[A quote from a letter urging hotels to stop offering pornography.]
Furthermore, we trust that you need no reminding of the fact that something’s being legal does not make it right. For example, denying black men and women and their families access to hotel rooms—and tables in restaurants, as well as other amenities and opportunities—was, for countless shameful years, perfectly legal. In some circumstances, it even made financial sense for hotel owners and operators in racist cultures to engage in segregationist practices even when not compelled by law to do so. However, this was deeply morally wrong. Shame on those who denied their brothers and sisters of color the equal treatment to which they were morally entitled. Shame on you if you hide behind legality to peddle immorality in the pursuit of money.
42 comments
"Furthermore, we trust that you need no reminding of the fact that something’s being legal does not make it right."
You're starting to catch on. Censoring porn because it's against your religion may be legal, but it's still wrong.
Ditto gays.
Not quite sure how this is fundie to tell the truth. No reference to religion and uses racism as an example of a moral evil. And there's a lot wrong with pornography separate from religious objections, what with the misogyny, profit driven capitalism and so on.
@Jacobin Socialist:
Fundy does not mean religious. It just means fundamentalist, whether political, religious, or other.
There are hotels that offer pornography? What kind of hotel are you staying at exactly? How about instead of bitching to all hotels just avoid the adult-themed ones. It's just like if you don't like kids then don't go to Disney World. Common sense.
@Jacobin Socialist
Not all porn is evil or misogynist (I for one like the ones that are made by women who enjoy it, thus why I like self-pics) and in my opinion making porn more acceptable and legitimate makes it easier to police it and prevent abuse. It's much harder to regulate a business that's driven underground.
Furthermore, we trust that you need no reminding of the fact that something’s being legal does not make it right.
I trust that you need no reminding of the fact that something’s being offensive to you does not make it right for the government to enforce your personal opinion at the point of a gun.
Well, I do agree that it was indeed shameful, but that actually harmed people and brought about and excused violence against innocent people. Every actor (as far as I know) in the adult pornography industry are willing participants giving their fully informed consent. No real victims. Stop peeping into other peoples' bedrooms.
I agree with this letter. I was in a hotel and saw this piece of literature in the room. It was filled with all manner of degrading filth. Incest. Murder. Adultery. Nudity.
Oh, wait. It was the bible.
@dionysus:
However, if you look up "porn" on google, I'm pretty sure the overwhelming majority of results a filled to bursting with sexist language and imagery. Thus I do contend that much porn consumed by society is sexist and patriarchal-how many prominent porn sites do you know of that do not assume their audience is exclusively male?
As for the quote, having read the full letter it seems pretty obvious, given who wrote it and much of the language, that it IS based on religious dogma. It's not explicit and I like to give people the benefit of the doubt but the fact that the authors felt compelled to identify their religion, reference the "truth of our scriptures" and use words like "temptation" makes it pretty clear that they're not very concerned with secular justice and equality. So I withdraw my assertion that it isn't fundie.
@whatever:
How is this fundie? The example is unimaginative and his preoccupation with pornography perhaps excessive, but he didn't say anything remotely hateful or absurd.
Edit: ok, the author (not the quote here) may be fundie, but how is it darndest?
Yet, I imagine you don't have a problem with hotels (or indeed, any business) denying service to same sex couples and their families, do you hypocrite?
Um, okay, let's get something straight here Mr. George and Mr. Yusuf: Freedom of speech covers pornography. If you don't like it and it puts your bloomers in a bunch, don't order it. No one is asking you to order porn in your hotel room. I personally enjoy watching porn, I like the option of ordering it in my hotel room if I want, and I like the fact that America is a free country. This hang-up about sex that has now impressed itself onto pornography for hot puritan on puritan action would make an excellent story for a porn movie.
One limits the rights and freedoms of others. The other does not - indeed almost the reverse. To compare the two in the way you did is insultingly dishonest.
If you don't like porn, don't watch porn. It's not that fucking hard (because you're not watching porn - badum-tsch!).
There are plenty of non-religious reasons to dislike pornography.
Attempting to control other people's choices, on the other hand, is somewhat fundie. Hmm.
But there are valid arguments to be made against it that could possibly suggest banning it from certain places...
So I'm going to go and say "not fundie".
Another inane point that ignores the difference between relationships that victimize people and relationships that don't.
Next thing you know, hotel porn is going to be allowed to marry it's pet turtle!
For example, denying black men and women and their families access to hotel roomsand tables in restaurants, as well as other amenities and opportunitieswas, for countless shameful years, perfectly legal.
People challenged this. They won, and now it's illegal. But porn has been challenged many times within the modern era, and we now have a legal definition of illegal "obscenity": (1) it must appeal primarily to prurient interests, (2) it must be offensive to contemporary community standards and (3) it must be utterly without redeeming social value. Most things we call "porn" fail on Point (2), because it must offend the actual standards the majority of people live by - not a small minority's personal standards or the ones people publicly profess to have. As long as millions of people watch porn, it's hard to argue that it offends contemporary community standards.
"Hide behind legality to peddle immorality in the pursuit of money."
Well, yea, I mean it's the United States of America, what do you expect?
Well, after you've checked out the room for any freebies (shampoos etc, biscuits, towels & bathrobes >:D ), and rolled smokes/blunts/wiped your arse with pages torn out of the Gideons Bible you found in the bedside table, what the fuck else is there to do, but crack one off to the porn channel piped into said room's TV?!
"Shame on you if you hide behind legality to peddle immorality in the pursuit of money."
Yes. Shame on you, Robert P. George and Shaykh Hamza Yusef, for peddling your immoral religious ideologies.
@dionysus & Elia: I suspect it's simply access to pay-per-view porn channels. Nothing you couldn't find for free on the web.
@John: yeah, the Miller test . Truth be told, I find the whole thing less than convincing: as mentioned on Wikipedia, it requires attempting to read the mind of some hypothetical "reasonable persons" to define the standards of an undefined community, so big vagueness issues. Even without that, it is basically a supposed majority telling a minority "we feel that what you like is icky and without value, so we'll censor it/remove its free speech protection." Pretty much the definition of tyranny of the majority, if you ask me. And most of the time, the notion of obscenity is based on religious values, which leads to a 1st Amendment problem. [/rant]
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
