|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Attacking Pornography Must a moral society tolerate
the burgeoning market for perversion? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Pornography victimizes women, children, society, and those who use it. The rate of sex-related crime rises wherever porn is rampant. Yet the industry grows. Must Christians allow perversion to spread? Is pornography really protected by law? What can you do in your community to fight pornography? This study will seek answers to these questions. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cause for concerns:
A few organizations occasionally defend pornographic interests, but most keep quiet. There are two organizations, however, that do press the case thoroughly and assiduously in whatever forum is available. They are the Playboy Foundation, a subsidiary of the magazine, and the American Civil Liberties Union (aclu).
Interesting fact:
Hugh Hefner, founder of Playboy, was instrumental in funding what led to Roe v. Wade, when the U. S. Supreme Court legalized unrestricted abortion. "In the 1950s and ’60s, there were still states that outlawed birth control, so I started funding court cases to challenge that," Hefner told Esquire magazine in 2002.
"At the same time, I helped sponsor the lower-court cases that eventually led to Roe v. Wade. We were the amicus curiae [friend of the court] in Roe v. Wade," he explained.
January marks the thirty-second anniversary of Roe v. Wade. From 1973 to 1996, there were approximately 36.5 million abortions performed (www.roevwade.org).
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 857,475 legally induced abortions were reported in 2000 (www.cdc.gov).
Scripture:
Proverbs 14:31, 34; Ecclesiastes 4:1; Ezekiel 22:29, 31; Zechariah 7:9–10; Matthew 5: 13–16, 27–30; 1 Corinthians 6:9–11; Galatians 5:19–25; Ephesians 5:11–17; 1 Thessalonians 4:3–8; Jude 22–23
Based on:
“Pornography: The Human Tragedy,” by Tom Minnery, Christianity Today, March 7, 1986, page 16
PART 1
The Issue
Note to leader: Prior to the class, provide for each person the article “Pornography: The Human Tragedy” from Christianity Today (included at the end of this study).
Discussion starters:
[Q] Minnery says pornography has “sunk beyond the depths of public tolerance, thereby inviting more governmental controls.” Based on the descriptions you read in the article, do you agree or disagree with this statement? Why?
h What makes pornography intolerable?
h What kind of controls would be in order?
[Q] What arguments do those who favor pornography use to defend it? How are these arguments addressed and refuted in the article?
h See especially the section titled “The Justification of Porn.”
h Evaluate the pros and cons of each argument. Which are the strongest favoring porn? Against?
[Q] Why can Christians fight pornography without this being an “imposing of religious values” on others?
h Note that Minnery says “the legal principles are so clear that when Christians oppose pornography … [all] they need do is insist that the law of the land be enforced.”
[Q] Why is pornography not really a First Amendment issue? Why is the charge of censorship unfounded?
PART2
The Scripture
“In most cases, adolescent and adult molesters [of children] have been instructed in sexual victimization by soft and hard pornography materials as these materials have become increasingly prevalent.”
—David Scott, summarizing the latest research findings
“Researchers have shown … that exposure to even a few minutes of sexual violent pornography, such as scenes of rape and other forms of sexual violence against women, can lead to antisocial attitudes and behavior.”
—Edward Donnerstein and Daniel Linz, Psychology Today (January 1984)
[Q] Based on the following passages, why should Christians view pornography as immoral and fight it, rather than see it as helpful or educational? Consider:
h Matthew 5:27–30:
27"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.'[a] 28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell. For what basic reason is porn produced and published?
h 1 Thessalonians 4:3–8:
1Finally, brothers, we instructed you how to live in order to please God, as in fact you are living. Now we ask you and urge you in the Lord Jesus to do this more and more. 2For you know what instructions we gave you by the authority of the Lord Jesus.
3It is God's will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; 4that each of you should learn to control his own body[a] in a way that is holy and honorable, 5not in passionate lust like the heathen, who do not know God; 6and that in this matter no one should wrong his brother or take advantage of him. The Lord will punish men for all such sins, as we have already told you and warned you. 7For God did not call us to be impure, but to live a holy life. 8Therefore, he who rejects this instruction does not reject man but God, who gives you his Holy Spirit.
