Yet originally you claimed that the Mosaic law makes provision to actually permit incestual relations between a father and a daughter. I don't need to point out the differences between the two claims, do I?;)
Let's see what Leviticus 18:6,7 says:
"6"'YOU people must not come near, any man of YOU, to any close fleshly relative of his to lay bare nakedness. I am Jehovah. 7The nakedness of your father and the nakedness of your mother you must not lay bare. She is your mother. You must not lay bare her nakedness.'"
No laying bare nakedness of one's father (verse 6), although spoken to "man", would encompass all incestual relations between a father and his children. Or in verse 6, it speaks of any close fleshly relative. To assume otherwise is simply senseless.
Moreover, the story of incest that you are talking about is Lot and his two daughters - which happened hundreds of years before Moses and the Mosaic law. Lot's daughters intoxicated their father (suggesting that he would not have taken a part in such things were he sober). They did this because of fear their family would die off, being alien residents in a foreign land. The younger daughter gave birth to Benammi, through whom the nation of the Ammonites sprang up, and the older one gave birth to Moab (Moabites). The Biblical account in no way condones it, it simply relates the story of what happened. It also relates the relationship between those two nations (Ammonites and Moabites) to Israelites (descendants of Abraham, Lot's uncle).
Your statement that the mosaic law made provision to allow such relationship is absolutely false and incorrect, and is made with limited knowledge of the law and various biblical accounts. As is often the case, doing a little bit of homework will clear up many false accusations or ignorant misunderstandings. Blunt? Yes, but this is slashdot after all;)
As for not having a record of Christ condemning homosexuality... He listed "adultery" and "fornication" as things that defile a person (Mark 7:21-23). The Greek word for fornication is a broader term than that of adultery, and describes all forms of sexual relations outside of lawful marriage, including homosexuality. In fact, the writer Jude uses the same word (Jude 7) to describe Soddom and Gomorrah, that they "committed fornication excessively." They were judged, however, for their homosexual acts.
In as much as many scholars agree that Paul did not write those letters, even more scholars agree that he did. Conspiracy theories abound in all areas.
What's faulty is, not the accepting of Paul as the writer of the book of Corinthians, but judging the letter to be written by a forger based solely on the fact that Paul was not an eloquent speaker and did not have influential presence and wrote about it himself in the second letter.
A good example of critical works: various scholars and critics long assailed that Belshazzar, mentioned in the book of Daniel, was a fictitious name, for that name was nowhere to be found outside of the Bible. This was something that would be far easier to conclude than the forgery of Paul's writings. Such view on Belshazzar, however, ended in 1854, when some small clay cylinders were unearthed in the ruins of the ancient city of Ur in southern Iraq with evidence to rebuke even those very same critics. Which went on to attack other parts of the book of Daniel.
Bottom line? Experimenter bias, whether recognized or not, plays a large part when individuals find what they are looking for. The simpler explanation is often accepted as the most probable one. And it is far simpler to accept that Paul indeed was the writer of the books.
This discussion began on what constitutes Christian values... and the answer is quite simple. Christian values are the ones defined in the entire Christian Greek scriptures. There is hardly room for interpretation. Whether the writings were original or forged has no effect on what people today accept as Christian values. Any "adjustments" of the said values in the interpreation by religious bodies are simply because they no longer wish to accept such values and are looking for ways to fuse their personal beliefs with those of christianity.
And yet somehow i keep thinking that no one with such inclination (to lie down with his daughter) would dare to do such a thing in the camp of the israelites.
Furthermore, the Israelites' success depended much on expansion and procreation. There were provisions made for a brother to take his own brother's wife for the purpose of impregnating her should the brother die without having any offspring. There were other similar provisions (the case of Naomi and Boaz), yet nothing was mentioned about a father lying down with his daughter for the purpose of procreation, should her husband die without leaving a legacy of sons/daughters.
Hence, you may conclude that exclusion of father-daughter from the list of incestuous acts was done, not for the purpose of procreation, but simply for pleasure. Considering that other laws handed down to the Israelites governed the extent of pleasure they could experience with their own wives, or even through masturbation, any individual would conclude such stretch of logic to be absurd.
what does greeks' preferences for homosexual relations or monotheism have to do with the christian values as are defined in the greek scriptures of *any* translation?
You and whoever modded you up have no clue what you are talking about.
