The 2004 election saw "moral values" emerge as the most prominent issue on voters' minds. Subse-quently, moral values have become a major topic in the media, politics and everyday conversations.
But I'm confused.
Being a foreigner, I'm not particularly well acquainted with the moral values of America. I have to admit, the values I grew up with apparently don't fit -- I seem to think I can listen to loud music, watch SpongeBob, tattoo and pierce my body and still get a good job and raise a happy family, a formula that conservatives openly criticize.
I'm not faulting conservatives though; after all, they won the election, they must be right. I'm simply asking for someone to explain it to me. Or better yet, write it down: a manual, a bible as it were, of American moral values and which ones are more important.
I've been trying to figure it out for myself, but I can't seem to get a handle on it.
Case in point, last week the House passed Congressman Upton's, R-Mich., Broadcast Indecency Enforcement Act that would see FCC fines for broadcast "indecency" raised from $32,500 to $500,000 per violation. The bill also raised the amount the FCC could fine networks and performers who "willfully or intentionally" break indecency standards. The bill now heads to the Senate for debate.
But this bill leaves unanswered the question of what exactly is indecent. The FCC currently describes indecency as "language or material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities."
Upton cited Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" during last year's Super Bowl halftime show as a specific example of indecency.
He did not cite, however, the genocide in the Sudan or the roughly 2.7 billion people worldwide who live on less than $2 a day as an example of indecency. And after all, we see some coverage of that on television.
This indecency and a woman's mammary seem to be parts of life today, but the former seems to go largely unnoticed while the latter obviously warrants a great deal more public attention and legislative action.
The fact that a woman's mammary can garner more public fervor and legislative action than genocide seems odd.
With a canonized bible of moral values (including an appendix on indecency) I would be far less confused.
If I were to go by the amount of letters conservative critics have written, it would seem that stamping a mammary out of the media is far more imperative than ending genocide. Though I have to admit, the letters against genocide aren't usually addressed to me at "The State Press."
There seems to be a consensus I'm not privy to about what exactly these moral values are.
I don't believe I'm alone in this ignorance though. I think there are many people out there who fell into "moral decay" and missed that lesson.
With a bible, at least, any subsequent wardrobe malfunctions, genocides, nipples on covers, prophylactics opinion articles or SpongeBobs, we could all turn to the pages in our "moral values bible" on mammary, genocides, nipples, prophylactics and SpongeBobs and read exactly which is decent or indecent.
Chris Guelpa is a journalism senior who does not understand moral values or morality in general. E-mail him at christopher.guelp@asu.edu.