What does God intend for the human body? How does pornography violate this? Whom do we reject when we ignore the warnings and instructions of this passage?
h Galatians 5:19–25:
19The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. 25Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. 26Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.
Since pornography by definition appeals to erotic interests, what threat does it pose for the Christian’s personal walk with God? When we let porn run free in our society, how does it spiritually affect even those who don’t use it?
h Jude 22–23:
What advice do these verses give concerning the problem of pornography?
[Q] Why is resisting pornography a matter that goes beyond not using it personally? Why might it call for social and political involvement as well? Consider:
h Proverbs 14:34:34
Righteousness exalts a nation,
but sin is a disgrace to any people.
How does this call Christians to influence their nation’s laws and practices?
h Matthew 5:13–16:
13"You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men.
14"You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. 15Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. 16In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.
What is involved in being salt and light? Is our presence to be passive or active?
h Ephesians 5:11–21:
8For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Live as children of light 9(for the fruit of the light consists in all goodness, righteousness and truth) 10and find out what pleases the Lord. 11Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. 12For it is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret. 13But everything exposed by the light becomes visible, 14for it is light that makes everything visible. This is why it is said:
"Wake up, O sleeper,
rise from the dead,
and Christ will shine on you."
15Be very careful, then, how you live—not as unwise but as wise, 16making the most of every opportunity, because the days are evil. 17Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the Lord's will is. 18Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit. 19Speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord, 20always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
21Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.
Are we to ignore immorality or do something about it? Explain.
[Q] Some sociologists once thought access to pornography would satisfy those inclined to commit sex crimes. However, this “catharsis” theory is being blown apart by increasing evidence that where pornography is available, crimes such as rape, child molestation, and public indecency are more frequent. How do these facts call for even greater urgency on the part of Christians? Consider:
h Ecclesiastes 4:1:
1As a prisoner for the Lord, then, I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received. 2
How do we give consent to oppression by not opposing pornography? Who are the oppressed and victims of pornography? Can you describe what it might be like to be oppressed and without someone to defend you?
h Proverbs 14:31:
31 He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker,
but whoever is kind to the needy honors God.
Why is oppression a grievous sin?
h Ezekiel 22:29–31:
29 The people of the land practice extortion and commit robbery; they oppress the poor and needy and mistreat the alien, denying them justice. 30 "I looked for a man among them who would build up the wall and stand before me in the gap on behalf of the land so I would not have to destroy it, but I found none. 31 So I will pour out my wrath on them and consume them with my fiery anger, bringing down on their own heads all they have done, declares the Sovereign LORD."
What will come of those who oppress others? Does this apply to those who allow oppression to spread unopposed?
h Zechariah 7:9–10:
9 "This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'Administer true justice; show mercy and compassion to one another. 10 Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless, the alien or the poor. In your hearts do not think evil of each other.'
What does it mean to administer justice? Is this a responsibility of government? Who is the government in this country?
[Q] Read 1 Corinthians 6:9–11.
9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
h Who does Paul say will not enter the kingdom of God? Which of these categories relate to the issue of pornography?
h Note that Paul says, “such were some of you.” What changed these people? What does this tell us is most important in the fight against pornography? How does it give us hope for those trapped in its addiction? Can the fight against pornography take place only on the political and judicial levels? What role should personal evangelism have in the fight?
Part 3
The Application
“Opposition to pornography holds a high place on the Christian agenda of responsible citizenship. The reasons are simple enough: (1) The Bible clearly condemns pornography; (2) It is probably detrimental to the health of society; and (3) It is an evil a concerned citizen can do something about.” —Kenneth S. Kantzer
Note: The following questions correspond to the last section of this article,
“What Christians Can Do.”
[Q] Unlike most laws, laws against obscenity define their crime by community standards. How does this make it important for Christians to make their voices heard in their communities, even to represent their communities?