Talking about anything remotely touching religion on slashdot is pretty much worthless. Whenever someone writes up constructive comments with insightful information on beliefs and religion, nobody cares to do anything other than come back with worthless, flamebait, trolling responses that others mark as "insightful". Why? Because it has some sort of anti-religious tone. It doesn't matter whether it's relevant to the discussion at hand.
I agreed with you that interpretations vary and there are many. However, Christian values are pretty straightforward, as one can obtain from reading the christian greek scriptures. Many churches, such as the more liberal ones, debate the meaning of words.
Just as one example, there is only one way to interpret adultery - sleeping with another person's mate. There are no if conditions, or no circumstances when that is acceptable by the values of Christianity. It really doesn't matter whether you believe the Bible is inspired or not, whether Jesus is the son of God or not. This is a purely investigative approach to what Christianity is about. However, many religious leaders will attempt to interpret this to suit their lifestyle and values.
There stems a confusion between Christian values, and the values of churches, religious leaders and religious organizations.
Another way to learn what Christianity entails is to read historians, such as Josephus, who described this "strange" sect/organization of the first and second centuries. You no doubt will learn of their values on matters of state/political neutrality, morality and other matters.
And speaking of the book of Leviticus and why homosexuality is bad. There is no reason given to why it is bad - it is simply not accepted in the hebrew AND greek scriptures. It is stated as unnatural, and that's all.
On the subject of breaking the laws of the old testament... There were many rules given on how to atone for sins, mostly with sacrifices. No eternal damnation entered the picture. The teaching of hellfire crept into christianity with apostasy in later centuries, and was not present in the Jewish faith at all. Certain offences were punishable by death. Not eternal damnation. Christ's sacrifice was the one final and ultimate sacrifice, and Christians were free from the rules and regulations of the Mosaic law. Christ fulfilled that law, and his followers lived by Christ's law, which can be summarized in just two commandments: Love your God with your whole heart, soul and mind, and love your neighbour as yourself.
So do I believe that persons who practice homosexuality or abortion or theft or adultery or whatever else not in harmony with the christian values of the greek scriptures will go to hell? No, because there is no hell. Will they suffer? Not at all - death ends existence, simply put. But I do believe that when it comes to christian values, those practices are at odds.
Christianity really isn't a philosophy that can be adapted individually, like buddhism. It has well defined principles guiding morality, as defined in the entire Christian Greek scriptures.
There are certain statements that are not even a matter of principle - they are pretty much laws, if you wish to put it that way. Theft. Sleeping with another man's wife. Homosexuality among them (1 Corinthians 6:9-11) These really are not open to interpretation. Again, I am just pointing out what Christian values are all about, because you made it seem that things like abortion or homosexuality are perfectly accepted and allowed within Christian values, but due to fanaticism of individuals, they are not - that is not true.
So let's just call a spade a spade. Christian values aren't that adaptable - they are rather concrete guiding principles with some laws mixed in. What is adaptable is how much individuals agree or disagree with these principles, and wish to modify those Christian values to suit their own pursuits and goals.
A simple thing... i want to create a playlist. I want to take 10 of my MP3 files and make a playlist that RealPlayer would play.
So far I have been unable to do this. If there is a way to do this, how come it is not intuitive at all?
And I wish there was something with the simplicity of WinAMP - a player that supports MANY patented file types, and is available for... FREE. If there was a player like that for Linux that you could install with the ease of RealPlayer, I would have been VERY happy. As it stands, to install something requires endless hunt for the right libraries. I had FC4 installed, and ended up upgrading to FC5 since many libraries could not be installed via yum due to circulatory reference (to install i need verion x of library A, and to install library A I need version y of library B, etc...)
How Apple is tied to all of this? I read the summary, i read the article, and perhaps it's due to cryptographic nature of those reporters, but I can't figure out what Steve Jobs' thinks of this...
Ignorance is different from negligence. And ignorance is not necessarily a negative term. It just highlights the fact that somebody does not know how stuff works in this example.
Driving 150 km/h is already doing too much, knowingly. The problem is when people drive cars they believe to be secure, driving at speed limit, while not knowing that somebody came and slowly started loosening the bolts on the wheels. Until eventually the wheels come off, the person driving the car loses control and causes a multiple vehicle collision on a highway.
Yes, blah, blah, it is the responsibility of the owner of the vehicle to check the safety of his/her vehicle. Let me ask you, do you check your lugnuts each day? How about each time you drive?
The problems of PC maintenance are highlighted especially in the young kids demographic as well as novice computer users, older computer users (mom/pop, grandma/grandpa), or people who are not technologically adept.
