Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
August 30, 2014, 03:18:32 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
82086 Posts in 2245 Topics by 1047 Members
Latest Member: MikeT
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  God and Sex
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: God and Sex  (Read 2895 times)
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31012


« on: November 06, 2006, 10:58:56 AM »

Woof All:

We've certainly been willing to explore the good and the bad about Islam, so it seems more than fair that EVERYONE is fair game for fair questions. 

The Catholic Church has been on the forefront of "family values" yet seems to have a lot of people in it who have a hard time living up to its values.  Why is this?

Marc
============

http://www.cruxnews.com/rose/rose-16july04.html
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11990


« Reply #1 on: November 06, 2006, 04:21:55 PM »

Predators like to move to positions of authority. The catholic church was infiltrated with large numbers of predators in the 60's (to the best of my knowledge that's where the current problem really began) and has failed to root out this perverse subculture, preferring to deny/avoid the problem.

As with other issues, the longer people avoid dealing with a problem, the worse the problem gets.
Logged
buzwardo
Power User
***
Posts: 784


« Reply #2 on: November 07, 2006, 05:20:04 PM »

Add "and drugs, and rock 'n roll" and you'd cover most remaining bases. . . .

I'm bound to get in trouble here. One of my first restaurant gigs was in a town that had a religious college; a lot of the wait staff were fundementalist bible thumpers who intoned regularly about the perdition coming my heretical way. Informing them that I had given religion up for Lent always seemed to inspire particular consternation.

At the risk of beating a drum I bang on regularly, religion is used by many folks as a vehicle that allows them to shun complex truths in favor of simple fictions. Met my share of fine religious straight shooters who could elegantly deal with life's ambiguities. Alas, I've met far more pious hypocrites who use their faith as an excuse to sneer at those less willing to abandon their critical faculties. I've no use for the latter of any stripe.

I'll close with a quote from an author I've been rereading, Ambrose Bierce out of his Devil's Dictionary:

FAITH, n.  Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.

http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext97/dvldc10.txt
Logged
Full Thrust
Newbie
*
Posts: 6


« Reply #3 on: November 08, 2006, 06:53:34 AM »

I am a Christian Soldier (I should say) and my beleifs about the church is like my beleifs about people. It really depends on your acceptance of who God is to you and what His son has done for us. I don't want to get on a podium and preach, as of yet, but religion as we know in the past has started world wars and has put fellow man to kill each other, all principles that are against the teachings of Jesus. As far as people, there are crooked people all around us, even in the church settings. It is a dangerous thing because these are some of our leaders and role models and representations of the church as a whole. Some people use religion as a stepping stone to be disrespectful and rude or use it for sexual pleasure because of their power to lead people. There are weak minds that follow the preacher, the music, the charisma and get caught into their wicked web of trust. I denounce people that use power to get what they want including adultry, sodomy, and rape to women and children. I am bless to be surrounded by a group of people, including my Pastor, that realize that the world cannot be changed. We have to set great examples not only for the church but for people who need someone to talk to or receive council. This was supposed to be what the church was about; a perverbial "gathering of the pack" (persay) so that people can talk and fellowship, not cultinize or do a "Jim Jones" with Kool Aid followers. We are supposed to bring peace to chaos. The first step is being nice to people, teaching and learning good things (such as the martial arts) and values that will make our children grow with respect for one another, whether it be race, religion, language, or gender. Training has actually gotten me closer to God because this is my vessel to show people that you can be a warrior and still have a positive impact on people's lives. And when they ask, why am I so peaceful... I can hit them with three strikes and they will fall. (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) 

"Arch Angel"
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31012


« Reply #4 on: November 08, 2006, 07:23:32 AM »

All:

Staying with the God & Sex theme of the thread, it seems to me that one of the fundamental areas of social discord in the world today comes from the disconnect between sex and reproduction. The history of our evolutionary biology and the social codes that arose from it, until quite recently were based upon the idea that sex had reproductive consuquences.  Now, with the pill and other birth control technologies and with abortion it is possible for heterosexuals to have sex without having babies.  Now, with the increasing social acceptance of homosexuality there is another non-reproductive outlet for sexual urges.

Combine this with ever earlier arrival of puberty and the ever later age of life in which marriage and children take place, and we have some people going for many years of sexual maturity without having children.  If, for example puberty hits at 14 (and apparantly there are many cases where it now hits earlier) and parenting hits at 30, that person is going for 16 years.   

The "Just say no to pre-marital sex"  solution of many religions can be a really hard sell when the reality is for 16 years.  And if we look at the massive pedophiliac and homosexual issues within the Catholic Church, it seems like even serious spiritual people have a real hard time with "just say no".

On the other hand, is recreational sex emotionally and spiritually sound?

What is to guide us through the interregnum between puberty and parenthood?

Marc


Marc
Logged
buzwardo
Power User
***
Posts: 784


« Reply #5 on: November 08, 2006, 01:02:41 PM »

Sorry Crafty, didn't understand where you were going with this. Made a whimsical reply to what I thought was a somewhat whimsical topic.

Don't think there are firm answers as the question is posed. From an evolutionary standpoint humans are hardwired to procreate. That strong impulse is channeled in various manners and humans have found ways to sate the impulse without pregnancy occurring. The impulse itself, however, is pretty similar I suspect to the ones experienced as long as humans have been human. Attempts to bridle the impulse have claimed success more fictional than empiric, with those cultures that have done the most effective job of squelching it having used methods most today would consider pretty odious.

Think there's a nature/nurture overlap where pair bonding is concerned. There are plenty of examples in nature of what appear to be hardwired pair bond behaviors, as well as various examples of sundry societies enforcing pair bond orthodoxies with more or less success. Haven't seen a nature/nurture question settled authoritatively, though there are some pretty spooky separated twin studies, so I expect this element of the question merits further mulling.

