“Pornography And Humanism”

By Keith Pruitt

Recently there has been a recurrence of the arguments pro and con as they relate to pornography. While some contend that pornography is undefinable, one who is capable of moral judgments can easily distinguish those magazines given to pornography from an art journal or Newsweek.

A connection between secular humanism and pornography may have gone without much comment by most had it not been for an article published recently in The Humanist, an official publication of the American Humanist Association. The July/August 1985 issue entitled “Pornography, a humanist issue,” attempted to shift the scene of attack from Playboy, Penthouse, Hustler, et al to the Bible itself. The attempt was nauseating! A quote or two follows from Sol Gordon.

“I can tell you that the real issue is reproductive freedom, social justice, and sex education. Pornography is not a cause of anything. . . . The Bible is one of the most. . . pornographic things we have. . .”

In the symposium discussed in the aforementioned article, speaker after speaker warned against joining forces with right wing religionists in opposing pornography. But I can see why they would wish to avoid a discussion of pornography. The whole system of humanism is built around personal morality. Their beliefs would seem to dictate the response, “Man should be free to do as he pleases as long as no one else is hurt.”

But the attack upon the Bible is merely an attempt by ignorant men and women to focus contempt for the Bible. They know that good moral people are tired of having the filth sold in every gas station, convenient store and book dealership in the nation. Many have taken pornography off the shelves because of the pressure brought to bear by concerned citizens. Universities and even countries (see National Federation For Decency Journal, September, 1985 for further details) have banned the distribution of the smut.

But the battle rages. Seven-Eleven stores in many parts of the country as well as numerous bookstores continue to gross millions of dollars in profit every year from the sale of pornography. “Kiddy porn,” as it is called, is growing beyond imagination. The lucrative video market is now involved as one can go into many video stores and rent or buy x-rated movies.

One might well wonder how Gordon connects the Bible with rape and other sexual perversions. His reasoning runs like this. The Bible says sex is confined to marriage. But men get lonely so they rape, etc., to fulfill their physical needs. Thus it is the restraint that is the cause. They so wickedly err. It is the inability to control passions that is the problem. The law of the country also opposes rape. Should the criminal code be found at fault because of its violation? Surely not!

Mr. Gordon, who is one of the chief humanists in the country, should show where the Bible is in any way similar to the pornography of Playgirl, et al.

The allegation falls without proof. In what way is the Bible, or any one of its sixty-six books, similar to the vulgar pictures of Playboy? They have raised the issue; they must prove it.

Pornography is a result of humanistic philosophy just as righteousness comes from following the Scriptures. The humanist system of situation ethics promotes every sexual perversion imaginable. It must by definition. And equally so the Bible must oppose every false and ungodly way (Psa. 119:104). Humanism’s tenet of situation ethics is wrong. God’s word is truth (John 17:17). The morality, or immorality, humanism advocates is a denunciation of God’s true way. Paul plainly points out the works of the flesh in Galatians 5:19-21. Those who practice these stand condemned before the great King. We appeal for all to leave service to Satan and return unto God.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 22, p. 680
November 21, 1985