The Justice Department does not use religious reasons to shut down pornography Web sites. It does so in the name of protection of children, which is the reason it is difficult to counter this measure, for few would stand up for a legally oxymoronic notion that adults can have consensual sex with minors, for minors by definition cannot give consent.
Web Sites Fight
Proof-of-Age Rules
For Porn Performers
By DAVID KESMODEL
February 13, 2006
The adult-entertainment industry is embroiled in a legal battle
with the federal government over new regulations that many
online purveyors fear could put them out of business.
At issue are rules established last year requiring any Web site
carrying sexually explicit videos or photographs to maintain
records proving that the performers are at least 18 years old.
The rules apply whether the Web site owner produced the
content or merely republished it. And they were made retroactive,
so site operators must maintain records for all content filmed or
photographed in the past 10 years. First-time violators face
prison sentences of up to five years. <http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB113979639540872097-YHUZhGF_wNyT0sc_zghUONQ2xWA_20070213.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top>
As I mentioned before, "Today, in the richest nations, the most important legal and social boundary [in sex] is the age of your partner, not his or her sex or gender" (at <http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20070827/016298.html>).
Political liberalism does not help you revise this modern standard (which is utterly unlike pre-modern standards) . . . if you intend to revise it, that is.
> We have a president who claims divine
> providence in his attaining the Oval Office. Politicians claim they
> believe we are living in End Times and appear to be making policy
> choices influenced by that belief. Religion pervades the U.S. on a level
> unthinkable in Europe because it violates "ideal-typical political
> liberalism" utterly and completely.
<snip>
> In the U.S. one is compelled to observe religious customs if you wish to
> seek a democratically elected position. In non-elected govt. jobs you
> can forget any chance at promotion should you let it be known that you
> oppose all religious doctrines. We even had a President who expressed
> the belief that atheists should not even be considered citizens. That's
> some ideal political liberalism we have going here.
Political liberalism recognizes as a violation of your rights and freedoms if the state disqualifies you from standing for political office on account of your atheism. However, if you have, and exercise, the right to stand for political office, _and then if the electorate do not vote for you for they dislike your atheism or any other part of your philosophy_, political liberalism sees it as your problem. Religious discrimination in civil society, excepting in employment by religious organizations, is prohibited in the USA, but political liberalism favors equality of opportunities over equality of outcomes, so it makes it difficult to prove discrimination and demand measures such as quotas to remedy the existing patterns of inequality, which is the reason why political liberalism is a worse philosophy for diminishing social and economic inequalities than many others.
If you want a political ideology that excludes Ends Times politicians from ever taking power, you can't find it in political liberalism. What you want is something like Kemalism of Turkey, which has no chance of catching on here. -- Yoshie