I expect the next line to be that such people should not use computers... Let's talk realistically intead of dreaming.
To the mods:why was the parent marked Flamebait? Just because he admitted he is a fundamentalist? Posts that pointed out the same thing without authors expressing religious conviction got marked as "insightful" or "interesting". Learn a little bit of tolerance, it won't hurt.
Now, to move on
Although it is a rather common view, and in no way to critique you at all, may I suggest, respectfully, to investigate further and deeper the meaning of "day" throughout the Bible?
Keeping all religious doctrines aside, day can mean various time periods of no specific length. At times a day is taken for a thousand years... At times it is taken simply to mean an undefined time period.
A very basic description is the use of "judgment day". There is no indication it means anything other than a certain, undefined time period. That's it. There is more reasoning to it than just this, but I can't recall it. At one point I spent quite a bit of time reading various articles on this subject.
And to all who will be jumping at this, claiming that now fundamentalists, creationists, or whatever other term you choose to use now are shifting their conviction... there was never any guarantee that the view (whoever devised it) of 6000-year-old earth was correct. So at the very least, hail the break-through!:) I chose to refer to creative days as creative stages, or creative time periods.
In the end if u dont get the recognition u expected, move on...
Didn't think that one through, did you?:p
I agree, though, being a pessimistic optimist is the best. Never expect anything, or, more accurately, never expect anything good. Thus, nothing can fail your expectation. And when something not-so-bad happens, whoa! You just got a nice surprise!
It's like slashdot geek crowd... Never expect anything good to happen in the dating field. Because when something does happen... whoa. Wrong place. You're just screwed (figuratively and metaphorically speaking, that is).
Who'd a thought thirty years ago we'd all be sittin' here debating about word processors?
Well we had it tough! We used to have to get up out of the shoebox at twelve o'clock at night, and write our school papers entirely in binary. We had half a handful of freezing cold coffee beans, worked twenty-four hours a day at the unix print lab for four pages every six years, and when we got home...
Very valid points, what children do is the responsibility of parents. Period. Parenting involves safeguarding children from harmful influences, while still giving them a measure of freedom and independence.
The problem with internet as opposed to TV: when kids come home from school and turn on the TV, you won't catch much porn or nudity at 4 PM or 6 PM. Cartoons, yes. Sitcoms, yes. News, yes. Out of all those, kids are drawn to cartoons. There are adult shows, but they usually appear a little later. Used to be past 11 pm, now you can catch them at 9 or even 8. So with television, you can still feel relatively safe when your children want to watch afternoon / early evening programming.
With the internet... it's slightly different. There are many kids who are interested in just the kids stuff - going to PBS website, playing some interactive java games... Perhaps if by accident they stumble upon something, they'll move on to whatever they wanted to find in the first place. However, there is a percentage of kids (mostly boys) whose curiousity will peak enough to wander places that is a bit too early for them. ANd the problem is that this can happen at any time of the day, regardless of where the children are.
I strongly feel that kids do not need internet all that often, and before a certain age they shouldn't even use it. If they want it for school use, fine. Set some strict hours for internet use, and place the PC in the living room, where others can see it. Half-hour, 1 hour max, or however long is necessary to finish their work (and I doubt they will need to do school research in grade 5 that will take them hours and hours).
Also, install some internet security if you feel so inclined, but know that it does not guarantee complete protection.
And yes, all of the above rests with the parents. If they can provide their children with the luxury of the computer and the internet, they must also provide the supervision that it calls for.
Government controlling this? If parents can't be successful, there is no way the government will be.
Is "normal speed" age 6-8, and is the place for "good sexual program" the internet?
I do not disagree with you that proper sex ed is what is absolutely necessary. I just don't think that viewing porn online by 6 or 8 year old kids is the right way.
I think THIS is under review here (or so the US Govt says).
PS - I do not necessarily agree on the decision of this court, I just object to the points you raised.
Slashdot Mirror
So there is a story of incest?
;)
;)
Yet originally you claimed that the Mosaic law makes provision to actually permit incestual relations between a father and a daughter. I don't need to point out the differences between the two claims, do I?
Let's see what Leviticus 18:6,7 says:
"6"'YOU people must not come near, any man of YOU, to any close fleshly relative of his to lay bare nakedness. I am Jehovah. 7The nakedness of your father and the nakedness of your mother you must not lay bare. She is your mother. You must not lay bare her nakedness.'"
