unique perspectives from six people

Tuesday, January 21, 2014

Should We Decriminalize Prostitution?

#1 Our Religious Rights End Where the Freedoms of Others Begin

Yes, prostitution should be decriminalized. But that is not enough. It must be well regulated, organized, and taxed.

We have slowly begun to understand that not everyone shares the same moral standards, and that it is not ethical to force our moral standards on someone else simply because it is our moral standard and we believe that it was handed to us by some higher power. Most people believe that their moral standards are approved by or generated by a higher power. Those that don't most likely don't recognize any higher power at all.

Our religious rights end where the freedoms of others begin.

In addition, keeping it criminalized has not eradicated prostitution. It has made it more dangerous, less healthy, and more likely to lead people into other forms of crime. In decriminalizing it, we must go further. We must regulate it - ensure the health of those who would work in that industry. We must organize it - put power in the hands of the labor in the form of unions. We must tax it - there will be costs, and the money to pay those costs should be generated from within the industry as much as possible, seeing as a majority of people (at least in the short term) will not approve of it.

Submitted by Matthew Rohr.

#2 Prostitution Threatens to Cheapen the Experience of Human Sexuality

In a practical sense, moral laws are established so as to discourage actions that would harm the character of individuals or the community.  In particular, prostitution threatens to cheapen the experience of human sexuality by making intercourse more available and more frequent than is common (think economics…”dumping” product on a market decreases the price and the value).  Shared sexuality is a core component of our lives, so it has been historically justifiable to protect it and make it sacred.

Though the U.S. constitution does not, our state and local laws have made human sexuality sacred by reserving it for specific circumstances.  For example, we do not consider it acceptable for people to have public intercourse.  We also encourage young women and men to refrain from having intercourse until reaching the age of consent.  Further, we prohibit intercourse between adults and children, humans and animals and a myriad of other things that we commonly find morally deviant.  In essence, our laws regarding human sexuality represent what is commonly acceptable as being “legal” and oppositely represent what is uncommon as being “criminal” (e.g. “deviant behavior”).  Even though it has never been uncommon in the United States, prostitution has always been commonly unacceptable and is banned in 49 states for this reason.

Interestingly, two consenting adults having sex before marriage was once uncommon and therefore labeled deviant behavior under the law.  Also, two consenting adults having sex with people other than their spouses was once uncommon and considered deviant behavior under the law.  And finally, for a breathe of current air, two consenting adults of the same gender having sex together was once considered uncommon and deviant behavior under the law.  It should be obvious that what is common behavior has the tendency of changing over time. And as a result of changes in behavior over time, deviance from the standard of what is commonly acceptable should not be labeled criminal behavior.  But if we no longer have at least some standards based on our common morality, we should also expect eventually to commonly dissolve sanctity from our shared human sexuality.

Submitted by Jason Buchanan.

#3 The Constitution of the United States Protects the Right of the Individual to Make Horrible Personal Decisions

We live in a nation defined by a constitution which was written to ensure each individual the freedom to make their own decisions. And that freedom should be impeded only when it damages the rights of others to make their own decisions. And no matter how strongly I feel about the profession of prostitution, I believe that the constitution of the United States protects the right of the individual to make horrible personal decisions.

I think it is very important that those of us who so strongly believe in the importance of American freedom of religion, remember that freedom is for everyone. We do not have the right to legislate the interactions of two consenting adults, based on our religious beliefs, no matter how firmly held.

Aside from religious reasons, the only reason I can think of for a law against prostitution is the hope of protecting men or women from being victimized or trapped in a life of sexual abuse by strangers. And I simply cannot see how making a person a criminal for being a participant in a less than optimal way of life, benefits anyone, least of all the prostitute. It is a policy that is counterproductive to allowing these people to find a way out.

Submitted by Beth Rogers.

#4 Seems Like a Win-Win

The only real victims of prostitution as it stands are the women themselves. The world's oldest profession lends itself to violence, degradation and abuse. But let's just say for a moment that it didn't have to. Let's say that it was legalized. Let's go a step further. Say it was even taxed by the government. If there were houses run by madams, where the women were tested and received regular medical care and kept safe, this would solve a myriad of problems. It would get the women off the streets, prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, reduce the violence and abuse that is rampant among this type of profession, all the while making money for the government. Seems like a win-win. 


Submitted by Lauri Lennox.

