- This topic has 16 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated October 1, 2017 at 1:09 pm by .
September 22, 2017 at 3:13 pm #1156
Google defines censorship as “The suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.” Censorship is used to mute foul language, block sexual imagery, and remove ideas that would hinder the security of society. However, does censorship in America really matter? We have libraries full of books, movies, and computers, that are filled with the things the government had previously tried to censor for the younger generation. As soon as the youth gets old enough they eventually will have access to all the things that were already censored. It is as if to say the youth cannot have something at a young age, so they will not want to have it at an old age. If the goal is for the censored thing to never enter their life, then why is access even granted? Why give them temptation and curiosity for what they were previously shielded from? Why not just keep it from the youth permanently? Socrates gives a similar idea, in lines 377 A-377 B: “Don’t you know that the beginning is the most important part of every work and that this is especially so with anything young and tender? For at that stage, it’s most plastic, and each thing assimilates itself to the model whose stamp to give to.’ ‘Quite so.’ ‘Then shall we so easily let the children hear just any tales fashioned by just anyone and take into their souls opinions for the most part opposite to those well suppose they must have when they are grownup?” In lines 380 A – 380 D, 383A – 383C Socrates constructs a law permanently forbidding poets to say certain things that would be detrimental to the youth. If America wants to raise righteous citizens then it shouldn’t allow unrighteous things to the young citizens at all.
September 25, 2017 at 10:41 pm #1180
I am responding to this one.
September 26, 2017 at 6:29 pm #1182
As Christians, God has instilled in us a firm knowledge of what is right as well as what is wrong. Censorship, in concept, seems right and just. However, by allowing the government to permanently remove something, we are not dealing with the root issue: sin, lust, and deception. Censorship of explicit lyrics,pornography, and security threats is just sweeping sin under a rug. We know what is right and wrong; thus we need to exercise this gift by avoiding all of these. God gave us free will for a reason, and it needs to be our own choice to avoid these things. In the end, I disagree that the government should completely censor people’s access to inappropriate music, movies, and books because this is not a content issue, it is a heart issue.
September 27, 2017 at 1:56 am #1189
Kaydy, I was originally going to argue against this, but after reading it more carefully and examining God’s word, I am now of a different mind. I have written this for two reasons 1) to help me sort my own thoughts out and 2) to present you with some scripture which I think may actually confirm Luke’s argument and deny yours. I am not trying to put you down, only to help you or, if I’m wrong (as the case may be), perhaps you could enlighten me. I ask you to consider the following portions of scripture, to which I have added emphasis:
Romans 13 “Let everyone submit to the governing authorities, since there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are instituted by God. <sup>2 </sup>So then, the one who resists the authority is opposing God’s command, and those who oppose it will bring judgment on themselves. <sup>3 </sup>For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have its approval. <sup>4 </sup>For it is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, because it does not carry the sword for no reason. For it is God’s servant, an avenger that brings wrath on the one who does wrong. <sup>5 </sup>Therefore, you must submit, not only because of wrath but also because of your conscience.”
1Peter 2 “<sup>13 </sup>Submit to every human authority because of the Lord, whether to the emperor as the supreme authority <sup>14 </sup>or to governors as those sent out by him to punish those who do what is evil and to praise those who do what is good.”
So, government is God’s servant, instituted by God to punish evil and reward good, and those who oppose the government.
In America, we are feed many worldviews and we must chew them carefully before swallowing them. One of the biggest things we are fed is the idea that everyone should be ‘free’ to live the way they want – free to watch this or that movie, free to believe whatever they want, free to pursue whatever career they want, free to change gender on a dime, free to kill millions and millions of children before they breath their first breath or see the light of day or hear the Good News! It’s not true, that is not freedom that God or even the Founding Fathers designed our government to protect.
We talked about censorship in class. What is it? What we established in class, unless I am much mistaken, is that censorship is when someone (God, his servant the government, your church, your parents, etc.) do not allow you to do something, such as listen to bad music, watch movies with sexual content, or read books with contrary worldviews, steal your sister’s auxiliary chord, swear, eat candy all day, etc. It is, according to google, “The suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security,” and according to the Encarta Dictionary it is also “the suppression or attempted suppression of something regarded as objectionable.” This is in agreement with what we determined in class.
Given this firm definition, how can censorship be beyond the government’s jurisdiction? How can it possibly be anything except the government’s purpose, its God given responsibility? “if you do wrong, be afraid, because it [the government] does not carry the sword for no reason…God’s servant, an avenger that brings wrath on the one who does wrong…Therefore, you must submit, not only because of wrath but also because of your conscience.” Is that anything other than censorship itself? I think it is clear now that the government, “God’s servant” is here to punish that which is evil – that is, porn, foul language, ideas that would hinder the security of society.
Attachments:You must be logged in to view attached files.
September 26, 2017 at 6:43 pm #1183
are we allowed to respond to one someone has already written a response to? I was planning to do respond to this as well.
-Oh, I see we would have to since we are all going to respond to two. so never mind. … is there a way to delete comments?
September 27, 2017 at 1:58 pm #1193
If God took away a murderers ability to murder, this would inhibit his free will. Similarly, if you removed all drugs from a drug addict, he would, by necessity, become drug free. It comes down to one thing: free will. Give a man a choice to steal, he will decide based on his own free will. Give the youth the choice to listen to immoral music or look at porn, and they will decide based on his own free will. If we censor media that is unjust by removing it totally, the people of the society will grow weak because they have not exercised their conscience or free will. Would it not be better if our society was made up of people who daily chose to set aside their fleshly urges in order to be just?