No laying bare nakedness of one's father (verse 6), although spoken to "man", would encompass all incestual relations between a father and his children. Or in verse 6, it speaks of any close fleshly relative. To assume otherwise is simply senseless.
Moreover, the story of incest that you are talking about is Lot and his two daughters - which happened hundreds of years before Moses and the Mosaic law. Lot's daughters intoxicated their father (suggesting that he would not have taken a part in such things were he sober). They did this because of fear their family would die off, being alien residents in a foreign land. The younger daughter gave birth to Benammi, through whom the nation of the Ammonites sprang up, and the older one gave birth to Moab (Moabites). The Biblical account in no way condones it, it simply relates the story of what happened. It also relates the relationship between those two nations (Ammonites and Moabites) to Israelites (descendants of Abraham, Lot's uncle).
Your statement that the mosaic law made provision to allow such relationship is absolutely false and incorrect, and is made with limited knowledge of the law and various biblical accounts. As is often the case, doing a little bit of homework will clear up many false accusations or ignorant misunderstandings. Blunt? Yes, but this is slashdot after all
As for not having a record of Christ condemning homosexuality... He listed "adultery" and "fornication" as things that defile a person (Mark 7:21-23). The Greek word for fornication is a broader term than that of adultery, and describes all forms of sexual relations outside of lawful marriage, including homosexuality. In fact, the writer Jude uses the same word (Jude 7) to describe Soddom and Gomorrah, that they "committed fornication excessively." They were judged, however, for their homosexual acts.
In as much as many scholars agree that Paul did not write those letters, even more scholars agree that he did. Conspiracy theories abound in all areas.
What's faulty is, not the accepting of Paul as the writer of the book of Corinthians, but judging the letter to be written by a forger based solely on the fact that Paul was not an eloquent speaker and did not have influential presence and wrote about it himself in the second letter.
A good example of critical works: various scholars and critics long assailed that Belshazzar, mentioned in the book of Daniel, was a fictitious name, for that name was nowhere to be found outside of the Bible. This was something that would be far easier to conclude than the forgery of Paul's writings. Such view on Belshazzar, however, ended in 1854, when some small clay cylinders were unearthed in the ruins of the ancient city of Ur in southern Iraq with evidence to rebuke even those very same critics. Which went on to attack other parts of the book of Daniel.
Bottom line? Experimenter bias, whether recognized or not, plays a large part when individuals find what they are looking for. The simpler explanation is often accepted as the most probable one. And it is far simpler to accept that Paul indeed was the writer of the books.
This discussion began on what constitutes Christian values... and the answer is quite simple. Christian values are the ones defined in the entire Christian Greek scriptures. There is hardly room for interpretation. Whether the writings were original or forged has no effect on what people today accept as Christian values. Any "adjustments" of the said values in the interpreation by religious bodies are simply because they no longer wish to accept such values and are looking for ways to fuse their personal beliefs with those of christianity.
And yet somehow i keep thinking that no one with such inclination (to lie down with his daughter) would dare to do such a thing in the camp of the israelites.
Furthermore, the Israelites' success depended much on expansion and procreation. There were provisions made for a brother to take his own brother's wife for the purpose of impregnating her should the brother die without having any offspring. There were other similar provisions (the case of Naomi and Boaz), yet nothing was mentioned about a father lying down with his daughter for the purpose of procreation, should her husband die without leaving a legacy of sons/daughters.
Hence, you may conclude that exclusion of father-daughter from the list of incestuous acts was done, not for the purpose of procreation, but simply for pleasure. Considering that other laws handed down to the Israelites governed the extent of pleasure they could experience with their own wives, or even through masturbation, any individual would conclude such stretch of logic to be absurd.
what does greeks' preferences for homosexual relations or monotheism have to do with the christian values as are defined in the greek scriptures of *any* translation?
a father to bed his daughter?
what does that have to do with discussing what christian values are as defined in the greek text?
Perhaps, nothing?
You and whoever modded you up have no clue what you are talking about.
Talking about anything remotely touching religion on slashdot is pretty much worthless. Whenever someone writes up constructive comments with insightful information on beliefs and religion, nobody cares to do anything other than come back with worthless, flamebait, trolling responses that others mark as "insightful". Why? Because it has some sort of anti-religious tone. It doesn't matter whether it's relevant to the discussion at hand.
Absolutely amazing, mate.
I agreed with you that interpretations vary and there are many. However, Christian values are pretty straightforward, as one can obtain from reading the christian greek scriptures. Many churches, such as the more liberal ones, debate the meaning of words.
