Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site duke.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!mcnc!duke!crm
From: crm@duke.UUCP (Charlie Martin)
Newsgroups: net.books,net.sf-lovers
Subject: Re: The Pornography Ordinance-Some books that it bans:
Message-ID: <5219@duke.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 7-Jan-85 12:46:37 EST
Article-I.D.: duke.5219
Posted: Mon Jan  7 12:46:37 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 11-Jan-85 05:01:56 EST
References: <3204@alice.UUCP>, <448@ukma.UUCP>
Organization: Duke University
Lines: 19
Xref: watmath net.books:1185 net.sf-lovers:5518

Come to think of it, there are a lot of things in the Bible that seem to
suggest that women should be treated as property, subjected to the will
of men, etc.  Including sexually, as where it is commanded that a man
whose brother dies childless should marry the brother's sister, in order
to make sure that someone carries on the brother's line... no suggestion
that the surviving brother should ASK first.

It would be really interesting to see a Christian bookstore owner
arrested for selling porn on these grounds -- I don't expect to see it
happen, but I can dream.

P.S.  I agree with Tim; we're talking here about censorship, not about
``women's issues'' -- and I feel that restricting my right to read
``pornography'' is NOT a women's issue!  Keep the discussion here.
-- 
		Opinions stated here are my own and are unrelated.

				Charlie Martin
				(...mcnc!duke!crm)