The International Writers Magazine: In Defence of Life, Liberty and honest porn
THE THOUGHTS AND OPINIONS OF A BUDDHIST AMONG BAPTISTS
• Reverend Father Antonio Hernández, O.M.D., A.B.F.
Founder of the Independent Order of American Buddhist Fathers

---

FIRST AMENDMENT, NOW AMEN! THE RULES THEY ARE A-CHANGIN' • Most Rev. Dr. Antonio Hernández Back in the late fifties, kids used to have fun ogling "National Geographic" magazine to see the bare-breasts and bamboo-sheathed penises of various natives. There was, of course, the existence of "Playboy", but as I recall, interest in that was minimal. The interest in all things aviary [the birds and the bees for the uninitiated] increases greatly in the teen years. By that time, for my generation, "Lassie" was enough to get most of us going.

Now a mealy-mouthed toad of a U.S. senator, one Brownback by name, is trying to compare pornography to lethal, addictive drugs. His chief interest is to create porno police (and to actually get the police to concentrate criminal investigations on porno use). Of course, his desire is to end all porno for all time. This is a man whose friends practice the art of not staying in hotel rooms too long when traveling- so they won't give in to pay-per-view temptation. The senator did not specify whether he himself does this or not.

As a priest, I can see tremendous merit in the issues at hand [no pun intended]. After all, Sen. Brownback and his fly-by-bible cohorts have many good points. They say kids are stumbling onto violent, horrible porno on the web. The infamous T & A pop-up are nauseating, true. Too much garbage is on television- what else is new- but the sexual aggressiveness is reaching new heights, according to these fanatics. The senator and his clowns are afraid these new heights will destroy families, and that of course leads to the devastation of our great, corporate/warmongering nation.
Anyone for a good book barbeque?

The senator admits there are obstacles to his vision, presented by that even more horrifying pest: the Constitution, and the particularly vulgar First Amendment. He says "research" will be needed, scientific justification for a new era of Constitutional-rights-thievery. Enter his two chief "experts", one who claims that police should drag porno into every criminal case, and another who says that porno is so pernicious it can literally possess a person.
So why aren't these people calling an exorcist?

This is nothing we haven't seen here before. Prohibition was a major attempt of this very same kind, and now we have a Constitutional amendment forbidding prohibition: it's the amendment immediately following the one that made prohibition the law of the land. Point? You can't just rob people's rights in America. They're liable to get angry.

Pornography can reach the level of art. Like a reasonable Republican, it isn't too common, but it happens. The cement binding pornography to art never weakens: it is created for a market of connoisseurs, consumers and the simple-minded alike. It's for anyone who wants it, and is not generally forced on those who hate it. It is created entirely by people who love it one way or another. To force it on anyone is tantamount to a crime, and that is as far as I am willing to pontificate on that subject. And if I'm not in error, WE ALREADY HAVE LAWS FOR THAT.

It is rather humorous to compare porno to drugs. Still, this anti-porno campaign is a mere ploy. The idiot senator knows he'll get no support- Republicans are either notorious porno-lovers or question-dodgers. Go to almost any state in this nation and try to take away any man's guns, boots, truck or "Playboy" and see what you get. The senator does a good job of putting his idea into otherwise empty heads. That's where the real dangers lie. If you have a question about what constitutes an empty head, think about the people who supported Hitler. Or Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, if you want serious empty-headedness.
What should we do?

My idea is simple: we need a stronger pro-porno base. Not because we are animals or sex maniacs, but because we are free and want to stay that way. If I see something horrible, I do not become attached. If I see something beautiful, I do not become attached. Those are part of my Buddhist vows. In normal American, that translates as "If you don't like it, don't look at it."
Perhaps that line should be the basis for a new amendment to the Constitution. I guess that would lose me what's left of my readers. Oh well. I can always trade in my writing time to enjoy my old copies of "Blueboy".
© Rev Antonio Hernandez December 2004

On Meanness

On Charms

More Comment & Lifestyles

Home

© Hackwriters 2000-2004 all rights reserved