#5 Last Time I Checked The McGriddle Was Still Legal

Absolutely. The only two things being accomplished by the criminalization of prostitution is, 1) further driving a sinister black market for the exploitation of women and girls, and 2) further victimizing these women and girls at the hands of the criminal justice system. I've represented COUNTLESS women (and men) who have been charged with prostitution or its offspring (e.g., "failure to register" as a sex offender and "crime against nature"). Guess how many men I've represented for patronizing these individuals? NONE. If we as a society have decided we morally want this to be a behavior subject to criminal penalties, then why is this the case? 

There is a serious double standard being used to persecute women and girls who have most often already been subjected to circumstances in their lives which would horrify us. And for what? Some puritanical notion that prostitution is a sin? Well, so is gluttony, but last time I checked the McGriddle was still legal. So is greed, but Wall Street's still too big to fail. At least in the case of prostitution, if it were legalized we'd stop perpetuating an often insurmountable barrier to the "perpetrators" being able to become productive, non-puritanical belief system-offending citizens. For instance, I'd often see rap sheets three pages long or more that had "prostitution" or some derivative of it listed as the first charge followed by, "failure to register: no address provided," "failure to register: failure to pay registration fees," "failure to register: no notices sent," etc., and then low and behold, another conviction for "prostitution" would pop up... Some of these "failure to register" charges are felonies, mind you, so guess who can't get a job? Guess who can't find housing because no one wants to rent to a felon? Guess who can't register or send notices because they don't have a home much less the ability to pay any registration fees? And hmmm, if you were a woman in this position who society had already tagged with a scarlet letter anyway with little to no means of raising yourself out of these circumstances, what might be one way to feed yourself or put a roof over your head for a day or so? 

The criminalization of prostitution is doing absolutely NOTHING but hurting any chance these women and girls have to getting out of this vicious cycle. Luckily, states have been taking prostitution out of the lists of crimes for which one has to register as a sex offender (a designation originally designed to identify sexual predators but expanded by religious zealots to include every possible sex-related offense under the sun), and some have even forgone prosecution of prostitutes as felons. However, more needs to be done to decriminalize something that is inherently should not be criminal in the first place. I could talk all day about how not every moral tenet needs to be turned into a criminal statute, but that's for another post. However, in particular to prostitution, it is especially harmful to target the women and girls who engage in it and not take a good hard look at whether doing so actually solves any society ills.

Further, I firmly believe that if some version of prostitution were legal, there would be more of an outlet for people's sexual desires who wanted to engage in such behavior and perhaps, less of a black market for exploiting young girls by the way of human trafficking or other predatory behavior. As a judge once told a peeping tom client of mine while he was admonishing him during sentencing, "listen, if you need to do that, I can tell you where to go." He was referencing a strip club down the street from the courthouse. In a roundabout way, my sentiments exactly.

The simple truth is that the criminalization of prostitution hurts women and young girls, and it is not the answer to the problem, even if you are of the persuasion that prostitution is a sin. For more about how damaging the criminalization of prostitution is for especially young girls, how our criminal justice system is failing them, and how this topic intersects with the issue of human trafficking, see:

http://www.sheknows.com/parenting/articles/1028191/should-child-sex-trafficking-victims-go-to-jail-for-prostitution

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-raphael/legalize-prostitution_1_b_4251956.html


Submitted by Amanda Love, Esq.

#6 Prostitution Will Not Go Away

While I try not to adhere myself to political labels, I’d have to admit up front that I typically land more within the Libertarian camp than anything else. This position is not due to any particular party loyalty, I simply believe that all things being equal, grown adults should and can be responsible for themselves.

There are no easy answers to such horrors as the sex slave trade, poverty, public health issues and the other types of criminal activity that go along with the sex industry in general. However, I believe wholeheartedly that a decriminalization of prostitution would be a step in the right direction.

Taking the world's oldest profession out of the back alleys and into government regulated, taxed and protected arenas would, in my opinion, make considerable improvements in an industry that refuses to be abolished no matter what steps are taken to prohibit such activities.  The current criminalization of prostitution is a key component in the victimization of the women and men who choose that profession. For those inside it who haven’t chosen it, but instead have been sold into the industry, the darkness under which they must stay hidden provides the very cloak of oppression that keeps them in such a horrific situation. Decriminalizing prostitution would help to bring those dark places into the light of public and governmental accountability and regulation.