[Q] In many states, the problem is not with adequate or enforceable laws but with the people who are charged with enforcing the law. What can Christians do to ensure that prosecutors, judges, and police forces do their job when it comes to pornography?
Leader’s Note: Consider influencing elections, letter-writing campaigns, and personal visits with key government officials.
[Q] Minnery lists several instances where citizens have been successful in ridding their communities of pornographic sales outlets. What does this say about the possibility of fighting pornography in your community? On the national level?
h Is the fight against pornography really a hopeless cause as we are often led to believe?
h What will have to happen for final victory to be won?
[Q] What can you do personally to fight pornography? What hinders you from doing it?
[Q] In what ways would you try to help someone caught in the obsession of pornography? What advice would you give that person? How would you warn someone of its dangerous consequences?
Article
Pornography: The Human Tragedy
Must a moral society tolerate the burgeoning market for perversion?
By Tom Minnery, for the study, “Pornography: A Solvable Problem”
Several years ago, the U.S. Attorney General impaneled a commission of prominent citizens to decide whether the pornography industry, ever hustling to satisfy a jaded clientele, had finally sunk beyond the depths of public tolerance, thereby inviting more governmental controls. In question was the flagrant perversion of an “entertainment” specializing in abuse—its magazines and films devoted to group sex, oral sex, anal sex, gay and lesbian sex, sex with pregnant women, sex with crippled women, bestiality, incest, and sadomasochism. And as to the extent of that abuse, Catharine MacKinnon, a prominent feminist opponent of pornography, testified: “Women are bound, battered, tortured, humiliated. … For every act you see in the visual materials, a woman had to be tied or cut or burned or gagged or whipped or chained…”
To the commission’s public hearings, held in large cities across the country, came a remarkable procession of people with something to say about the subject. There were people who spoke for prostitutes, nudists, and Baptists. There were child molesters, molested children, detectives, FBI agents, postal inspectors, angry community activists, angrier feminists, sociologists, psychologists, sexologists, the surgeon general, the Senate chaplain, and six U.S. senators.
Above all, there were the pornographers themselves—publishers of soft porn as well as the most unimaginable perversions—who came to patiently explain why obscenity must have its place in the sun, lest the country go to ruin.
The Justification of Porn
Why must a moral society tolerate the burgeoning market for perversion? Indeed, who says it must? And on what grounds? What, in fact, are the strongest intellectual arguments foisted upon the public by the exponents of pornography, and what is an effective Christian response?
A few organizations occasionally defend pornographic interests, but most keep quiet. There are two organizations, however, that do press the case thoroughly and assiduously in whatever forum is available. They are the Playboy Foundation, a subsidiary of the magazine, and the American Civil Liberties Union (aclu).
The aclu’s goals are self-evident from its name, but its peculiar views of church-state separation have made it anathema to many evangelicals. The organization tirelessly sues to erase most forms of Christian expression in public places, while at the same time it defends the rights of the pornography industry to promote its messages as it chooses.
As for the Playboy Foundation, its flagship publication is tame when compared to its perverted progeny. But the philosophy underlying its advice columns and commentary is clear: morality is relative—anything goes that is mutually pleasurable between persons. Moreover, Playboy defends even the vilest obscenity on First Amendment grounds, claiming that censorship is a worse evil than any harm pornography causes.
Not surprisingly, Playboy and the aclu are allied. Carol Pitchersky, associate director of the aclu, told the American Bar Association Journal, “We have a very good working relationship with the Playboy Foundation. Not only does it contribute money but foundation leaders are involved in the organization in other important ways.” Burton Joseph, the foundation’s chairman, is on the Illinois aclu board and has been on the national board. Christie Hefner (daughter of Hugh), president of Playboy Enterprises, is also on the Illinois aclu board and belongs to the national aclu President’s Committee. And according to Joseph, the Playboy Foundation has contributed about $150,000 to the aclu.
