Pollution
From Yerranos
An oil tanker moves briskly through a bright clear ocean. But due to a malfunction in the computerized navigation system, the ship drifted northward to the colder areas of the water. Such an error was not noticed until the ship struck an underwater iceberg puncturing the rugged bow. Assistance was promptly requested, but the tanker quickly emptied it's 400,000 tons of oil into the ocean. Virtually all of the oil was lost before assistance hundreds of miles away arrived.
What a mess! Thousands of dollars had been invested in the oil, but this was not the primary concern. What concerned environmentalists was that the ocean was polluted and that this would cause thousands if not millions of fish and other sea creatures to die or become sick. The polluted water was dangerous to the fish and other sea creatures. Their health had to be preserved. As many fish as possible (in environmentalists') mind had to be saved. But HOW?
Stringent laws and regulations had been imposed on the oil tanker's itinerary to prevent it from crashing into icebergs, but problems are inevitable.
People who cared for the health condition of the fish devised many methods for removing some of the oil. But none were as effective as they wished.
After this incident, even more stringent laws were devised to further prevent this type of accident. But just think, what if a law was made condoning the oil spill? What if officials devised a law saying, "Anyone can as they please, dump oil, gas and any other chemicals in the ocean. No one can intervene this right."
Wouldn't environmentalists and conservationists be so angry? They would rightly say, "What type of law is this which gives anyone the right to harm fish and disrupt their proper way of life? The ocean needs to be clean in order that these fish can live healthily."
Guess what? There is a already a law that says just that. EXCEPT it is WORSE.
Don't believe it yet? Well, just think, you can say the INTERNET is a large ocean. The internet can be used usefully and properly by shipping cargo (computer files) by ships (computers). But likewise, the internet can be tainted or polluted by careless captains (webmasters) who spill oil and other pollutants (morally noxious sites) on the web. Smut obscene sites are less fitting on the web than oil or any other pollutant is in an ocean. Just as pollutants are harmful and sometimes fatal to fish, noxious porn sites are psychologically, physically, and spiritually harmful and sometimes deadly to their inquisitive visitors.
What type of people are these that go around tainting the web? Are they true Christians? NO INDEED NOT!! God strictly condemns the practice of such heathenism and true believers obey God. For true believers in Christ, smut sites are an interminable oppression inflicted upon them. Apparently then, smut sites have smut noxious authors. Such authors are enemies to God, whether they claim to be atheist or not.
What benefit do obscene sites bestow? About the biggest benefit they bestow is proof that all of mankind is totally depraved and the USA constitution bears evil fruit. But intrinsically, evil sites yield no benefit. They are a vile, virulent poison and a stumbling block to all internet users.
What law then gives heathen authors the "right" and freedom to pollute the web and harm the "fish that inhabit it"? What law says we can be so brutally harmful? THE AMERICA CONSTITUTION. All you sensible people, tell me, would a good law give it's citizens the right to be bad? Are you STILL blind?
Would you support a law that gives all captains of ships the right to dump any type of chemical or substance in the ocean and as much as they pleased? If you are sane enough, your obvious response is "No". Why wouldn't you support such a law? You wouldn't support it because you know that such a law would be harmful for all sea life and may even become harmful to some humans.
Well then would you support such a law that gives web masters the right to publish any material on the web? If you are sane enough, you will say "No" because again, you know that such a law would prove harmful to the souls of all people who visit the material if it is evil.
No one can disprove the fact that evil sites are no good for any mind, not just people younger than 18. Evil sites poison the mind, plant evil thoughts, and can even result in the death of a person if the person imitates some of the violence and bloodshed some sites portray entertainingly. Why then would you say such sites have a right to exist? Obviously you are SICK if you condone such sites.
If someone supported a law that gave ocean-goers the right to dump poisonous chemicals in a lake arbitrarily for no reason, then we undoubtedly know that such a person does not care anything about the fish. Conservationists who care about fish, prove this when they seek to curb the amount of pollutants people dump in the water.
Likewise, if someone supported a law that gave internet users the right to post evil sites, then undoubtedly they care nothing about the deleterious effect such sites may have on victims. This shows that such people do not truly love other people. It also shows that such people care more for dumb animals than they care for people.
In God's righteous sight, polluting the water which in turn kills many of the fish but does not harm any person is not a very big sin per se. But polluting people's mind with violence, porn, and other noxious data, is a heinous crime in God's judicious eyes. So it is an understatement to even compare water pollution with evil sites. But since liberal conservationists are always fighting pollution of every corporeal form and since they admonish citizens not to pollute to save the health of animals and etc. it becomes necessary to show them that there are other ways to pollute more terrible than the kinds they are fighting. These more terrible types of contamination are precipitated with their satanic USA constitution.
So the USA constitution is the law condoning poison being placed in peoples' minds. The spirit of it is responsible for every noxious site on the web. People who say that noxious sites have a right to exist, are only saying that people can be taught evil, lies, and sensuality. It can then be understood that such people hate other people and also do not want the best to arrive at other people.
Simply stated, salacious sites need to be removed from the internet. Visitors to such sites need to be punished accordingly. People who post such sites need to be punished accordingly. Internet Service providers who allow it need to have their business shut down and they need to be punished accordingly.
The internet needs to be a place for USEFUL information that helps people live righteously and wisely. Porn and etc. deserves no place. However, the internet can never be a clean environment with the unclean and pollution -condoning USA constitution's spirit in the world.