Governmental regulation would also mean that, like the porn industry, regular testing and governmental oversight would help protect public health much more than the aforementioned cloak of darkness. It also means a potential tax on a multi-billion dollar industry, providing tax dollars that could help educate those in the profession, assist those in need who may be choosing it out of a multi-faceted poverty structure, and also help stop sex slave trades. 

In short, prostitution will not go away. We can either continue to fight it in our current strategy and continue to lose, or work with it to minimize the casualties. If the definition of insanity is continuing to do the same thing and expect different results, then the continued criminalization of prostitution is, indeed, insane. I believe decriminalizing it would be a much better step in the direction of solving the base issues that both feed into the industry and arise out of it. 

Submitted by Shae Cotter.

Monday, January 13, 2014

Whose responsibility is it to care for the poor, the orphans, the widows and the homeless?

#1 The Church Relegated This Responsibility to The Government

Deuteronomy 14: 28-29 describes one of 3 tithes mentioned in the Old Testament. This particular tithe was taken every 3 years, and it's purpose was to take care of the poor. This tells us that at the time this was written, the church took care of the poor in this manner. This was not the same tithe that was to be used to support the temple.

It appears to me that the church relegated this responsibility to the government, who through taxes use various programs to satisfy the needs of the poor. Certainly the New Testament teaches us that we should be benevolent, but at this point in time, the church would not be able to meet all the needs of the poor.

Submitted by David Parker.

#2 Humans Have This Pesky Little Incorporation Called Individuality

This question leads one to believe that there is one answer, and that orphans, the homeless, the poor, and widows, are all in the same boat. They are not. To be clear, not all homeless people are in the same boat as each other, necessarily; and the same with widows and the poor.

The question of orphans, on the other hand, is a category all its own. It represents, to me, ultimate helplessness, especially in the instance of young children who are orphaned.

But you were looking for an answer, not a new question.

I believe that it is the responsibility of every individual to take care of him or herself in as much as that person has the ability. Everyone, of every ability level, has times when they must rely on someone else for something. That is a part of the human condition, something that forces us to enter into community with each other. The more a society learns to use each person's strengths to benefit his neighbors and to work together, the more it can thrive. But this is not something that can be accomplished on a corporate level with true success. Humans have this pesky little incorporation called individuality, and that ingredient will forever make it impossible for any society to have a utopia on this earth. That is why communism, while it sounds fantastic on paper, fails miserably in every application. It's because someone has to lead and manage, and because humans need ambition, however small, in order to be happy, and because they desire deeply, uncontrollably, to be happy. It is part of our nature to want to become something. We simply cannot peacefully and happily live in the “ideal” situation where we all work toward the greater good, as defined by someone other than ourselves.

Compassion, however, must drive us to care for those who cannot care for themselves. We must care for our own families, our own old, our own sick. Morally and Biblically, that is our obligation, and also a system which makes sense. If we all cared for our own, there would be a great deal fewer helpless who were not cared for.

But there are very very many in our world who are not cared for and need to be. Whose responsibility is to care for them? That's a very difficult question. As a citizen of our nation, is it my responsibility to care for a helpless stranger. I say no. As a human, however, and especially if you consider yourself a Christian, it is not an option to leave the helpless without help, if it is in anyway within your power to assist.

The answer, then, i think, in short, is "MINE."

Submitted by Beth Rogers.

#3 This Is What Matters!!

I believe the Bible is very clear about our requirements as God’s children to care for the Orphans and Widows.  The book of Deuteronomy has several instructions about caring for Orphans, Widows, and those unable to work, i.e. the Poor and Homeless.  The first thing Jesus states in Matthew 5, The Beatitudes, is blessed are the Meek, the Hungry, and the Thirsty.  Right after that he states blessed are the Merciful.  In James 1 and 2, James, the brother of Jesus, is also very clear about taking care of the less fortunate.  

But 1st Timothy 5:16 explains it a little further by giving an explanation of those who are truly needy. These passages explain that those who have relatives to care for them, or can work for themselves, are not truly needy of our support.  The book of Ruth is a great story about a redeemer kinsman for both the widow Ruth and her widow mother-in law, Naomi.  Ruth turns out to be the great grandmother of King David. Another example can be found in Acts 3 with the Story of Peter and John being asked by a beggar for money.  They tell him they have no money for him and offer him salvation instead.  One point is they probably had some small amount of money they could have given him, at that time the Church was strong and sharing all things with each other.  But they didn't offer the beggar a “Gift”, they offered hope and salvation.  So there appears to be some level of accountability presented in the Bible.