Joseph and Barry Lynn, the Washington, D.C., legislative counsel of the aclu, both testified against obscenity laws at pornography commission hearings. Between them they made the most complete defense of pornography available today. Here is a summary of their major arguments:
¨ The nation’s vitality depends on free expression and debate of all ideas, so that the best ideas will prevail.
¨ Definitions of obscenity are impossible to formulate and apply fairly at local levels because tastes vary.
¨ The most common effect of pornography is the stimulation of fantasies. It is dangerous and futile for government to attempt to control the private thoughts of its citizens.
¨ Once society accepts the premise that it can control contemptible images, there is no stopping the regulatory process. Censorship can be, and has been, used to censor highly literary works.
¨ Even if it can be shown that pornography incites some people to violent behavior—and it has not been conclusively shown—broad intrusions into First Amendment rights are still unjustified.
¨ Censorship is an attempt to impose religious values on society. Censorship cannot be enforced, and therefore it demeans the law.
¨ Legal remedies already exist to protect people from actual sexual abuse, whether or not it is incited by pornography.
That Dark Word Censorship
These, then, are the main struts undergirding the “publish as you please” point of view. The heart of the argument, however, is that dark word censorship—and it is a potent tool for shaping the opinion of the undecided. After all, who, in a free society, can favor censorship? The very idea conjures up images of jackboots, book burnings, and governmental oppression.
The simple fact, however, is that the U.S. Supreme Court has declared in decision after decision that obscenity is not protected by the free speech clause of the First Amendment (obscenity, essentially, is pornography that is so morally debased as to be unlawful). This was clearly established in the 1957 Roth v. United States decision, in which the Court majority wrote that all ideas having even the slightest social importance have full First Amendment protection, but “implicit in the history of the First Amendment is the rejection of obscenity as utterly without social importance.”
In nine major federal and Supreme Court decisions since then, that principle has been reaffirmed. In what is, perhaps, the most important of them, the 1973 Miller v. California decision, Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger strongly restated the principle: “This much has been categorically settled by the court, that obscene material is unprotected by the First Amendment.”
(When they cry censorship, then, obscenity merchants are shouting into the legal wind. The wonder is that so many people unfamiliar with the law hear them and believe they have no choice but to endure the onslaught.)
Although the Supreme Court has spoken clearly, enforcement problems do arise at local levels when prosecutors are unwilling (or not encouraged) to enforce the applicable state laws, or when those state laws are not drawn in accordance with the standards of the Miller decision. Nonetheless, the legal principles are so clear that when Christians oppose pornography they need not fear they are forcing their religious views on anyone. All they need do is insist that the law of the land be enforced.
How Much Is Too Much?
History shows it is patently false to say that if society actively works to control offensive ideas and images, the censor will never be satisfied. In fact, a look into our own past shows the opposite to be true.
In the 19th century, Anthony Comstock, founder of the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice, could destroy 50 tons of pornographic books and 3.9 million photographs; but today, such roundhouse rebellion has disappeared. There are occasional backcountry book burnings, but they are disjointed and insular.
Seventy years ago, Massachusetts could ban the works of Theodore Dreiser and D. H. Lawrence; but today, An American Tragedy and Lady Chatterly’s Lover are plainly safe. So are other important works once in the dock, such as those of William Faulkner, Mark Twain, and James Joyce. Thus, no case can be made that suppression of any literature will ultimately threaten all literature. (A much plainer case can be made that unsuppressed obscenity breeds evermore poisonous strains, given the evidence of the last thirty years.)
It is questionable whether even the harsh censorship of sexually explicit literature in the 19th century ever diminished the free expression of ideas. Chief Justice Burger, citing a range of scholarly works on American thought, concluded in his Miller opinion that even when anti-obscenity campaigns raged, there was no dampening of social discourse. Burger said:
“There is no evidence, empirical or historical, that the stern 19th-century American censorship of public distribution and display of material relating to sex ... in any way limited or affected serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific ideas. On the contrary, it is beyond any question that the era following Thomas Jefferson to Theodore Roosevelt was an ‘extraordinarily vigorous period,’ not just in economics and politics, but in belles lettres, and in the ‘outlying fields of social and political philosophies.’”
