Discussions of Mormons and Mormon life, Book of Mormon issues and evidences, and other Latter-day Saint (LDS) topics.

Thursday, April 06, 2006

Power and Porn: A Lesson from Homeland Security

The story of Brian Doyle, the Homeland Security official who was arrested for allegedly sending pornography to a 14-year-old girl in an attempt to seduce her over the Internet, should raise several warning flags for all of us. Whether guilty or not, the story reminds us of how morally corrupt our nation has become. With political leaders so likely to be corrupt, perverted men, I am impressed with how wise the Founding Fathers were in their attitude of NOT TRUSTING government leaders, but putting numerous restraints on the power that any one man or any one branch of government can wield. But today, with many of those restraints eroded, we are being asked to turn increasing power over to government (along with much of our nation's wealth and manpower) in order to have It better care for us, to protect us from hidden enemies, to watch out for all our needs. This is the very thing the Founding Fathers fought against (actually, they fought against a much smaller and weaker form of government).

Power and pornography do not make a pleasant mix. Apart from all the issues of liberty and the future of our nation that are raised by recent Federal developments, I think the risk of sex addicts in Homeland Security with the power to monitor the details of our lives should be reason enough to question the security they promise to bring. (If we need security from terrorists, how about keeping a few of them out by securing our borders? Isn't that what nations do when there is a real war with foreign enemies going on?)

The point is that we live in a society where far too many people are likely to be perverts due to or fomented by the glut of porn in this nation. With such people on the prowl, it makes less and less sense to trust officials with ever growing power, and more sense to be cautious and alert for ourselves and our families. And yes, get rid of your HBO subscription and other raunchy media sources while you're at it. A home free of R-rated junk and worse is a somewhat safer place, in my opinion.

11 comments:

john scherer said...

I couldn't agree more.

Mike said...

Be careful with your conclusion of: perverted government worker=corrupt government. (i'm not defended the morality of government- but don't agree with your coorelation). Recently, a Stake President was arrested for doing the same thing. Caught him talking to young girl on internet, and when he went to motel for face-toface visit, he found a group of police and he was arrested and convicted.... doesn't make the church morally corupt, does it?

Aaron said...

Did you vote for our current government leaders?

ltbugaf said...

Aaron, that's not a very answerable question. Which government leaders do you have in mind?

Anonymous said...

"With political leaders so likely to be corrupt, perverted men"

And even if they are a "saint" in their morals, most (with very few exceptions) are nevertheless corrupt and perverted by power!

ltbugaf said...

Doctrine & Covenants 121:39 applies to everyone, both in and out of the Church.

Considering this basic truth about human nature, it is truly astonishing just how near-perfect the integrity of most Church leaders is, in my experience.

Anonymous said...

"it is truly astonishing just how near-perfect the integrity of most Church leaders is..." - want to buy a shopping mall? Or host an Olympics?...Paging Elder Dunn....anyone seen the latest accounting of tithing revenues?....

AlexG said...

I support Mike Parker's comment. Remember George P. Lee a former member of the Frist Quorum of the Seventy.

I think more in the individual and the potential information that he could have handled. It is scary to have someone like him in a governmental position, yet it is scarier to have it in the Church. Classifying the moral activity of an organisation for the conduct of one individual is a gross mistake.

Anon@7:23 PM I believe you are mixing several topics. The Church is not obligated to disclose its financial records. I do not take that as an evidence of fraud or mismanagement practice. In fact, the Church is audited against current accounting practices. The main difference is that it does not publish the results. The decision to buy a shopping mall is a business one that business entities related to the Church can do. It is quite transparent in that aspect. Hosting an Olympic Games? That was Salt Lake City officials, not the Church. Elder Dunn's case was reproachable and when confronted, a disciplinary action was taken. I don't expect that GA's are perfect, because that standard would make several people in the Bible fail as leaders. Yet when there is a serious transgression, I would expect that they are judged and dealt with accordingly.

Anonymous said...

alexg said:

"In fact, the Church is audited against current accounting practices. The main difference is that it does not publish the results."

I will resist making a snide comment about audits that are not made public.

I argue that the decision to not inform its members of its finances is in itself corrupt, and a breaking of the bond between member and Church administrators.

As a former member I understand all the conditioning about tithing and giving to the Lord, but the "Lord" isn't sitting in the offices managing $30 billion in assets. Fallible men and women are, and are surrounded by the corrupting influence of cash willingly given over without question or public accounting.

Bookslinger said...

Buying the mall was a very smart move by the Church. Downtown real-estate is always a good investment in the long run. Sure, there can be downswings that last up one or two decades even. But the church is in it for the long haul.

Is that the same place that was recently announced that part of it is going to be turned into student housing?

Ryan said...

I don't think I've ever heard about a church's internal audits routinely being made public.

Forgive my ignorance on this, but what best practices determine which organizations routinely make their audits public?

I would imagine all publicly traded corporations do, and probably some (but not all) government entities.