I fully agree with the writer of the above critique. The reaction should not be that this was just economics, but that it was/is more like cueing a cancer or ridding someone (a community) of a maglinant tumor. Everyone is hurt when these salicious businesses are allowed to exist. The consequences are ruined lives, ruined marriages and the wrong view of humanity. I hope the handwriting is on the wall and the former Neon Cowboy (now named Strippers) about a mile from the former Cafe Erotica will close its doors SOON.

Tracy,

Thanks for the response. I too pray and hope the other establishment you mention is soon closed for good.

Well said!

I agree with Connie. Well said

As semi-libertarian as I am, I fully support the ability of a local populace to regulate these types of places. Some people simply don’t want to have to live near them, and in this particular instance, it was actually keeping commercial development at bay (there are surrounding properties that appear they are ready to do some business now that the restaurant is gone). It was a blight and an embarrasment on the community, and I fully agree with Paul B here - the consequences are further reaching than some are willing to admit.

Legislating morality gives me the willies, though. When you open that door, you give the “authorities” license to legislate based on ideaology. Sadly, our country’s ideaology hasn’t been moving our direction lately. So if they start banning church services or homeschooling, etc, it’ll be through a door we opened.

what in the world? I submit a comment and then I get to see the rest of the post!! I had no idea that this “feature” existed. Thankfully, my previous post is still germane, though I have to qualify it by saying that my use of the phrase “legislating morality” applies more to the aforementioned idea of passing laws that apply to the public good. Though I don’t have a problem with that, per se. I simply think laws should attempt to codify the Natural Law, which states that you can do anything you want, unless it hurts me. The debate, I think, should be how much does this business hurt those who don’t take part? And what appreciable effect does it have on a community? Would the sin not be there if the business weren’t?

I think that this may be a different conversation if the Cafe E was in a more out-of-the way location. I think that such places CAN hurt a community - and, in this case, genuinely prevent business growth. Biblically speaking, it’s difficult to determine how we should react legally - because it wasn’t technically allowed in the OT and well-prohibited, but the Romans didn’t have a ton of problems with it (the most well-preserved building in Pompeii is a bordello). It’s one of those tricky areas, Biblically speaking, because there’s the moral prohibition, but no legal one in New Testament terms.

Sin affects more than the individual, even the most private…but how far do we allow, in a sense, to let sinners be sinners?

Exactly, how far do we allow? The founders gave us Article I sec. 8 that basically allowed it to the extreme in terms of the federal gov’t- leaving almost all laws up to the States. This being a local issue, I would allow more leeway in terms of legislation, because could always just vote with their feet. But I’d still be very cautious. DC legislated away their gun rights because of ideaology, crime went way up.

JH- one of the arguments that often comes up during these kinds of discussion is that if we legislate morality, whose morality will we legislate? In my opinion, if the church fulfills its function of proclaiming the gospel then we will see change take place so that people value the things they ought to value- in this instance, the value of women and proper place of sex. Where the gospel flourishes, life and culture will flourish as well. The Church gives impetus to the expansion of the Kingdom and where the kingdom spreads society benefits.

I agree that in a more perfect society, the church would have great influence in our legislation. But you raise the important question- whose morality? How can we guarantee the church will have that kind of influence? How can we guarantee that the church will be moral in its campaigns? I tend to think that its better not to allow that type of legislation, than to open the door to any of it. The more power you give the gov’t, historically, the quicker you dig your grave.

Two good points here, and they’re both separate and linked.

I’ve always been of the opinion that if the church has to try to turn to the legal arena to enforce morality, she has partially failed in her mission to affect the world - the message has not been spread properly and responsibly. We need to be members of a community which is good at limiting the more public vices not through force or legality, but simply through being good people who seek to follow Christ. The best way to keep such places out of business is to not buy from them. It actually worked with the old “teasers” place on Watson, apparently.

Either that, or just let me call the shots. MY morality. There. That’s better.
JH, are you doing this at work?

Actually, yes. Should I not?

Hey, I’m posting to this blog at work. Don’t worry about it.

Yeah, it’s more or less in the modern pastor’s job description. JH and I have to hope that we can get here from teh webernet.

I’m glad it’s leaving. I would deliberately look away when getting off that exit to avoid looking at the building or its billboards.

It’s an embarrassment, and I’m glad they are taking down the billboards too. That’s the first thing you see going into Warner Robins from I-75 and that’s not a good thing to be known by.