Moreover, the Supreme Court has drawn the boundaries of obscenity so narrowly and precisely that no over-charged prosecutor can, today, remove legitimate literature for long. One of the three guidelines in the 1973 Miller decision limited the scope of obscenity to very graphic depictions. The Court even gave two examples of what this includes:
“Patently offensive representations of ultimate sex acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated. Patently offensive representations or descriptions of masturbation, excretory functions, and lewd exhibition of the genitals.”
The Court added two other safeguards: first, that the average person applying local community standards finds that the work on the whole must appeal to the prurient interest, and, second, that the work, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
Significantly, when pornographers cry censorship, they are not joined by the mainstream publishing community. Townsend Hoopes is president of the American Association of Publishers, whose 300 members publish 85 percent of all general and educational books in the United States. In his testimony before the pornography commission, Hoopes said the Court’s definition of obscenity is so limited that it is no threat to the association’s members. He expressed concern over the exuberance of some local prosecutions, but he broadly endorsed the Supreme Court’s obscenity rulings.
And the American Newspaper Publishers Association, which represents the bulk of daily newspaper production in the United States, furiously defends any First Amendment breach it finds, but it did not even appear at the hearings. Newspaper publishers generally have not considered obscenity laws a First Amendment threat. (Local newspaper columnists and editorial writers sometimes do so, however, but not newspaper managements.)
The Human Tragedy
Because they so firmly attach themselves to the First Amendment, the spokesmen for the pornography industry are able to turn the argument away from the most devastating consequence of pornography—the physical and psychological abuse it causes people who are trapped by it, either as victims or victimizers. Astonishing evidence has emerged that shows the destructive attitudes toward sexuality and family life, and the brutal physical damage that pornography engenders, particularly to children and women.
Psychiatrists, psychologists, and other sexual abuse therapists described to the pornography commission case after doleful case, from city after city, of children who have stumbled upon parental caches of pornography and tried out what they saw—often with lasting physical harm to genitals, sometimes actual pregnancies, and often enduring psychological consequences. Parents, and sometimes children themselves, have come forward to recount lengthy episodes of child molestation. And battered women have told of spouses who forced them to imitate perverted sexual acts depicted in pornography, to the point of broken marriages.
But these are anecdotes, and it is critical to know whether they are isolated cases or symptomatic of a large-scale problem that requires a moral society to act decisively to protect its innocent. In answer to this pivotal question, systematic, scientifically sound studies offer conclusions that corroborate the anecdotal evidence. Here are some examples:
¨ Victor Cline, a University of Utah psychologist, conducted for the U.S. Justice Department a pilot study of children who were customers of a New York dial-a-porn service. He interviewed 14 children, 11 boys and 3 girls, all about junior high age. (He located many other children, but parents would not allow them to participate in the study.) Cline found that without exception, the children had become addicted to hearing about explicit adult sex by phone. In several cases, the children made more than 300 telephone calls before parents received enormous phone bills and ended the practice. In one case, a distraught mother found no way at all to prevent her child from making the calls. The results of Cline’s small sample were so consistent that he believes it is valid to project a significant problem.
¨ One of the country’s preeminent researchers, psychologist Edward Donnerstein of the University of Wisconsin, conducted a careful study of the effects of pornographic violence (mutilation, rape, sexual murder, etc.) on men’s attitudes toward women. He found that a heavy diet of sexually violent movies (even R-rated movies) desensitizes men toward violence and makes them trivialize rape.
