Christian Morality Is…UnChristian?

In their ongoing attempt to withstand the massive assault on traditional moral values, Christians recently experienced a momentary victory when NBC decided to cancel one of its programs after airing only three episodes. The program featured a troubled, pill-popping Episcopal priest as its main character, a wife who relied on midday martinis, a 16-year-old daughter who was a drug dealer, a 16-year-old adopted son who was sexually active with the bishop’s daughter, and the priest’s lesbian secretary who was sleeping with his sister-in-law (“NBC Pulls Plug…,” 2006). The fact that the program ever saw the light of day speaks volumes concerning the degeneracy of the entertainment industry. The pious post-whimpering by the show’s supporters further demonstrates the audacious, militant gall possessed by those who wish to inundate American society with obscenity and moral filth. The show’s creator is quoted as having condemned the opposition to the program as “censorship, pure and simple—and that is both un-Christian and un-American” (Brown and Jackson, 2006, emp. added).

It is one thing to be honest and straightforward about one’s moral bankruptcy. If the Hollywood crowd does not believe in God, they ought to have enough gumption to say so. If they believe that “morality” and “right and wrong” are relative, fluid, and determined solely on the basis of subjective, personal preference, they ought to have the courage to admit it. If they believe their “barnyard morality” lifestyles and their sick preoccupation with illicit sex is superior, let them openly declare it. But, no, they seem to feel the need to disguise their thoroughgoing hedonism with pious, high-sounding claims of moral superiority—even to the point of chiding American Christians with being “un-Christian and un-American”! And, of course, to really bolster one’s righteous airs, one must throw in a frenzied appeal to “censorship!”—a term that now conjures up images of medieval torture chambers inflicted on the persecuted, oppressed, deprived population of Hollywood.

As usual, social liberals are self-contradictory, hypocritical, and guilty of the very thing of which they accuse others. If liberals have a right to set forth their perverted machinations via the media, does it not logically follow that those who disagree have the same right to express their disagreement? If liberals have the right to say: “We are for homosexuality, abortion, and pornography,” then, on the same basis, Christians have the right to say: “We are against homosexuality, abortion, and pornography.” If opposing sexual immorality on television is “censorship,” what shall we call the conspiratorial success in banning Christianity from the classroom, the government, the community, and, yes, the entertainment industry? Indeed, in their incessant drive to celebrate and normalize use of drugs and alcohol, pre-marital sex, and homosexuality, the Hollywood crowd is skilled at launching an intolerant, abusive tirade against their opponents by denouncing them as demonic censors. Yet, even they have their limits. They have not yet stepped forward and publicly endorsed television programming that celebrates bestiality, pedophilia, incest, and necrophilia. Will they endorse scenes in which the actors actually kill each other (as long as the acts are consensual)? No, since they, too, “draw lines”—and thereby are guilty of the very “censorship” as they, themselves, have defined the term.

Further, the claim that opposing obscene television programming is “un-Christian” is laughable, not only because the Hollywood crowd is hardly qualified to define what constitutes Christian behavior, but because they have demonstrated a longstanding hostility, even hatred, toward Christianity and Christian morality. Their definition of “compassion” is as warped and distorted as it can possibly be. Likewise, to label opposition to obscenity as “un-American” flies directly in the face of historical fact. From the Founders and Framers down through American history (until the last 50 years), the vast majority of Americans recognized immorality when they saw it. They knew the difference between right and wrong based on the moral framework of the Bible—and the courts upheld that value system (e.g., People v. Ruggles [1811]; The Commonwealth against Sharpless [1815]; Updegraph v. The Commonwealth [1824]; City Council of Charleston v. Benjamin [1848].

Indeed, in 1848, the Supreme Court of South Carolina articulated the standard that characterized America for the first 185 years:

What constitutes the standard of good morals? Is it not Christianity? There certainly is none other. Say that cannot be appealed to and…what would be good morals? The day of moral virtue in which we live would, in an instant, if that standard were abolished, lapse into the dark and murky night of pagan immorality (City Council of Charleston…, emp. added).

The court’s words were prophetic. We are literally witnessing American civilization in the throes of pagan immorality—spearheaded by, among others, a sizable segment of the entertainment industry.

In reality, this entire issue comes down quite simply to whether a Supreme Being exists Who has the right to legislate the moral behavior of His creatures. If so, then He has already given humans a moral framework—a standard of behavior to which all humans are accountable. In that case, “censorship” occurs only when a person attempts to oppose or stifle that which God does not want stifled (an apt description of precisely what the Hollywood crowd endeavors to do). Consequently, suppressing evil and immorality is not “censorship”! Rather, it is righteous, heroic, spiritually courageous, American, and very Christian!


Brown, Jody and Fred Jackson (2006), “NBC Closes the Book on Daniel,” AgapePress, January 24, [On-line], URL:

City Council of Charleston v. Benjamin (1848), 2 Strob. L. 508 (S. C. 1848).

The Commonwealth v. Sharpless (1815), 2 Serg. & Rawle 91; 1815 Pa. LEXIS 81.

“NBC Pulls the Plug on ‘Book of Daniel’” (2006), World Net Daily, January 23, [On-line], URL:

The People v. Ruggles (1811), 8 Johns 290 (Sup. Ct. NY.), N.Y. Lexis 124.

Updegraph v. The Commonwealth (1824), Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, [On-line], URL: _m=083294452aab2484abf17cb283bb244a&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLbVlz-zSkVb&_md5 =d6703819f222838c8fe93f045ebc0282.


A copied sheet of paper

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.

Reproduction Stipulations→