Close this search box.

University Hosts a Coarse Exchange

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

smutforsmut.jpgI’ve never been so embarrassed to be called a Texan. Normally, I’d be proud to associate with others from the Lone Star State, but right now I’m ashamed! The University of Texas at San Antonio will host the annual Smut for Smut event, an atheist group’s initiative encouraging college students to exchange their religious texts (Bibles, Korans, etc.) for pornography.

Labeling this “freedom of speech,” the group insists that the sacred texts themselves have nothing but “smut” in them, so why not give students “smut” of a different kind?

Thomas Jackson, of the Atheist Agenda student group, claims in his interview with MSNBC that religious texts are filth, just like “a lot” of pornography: “What we’re doing is trading something that’s very, very bad [religious texts] for something that’s only moderately bad [pornography].”

According to WorldNetDaily, Jackson says the group “wanted to make the comparison between [pornography] and the smut that is religious scripture, or a lot of it, you know. The stuff that says a woman is worth half a man, the things that say, you know, you should beat children. These things aren’t acceptable in our society.”

Well thank you, Mr. Jackson, for so eloquently outlining your ethical stance while distributing pictures of naked women. A young man of such stellar moral fiber is certain to make an excellent father one day.

Okay, seriously now, how violent is pornography? And while we’re at it, what’s so bad about pornography? If we are talking about a woman’s worth, Mr. Jackson’s assertions beg the question: What does pornography communicate about the worth of women? How about a man punching or choking a woman while having sex with her? Does that honor and protect her? No, it perpetuates violence against women.

Does pornography safeguard children and prevent them from abuse? To the contrary, it exploits children through rape, nude photos, and torture.

Let’s talk a minute about what things are not acceptable in our society.

Pornography incites violence towards women. It is not acceptable.

Continued viewing of porn can lead to a dangerous and unhealthy lifestyle. Viewing pornography leads to, “permission-giving beliefs,” such as seeing sex as something that can be bought, sold, or stolen at any time.

In fact, men who have had prolonged exposure to porn are more willing to act out violently against women by either forced sexual behavior or rape.

Last month, a British study revealed that boys who see pornography are more likely to act out violently towards girls. In fact, a young boy was bringing images to his elementary school and acting them out on the playground. Come to find out, his father had pornography all over the house.

Pornography can lead to deeper, darker addictions like child pornography. It is not acceptable.

Morality in Media recently released an extensive study showing that those who regularly view pornography progress to viewing child pornography, often with violent acts ensuing.

Child pornography exploits the innocent, increases crime, and always leads to the sexual abuse of children. It is not acceptable.

The Journal of Family Violence published a study by the Bureau of Prisons showing that men convicted of connections with child pornography also committed hands-on child sex offenses. A staggering 85 percent “admitted they had sexually molested a child at least once, with an average of 13.5 victims per offender.”

Mr. Jackson is exchanging religious texts for all kinds of porn, which he rates on a scale of 0-5, Playboy being “0.” What kind of porn would he rate at level “5”? And, at level “5,” is he inadvertently feeding the addiction of someone who is on the edge and considering the plunge into the abysmal darkness of child porn? Is he really ready to be responsible for enabling an addictive lifestyle that could lead to the shattered lives of innocent children?

C’mon, Mr. Jackson. Christianity has always maintained safeguards and protection for the most vulnerable (women, children), helped to form orphanages to care for the outcasts, and historically has always been a first responder to the poor and needy. Are you really going to sit there and compare it to pornography, the so-called “freedom of speech” that obliterates decency, tears families apart, destroys innocence, puts women and children in constant danger, and is the number one reason why convicted rapists act out? Then you obviously don’t know the first thing about the God of the Bible.

Pornography isn’t art. Pornography is sin, and sin puts us in opposition to God. He is just and right to send us to Hell for our sin. This world works on His terms, not mine and not yours. This is His world, and He makes the rules. And He says that sin has to be punished.

Our personal sin is so egregious to God, only a perfect and sinless sacrifice could pay for it. That is a debt that is beyond our ability to pay. But God is both perfect in His justice and unending in His mercy. He provided a way to satisfy His justice. He sent His son, Jesus Christ, Who died for us. And now, His perfect and sinless blood pays the debt that our sin-stained blood could never even begin to try to do. If we accept Jesus’ sacrifice on our behalf, we enter into a right, restored relationship with God.

The amazing thing about the Bible is that it tells us that Jesus’ sacrifice is not only for people who have been hurt or abused (like so many who enter the pornography industry); it is also for those who inflict hurt and abuse. Jesus Christ can save the worst of sinners and redeem their lives.

Bottom line, Mr. Jackson, you’re trying to take magazines in which women are degraded, exploited, and abused to sate a man’s depravity and exchange them for a religious text in which the Creator Himself is degraded, abused, and murdered to save men from their depravity.

Reports say you’ve already had some takers to your deal, so you already have a Bible in hand. I urge you to read it and believe it.