When Jesus was pressed about the greatest of the laws he states to Love God, to Love Others.  Two of the Fruits of the Spirit are Love and Kindness.  When you really do Love someone, you hurt when they hurt.  If you are a follower of Christ and do as he commanded you will feel a certain level of love and compassion for those who are truly needy.  The Church has always been surrounded by the poor and the needy have always been with us.  History tells us that.  It seems sometimes that the poorer or more destitute a person is, the more they realize their need for God and are receptive to hearing his voice and command.  Why is it that Jesus stated how hard it will be for the rich man to enter heaven?  Why did he say if you want to be perfect, go sell your possessions and give to the poor and then you will have treasure in heaven? Then come follow me?


If you open the eyes of your heart, stop, be still, and listen, you will hear the voice of God on many occasions.  I had that happen recently while on a South Dallas mission trip to help the homeless.  My Christian joy was being stunted by several silly and petty issues within my Church life.  I was having issues with the church band, the quality of music we are playing, how we are being lead in worship, and even some of our bible studies and men’s retreat topics.  These seemed to be big and important topics for me and I was not the happiest camper in the building.   While downtown and talking with some of the homeless (who really do sleep under a bridge) I had a break through moment with the Lord.  I clearly heard his voice say to me “This is what matters!!”  I could powerfully feel Christ’s compassion for the needy and lost.  I knew he was talking to me about taking care of those who are truly less fortunate than us and to stop worrying about things that don’t really affect salvation and the message of the Cross.  If you’re honest with yourself and seek, you will see the needs of poor and homeless, those who truly need our help.  They are all around us.

Submitted by Dave Forrest.

#4 Requiring People to Give of Themselves Breeds Resentment & Contempt

The easy answer to the question of who’s ultimately responsible for the poor, the orphans, the widows, and the homeless would be “the government,” but the question itself is not that simple.  In an ideal world there would be no forced charity because requiring people to give of themselves (through taxation) breeds resentment and contempt vis a vis Mitt Romney’s infamous “47%.”  Our government spends untold billions on social programs that tend to instill a learned helplessness on recipients instead of giving them the motivation to overcome their situation and flourish on their own.  Charitable giving should come via people looking within themselves and giving readily and altruistically to causes designed to help those in need.  In return these non-governmental agencies would be responsible for giving the needy a hand-up instead of a handout.  


Submitted by Neal Harkner.

#5 A Microscopic Solution to A Macro-Cosmic Problem

Aside from the fact that I feel we are asking the wrong question here, I think there is a multifaceted answer. The question we should be asking is not who, but how. Determining how we solve the problem is more vital to the solution than determining who solves the problem, and I think it would lend itself to the answer we are seeking. Nevertheless,  I believe that above all else, we have a personal responsibility to take care of our own.  Just as it is my responsibility to take care of myself and my family, it is your responsibility to care for yours.  This may seem like a microcosmic solution to a macro-cosmic problem, but starting on a small scale is an effort worth making.  Solving the problem on a larger, governmental scale, has proven ineffective.  Large scale solutions are the government’s way of placing a band aid over a gaping wound.  They offer the same assistance to all poverty stricken families without considering that not every person is needy in the same way, or for the same reasons.  If we could localize, and perhaps privatize the care that the needy receive, we could go a long way toward minimizing, or possibly alleviating the problem. Charity starts at home, after all.   

Submitted by Lauri Lenox.

#6 Rich In Material Things, But Poor In Spirit

In short, everyone's. I've spent my legal career advocating on behalf of the poor, and from experience I can tell you that the needs of, “the poor, the orphans, the widows, and the homeless,” are multifaceted and cannot be fully addressed by mere donations of money or well-meaning charities. In addition, I am of the mind that the verse from the Bible this phrase is taken from is not necessarily literal. There are those that are rich in material things, but poor in spirit. There are those that have mothers or husbands or homes in a technical sense, but not within the true meanings of those words. To me, the notion of caring for the poor, etc., speaks to the desire from God or the shared humanistic value for us to be more compassionate toward and to take care of one another, and yes, even create a government that represents that notion.   

Submitted by Amanda Love, Esq.