Just as one example, there is only one way to interpret adultery - sleeping with another person's mate. There are no if conditions, or no circumstances when that is acceptable by the values of Christianity. It really doesn't matter whether you believe the Bible is inspired or not, whether Jesus is the son of God or not. This is a purely investigative approach to what Christianity is about. However, many religious leaders will attempt to interpret this to suit their lifestyle and values.
There stems a confusion between Christian values, and the values of churches, religious leaders and religious organizations.
Another way to learn what Christianity entails is to read historians, such as Josephus, who described this "strange" sect/organization of the first and second centuries. You no doubt will learn of their values on matters of state/political neutrality, morality and other matters.
And speaking of the book of Leviticus and why homosexuality is bad. There is no reason given to why it is bad - it is simply not accepted in the hebrew AND greek scriptures. It is stated as unnatural, and that's all.
On the subject of breaking the laws of the old testament... There were many rules given on how to atone for sins, mostly with sacrifices. No eternal damnation entered the picture. The teaching of hellfire crept into christianity with apostasy in later centuries, and was not present in the Jewish faith at all. Certain offences were punishable by death. Not eternal damnation. Christ's sacrifice was the one final and ultimate sacrifice, and Christians were free from the rules and regulations of the Mosaic law. Christ fulfilled that law, and his followers lived by Christ's law, which can be summarized in just two commandments: Love your God with your whole heart, soul and mind, and love your neighbour as yourself.
So do I believe that persons who practice homosexuality or abortion or theft or adultery or whatever else not in harmony with the christian values of the greek scriptures will go to hell? No, because there is no hell. Will they suffer? Not at all - death ends existence, simply put. But I do believe that when it comes to christian values, those practices are at odds.
Christianity really isn't a philosophy that can be adapted individually, like buddhism. It has well defined principles guiding morality, as defined in the entire Christian Greek scriptures.
There are certain statements that are not even a matter of principle - they are pretty much laws, if you wish to put it that way. Theft. Sleeping with another man's wife. Homosexuality among them (1 Corinthians 6:9-11) These really are not open to interpretation. Again, I am just pointing out what Christian values are all about, because you made it seem that things like abortion or homosexuality are perfectly accepted and allowed within Christian values, but due to fanaticism of individuals, they are not - that is not true.
So let's just call a spade a spade. Christian values aren't that adaptable - they are rather concrete guiding principles with some laws mixed in. What is adaptable is how much individuals agree or disagree with these principles, and wish to modify those Christian values to suit their own pursuits and goals.
A simple thing... i want to create a playlist. I want to take 10 of my MP3 files and make a playlist that RealPlayer would play.
So far I have been unable to do this. If there is a way to do this, how come it is not intuitive at all?
And I wish there was something with the simplicity of WinAMP - a player that supports MANY patented file types, and is available for... FREE. If there was a player like that for Linux that you could install with the ease of RealPlayer, I would have been VERY happy. As it stands, to install something requires endless hunt for the right libraries. I had FC4 installed, and ended up upgrading to FC5 since many libraries could not be installed via yum due to circulatory reference (to install i need verion x of library A, and to install library A I need version y of library B, etc...)
Yup! The virus evolved by itself from random bits and used WMF as a host, and then became active on users' PCs.... ;)
How Apple is tied to all of this? I read the summary, i read the article, and perhaps it's due to cryptographic nature of those reporters, but I can't figure out what Steve Jobs' thinks of this...
It has a 7-inch screen, according to wikipedia.
What will that run, 640x480?
Your brain is not digital. Hence no, you will not be sued.
Monitor, monitor on the wall,
show me, who has been to this stall?
P.S. Personally, I will think twice about going to those washrooms that have advertising screens in front of you. Or will I? tan tan tan...
Wow, what a bad analgy.
Ignorance is different from negligence. And ignorance is not necessarily a negative term. It just highlights the fact that somebody does not know how stuff works in this example.
Driving 150 km/h is already doing too much, knowingly. The problem is when people drive cars they believe to be secure, driving at speed limit, while not knowing that somebody came and slowly started loosening the bolts on the wheels. Until eventually the wheels come off, the person driving the car loses control and causes a multiple vehicle collision on a highway.
Yes, blah, blah, it is the responsibility of the owner of the vehicle to check the safety of his/her vehicle. Let me ask you, do you check your lugnuts each day? How about each time you drive?
