Taking the moral lowground….

Forums Cult Sci Fi Series Lexx Taking the moral lowground…. Taking the moral lowground….

#56709
Anonymous
Guest

The amusing thing in the second half of this thread is the assumption DT made that I’m talking about him (which is incorrect).

DT, you schlub, I’m talking about the groups that organize in order to force networks and advertisers to obey some moral code that others may or may not share. These groups are, by and large, if not exclusively, religious-oriented. The most active and effective group is the AFA, which is admittedly and forthcomingly a fundamentalist Christian group. Others have been organized and/or helped along by the Revs. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, among others. Show me a group that has, in this country, effectively organized and used its influence to successfully pressure advertisers to pull sponsorship from a TV program, and I’ll show you a group with religious ties.

Now, onto the fairly completely unrelated stuff that DT brought up:

DT, you believe that morality is hard-wired into our brains. A theory, BTW, which you have yet to support with any documentation (I mean, after all, remember what Carl Sagan said about claims and evidence…oh, and I don’t accept anything by Meyers, as he is using religious faith as a justification for outmoded, if not harmful, psychological theorizing and is, thusly, invalid). Of course, despite all of the evidence cited which points to the inborn nature of sexuality, you refuse to believe *that*, which is curious, but another story.
Then again, is it really? We’re not talking about violence (which you seem to think that we have an inborn tendency *against*, even though western society seems inherently violent and agressive). We’re talking about sexuality. We’re not even talking about the objectification of women. We’re talking about viewing some body parts. The view of the human body as repulsive (which is the basis of most fundamentalists’ anti-sex crusades) is not something in-born. If this were true, nudity would be frowned upon by all people everywhere. A quick look at a couple of issues of [i]National Geographic[/i] can dispel that notion pretty quickly. Therefore, we can assume that the “tastelessness” of showing the human body in entertainment (which is the result of “human body = shameful” theorizing) is the result of societal programming. And in this country, our society is affected by the Puritanical thought brought over by the common people who settled it.
It is this thought that carries over into the line of thinking used by the religious fundamentalists who use their influence over relatively small groups of people to try and force the hands of advertisers, networks and studios into following their own sense of what is “moral” and “immoral.”
As I’ve said before, what is “moral” to one is “immoral” to another. Eating pork is immoral according to orthodox Judaism. Not to Christianity. Eating meat on Good Friday is immoral in the eyes of Catholicism, but not to Protestants. Your notions of what is “moral” are, I’m certain, *wildly* different from my standards.
You imply that sexuality is something to be equated with killing and stealing. That it’s something we’re hardwired into rebelling against. You do this by bringing a discussion about the hardwiring of “morality” into our brains into a talk about the censoring of nudity and sexuality, and using them as examples. Your argument is that it’s for “survival.” Tell me, then, how can an inborn sense to be revolted by sexuality be in *any* way tied to survival? The answer is that it can’t.

–Aleck