While the Wacky Reactions page is a great deal of fun, I should stress that it gives an unrepresentative sample of the responses I get. I'd say at least half are thoughtful at some level, or offer an interesting extension of my point. Many agree with me, but many do not fully. Below are some sample points that interested me or expanded my points somewhat. The thoughtful ones that disagreed with me usually led to long correspondences that space doesn't allow. Suffice it to say that nobody's brought up anything to change my views on the CDA or the existence of God.

Some respondents have requested that their mail addresses show up on the page. Be nice. If you respond to them, please cc: them to me at biblicalindecency@home.com . Thanks!

"Why do you care?"

	Quite an interesting page you've got here.  Yes, I am one of those 
	"born-again" Christians that seem to annoy you with my faith.  
	But, I would like to actually commend you on looking into what 
	the Bible says and not trying to sugar coat it.  Yes, there are 
	several references to sex and violence in the Bible.  I won't 
	argue with you there.  You are perfectly allowed to believe what 
	you want to believe; I would be a fool to try and force you to 
	believe in Christianity.  And I understand that you weren't 
	trying to condemn Christianity but condemn the laws that would 
	hinder the freedom of speech.  I just have a question for you.  
	I understand that many Christians can be irritating and obnoxious 
	about their faith-- these people annoy me more than they annoy 
	you.  But why all the animosity?  If you truly don't believe, why 
	do you care?  Just wondering.

I care precisely because I'm not religious. I care when people get so aggressively self-righteous that they try to create laws that force others to behave according to their religious principles. What right do these people have to dictate what others view or say on the web? Who are they to say that others' children have to pray in school, or that others' tax dollars have to go toward creches in public places?

Another non-Atheist Speaks

From Jack Simon

	Interesting page,

	'I may disagree with what you say, but I'll defend
	with my life your right to say it . . .'

	I'm not sure who made that quote (actually I heard
	it on an old episode of 'All In The Family').

	I am a Born-again Christian, and an ordained minister.
	To be honest, I would like to see everyone have the
	same desire to serve the Lord as I do.  However, for
	this to happen it would have to be forced.  There is
	a term for forced love, it is called RAPE.  
	
	This is a free society. The United States is not 
	(and never has been) a 'Christian Country'.  Such a 
	principle was totally against what the founding fathers 
	were working toward. The general population at the 
	time was composed of Quakers, Puritians, Methodists, 
	Roman Catholics, Unitarians, agnostics, athiests, and 
	dietists among others. The founding fathers had seen 
	the excesses of a 'religious country' with the excesses 
	of the Papacy, the Moslems, and the Church of England. 
	Legislated morality has never worked.

	Yes, I feel that you have taken some Scripture out 
	of context, for much was written in a time and culture 
	where sex and matters of sexuality were taught early 
	and accepted without question.  However your point of
	censorship is well taken.  Censorship is a two edged
	sword, when it hits you on the drive, it could also
	cut me on the backswing.

Leave it to a South African to understand the Founding Fathers:

From Martin Halle, Margate, South Africa.

	As Thomas Paine wrote in his "Age of Reason" -

	"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptious debaucheries,
	the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness
	with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more
	consistent if we called it the word of a demon rather than the Word
	of God.   It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt
	and brutalize the world of mankind; and for my part I sincerely
	detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel."
	
	With such a manifesto, no wonder the world has experienced so much
	murder, torture, rapine and bloodshed through the ages.
	My blood curdles when I see evangelists such as Jimmy Swaggert
	strutting up and down the stage holding this Book aloft and
	proclaiming its divine authorship.  What an insult to God (if He
	exists).

	Do Christians actually take the time to readb their Bibles or do
	they leave it to their hypocritical priests to select only those
	passages that are fit to be read in mixed company?

The Humanity of the Bible

From John Dawson

	Thanks for your page. It is good. I am a graduate of
	London Bible College, an evangelical seminary in England, and I
	take the bible (and the God of the bible seriously). I doubt if I
	can say anything new to you as you have had so many emails
	before. I would like to say though that I think it is important
	for anyone who makes claims about the bible to have read it. This
	is not a criticism of you because I guess you have, it is a
	criticism of the many Christians who assume because they believe
	in the Christian God as a good God that the bible just can't
	contain lewd bits. They seem to mis-understand the nature of the
	bible. It is a human book. Written by people - This cannot be
	argued against (and shouldn't). Whether it is a divinely inspired
	book is another question. But the thing that gets me is that
	Christians spend so much time talking about the divine origin of
	the Bible that they ignore its humaness. Christians often tend to
	do the same with Jesus.

