Small Prank or Big Problem?

Rating:S
There is a story on Fox News about teens who are taking pictures of themselves nude and sending them on their cell phones to other teens. The people they interviewed on Sunday night discussed the ramifications of this action. The first point the people interviewed made was that these teens are the first to have the technology to do this. There is no precedent here. The second point brought up was that these teens could be charged with possession of pornography, specifically child pornography, and if charged and convicted could be classified as a sex offender. This would stay on their record for life; additionally, they would have to register as a sex offender. Pretty long-reaching effects for an act that many would consider a “silly high school prank.”

Why are they doing this? According to Fox News, “Psychologists said the phenomenon reflects typical teenage hormones and lack of judgment, with technology multiplying the potential for mischief. It also may reflect a teenage penchant for exhibitionism, as demonstrated on MySpace and countless other Web sites and blogs.” Good explanation, but I believe it goes beyond that.

Where do these kids get these ideas? Sure children and teens get ideas from many sources—family, friends, TV, internet, school—but why on earth take nude pictures and plaster them on cell phones and internet? It’s because they haven’t been taught that they shouldn’t, and I would venture to say that they have been subtly encouraged to do so.

“Give them an inch, they’ll take a mile,” is the old saying. We’ve given our children and our society too many inches. Read the Humanist Manifesto, Humanist Manifesto II, and Humanist Manifesto III documents; and you’ll see that we’ve slowly, subtly encouraged this negative sort of behavior in our culture over the last 75 years. We say that the old way of doing things is bad and wrong. We encourage them to do whatever. Then when things go out of control we wonder why.

Take for example this “teaching” written in Humanist Manifesto II: “Traditional moral codes and newer irrational cults both fail to meet the pressing needs of today and tomorrow. False "theologies of hope" and messianic ideologies, substituting new dogmas for old, cannot cope with existing world realities. They separate rather than unite peoples.”

I hate to point it out now, but traditional moral codes held people in check for thousands of years. When humans define morality based on a solid foundation it holds a person in check better than when morality is based on a fleeting emotion or opinion. Then morality is boiled down to a sound bite of “if it feels good, do it.” Well, that doesn’t hold out in the long run.

Another “teaching” of the Humanist Manifesto has led us to nude cell phone pictures. It discusses sexuality: “SIXTH: In the area of sexuality, we believe that intolerant attitudes, often cultivated by orthodox religions and puritanical cultures, unduly repress sexual conduct. The right to birth control, abortion, and divorce should be recognized. While we do not approve of exploitive, denigrating forms of sexual expression, neither do we wish to prohibit, by law or social sanction, sexual behavior between consenting adults. The many varieties of sexual exploration should not in themselves be considered "evil." Without countenancing mindless permissiveness or unbridled promiscuity, a civilized society should be a tolerant one. Short of harming others or compelling them to do likewise, individuals should be permitted to express their sexual proclivities and pursue their lifestyles as they desire. We wish to cultivate the development of a responsible attitude toward sexuality, in which humans are not exploited as sexual objects, and in which intimacy, sensitivity, respect, and honesty in interpersonal relations are encouraged. Moral education for children and adults is an important way of developing awareness and sexual maturity.”

The teens were just expressing their sexual proclivities and we should be tolerant. Or maybe there was nothing sexual about it and I am merely intolerant. The last sentence makes me ask, what are we basing our moral education on since we have eliminated moral codes?

Every secular humanist will now rail on my shallow, intolerant, backward-thinking mindset. I apologize only for asking people to think. This teaching has been in our public school system far too long under the guise of forward thought. I was in high school over 15 years ago, and it was there then, as I now recognize. Then I was criticized of being closed-minded. Now I realize that people who want to teach others to be closed-minded will always criticize those who think and assert that the thinkers are the closed-minded ones.

I encourage everyone to read these three Humanist Manifesto documents and dare to question.