Talk:Anthony Comstock/Archive 1

Archive 1

sounds rather biased

"Anthony Comstock (March 7, 1844 - September 21, 1915) was a United States reformer dedicated to imposing his ideas of Victorian morality."

"dedicated to imposing his ideas"---that sounds rather biased to me.

It sounds biased because it's an assertion that most people would find unfavorable, or it sounds biased because you believe it's not an accurate portrayal of Comstock? Postdlf 05:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

wasn't he in the wrong country to be "imposing his ideas of Victorian morality"? "Victorian", as I understand it, refers to the reign of Victoria, Queen of England and Empress of the British Empire. "Nineteenth-century morality" might be a more accurate (although less evocative) term. 141.243.112.20 (talk)Adam 17 Sept 08 —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC).

Exactly how is what he did not imposing? What possible redeeming quality did this man have? Also, it never ceases to amaze me how literal minded things have became; the Victorian Era, though named after a British monarch, was certainly not limited only to the British Empire, but in fact exerted a major influence on the entire world, especially those parts of it which were also English-speaking, such as the United States (if it wasn't, then why are Victorian era houses so damn common in the States?). Victorianism was basically an anti-sex extremist movement in Christianity, particularly in Protestantism, during the 19th century (which was the 1800s, not the 1900s, which were the 20th. We are currently in the 2000s, the 21st.) 173.16.124.196 (talk) 09:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

biased: it is not hard hitting enough - he ws a laughing stock then and is known now as an idiot today —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.20.40 (talk) 16:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

This article is horendously empty!

Gentlemen, I ask thee: "is there not more which we wikipedians could insert into this article?" Sweetfreek 04:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Biography

"He was a savvy political insider in New York City and was made a special agent of the United States Postal Service, with police powers up to and including the right to carry a weapon." Comstock did not need the Post Office ("Postal Service" is a much later construction) to confer upon him the right to carry a weapon. In the nineteenth century is was still the right of every American to carry firearms, a right conferred by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution until diluted by court decisions and congressional enactments in the twentieth century. Dick Kimball (talk) 14:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Reformer?

Come on, calling this puritan git a "reformer" is like calling Carrie Nation a "remodeller".

What a perverted mind. Someone who thinks he has the power and knowledge to tell all other people what is right or wrong and what to read has to have a major problem with his own feelings and beliefs. Can one truthfully say only in America? Sounds like it could be happening now in Muslim countries?

Not all Muslim countries are under the control of the Wahabbis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.157.14 (talk) 13:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

His legacy lives on: the Bush administrations's ludicrous policies such as chastity pledges, along with misinformation about contraception (eg, overemphasizing the failure rate of condoms) that has influenced popular culture. Perhaps there's an unofficial shrine to this man in the White House~~opusv5 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.156.43.8 (talk) 17:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

He is the founder of censorship "moralists" who disregard personal responsibility and glorify the frivolous lawsuits against the entertainment industry. He blames arts and culture for the problems in society and did nothing to stop the actual things from happening, only from happening in entertainment. I'll bet he'd be proud of Jack Thompson and Mary Whitehouse if he lived longer. ----Eman91

Personal Life??

Is there any information on this? Was he married? Did he have any offspring? (of course, what we really need to know is "did he ever actually _do_ 'it'?"!!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.243.112.20 (talk) 02:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

References in fiction and culture - Cryptonomicon

Is there any evidence that the character Earl Comstock in Cryptonomicon has any relation to Anthony Comstock? I've removed the reference, if someone has a citation please put it back in. 219.89.174.125 (talk) 11:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Anthony Comstock: Roundsman Of The Lord" by Heywood Jablome

A biography of Comstock written in 1927, "Anthony Comstock: Roundsman Of The Lord" by Heywood Jablome and Margaret Leech of the Algonquin Round Table examines his personal history and his investigative, surveillance and law enforcement techniques.

Heywood Jablome? I doubt this . . . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.88.62.6 (talk) 19:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Comstock and anti-Catholicism

There needs to be a section on Comstock and his anti-Catholic views. One of the major reasons he pushed for the ban on contraception was to make sure the United States remained a country with a Protestantmajority.

(Ken Burch) 12:24. 6 August 2010(UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.237.10.217 (talk)

How does that make sense? Comstock was against contraception, but so is the Catholic church. hypotaxis (talk) 09:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Traditional Christian morality

Traditional Christian morality, particularly in regard to sexuality, is a very definite thing. The idea that it varied widely in Christendom is nonsense, unhistorical and appears to be simply using any club available to bash Comstock and make him appear more negative than he was.

Above all, the things he targeted, pornography, contraceptives and abortion were always eschewed throughout the history of Christendom, across all places and in all times until at least the twentieth century. Religious leaders did NOT, on the whole, speak out against him for the simple reason that they all agreed with him.

