[FoRK] "Society is on a collision course with a choice between erotic liberty and religious liberty. Lawmakers: Your role in government is about restraining sin."

Stephen D. Williams sdw at lig.net
Tue Jan 27 14:29:16 PST 2015

> In Georgia, where lawmakers are considering a bill that critics fear could allow businesses to discriminate against gay customers, 
> the former head of the country's largest Protestant denomination recently urged lawmakers to rein in "erotic liberty."
> The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in April and could decide by June whether gay couples can marry, and national opinion 
> polls show U.S. voters increasingly unopposed to gay rights. Yet lawmakers in a handful of states are backing longshot legislation 
> targeting gay rights, doubling down on the culture wars. Most, if not all, of the efforts are led by Republicans.
> "On no issue during my 40-year career have opinions moved as rapidly as they have on the issue of the morality of gay 
> relationships and ultimately gay marriage," said Whit Ayres, a Republican consultant for Florida Sen. Marco Rubio 
> <http://abcnews.go.com/topics/news/us/marco-rubio.htm>, Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam and the National Rifle Association. "When you 
> have conservative organizations like the U.S. military and the Boy Scouts openly accepting gay members, the debate is close to 
> being over."
> Not in Georgia. In a devotional delivered to newly convened lawmakers, the former president of the Southern Baptist Convention 
> urged them to defend the freedom to act on religious beliefs, though he stopped short of endorsing legislation that supporters say 
> would do precisely that.
> "We are a living in a society that is on a collision course with a choice between erotic liberty and religious liberty," the Rev. 
> Bryant Wright told lawmakers. "... Your role in government is about restraining sin."
> "This is obviously something that was important to the drafters of the constitution because they put religious freedom in the 
> constitution," Ralston told reporters. "I want to know what this bill does that the constitution doesn't do."

Wow.  What exactly are these people taught in school??  I would like to have a discussion with an attorney, which most legislators 
are, that thinks they have a constitutional path here.

When do I get to define sin?  What's the process for that?
Really, what's the process for defining what sin means?  Do you think that through this process you can somehow shoehorn in things 
into law that are outside of the bounds of the constitutionality of laws?

"Pornography Drives Technology" [1] is a well known trope. Is there any doubt how this is going to end?  It is clear that 
pornography and related social discourse could be said to reliably drive expansions of freedom.  The nature of the freedoms involved 
include social, commerce, first amendment, political, and freedom from discrimination.  This is direct opposition to those who are 
obsessed with controlling sexual behavior, pretty much as the central mechanism of society.  Ireland has the most stark example of 
this, but it happened significantly in the US until recently.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/lifestyle/healthandlife/relationships/sex-in-ireland-fifty-shades-of-hypocrisy-232855.html plus [3][4]
> Throughout the 20th century, the Catholic Church dominated Irish cultural life. It was obsessed with controlling sexual behaviour. 
> Sex was for procreation only, to produce the next generation of believers. The idea that it could be a source of pleasure or fun 
> was repressed and condemned. Sex was equated with sin and sin equated with sex. Morality related solely to the region below the belt.
> Despite the Church’s apparent concern with the moral fibre of its flock, we now know that hypocrisy and secrecy were the order of 
> the day. The Church’s house of cards has come tumbling down. Certain place names — Letterfrack, Artane, Goldenbridge — now send a 
> shiver down our spines. As sociologist Tom Inglis reminds us, “some of them [priests and bishops] were having sex and children 
> while others were having sex with children”. Even those who were not doing it themselves almost certainly knew that others were 
> and did nothing to expose it.
> Despite the Church’s dominance, it would be far too simplistic to assume that people necessarily always followed their rules. Of 
> course not. Once young people are driven by their hormones to get their hands on each other, they will do it — no matter what. Sex 
> is an immensely powerful force.
> As historian Diarmuid Ferriter says in his encyclopaedic study, Occasions of Sin: “During a century where there was an avowedly 
> Catholic ethos, oppression and watchfulness, there was also no shortage of clandestine and illicit sexual behaviour.” Historians 
> have found, for example, that many thousands of Irish women worked as prostitutes between 1800 and 1940. So no society has just 
> one set of characteristics — like traditional, Catholic and repressive — at a time; there is always a challenge, defiance and 
> resistance by some members of society.

If these social control regimes are finally disintegrating, what are we left with?  Are they real, detectable, and good or bad?  
This article http://news-beacon-ireland.info/?p=20199 delves into one person's perceptions.  Interesting although I wouldn't endorse 
them without detailed study.  Interesting Ireland connection; perhaps the burst of introspection and rebellion is still expanding there.

Any opinions on: http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/ ?

[1] http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1120&context=fclj
[2] http://www.alternet.org/story/153969/how_the_sexual_revolution_changed_america_forever
[3] https://www.academia.edu/216852/The_Culture_of_Control_in_Ireland_Theorising_Recent_Developments_in_Criminal_Justice
[4] https://www.academia.edu/6460538/The_Politics_of_Sexuality


More information about the FoRK mailing list