Re: i don't know if it's been signed yet but pass this on

["Brett W. McCoy" <bmccoy@CapAccess.org>]

On Sat, 10 Feb 1996, THANATOS wrote:

> You seem to be making a pretty hefty statement and assuming we all agree, 
> Brett.  But just for the sake of argument, explain to me why the 
> government shouldn't monitor what kids see on the 'Net?  Why should it be 
> solely the parent's responsibility?  Is it because the gov't shouldn't 
> raise people's kids?  Then why have a public school system?  Why have 
> laws against child abuse?  Why outlaw parental incest?  

What I resent is the government deciding what defines 'immoral'.  It is a 
ceoncern of mine because I have children myself, and I do keep an eye on 
what they're reading and watching on TV.  That's my responsibility as a 
parent.  And I don't want the government making decisions for me.  
They're limiting my freedom to be responsible for myself.  And I feel 
that if they start defining what is immoral, who's to say they aren't 
going to stop at sexual things?  What if they decide discussing certain 
religious topics are immoral?  Many politicians already feel that way.  
Pat Buchanan has decided that if he gets elected as President, the first 
thing he's going to do on day one is eliminate the National Endowment 
for the Arts.  Even if he doesn't get elected, I'm sure there are many 
other people in Washington who are thinking along the same lines.  Why 
do you think so many were speaking out against Colin Powell just 
because he was Pro-Choice?

          Brett W. McCoy               | There is only one difference
       bmccoy@capaccess.org            | between myself and a madman,
 Disciple of the Eastern Mysteries of  |   and that is I am not mad
         both Love and War             |     -- Salvador Dali