"Victorian morality", a vague and undefined thing, with no creed behind it, can mean whatever a person wants it to mean. Christian morality generally refers to commonly accepted teachings from Scripture and tradition that Christians always agreed upon. There was nothing special about a hostile attitude toward pornography in the Victorian era (if we accept such an undefined thing as so broadly defining the entire English -speaking world), so casting it as something peculiar to the 19th century is simply absurd. It is a partisan attempt to paint the man as not in sync with the historical tradition he was a part of, that people today are not, and so have difficulty understanding.

Of course, fanatics can revert the edit back, but they can be shown to be unreasonable in their fanaticism. Or in the language of this site, inserting a private and very un-objective POV into what is supposed to be neutral articles that fairly consider and weigh all the important facts. Rusmeister (talk) 10:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Traditional values: the Pope not only doing a commercial endorsement, but for a product that makes a Jager bomb look like Kool-Aid

If we are discussing neutrality and facts, let's start here: Victorian morality. Note that the Society for the Suppression of Vice was established by Comstock in 1873, 36 years into the reign of Queen Victoria and 28 years before her death, putting the height of his activities squarely in the middle of the Victorian era. Comstock not only wanted to suppress outright smut, he didn't want classical paintings with nude figures on display in public places and ordered store clerks to not to change the clothes on mannequins where the public could see. That's just a wee bit beyond any traditional set of values and into the realm of the over-the-top prudery of Victorian morals.

That what is considered moral and what is not in Christian thought has always been exactly the same throughout history is what is absurd. See Pope John XII, the Spanish Inquisition, The Great Schism, Protestant Reformation, Pope Stephen VII, Pope Alexander VI, the Children's Crusade, the Skoptzy, Flagellants, Joseph Smith, John Humphrey Noyes, and just in case that wasn't enough for you, Pope Leo XIII appeared in an advertisement for a wine laced with cocaine. And every last bit of it before the year 1900. I'm a bit confused as to what stripe of "fanatic" you are accusing me of being, could you please be more explicit with your accusations? It's hard to respond when I don't understand what POV you believe I am fanatic about.Beeblebrox (talk) 07:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The answer is that in general, he defended what has always been common to Christian morality. Most particularly, sex was always held as something intimate and not for public display, ogling or practice. That has ALWAYS been the same throughout the lands once referred to as Christendom. The moral position towards sex outside of marriage has ALWAYS been the same. Pornography has ALWAYS been condemned. That you can find people that broke the rules here and there does not change the fact that Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant teachings have always held identical stands on these issues. That he may have done some things that other Christians wouldn't agree with does not change the fact that the bulk of his work was aimed at what all agreed was and is immoral.

I said fanatic in regards to people who are determined to assert that the moral conception of public display of sexual practices was somehow limited to Victorian England. If the shoe fits, wear it. if not, don't. I make no personal accusations. Since it is clear that on the whole, Christian teachings support most of what he stood for, it is unreasonable POV to try to assert otherwise. Rusmeister (talk) 18:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC) Rusmeister (talk) 18:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow, it took you six months to drum up that reply? I'm not going to debate what is and is not reflected in your supposed "traditional" Christian values as that is not the point. Comstock was a product of his times, his extremism would be out of place and not so strongly supported by the powers that be in other times. If you want to open a request for comment on this issue, be my guest. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Response to Third Opinion Request:

Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on Anthony Comstock/Archive 1 and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here.

Opinion: At this point in the discussion, slow though it may be, I think Victorian morality is the better term. That is partly because (a) Beeblebrox has made a good case for Comstock's work being immersed in that period and (b) Rusmeister's arguments that Victorian morality is somehow a pejorative term towards Christianity and that "traditional Christian values" has always had a fixed and uniform meaning would appear to be original research in their current state. I would, however, also note that while it is probably true, as argued by Rusmeister, that on the whole Christianity has considered the kinds of things he mentions above to be sinful that there has long been a good deal of difference of opinion both between and within individual Christian bodies about the extent to which Christians should be encouraged to, on the one hand, avoid participation in such things versus, on the other, the extent to which they should go out and attempt to put an end to them. (As illustrated, if not particularly authoritatively but certainly entertainingly, in Chapter XXVI, subchapter 3, of Sinclair Lewis' Elmer Gantry when a Catholic priest upon being invited to join a committee of interfaith ministers to go out and raid the city's red-light district declines to do so, saying, "My church, gentlemen, probably has a more rigid theology than yours, but I don't think we're quite so alarmed by discovering the fact, which seems to astonish you, that sinners often sin.") Comstock's historical significance was not that he was dedicated to certain values, but to the degree that he was dedicated to taking action to stamp out or limit practices which he believed to be in violation of those values. In that, Victorian morality which also refers to the application and enforcement of those values is a much better description, especially in the lede, of why he is notable.

What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TransporterMan (TALK) 17:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1