The litigating of morality. Is that the true function of a Republic? A republic is government by representation. The power lies with the people. That is the essence of a republic. The laws established by that republic should align with the morality of the citizens. That seems basic enough. We vote for representatives that align with our personal moral and ethical values. That is what we claim to do, what we are expected to do and what those seeking that vote hope to project. The more diverse the population the more difficult it becomes to find that common ground. A great deal of that is because of cultural influences.
So how are laws made? We all know I'm just a bill on capital hill. Someone says, there
should a law about this. So, they write to their congressman who agrees that there should be a law. That congressman then writes the "bill" that goes to committee. The committee, a select few congressmen decide whether it should go to the house of representatives for their consideration. If it doesn't, it dies in committee. If the law is approved it will be sent to the president for his signature. The president can just say no, veto the whole thing and it all starts over. That's a lot of people that must agree with whatever law is being proposed. How many of those people did you vote for? Remember you only get to vote for one member of the house of representatives. That's one out of 435 seats. You can vote for two senators out of the hundred seats. You can vote for one president to fill one seat.
Now laws are designed to enforce the morality of the people making those laws. We are concerned with, what is fair. What is reasonable? Is it reasonable to say that free speech means I can say anything I want? No, it isn't, and that is why we made a law about that. We all agree that it is morally wrong to yell fire in a crowded theater. That's not free speech, that endangering others. The second amendment to the constitution reinforces our right to defend ourselves. We all feel that we are morally correct in doing so. I have the absolute right to self-defense. You have no right to infringe upon that ability. There are two sides to everything! One side is good and the other bad or at least in contradiction to our personal moral belief.
A big discussion is going on here in Maryland about books in the school library. Those books deal with human sexuality. One book title is Gender Queer that is drawing a lot of attention from parents. There are a few others mentioned on the news, but I don't recall their titles. These books contain illustrations as well. Some say those illustrations are pornography while others say there is nothing wrong with that. I'm not going to get specific about what those illustrations depict. Let's just leave it as graphic and would certainly be R rated at the least, possibly X rated. Those fighting to keep those books on the shelves are saying it would be a book ban. And we can't ban books! I agree with that, we shouldn't ban books, but we should restrict access to them under specific conditions, like age appropriateness. You do have to be 18, by law, to view porn. So, to me, there should be no question about those books. They are not strict clinical manuals describing human reproduction. No, that isn't the subject of those books. And no one bought Playboy magazine for the articles!
No one is saying those books should be banned. What they are saying is parents should control when, and if, they want their child to read that. The school librarian could monitor that, requiring a permission slip from home before issuing the book. Yes, I know, kids will get their hands on that stuff regardless, just like alcohol and drugs, but that's no reason to just put them on the shelf. The internet abounds with that sort of thing and children can access that as well. Having those books available in the school library isn't their only way of getting that information.
So, in our Republic we have established a moral standard regarding pornography. You are supposed to be at least eighteen years old to purchase or view any of that. Are we now to say there is no such thing as porn? Are we to allow all of that to be on public view, at any age, in any venue? I realize the standard is different in different nations and cultures around the world. I'm not concerned with what those other nations and cultures are doing. I'm concerned about my nation, my culture and the moral and ethical traditions of my nation.
No new law is being proposed with any of this. No one is saying we need a law saying those books are banned, that they can't be printed, read or distributed. We already have a law saying you need to be eighteen years of age. That law establishes a moral standard. It concerns me when there are those that would disregard that entirely, dismiss it as an old-fashioned idea. For me all I see are a group of people pushing an agenda. As with a lot of things these days, they change the name and try to convince me that it is something different. Substance Abuse Disorder is still an addiction, and the one with it, is an addict. An alcoholic is still a drunk! Change the name on anything you like but it doesn't change what it is. And what is depicted in those books is pornographic in nature. It's pornographic regardless of what genders are involved whether it is two or twenty-two! Access should be restricted.
No comments:
Post a Comment