. .
   
 
Morality and Decency Conference Speakers
  

   Newsletter Updates

      April 15, 2008

  Tax-deductible Donations 

   

      Defenders Overlook

 

   

Photo of Robert W. Peters Robert W. Peters, President of Morality in Media, commented:“Those who defend hardcore pornography, whether in court or in the court of public opinion, point to the proliferation of this material as ‘proof’ either that everyone is viewing it or that people no longer deem it unacceptable. The porn defenders overlook at least four factors. “First, much if not most pornography is consumed by a relatively small percentage of individuals who are hooked on it; and many addicts hate what they do. Second, just because a person, whether by mistake or deception or out of curiosity or at weak moments, views pornography does not mean he or she approves of it. This is especially true when many pornographers use unscrupulous means to attract viewers. Third, just because an adult thinks it’s OK to look at some pornography does not mean that he or she approves of all of it. Fourth, many individuals who view pornography on the Internet are minors. According to Nielsen/Net Ratings for February 2002, nearly 16% of visitors to “adult” websites were younger than 18; and according to a study conducted for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children in 2006, the percentage of Internet users ages 10 to 17 who were exposed to unwanted pornography or who went to “X-rated” websites on purpose increased significantly between 2000 and 2005. “In Hamling v. United States, the Supreme Court also recognized that the mere fact that hardcore pornographic materials are available in the nation or in a community does not “make them witnesses of virtue” or prove that similar materials at issue in a criminal obscenity trial are acceptable under community standards and therefore legal to disseminate. “It is unfortunate that during the past 15 years so little has been done at the Federal level to curb distribution of obscene materials.  During President

 
   
Clinton’s terms in offices, enforcement of federal obscenity laws was not a Justice Department priority. During President Bush’s terms, his Attorney Generals have talked big but haven’t implemented needed policies to get the job done. “Hopefully, the next President will take whatever steps are necessary to fight obscenity effectively, knowing that the large majority of adult Americans will support such action.”   A full methodology is available.  Read On
   
         
   
   
   
It was meant to be a dialogue about faith in the public square, but last night's "Compassion Forum," broadcast by CNN and hosted by Messiah College, may have revealed more about the agenda of those within the ranks of religious liberals than it did about this year's presidential candidates. While the event was endorsed by pro-family champions like former Senator Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee, organizations like FRC, which have historically addressed faith issues, were not invited to participate or even submit questions to the candidates. Instead, the event's radical board, which included pro-abortion and homosexual advocates, used the forum as an opportunity to chip away at the traditional agenda of the faith-based community. The bulk of last night's program was taken directly from the playbook of the Religious Left, focusing not on the issues closest to Christians' hearts but on climate change, AIDS, and global poverty. Although I have argued that those are important issues that demand the church's attention (in fact, in concert with Bishop Harry Jackson I've written an entire book on the subject), our priority as Christians should be as those of the Founding Fathers; protect the sanctity of human life, preserve marriage, and defend religious liberty. Unfortunately, with the help of some of our friends, the Religious Left is trying to realign, and thereby dilute, the values voter message. Have the concerns of our day changed? Yes, of course. But the prioritization of those issues must not. As our own Declaration of Independence states, it is for "life" and "liberty" not "global warming" that government was instituted among men. As Democrats vie for the Christian vote, we must remember that it is not the church that should be affected by their message. Rather, their message should be affected by a faithful church.  Tony Perkins
 
   
   

Charlton Heston

  
Charlton Heston Charlton Heston Charlton Heston
   

Appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court are one of the crown jewels of any presidential election.  And this election year is no different. A new book featuring the 12 worst U.S. Supreme Court decisions of the modern era (The Dirty Dozen:  How Twelve Supreme Court Cases Radically Expanded Government and Eroded Freedom, Sentinel/Penguin, ISBN: 9781595230508, price: $25.95) highlights how important it is that our next president appoint judges willing to overturn precedents that undercut fundamental American rights. How did we get from our Founders’ Constitution, which established a strictly limited government, to today’s Constitution, which has expanded government and curtailed individual rights?  That’s the story of The Dirty Dozen:  How Twelve Supreme Court Cases Radically Expanded Government and Eroded Freedom. New Book on 12 Worst U.S. Sup Court Decisions

 
Front of Supreme Court Building Charlton Heston
 
         

FAMILY CONCERNS

   
   
   
Centers for Decency is apart of a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization which encourages, motivates, educates, and equips the family and community in morality and decency offering information, articles, volunteers to make the difference, with conference speakers thereby battling the pornography and obscenity. If you appreciate our focus and hard work, send any dollar amount for donations or creative gifts to Centers for Decency, 1415 S. Voss Road, Suite 110393, Houston, Texas 77057 or call 713.266.2715.