	To me, the bible is a record of people's relationship with their
	God. And because people have sex, and think a lot about sex it is
	not surprising that sex is in the bible.
	
	Please continue to de-bunk silly views about the Bible. If God
	exists (and I think God does), then if God can't cope with it then
	maybe God should give up the day job!

The Main Point

	You make a strong argument for free speech and even though
	I am a christian I don't find your usage of certain verses
	offensive.  After all the Bible isn't supposed to be a warm fuzzy
	story, but deal with the state of humanity, including the dark ugly
	or simpily unpleasant side of it.

And From the Moldovan Front...

	[...] Altough the CDA had no direct impact on me
	(I'm from Moldova, and the US Congress doesnt have
	too much influence over here), I am growing sick to
	the point of puking my guts out of all the US-fabricated
	preachers who showed up after we got our independence in 1991. 
	
	Your page has helped me very much, since I have
	shamelessly stolen Bible passages from here and used
	them quite extensively, for instance in preventing a
	high school introduce compulsory "spiritual teaching"
	by a Baptist preacher (he bribed the principal).

	Anyway, with all the influence the US has in the
	world today, I believe that the CDA is not only
	Americans' business, and that all effort should be
	made to prevent some people's religious narrowmindedness
	from dictating the lifestyles of everyone else.

	[...] Sorry I cannot help with any contributions to
	the bible quotes, I was raised as a Eastern Orthodox,
	a religion where you don't read the bible, the priest
	does it for you in church and doesnt bother you out of
	it. 

That's the Spirit

	I'm a Christian and my kneejerk response is to side with the censors.
	Fortunately, my common sense takes over and reminds me that Jesus
	never tried to protect anyone from sin--he told them to turn away
	from it.  So dirty pictures are on the Net.  If it offends you, don't
	look at them!  You're right--if we censor the net, what's next?
	Should we just take those "dirty" passages out of the Bible?  What
	about the scary parts about hell?  And all those miracles--do we
	really want our children to think they could walk on water?

On "I'll Pray for You" Responses

	To pray for someone and let them know; is in itself, comforting.
	To know someone cares enough to say such a thing would help one to
	cope.  Trust me I've been there.

Don't Try This at Home

	[...] I am tempted to don a rainbow wig, go to a sporting event and
	 mug for the camera with a sign saying Ezekiel 23:20-21.

A comment on the Wacky Responses page:

why, why, why have you gone and asterixed (there is no WAY that is
actually a word...) the naughty words from your crazed email responses?
if it was intended as irony, i'm sorry... i missed it. (btw: if you
think YOU got loonies, you'll really have to go to WCS!)
anyhow, i want you to post this email, and please leave the following
word intact....

FUCK.

i don't think either of us will go to jail for that....yet.

He also suggests adding the story of Lot, which I just may send up to the Indecency site. (And hey, he bothered to type it out)

And Lot went out of Zoar,
and dwelt in the mountain, and his two
daughters with him; for he feared to
dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt in a cave,
he and his two daughters.

And the firstborn said to the
younger, Our father is old, and there is
not a man in the earth to come in unto
us after the manner of all the earth:

Come, let us make our father drink
wine, and we will lie with him, that we
may preserve seed of our father.

And they made their father drink
wine that night: and the firstborn went
in, and lay with her father: and he
percieved not when she lay down,nor
when she arose.

And it came to pass on the morrow,
that the firstborn said to the younger,
Behold, I lay yesternight with my father:
let us make him drink wine this
night also; and thou go in, and lie with
him, that we may preserve seed of our father.

And they made their father
drink wine that night also: and the younger
arose, and lay with him; and he percieved
not when shey lay down, nor
when she arose.

Thus were the daughters of Lot
with child by their father.

