Can you comment on the ACLU supporting legalizing live sex shows in Oregon?

http://www.oregonlive.com/search/index.ssf?/base/front_page/1128078061224240.xml?oregonian?fpfp&coll=7&thispage=2

Go ahead if it makes you feel better. But it won’t solve the problem.

I don’t care what limited good the ACLU has done; any organization that fought on the side of NAMBLA is an abomination. Absolute abomination. Millstone city.

Anecdote: it was my law school’s ACLU chapter that fought and eventually convinced the SBA not to grant official recognition to a conservative law society I sought to organize. I guess 1A rights are only recognized when they are shrill, outrageous, controversial, obscene, and minority.

My main concern is that feelings of disgust and outrage might cloud my vision to what is true and just. Whenever I hear people thumping their chests in righteous fury, no matter how grevious the sin, my alarm bells immediately go off and my first impulse is to step back.

Just about every black lynching in the South was perpetrated by people full of righteous indignation, disgust and outrage. I refuse to become like that for ANY sin or crime.

I don’t care how outrageous the crime. I will not respond with disgust and rage. Such reactions are unhelpful and merely signify individuals trying to convince themselves that it could never happen to them (just look at how angry it makes them!).

The natural man is what it is. This kind of stuff can happen to anyone. We are all capable of the most greivous behavior (regardless of how much we shout about it). I would rather try to discern the root of such behavior and then seek to destroy that root. Getting all indignant and screeching for harsher sentences is a less productive response.

Harsher sentences may be the answer of course. But I will not arrive at that conclusion simply because I am outraged.

Your logic on all the sticky issues relied on the true statement that not all sins should be crimes. For example, envy would be hard to prosecute lacking objective mind-reading tools and thus would be a bad candidate for a crime. There is a continuum of sins ranging from those that should clearly be crimes (e.g. murder) to those that should not (e.g. envy). There is room on this continuum for reasonable people to differ. When a person or organization falls all the way to either end of that continuum, we can infer that they are not being “reasonable.” The real estate at the very edge of the continuum (for reasons speculated at by other posters) seems to be occupied by the ACLU. It would seem, then, that supporting that organization would be unreasonable or even illogical.

Elder Oaks has observed: “Similarly, some reach the pro-choice position by saying we should not legislate morality. Those who take this position should realize that the law of crimes legislates nothing but morality. Should we repeal all laws with a moral basis so our government will not punish any choices some persons consider immoral? Such an action would wipe out virtually all of the laws against crimes.”

Given that all laws legislate morality and that we as church members believe that our morals lead to a happy life and good society, how could we in good conscience support an organization that opposes our morals? In summation, I see how you can, by sliding to the far edge of the sin/crime continuum, reconcile church membership with ACLU membership. But I just don’t get why any reasonable person would want to go there.

I’d love to read a follow-up post that would prove to me the goodness of the ACLU’s positions rather than just the acceptableness of them. I believe you are an advocate of the good and I just can’t wrap my mind around how you’re getting there. Please write more!