¨ Another preeminent researcher in the field, psychologist Dolf Zillman of the University of Indiana, studied the effect on viewers of nonviolent pornographic movies, featuring the common themes of fellatio, cunnilingus, intercourse in all conceivable positions, and group sex. He found that massive consumption of this creates strong appetites for ever-more bizarre forms of pornography. He also found that men begin to view women as insatiably sexual playthings; that men become more aggressive toward women; and that they begin to view rape as a trivial offense—something that all women secretly desire. “There can be no doubt,” he concluded, “that pornography, as a form of primarily male entertainment, promotes the victimization of women.”
(Because of the reputations of Zillman and Donnerstein, and their independent, yet similar conclusions, their findings are generally regarded as serious evidence of systematic attitude changes brought about by pornography. In the face of this, spokesmen for the pornography industry still maintain there is no proof pornography causes violence, even though it may change attitudes.)
¨ Judith Reisman, a researcher at American University, completed an exhaustive study in which she and her researchers analyzed the extent to which sex involving children was presented in every photograph and cartoon in every issue of the three most widely circulated pornographic magazines, Playboy, Penthouse, and Hustler. She found that from the first issue of Playboy in 1954, children in cartoons (or photographs of adults dressed to suggest older children) have appeared in sexual contact with adults, and the frequency and intensity of these contacts has increased through the years. Reisman reported that the dominant impression was that adult/child sex is glamorous, “thereby enhancing the impression that such activities are harmless.” In all, her team counted 6,004 images linking children with sex, or an average of 8.2 times in each issue of Playboy, 6.4 times in each issue of Penthouse, and 14.1 times in each issue of Hustler.
¨ The Behavioral Science Unit of the FBI Academy studied the histories of 36 men who had committed sexual killings. The study found that more than half had highly developed rape fantasies before they killed; and that visual sexual stimuli, such as pornography or voyeurism, were an important factor in developing the fantasies.
¨ The academy also studied the records of 157 cases of suspected autoerotic deaths. These are instances in which people accidentally asphyxiate themselves while trying to reduce oxygen to the brain, believing this heightens sexual arousal. Most of the deaths occurred by hanging. In 44 of these cases, police files mentioned the presence of commercial pornography at the scene (its absence did not necessarily prove it played no part). One wife volunteered that she found her husband’s body next to one of his bondage magazines, opened to his favorite picture. She said he often tried to replicate every knot in it. The average age of the 157 deceased was 26.5. Four of the deceased were children and 37 were teenagers.
What Christians Can Do
Obscenity laws are unlike most other laws. Their interpretation is meant to be flexible. This gives local citizens the opportunity to decide for themselves what their community standards are, within bounds. The challenge facing these same citizens, however, is to avoid having those critical standards shaped for them due to their apathy and inactivity.
Most states already have enforceable obscenity laws, but in some communities the public does not pressure prosecutors to use them. (For example, the same state law ignored in New York City has resulted in the closing of most pornographic outlets in the state’s second largest city, Buffalo.) In other communities, judges assess fines so small that police officials lose heart. All of these problems have been solved in various places by committed people (many times pastors) willing to take upon themselves the responsibility to see that laws are enforced, either by present politicians or by new ones.
Experience has shown how much impact people can have. There are no adult bookstores in Atlanta, and Hustler magazine, generally available at most newsstands, is not sold anywhere in that city. Neither is explicit pornography, including Hustler, available in Cincinnati. The Playboy channel has been removed in Virginia Beach, Virginia, and hard-core videos are no longer available for rental in Williamson County, Texas, just north of Austin. In Fort Wayne, Indiana, some 2,000 volunteers took turns picketing for nearly two years before a new prosecutor was elected and the last pornographic outlet was closed. These are a few examples of the scattered victories that were won by people who demanded simply that laws be enforced.
The evidence continues to build that pornography is harmful—in its degrading depictions of women, its destructive attitudes towards sex and moral health, and in the physical and psychological damage it inflicts upon children and adolescents. All citizens, and Christians in particular, must begin to share the responsibility for curbing this damage, a responsibility that a few are now bearing by themselves.
“Pornography: The Human Tragedy,” by Tom Minnery, CHRISTIANITY TODAY, March 7, 1986, page 16
