It seems only two things can stop indecency: money and death.

It wasn't because Howard Stern is disgusting or because the moral sensibilities of the people at Clear Channel Communications, however immune, were offended. It was the $495,000 fine the Federal Communications Commission recently levied against the broadcasting company that finally caused them to pull the "shock jock." In a sudden turn of indecent events Stern's cash cow mouth was costing the company money and they shut him up.

Fortune magazine published an article subtitled "Indecency is out," indicating what even good capitalists, much less good Christians, seem to know now: money is better spent, or better made, elsewhere.

They may be more right than they know. Mid-April, the pornography industry took a big hit when two star actors contracted HIV. The deadly disease was the only thing that could halt filming in an industry growing faster than cancer cells can divide and multiply. It wasn't a normal sense of decency that sent porn actors running for their clothes, it was a normal sense of impending doom.

The bad news, amid all this other bad but in some ways relieving news for Christians, is that with Stern fined and off some of the air, restrictions on freedom of speech have broken new ground. And what that may mean for other broadcasters, including preachers, is yet to be determined.

Could Stern's dismissal threaten everyone's fundamental right to say what they want on public airwaves? If an emboldened FCC objects to certain religious broadcasts, could it find a way to fine the broadcasters?

Broadcasters are wary of the implications of the Stern fine. The list of 24 groups who filed a petition for the FCC to reconsider its recent obscenity ruling against NBC includes no religious groups. But the broadcasters, the Screen Actors Guild, the ACLU and others have a valid point about the vague ruling. Just exactly what can you say on the air? Could the name of Jesus one day become an on-air no-no?

A bill submitted by one U.S. legislator lists all currently offensive words to be banned from public airwaves. But won't any list be outdated before the next Super Bowl? And who could have predicted or legislated against what happened there? FCC Chairman Michael Powell is right about not wanting to put down all those rules on paper--it would be impossible.

I don't understand why everyone's so nervous about the subjective whim of the FCC anyway. Any show of temperance seems like a lot after decades of speech so free we are now having difficulty determining whether the F-word is obscene or not.

The New York Times is nervous because it believes the ruling points to politics. The Times called the indecency ruling an "election year crackdown" in its most recent editorial on the subject. The paper accused Washington of a "pro-decency crusade." Washington on a morality binge? Things could be worse.

People's Weekly World jumped on the rhetoric bandwagon terming the latest rulings a "decency rampage."

Maybe it is a rampage. The reaction from broadcasters surfaced during national Turn-off Your TV Week. Millions, well thousands, well hundreds, well me and former presidential candidate and Sen. Joe Lieberman at least, switched off our sets in protest. Maybe the broadcasters were feeling us.

Because if Americans have freedom of obscene speech, they should also have a right to be ignorant of obscenity. That is especially important for Christians to remember.

We should be able to watch television or listen to the radio during children's waking hours and not be subjected to words we wouldn't be able to explain to the youngsters without blushing.

I recall a telephone conversation I had with the owner of an adult bookstore. He was having trouble with the city and the neighbors, since he was located next door to a church and an apartment where small children lived.

He couldn't understand that because he said he was selling nothing more indecent than "what anyone can see on cable TV."

"You've seen it on HBO," he told me, "haven't you?"

"No," I replied. "We don't have cable." At that point he thought I was lying and said so. He simply couldn't fathom that someone would not have cable.

I can barely handle what little I see on regular TV so I think cable would be over the top. The Bible is clear on these issues. Clear and tough.

Ephesians 5:3-4 says, "But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God's holy people. Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving." (NIV)

Too much freedom of speech will begin to step on another freedom, the freedom of religion. Because there are plenty of hints of sexual immorality right now in my e-mail inbox and on my drive home on billboards and on radio stations I scan past. Once I get home, my home, I can't just turn on the TV and leave the room, for fear of what may flash across the screen.

Maybe I can delete the e-mail before any trouble. Maybe I can turn the channel fast enough to remain "innocent about what is evil," (Romans 16:19 NIV). But shouldn't I have a right to freedom from freedom of speech?

I understand how vague FCC rulings could endanger all broadcasting, but I'd much rather be fighting for religious freedom than against indecency.