The boundaries of decency and morality (a discussion)

[DinkyInky]

As brought up by lake_wrangler, there are certain bits and pieces around, be it art or literature that seem to ignite the, "that's a bit too daring" button.

I agree to a point. It seems North America is the only area where things like this pushes buttons. I have a friend who is a military wife, and she and her family have been all over. Her teenage son shrugs and walks away when a scantily clad girl does the whole, "Whatcha think?" wiggle and giggle. He's used to it, so it's not a temptation or problem the way it is to most young boys.



Feel free to debate it here. I love reading and sometimes even participating in a good one.

[Julie]

In North America this tendency to be concerned with decency (specifically regarding nudity) probably dates back to the earliest European settlers...I mean, we have Puritans (among other groups) as societal forefathers. I don't doubt for a second that our more conservative leanings with regards to decency stem from rigid religious ideas. While the First Great Awakening did occur in both North America and Europe (gotta love that old school "fire and brimstone" preaching, right? Jonathan Edwards and his "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" sermon was required reading in one of my high school classes ), only the US apparently got to experience a Second and Third Great Awakening. Evangelism and "purification of the masses to prepare the world for the second coming" have been strong aspects of the Protestant and Reform denominations in America, and those doctrines tend to swing towards "sexuality is sinful" and nudity kind of goes hand-in-hand with that.

But that's my (somewhat) informed opinion. It might not be 100% accurate.

[Fairportfan]

I try to stay out of these discussions.

But, let me mention Sturgeon's Venus Plus X...

(Fifty years old but still relevant.)

[shadowinthelight]

I have never doubted the relative prudishness here is a direct legacy of the Puritans. There is a reason the word "puritanical" means what it means. I remember once hearing (reading?) the persective from someone English that the Puritans didn't come to the New World so much because they were oppressed, they were pressured out of England because they were the intolerant group.

[Fairportfan]

I have never doubted the relative prudishness here is a direct legacy of the Puritans. There is a reason the word "puritanical" means what it means. I remember once hearing (reading?) the persective from someone English that the Puritans didn't come to the New World so much because they were oppressed, they were pressured out of England because they were the intolerant group.

Absolute fact.

Rhode Island was formed because the Puritans (the name refers to their desire to "purify" the Church of England of "Popish contamination", BTW) ran a Baptist preacher ("Baptist" didn't mean what it's usually interpreted to mean in the US in the present day) out of Plymouth Colony

[Mark N]

I have never doubted the relative prudishness here is a direct legacy of the Puritans. There is a reason the word "puritanical" means what it means. I remember once hearing (reading?) the persective from someone English that the Puritans didn't come to the New World so much because they were oppressed, they were pressured out of England because they were the intolerant group.

Absolute fact.

Rhode Island was formed because the Puritans (the name refers to their desire to "purify" the Church of England of "Popish contamination", BTW) ran a Baptist preacher ("Baptist" didn't mean what it's usually interpreted to mean in the US in the present day) out of Plymouth Colony

Just another proof that the blind following of any religious (or non-secular) ideology can lead to hatred and violence. This is another cause for the inquisitions of the past (and present for that mater). It is also at the heart of the US not having its public schools do the Pledge of Alegence at the start of the school day since it includes the word GOD.

[Dave]

It is also at the heart of the US not having its public schools do the Pledge of Alegence at the start of the school day since it includes the word GOD.

According to Wikipedia (fwiw) about half of the US school districts do mandate or recommend having the Pledge recited during the school day. However, it is a no-no to require or force or compel any indivdual student to recite it, or to punish or criticize or ridicule a student for not doing so - this is seen as a violation of both the freedom-of-speech and freedom-of-religion amendments. Teachers and school districts have been fined, and/or required to apologize for having done so.

I agree with your basic point, though. Like fire, religion can be an excellent servant (of the individual and of society) and a really terrible master. Blind obedience to almost anything can be very dangerous.

Read what Konrad Lorenz wrote about "militant enthusiasm" - what Paul Muad'dib was talking about in Dune when he described the danger of having your civil and religious authority be one and the same. Very easy to run right off a cliff that way.

[Mark N]

It is also at the heart of the US not having its public schools do the Pledge of Alegence at the start of the school day since it includes the word GOD.

According to Wikipedia (fwiw) about half of the US school districts do mandate or recommend having the Pledge recited during the school day. However, it is a no-no to require or force or compel any indivdual student to recite it, or to punish or criticize or ridicule a student for not doing so - this is seen as a violation of both the freedom-of-speech and freedom-of-religion amendments. Teachers and school districts have been fined, and/or required to apologize for having done so.

