Needed: Defenders of morality

ecently the United States Supreme Court rendered another one of those rulings which defy logic and morality. They ruled that restrictions on computer-generated, or virtual, pornography, were unconstitutional - violating the pornographers right to depict virtual children in pornographic ways.

The justices are more concerned about the rights of the pornographer than about protecting a decent, moral society. The Supreme Court got the issues confused and missed a golden opportunity to use their position to protect the environment of the good, moral citizens of America.

The courts opinion now, in effect, becomes law and their opinion let the wrong group of people win. Do the good, moral, Godly people of society have a right to expect our judges to protect and preserve our environment? Or, instead, should they simply accept the fact that the court allows the base and immoral to flourish?

We have become so rights-oriented in this society until we are about to destroy ourselves. With every right comes responsibility, and when people want rights without responsibilities as the pornographers do, good citizens should expect our leaders to defend what is good. They should help create a society which blesses its citizens rather than curses them. Shall they be the protector and defender of a decent and moral society, or are they going to get sidetracked by the rights issue and immoral to destroy us?

So the Supreme Court got the issues confused. It may be a right granted by the court to create virtual pornography, but it is not a right to degrade society and this is where the court went wrong in their opinion-forming process.

But the average citizens have given up this ground. They have bought into the rights issue, and when those rights are invoked the good citizens give up the formation of society to the interpretation of the court.

The immoral and criminal elements loved it when the scene changed and their activities could then be considered a right. They knew they didnt have to fight; the courts would do it for them. All they have to do is get their issue to court, and then the judges can become social engineers.

The Supreme Courts ruling on virtual pornography must make every thinking citizen feel that the collective intelligence of the justices hovers somewhere around what, on a thermometer, is absolute zero. And, since they are issuing opinions, is there some rule somewhere which banishes moral considerations? Are those championing a moral society and the stability it brings supposed to sit quietly since someone has appealed to the rights issue on something such as virtual child pornography?

I am concerned that anyone who has thought these things through would say that virtual pornography is victimless. There is no such thing as an immoral or a criminal act being victimless. Someone pays the price for that kind of behavior. That is simply Gods moral law for the universe.

So is it different when computerized children perform pornographic acts? It is hard to tell the virtual people from real ones, or else the pornographers would not be interested in it. Those making such movies are morally bankrupt, and those using them are just as morally degenerate. Would a person watch such virtual pornography unless it gratified the same basic passions which real people would gratify? I think not. This notion of victimless porn is flawed to the core.

he parameters for social and moral life of the United States are being rewritten by liberal judges and we, the citizenry, have been conditioned to accept their rulings as the last word. There must come a time when we stand up and fight for a moral society. Do we really have to accept that virtual child pornography is artistic expression? That is an insult. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence knows when something is art and when it has crossed the line.

Child pornography is illegal, yet with the help of the court, the purveyors of this filth think they have found a way around the law by using computerized children. Upright, moral citizens everywhere to write their representatives in Washington and urge them to write a law so tight that the pornographers would never be able to find a loophole.

Simply because something has been declared legal by the Supreme Court does not mean it is moral. Abortion is legal, but it is not moral. Gambling is legal, but not moral. Drunkenness is legal, but not moral. And, virtual child pornography may be legal according to this Supreme Court, but it is not moral.

he justices might hold court on earth, but they do not hold session in heaven. They might create the environment in which immoral pornographers can flourish, but they have not changed the fact that it is wrong is the eyes of Him who watches all of our actions.

(William F. Harrell is pastor Abilene Baptist Church in Martinez.)