I went to the Garden of Love,
And saw what I never had seen;
A Chapel was built in the midst,
Where I used to play on the green.
And the gates of this Chapel were shut
And “Thou shalt not,” writ over the door;
So I turned to the Garden of Love
That so many sweet flowers bore.
And I saw it was filled with graves,
And tombstones where flowers should be;
And priests in black gowns were walking their rounds,
And binding with briars my joys and desires.
-William Blake, The Garden of Love
Can anyone find the contradiction in this picture?
Humans being a product of natural processes are being held responsible for their natural actions which pollute the world. Humans which were created by cause and effect brought about through natural mechanisms, cannot be held responsible for actions they have no control over. On the atheistic view, this is a natural product of the universe which seems to want to destroy itself through the actions of humans. There is no morality here, no obligation, just an observation of the natural outcome of the natural processes.
Miley is more precious and valuable in our eyes than some pop star that just arrived on the scene because we have lived with her as a young girl on TV for years. And some people are surprised at parent’s reactions to her “Who Owns My Heart” video. Why the reaction? We see her as more than a female body, we see her as a valuable person. If we really viewed all women the way we view Miley, we would be outraged at every provocative scene, just as we would if our daughters were on there. And they are on there! We think its OK to look at them as “meat” and mentally disrespect every part of their body. But they ARE our daughters. They are more valuable than anything and we don’t treat them as we should. We’ve been doing it for years.
“Let her do what she wants; if you don’t want your kids watching her videos or listening to her music, then don’t let them. It’s that simple.”
No, it’s not. There is no 100% way to censor what our children watch. Things like this Miley video will affect them whether we like it or not. If, by some miracle, they don’t see it, they will be affected by the people who do, in their fashion and in their attitude toward sexuality. The phrase, “If you don’t like it, don’t watch it” just isn’t effective and is downright unreasonable in this day and age.
It’s unreasonable to expect 100% cencorship, especially now with this kind of information all over the internet. These ideas and actions infiltrate our schools and our children’s minds whether we want them to or not. “If you don’t like it, don’t watch it.” – Does not work. It probably never did.
We can’t expect to instill the values we want if those values are undermined by everyone else.
Some say, “Why are these parent groups so shocked and incensed in the first place? This is pop music we are talking about and these are young women coming into the peak of their sexuality. It’s what sells in the American marketplace so it’s a no brainer to me.”
Miley has more of an impact on our teen girls than most other people her age. She is not the only factor by far, but she is still a contributing factor.
So she’s “coming into her sexuality”. Is she doing so properly by looking into a camera while laying on a bed half-clothed? Is this OK? We want our own daughters doing this? I know 17 year old girl that gave naked pictures of herself to her boyfriend, and I’m willing to bet that those pictures are now on the internet somewhere for anyone to see. Is this acceptable?
This doesn’t just affect girls, it affects men too. We’ve broken down the barriers to childhood sexuality and some men find themselves entertaining questions they wouldn’t have entertained before? “Is it really wrong to lust after a child or be sexually active with a child?” Don’t kid yourselves. They ARE thinking it. Hopefully, they don’t act on it, but at least some of their willpower is being broken down by society’s lower and lower standards of what’s acceptable for childhood sexual behavior and what’s OK to watch on TV.
Do you believe in the higher value of humans over non-human animals? If so, you are borrowing some of your morality from Theistic philosophy. Evolution provides no foundation for this higher value. The philosophy that has its foundation in evolution equates man with animals. In this view, man does not deserve a higher value than animals. This morality is based on one’s ability to suffer.
Is it more moral to kill a pig that can feel pain or a fetus that can’t feel pain? Atheists would save the pig. Is it less moral to eat bacon, seeing as how the pig can suffer and humans killed it, or practice cannibalism as long as the human died accidentally and the relatives say it’s OK? Atheists would enjoy a good batch of John Smith stew. Is it more moral to kill a deformed or mentally retarded infant so they won’t have to suffer all of their lives, or let them live (although this “suffering” is debatable)? Atheists choose to end the suffering. Some atheists would still let the child and the fetus live and also eat bacon, but if they do they betray the fact that their philosophy does not totally align itself with atheistic philosophy. They borrow from Theistic philosophy.
Would you be more disgusted at a picture of a dead fetus? Your answer will tell you what philosophy you live by.