Okay, just for Vask... Chocolate chip cookies, nothing more...
I drafted a first response, but it's about equal in length to a Harry Potter book. Way too much. [img]smile.gif[/img]
The brief version: The article, as presented, is very presumptuous and assumptive about what we do and think. In most of the cases listed, I believe it's wrong. But by simply reading, you would assume that most people accepted, for example, kiddie porn.
That's the same false reasoning that could lead you to assume the Bible is about murder, rape, sex, and so on.
The difference is the context. Had the article rallied for improving parents and leaders roles in giving children a context to interpret these things, I'd be more interested. But by using it as an excuse to get rid of music, movies, TV, and other things, they're trying to cover up the lack of context. Those things appeal because there's an opening for them -- some sort of need. Fill it with something else (by providing context), and you'll get different results.
Your interpretation of the Bible gives you the context of cause and effect, action and reaction. Someone else could read it and come up with something different. Heck, there's a whole sect built around the "he shall handle the serpent" verse... don't remember it exactly, but taking the Bible out of context is nothing new.
Read each of the points and added conclusions in the article, and see if you agree with them. I personally don't, at least not all. So agreeing with a final conclusion whose logical support I disagree with... just isn't feasible.