I agree with your basic point, though. Like fire, religion can be an excellent servant (of the individual and of society) and a really terrible master. Blind obedience to almost anything can be very dangerous.

Read what Konrad Lorenz wrote about "militant enthusiasm" - what Paul Muad'dib was talking about in Dune when he described the danger of having your civil and religious authority be one and the same. Very easy to run right off a cliff that way.

Yup. This is why the US Constitution has a separation of Church and State. It is not to stop religion from existing in government sponsored schools as the more rabid Atheist front likes to portray, but to prevent a state sanctioned religion. Or to explain it better, to prevent a Theocracy like what has happened in some of the Middle Eastern countries from happening here.

[DinkyInky]

Just another proof that the blind following of any religious (or non-secular) ideology can lead to hatred and violence. This is another cause for the inquisitions of the past (and present for that mater). It is also at the heart of the US not having its public schools do the Pledge of Alegence at the start of the school day since it includes the word GOD.

Hmm. My child's school systems(both that were attended)never had that, and they were taught the pledge as it currently is(which wasn't originally written with the word God in it). They do not enforce the children to say the word God, nor to say it at all if it is against their particular beliefs. This way, it's business as usual, and those that cry out against it are placated to a point.

[bmonk]

It is also at the heart of the US not having its public schools do the Pledge of Allegiance at the start of the school day since it includes the word GOD.

According to Wikipedia (fwiw) about half of the US school districts do mandate or recommend having the Pledge recited during the school day. However, it is a no-no to require or force or compel any individual student to recite it, or to punish or criticize or ridicule a student for not doing so - this is seen as a violation of both the freedom-of-speech and freedom-of-religion amendments. Teachers and school districts have been fined, and/or required to apologize for having done so.

I agree with your basic point, though. Like fire, religion can be an excellent servant (of the individual and of society) and a really terrible master. Blind obedience to almost anything can be very dangerous.

Read what Konrad Lorenz wrote about "militant enthusiasm" - what Paul Muad'dib was talking about in Dune when he described the danger of having your civil and religious authority be one and the same. Very easy to run right off a cliff that way.

Yup. This is why the US Constitution has a separation of Church and State. It is not to stop religion from existing in government sponsored schools as the more rabid Atheist front likes to portray, but to prevent a state sanctioned religion. Or to explain it better, to prevent a Theocracy like what has happened in some of the Middle Eastern countries from happening here.

Yes: the Constitution's First Amendment safeguards "freedom of religion", not "freedom from religion"--but some are insisting on the latter.

[Fairportfan]

Just another proof that the blind following of any religious (or non-secular) ideology can lead to hatred and violence. This is another cause for the inquisitions of the past (and present for that mater). It is also at the heart of the US not having its public schools do the Pledge of Alegence at the start of the school day since it includes the word GOD.

Hmm. My child's school systems(both that were attended)never had that, and they were taught the pledge as it currently is(which wasn't originally written with the word God in it). They do not enforce the children to say the word God, nor to say it at all if it is against their particular beliefs. This way, it's business as usual, and those that cry out against it are placated to a point.

[Fairportfan]

Yes: the Constitution's First Amendment safeguards "freedom of religion", not "freedom from religion"--but some are insisting on the latter.

Sorry - gotta disagree.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The second clause says we have "freedom of religion" - the Government can't tell us we can't worship as we please..

The first clause says that religion may not be forced upon us.

That is absolutely "freedom from religion"; we don't gotta take off your Church (or the one i was raised in, for that matter which would likeliest have been the Established Church if the Framers had gone the other way) if we don't wanna - we are guaranteed our own personal freedom from religion, if we want it.

[alj_ws]

Yes: the Constitution's First Amendment safeguards "freedom of religion", not "freedom from religion"--but some are insisting on the latter.

Sorry - gotta disagree.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The second clause says we have "freedom of religion" - the Government can't tell us we can't worship as we please..

The first clause says that religion may not be forced upon us.

That is absolutely "freedom from religion"; we don't gotta take off your Church (or the one i was raised in, for that matter which would likeliest have been the Established Church if the Framers had gone the other way) if we don't wanna - we are guaranteed our own personal freedom from religion, if we want it.