The problems of PC maintenance are highlighted especially in the young kids demographic as well as novice computer users, older computer users (mom/pop, grandma/grandpa), or people who are not technologically adept.
I expect the next line to be that such people should not use computers... Let's talk realistically intead of dreaming.
the real question is not price, the real question is, Will it run Linux?
Well, to sum things up, that is just a technicality, i'm sure one's faith does not hang on it ;)
:D
Disregard the text below. It's just for the mods: science, big bang, evolution, experiment
To the mods: why was the parent marked Flamebait? Just because he admitted he is a fundamentalist? Posts that pointed out the same thing without authors expressing religious conviction got marked as "insightful" or "interesting". Learn a little bit of tolerance, it won't hurt.
:) I chose to refer to creative days as creative stages, or creative time periods.
Now, to move on
Although it is a rather common view, and in no way to critique you at all, may I suggest, respectfully, to investigate further and deeper the meaning of "day" throughout the Bible?
Keeping all religious doctrines aside, day can mean various time periods of no specific length. At times a day is taken for a thousand years... At times it is taken simply to mean an undefined time period.
A very basic description is the use of "judgment day". There is no indication it means anything other than a certain, undefined time period. That's it. There is more reasoning to it than just this, but I can't recall it. At one point I spent quite a bit of time reading various articles on this subject.
And to all who will be jumping at this, claiming that now fundamentalists, creationists, or whatever other term you choose to use now are shifting their conviction... there was never any guarantee that the view (whoever devised it) of 6000-year-old earth was correct. So at the very least, hail the break-through!
Oh, yeah, obviously you. I mean you did, that goes without saying, doesn't it? But apart from you...
;)
I mean, how many people have set up linux for their parents or family, chosen Ubuntu
Let me be the first to say... NONE?
Never work expecting something.
:p
In the end if u dont get the recognition u expected, move on...
Didn't think that one through, did you?
I agree, though, being a pessimistic optimist is the best. Never expect anything, or, more accurately, never expect anything good. Thus, nothing can fail your expectation. And when something not-so-bad happens, whoa! You just got a nice surprise!
It's like slashdot geek crowd... Never expect anything good to happen in the dating field. Because when something does happen... whoa. Wrong place. You're just screwed (figuratively and metaphorically speaking, that is).
Who'd a thought thirty years ago we'd all be sittin' here debating about word processors?
Well we had it tough! We used to have to get up out of the shoebox at twelve o'clock at night, and write our school papers entirely in binary. We had half a handful of freezing cold coffee beans, worked twenty-four hours a day at the unix print lab for four pages every six years, and when we got home...
Very valid points, what children do is the responsibility of parents. Period. Parenting involves safeguarding children from harmful influences, while still giving them a measure of freedom and independence.
The problem with internet as opposed to TV: when kids come home from school and turn on the TV, you won't catch much porn or nudity at 4 PM or 6 PM. Cartoons, yes. Sitcoms, yes. News, yes. Out of all those, kids are drawn to cartoons. There are adult shows, but they usually appear a little later. Used to be past 11 pm, now you can catch them at 9 or even 8. So with television, you can still feel relatively safe when your children want to watch afternoon / early evening programming.
With the internet... it's slightly different. There are many kids who are interested in just the kids stuff - going to PBS website, playing some interactive java games... Perhaps if by accident they stumble upon something, they'll move on to whatever they wanted to find in the first place. However, there is a percentage of kids (mostly boys) whose curiousity will peak enough to wander places that is a bit too early for them. ANd the problem is that this can happen at any time of the day, regardless of where the children are.
I strongly feel that kids do not need internet all that often, and before a certain age they shouldn't even use it. If they want it for school use, fine. Set some strict hours for internet use, and place the PC in the living room, where others can see it. Half-hour, 1 hour max, or however long is necessary to finish their work (and I doubt they will need to do school research in grade 5 that will take them hours and hours).
Also, install some internet security if you feel so inclined, but know that it does not guarantee complete protection.
And yes, all of the above rests with the parents. If they can provide their children with the luxury of the computer and the internet, they must also provide the supervision that it calls for.
Government controlling this? If parents can't be successful, there is no way the government will be.
Is "normal speed" age 6-8, and is the place for "good sexual program" the internet?
I do not disagree with you that proper sex ed is what is absolutely necessary. I just don't think that viewing porn online by 6 or 8 year old kids is the right way.
I think THIS is under review here (or so the US Govt says).
PS - I do not necessarily agree on the decision of this court, I just object to the points you raised.