Genesis 19 (30-36)

sounds to me like Lot must have been _pretty_ drunk.
anyways, i really wish i knew about that story back when i was teaching
sunday school... haha.

This Christian gent pretty much sums it up:

It strikes me as odd that nearly every person I've talked to who has
claimed to be an activist for the CDA (in my church, around town, etc.)
has never even LEARNED HOW TO USE A COMPUTER, has never been on the
Internet, and is only basing his biased beliefs on what he hears from
others, who say that the Internet is "a breeding ground for lust, sin,
etc. etc.")

I think you're very right in that we as Christians need to slap
ourselves in the face a few times and consider just what it is we're
doing. 

He quotes from a Christian rock band:

'The greatest single cause of atheism in the world today...is
Christians, who acknowledge Jesus with their lips, then walk out the
door, and deny Him by their lifestyle. THAT is what an unbelieving world
simply finds unbelievable.'

A particularly thoughtful one:

	I was very impressed with your page on the ambiguous
	"Decency Act" law.

	I am proud to profess my faith as a Christian (and don't
	care if you use my name), and I am I also proud to say I
	couldn't agree with you more!

	It never fails to amaze me at the number of people who seem
	to be unable to	read and clearly understand a simple sentence.

	No I would not want my children to see a picture depicting the
	passage you	quoted from the Bible, any more than I would want
	them to see a Marilyn Chambers movie!

	Just because something comes from a religious Book (no matter
	what the faith) does not mean it is something that children are
	ready to see and learn, or even something they are capable of
	understanding.  

	To think that my children would not be able to view the Masterpiece
	works of Leonardo da Vinci or Michelangelo, because of the nudity is
	an appalling possiblility I hope never occurs!

	Keep up the good work in trying to make people think (though I think
	sometimes it's a useless endevor) Debbie Flester

	left out the violent, child abusive porn, like the end of Psalm 137. Set
	THAT to music!

Might that be viewed as a vengeful passage, perhaps? I'm not aware of the context, but I added it to my page anyhow.

	You missed my personal favorite:
		Genesis 19:31-38
		This tells the story of Lot and his daughters.  The daughters took
		turns getting Lot drunk and having sex with him!

Again, it's a story that would shock fundamentalists if it were portrayed in a first-run film. Ah, hypocrisy...

	Comparing the filth that is available on the internet
	to passages out of the Holy Book is rediculous.  It is like 
	comparing "Last Tango In Paris" to "Deep Throat"

I agree that the Bible passages I cite aren't much compared to some of the XXX business out there, but that doesn't negate my point that children can't handle some of the hairier stuff in the Bible, and that perhaps it's best to limit kids' access to that information rather than dumbing everything down to a six-year-old level.

One of my first replies, and it made me feel fuzzy all over. And definitely check out Judges 19 as they suggest, as if it were portrayed in a secular movie, Fundamentalist Christians would line up to protest it at your local theater...

	Nice page you created! Don't forget to quote Chapter 19 of the Book of 
	Judges: a charming story of rape, murder and dismemberment. Guaranteed to 
	upset even the sleaziest Times Square smut peddler.

	Of course, since I'm North of the border, I don't have to worry about 
	censoorship: I can view filthy works of degrading pornography such as 
	Rodin's The Thinker, or The Kiss.

This Gent disagreed with my use of "Theologically Correct." While he makes a good point, he doesn't seem to like my elevating Christian Fundamentalist views to the status of "Theology." I can see his point, in a way. After all, just as Creation "Scientists" offer a position that's hopelessly unscientific to the point that I'd say they weren't scientists, I could see how a card-carrying Theologian would object. Anyhow, here's his point:

	You note on your page that "their own Bible isn't even Theologically
	Correct," a comment which any theologian (including this one) would
	simply laugh at -- vulgarity, obscenity, lewdity, etc., are not
	'theologically' anything at all.

	Theology is the study of 'faith seeking understanding,' and the
	orthodoxy (correctness) or lack thereof of a theological position has
	little to do with the language it is framed in.

More concisely...

	...theologians don't think that any oppinion 
	wrapped up in terms of God suffices for 'theology' any more than 
	psychologists think that talk shows make good therapy :)

While I agree that Fundamentalist notions of God are shockingly silly, a poor theological position is still a theological position.