Anyone with half-a-brain knows without filters more and more children will view pornographic material at our libraries.
I don't see why you're so fixed on filters as the only solution. They're certainly a potential solution but not the only one.
I've only had one occasion to use the internet from a library. I was on vacation and wanted to check my portfolio, read my email, etc. It was in a branch library in Hollywood, Florida. There were six computers arranged in an oval with their screens facing out. The librarians were nearby and there were other patrons sitting around reading or waiting their turn on the computers. There's no way anyone was going to sit there and display porn on the screen.
I understand the need to protect the kids, but other approaches should be considered before we resort to censorship.
Secular humanists want to exclude God from every public arena in our country.
Not exclusion, just not intrusion.
. And replace it with a worshipping of the earth, government, or material goods.
That's silly. Why would a secular want to worship anything?
Had today's climate of intolerance for ideas, derived from religious sources, been prevalent in the 1960's. Martin Luther Kings's movement would never have descended the steps of the church and made it into the streets of America.
I presume you intended for "derived from religious sources" to modify ideas, not intolerance. <g>
I don't think that King's religiosity would be a problem today. Religiosity, as I said in an earlier post, isn't a defect. King wasn't trying to impose his religion on anyone. Yes, he expressed himself often in religious terms. Yes, he appealed to the goodness in whites by way of their religion. But he never treated Jews and Buddhists and Agnostics disrespectfully because they didn't share his religion. He didn't want anyone treated as a second class citizen. He thought that all of us should be judged by "the content of our character," not where we spend our Sunday mornings. I think, however, that if he had encountered an environment hostile to his religious tone, he would have changed tone. He was advocating equal treatment for blacks, not religion. If the Moral Majority had framed itself as the Ethical Majority instead, it might still be a force.
Karen |