Freedom of religion is indeed imho what gives the US constitution. Freedom from religion is more akin to french secularism or laïcité which imply forbiding religious involvement in government affairs as well as absence of government involvement in religious affairs. The former part is a real difference as religion becomes a strictly private thing, and insures that religious tenets are not a receivable argument in any policy debate.

You are free to choose and practice your faith, you cannot impose its tenets on others, and this is true for anybody including politicians. This is particulary striking for things like abortion or foetus cell researches. In fact, here we dont even know the religious denomination of many politicians.

[lake_wrangler]

Yes: the Constitution's First Amendment safeguards "freedom of religion", not "freedom from religion"--but some are insisting on the latter.

Sorry - gotta disagree.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The second clause says we have "freedom of religion" - the Government can't tell us we can't worship as we please..

The first clause says that religion may not be forced upon us.

That is absolutely "freedom from religion"; we don't gotta take off your Church (or the one i was raised in, for that matter which would likeliest have been the Established Church if the Framers had gone the other way) if we don't wanna - we are guaranteed our own personal freedom from religion, if we want it.

Freedom of religion is indeed imho what gives the US constitution. Freedom from religion is more akin to french secularism or laïcité which imply forbiding religious involvement in government affairs as well as absence of government involvement in religious affairs. The former part is a real difference as religion becomes a strictly private thing, and insures that religious tenets are not a receivable argument in any policy debate.

You are free to choose and practice your faith, you cannot impose its tenets on others, and this is true for anybody including politicians. This is particulary striking for things like abortion or foetus cell researches. In fact, here we dont even know the religious denomination of many politicians.

Exactly. The First Amendment says that Government can't force a religion on you, nor can it stop you from exercising the religion of your choice (unless your religion happens to mandate things like murdering people, at which point the Government might have something to say against such actions...) That is Freedom OF Religion. It leaves you free to choose your religion and exercise it as you see fit.

On the other hand, Freedom FROM Religion is where some portions of the public are saying we not only don't care what religion you follow, but we don't even want any visible reminders of it in the public space, and will claim that Government is enforcing a religion on us if we do see any sign of religion whatsoever in the public square.


Incidentally, I find it amusing that this thread, which was started in order to avoid derailing a different thread, got itself derailed so quickly...

Incidentally (2), I am planning to put in my 2c worth later on the topic of decency and art, though I don't guarantee it will be worth quite so much... after all, 2c CND is probably only worth about 1.9c US...

[bmonk]

[quote="Fairportfan"]
<Three Life in Hell images>

Reminds me of another long-ago comic version:

"I pledge a legion to the flag of the ewe-knighted states of a miracle, and to the public for Richard Stands, one naked individual, with liver tea and justice for all."

[The Old Wolf]

Incidentally (2), I am planning to put in my 2c worth later on the topic of decency and art, though I don't guarantee it will be worth quite so much... after all, 2¢ CND is probably only worth about 1.9¢ US...

A lot better than it used to be, when $1900 CND was worth 17¢ US. You've come a long way, baby.

[shadowinthelight]

This freedom of/from religion thing really bugs me because it is very similar to the aforementioned Puritans. Yes, while there are some militant douchebag atheists that hate seeing religion anywhere, there is plenty of victim complex to go around on the other side. I'd feel very safe wagering that 99 out of 100 of those trying to push things like the Ten Commandments in a courthouse or prayer in a public school (government institutions which are supposed to be neutral) would be equally intolerant if someone else were to try to do the same with quotes from the Vedas or Quran. They aren't just expressing their personal freedom of religion, they are proselytizing. If there is one thing fundamentalists of any religion hate, it is competition. It can all get very tiresome for someone secular or of another religion to face day after day especially here in the bible belt.

Now, how to tie this back to the original topic...

I think this is all part of the bigger evolving religious landscape. There is a lot of fear in the Christian community that has traditionally had control fueled by the declining influence of organized religion. As they see [their] society declining, they push their views harder and lash out against anything they see as offensive to their morals. Artwork with a sexual aspect definitely falls into this category. Personally, I don't think society is declining so much as returning back to a more sexually open state as existed before the Victorian era.

TL:DR - Bring on the naked golem butts!

[bmonk]

I dunno. I recall that even the Last Judgment in the Sistine Chapel was censored for many years--about 400, although some still remain. So it's not just North America.

[shadowinthelight]

I didn't mean to make it sound like I thought that was the only cause, but a large motivating factor. The morality police have always been around. Periods of change have a tendancy to spook them, though.