The core problem with the article lies in the phrase: 'The idea of applying purity to human beings - who are impure by definition - creates an impossible standard that can't be met.' The article then indulges in a the various techniques of debating - straw men and ad hominem arguments most particularly - to avoid the challenge that God lays before us.

Living a pure life is not easy - we are fallen creatures - and we will only achieve by the grace of God at work in us. So if a person is unwilling to submit to God's way, it is inevitable that his life will be less than pure because he won't have access to God's grace to achieve 'the impossible'. So he is bound to seek to justify his failure as inevitable - and get negative about those who ARE achieving levels of purity that he knows in his heart he should. To do this he will look at the mistakes of the allies of the successful in order to conclude that the truly successful aren't really the paragons that he knows they are...

Specifically the article points at the mistake of prohibition and the alleged attitude of some congressmen in order to delegitimise the views of the conservatives on these issues. But it fails to say what the boundaries should be: 18 rated adverts on every bus stand? And the reality is that given the opportunity the world will choose ever deeper self indulgence unless some boundaries are put in place, and such self indulgence WILL damage family life as the parents are distracted from caring for the children, legitimating it in their own mind by saying 'Everyone is doing it'.

Clearly the church must model an alternative pattern of living - one that is holy. Unfortunately it is inevitable that some of those seeking to live that life will fall - with some being shown up as hypocrites when the truth emerges after a period. The church needs to be honest that it is a load of people struggling to work towards their ideals, not merely a bunch of po-faced repressed individuals. We have a right to have our view heard; the hard question is to know how much to impose it when given the chance. I suspect no general answer is possible - different issues may result in different approaches. But the claim that 'It is with great irony that the more a person or nation obsesses about moral cleanliness the filthier, more violent and corrupt they usually become' is inherently flawed as it offers no prospect for a nation becoming less morally unclean - how else will this be achieved without a focus on it by the person or nation?