stan said...

I see plenty of films that have references to nudity, homosexuality or narcotics. Only yesterday, at prime time, C5 showed "Airplane!" which, although heavily cut, featured, for example, scenes depicting coke snorting and the use of speed. Of course there are films and TV programmes which are perfectly acceptable viewing for families, but there are also plenty that aren't. Many feature subliminal references too.

On the subject of homosexuality and the cinema - there are plenty of films that promote homosexuality - The Object of My Affection or The Birdcage spring to mind - but very few that portray homosexuality in a bad light. The "Killing Of Sister George" is about the only one I can think of off the top of my head and when was the last time that was shown on TV?

As for the homosexual promiscuity - well, the part I related about Windsor was a true story. Walking into a public toilet just yards from a busy kids playground with your 6 year old only to find three men engaged in disgusting sex acts right in front of the urinal tends to concentrate the mind. If that isn't brazen promiscuity then I don't know what is.

You say abortion is about choice, but prefer to restrict choice when it comes to guns. Where is the difference? Abortion kills many more human lives each year in Britain than guns do. Nor is abortion just about a woman's body - there is another human life involved. What choice do they have? Women make their "choice" when they say yes or no to sex - after that they should accept the consequences of their action. No, I am not suggesting an outright ban on abortion, just a return to how the legislation was intended - as a last resort when there is a real danger that going full term could harm the woman or child - not as it is today, with it being a form of contraception. 200,000 dead babies a year is obscene.

As far as my personal religion is considered, well, as I mentioned before and despite what happened in Windsor, I'm still not bothered about homosexuality - but I am bothered by those who insist that it must be accepted - not just tolerated - by those who do find it objectionable. Tolerance is a double edged sword and those who demand tolerance for their views from those who find their values objectionable should be prepared to tolerate those who have values that they find objectionable. I'm an Anglican and not in the least bit evengelical, but I do believe that my religion played an important part n forming this nation and in making it the stable liberal (that's liberal in the true sense of the word) democracy it once was and I am prepared to defend it's history and it's historical values. I am also prepared to stick up for those who are frequently being told to shut up and conform to the liberal progressive ideal - increasingly under the threat of legal action for expressing their opinion.

So yes, I do agree with every word - if not every sentiment - and yes I do think it's wrong for you or anybody else to tell him or me or anyone that it's none of our business. It bloody well is if we want it to be.