September 27, 2017 at 11:57 pm #1196
I believe that the government should censor certain things and for certain reasons. Censorship should exist only if it is helping man follow the commands of the Lord. If a government leader is enforcing censorship, the citizens should be informed of the benefits and reasons for it. Furthermore, I conversely propose that censorship of pornography or explicit media should not be taken away. Since man is inherently evil, he must learn what is good and what is bad, and giving restrictions until a certain age is simply hypocritical. For, the government is saying, “Suddenly, this is no longer harmful to you.” Therefore, we must trust in the Lord to reveal truth and goodness to government leaders so that we may follow laws that lead us to live justly, righteously, and upright.
- This reply was modified 3 years, 4 months ago by .
September 28, 2017 at 8:14 pm #1203
My response to Kady and Shelby’s responses.
Kaydy, you have established that we have consciences that act as moral compasses and that we should choose the right thing over the wrong thing all the time. We do not live in a perfect world, we see people gladly destroying their consciences and seeking immoral things, it does not matter that we have consciences if we are to break them. We see this even in the fall of Adam and Eve, they both had a conscience to not eat the fruit, but they did. Now imagine if God had never even mentioned the tree to them or never even allowed them to have access to the tree until they were ready. We would not have been in the mess we are in. I agree with you that it would be great if everyone followed their moral compasses and did not sin but we see that does not happen in our lives alone. So whats better? a dog that is leashed and is controlled by the master, or a free dog that will unintentionally kill itself for the sake of curiosity or pleasure.
Shelby, you say that society will be strong if it says no to porn or immoral music. It obviously does not. So you are saying that by giving us temptations and saying no to them makes us stronger, but people do not say no, they do not seek righteousness and strength, So instead of giving society temptation which could make them strong but comes with a high chance of failing (which they do) or not allow the temptation into their lives at the beginning. We see that monks have strict censorship in order to get closer to God, why not America.
September 28, 2017 at 9:43 pm #1204
If we were to just totally remove everything around us that tempts us or could cause us to stumble, we would not be dealing with the foundation of the issue. Instead we would only be trimming its branches for the time being, but later we will have to trim it back again. How can we turn away from sin completely if we merely remove that which would cause us to sin from our presence? When dealing with an internal vice, we are to not only pray for God to remove that vice, but we ask for him to present us with opportunities to be tempted that we might overcome that sin and grow stronger, thus becoming more like Christ. You cannot force a society into not indulging in immoral acts, and then call that a just society. Instead its justice and ability to overcome temptations has to be tested and proven.
September 28, 2017 at 9:51 pm #1205
But there will be those that fail time and time again and we must understand that if we are to have this American society then not everyone is going to be a Christian and seek God and indulge themselves on injustices
September 28, 2017 at 11:35 pm #1206
It is important to note that there will never be a way to remove every bad thing. There is a difference between “not allowing” and “forced out of existance”. It is right and good for pornography to be destroyed, and for the pornographers to be punished. There was a time when pornography was not available to most people anyway, and that didn’t stop them from being lustful, nor did the lack of pornography keep those people from maturing.
You should probably work on your definition of “censor”. God censors, your parents censor, and as I argued above the God given responsibility of the government is to censor. Censorship doesn’t necissarally keep someone from doing wrong, it discourages wrong by punishing it – the government “does not carry the sword for no reason” just as your parents don’t keep rulers and wooden utensils around for no reason. It is right for the government to censor evil, and it is right for the evildoers to be punished. Those wooden utensils my parents used are the reason I’m behaved enough to even be part of society – otherwise I’d be as bad as a toddler.
- This reply was modified 3 years, 3 months ago by .
September 29, 2017 at 1:39 pm #1208
If God knows that a murderer will always choose to murder, it it just for Him to remove his ability to murder, thereby limiting his free will?
September 29, 2017 at 5:13 pm #1211
No, wtop right there. You cannot limit someone’s free will by simply keeping him from murdering someone. He is still a murder – “Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer…” there is a difference between what you will to do and what you actively do externally. besides, my free will wants to fly the Enterprise to Alpha Centuri, but that’s not possible, so by your arguement, I don’t have free will. But I do have free will, and I really REALLY want to fly the Enterprise to Alpha Centuri, so therefore your arguement does not stand.
- This reply was modified 3 years, 3 months ago by .
September 29, 2017 at 8:27 pm #1214
Thank you Elijah
September 30, 2017 at 11:16 am #1217
And also Shelby it is illegal in America to murder if you do murder then you will be punished if caught, similarly unrighteous things should be censored and if anyone tries to do these unrighteous they should be punished
October 1, 2017 at 2:34 am #1218
I would assert that my argument still stands well. Free will is not only being able to “will” something, but also being able to do it. David Hume said that free will is the “power of acting or of not acting, according to the determination of the will: that is, if we choose to remain at rest, we may; if we choose to move, we also may.… This hypothetical liberty is universally allowed to belong to everyone who is not a prisoner and in chains.” This means that if I had a will to stand, I would be free to have that will, and could freely, physically stand. So, If God removed a murderers ability to murder he would, indeed, be restraining his free will. Think back to Dr. Sheffler’s class in which he presented us with a scenario: God simply turns all men into jellyfish-like creatures causing all their attempted violence to be useless. This is not free will. And to Luke, I would say that it may be just to make inappropriate media illegal. Clearly, murder is unjust. My point is that I do not think it is just to completely remove all inappropriate media on the basis that the majority of people are inclined to abuse it.
October 1, 2017 at 1:09 pm #1221
But why should we have inappropriate media at all even if majority of people are not abusing it
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.