The societal end of the question is all over the map; a lot of cultures have tried a lot of things. Think you have to define what is a successful societal adaptation to sexual impulses before you can claim one solution is better than all others. I think a case can be made that stable societies are a good outcome and some schemas have proved more long lived than others, but the question is so broad, the outcomes so varied, the techniques so numerous, and the variables so mutable and subjective that no authoritative answer will satisfy all or most. Think an argument can be made that pair bonding with a lot of screwing around on the side has been an element of most societies that have managed to endure, but that adaptation has and is demonstrating shortcomings, witness the demographic trends in Europe and Japan.
Logged
buzwardo
Power User
***
Posts: 784


« Reply #6 on: November 09, 2006, 03:50:01 PM »

For lack of a better place to post this. . . .

Veiled Threat
Why it may be important to see a woman's face

November 20, 2006

By THEODORE DALRYMPLE

Not long ago in the hospital in which I once worked, a young male nurse was asked by the administration to remove the ironmongery with which he had recently adorned his face and ears. He was outraged by this assault on his inalienable right to mutilate himself in any way that he chose, which he believed to be narrow-minded. He was, after all, the owner of his face and ears in fee simple; they were his to dispose of as he saw fit.

As it happens, he was a decent and dedicated young man, albeit one with the bad taste natural to youth; and in the end he complied with the administration?s demand, and removed his savage adornments. But he nevertheless remained convinced that an injustice had been done him and his rights trampled upon. He found it difficult to grasp that the administration were not saying to him that he could not put rings through his nose, eyebrows, and ears, only that he could not do so and work as a nurse in this hospital. For him, a right was not really a right unless its exercise was completely free of unwanted consequences.

This case illustrates the part-modern, part-medieval mentality of Aishah Azmi, the 23-year-old teaching assistant in Britain whose insistence on her right to wear the niqab ? the black garment that leaves only the eyes visible ? in British classrooms provoked the former foreign secretary, Jack Straw, to comment that the wearing of such garments should be discouraged because they are socially divisive and hinder the integration of Muslims into British society.

Miss Azmi, of course, stands upon her rights, and intends to contest, at the highest possible level, her dismissal from the Church of England school where she was once employed. (I can just imagine a Christian teaching assistant at a madrassah demanding the right to wear a mini-skirt there!) This proves how partly Westernized Miss Azmi?s mentality is: for her concept of rights unencumbered by any consequences was precisely that of the male nurse who put rings through his features. The fact that she appears to have insisted upon the niqab at the behest of a fatwa issued by a fundamentalist Muslim cleric does not alter this.

Oddly enough, in certain circumstances the niqab is an aid not to female modesty (its supposed justification) but to female promiscuity. A Saudi doctor once told me that, since in many Saudi households the female quarters were separated from the male quarters, and since even a husband could not enter the female quarters if a strange female was visiting his wife (as indicated by a pair of shoes outside the door), male lovers would adopt the niqab, plant some shoes outside the door, and commit adultery in perfect security.

A desire for extramarital affairs in perfect secrecy, however, is unlikely to be Miss Azmi?s motive in her insistence upon her supposed right. Perhaps she truly believes that the sight of an inch of her uncovered flesh would so inflame the sexual appetites of any man that an illicit liaison with him would become inevitable; if so, this seems rather the negation of female modesty than its affirmation.

What is clear is that the niqab is not religiously required: If it were, the majority of Muslim women, who do not wear it, would have to be accounted bad Muslims, and Miss Azmi?s insistence on the niqab would be a reproach to them. Muslim women who did not wear the niqab would be hypocrites at best, and apostates as worst, and neither category is highly regarded in Muslim tradition.

Many people find it difficult to believe that a young woman would voluntarily don such a demeaning costume as a niqab, and therefore believe that Miss Azmi has been put up to it by sinister, Islamic fundamentalist forces. I do not think it is necessary to resort to a conspiracy theory to account for her behavior, though such conspiracies undoubtedly exist. For example, the dean of a medical school told me that he had recently been confronted with the problem of what to do with four female Muslim students who suddenly started to attend classes in niqabs.

Fortunately, he was able to find a regulation, dating back to the 19th century (so that the question of anti-Muslim discrimination could not arise), to the effect that no doctor or medical student might examine a patient without revealing his face to him. The dean was able to tell the four medical students either to remove their niqabs or leave the medical school.

The four students complied and removed their niqabs. After they had done so, they returned to the dean and told him that they had never wanted to don the niqab in the first place, but were intimidated into doing so by male Muslim students of fundamentalist persuasion. Nothing is easier than to blackmail a young female Muslim student: You just threaten to tell her parents that she is leading a dissolute life, whereupon they would do the necessary.

The sincerity or otherwise of Miss Azmi is, of course, beside the point. Fools can be found to support anything, and no doubt you can find slaves who kiss the lash that keeps them enslaved. The social meaning of the niqab is what counts.

An interesting photograph of Miss Azmi was published as she left her house with her husband. (When I say it was Miss Azmi, I ? like everyone else ? am taking it on trust that it was in fact she.) Had her niqab been white, she would have looked like a pantomime ghost. By contrast, her husband was dressed exactly like the Marlboro man, all in denim. Apart from his complexion, there was nothing in his appearance that suggested he was not a native of Montana.

In other words, there are two dress codes in play, one for men and one for women; and the fact of the matter is that it is always the male who is dressed in the Western fashion and the female in the severely Muslim fashion. (I should, however, mention that a large proportion of Muslim women of Pakistani origin dress in extremely becoming clothes that are not demeaning and are vastly superior in point of elegance to those worn by 99 percent of Western women, and that my own wife sometimes adopts them.) You never see a Muslim woman dressed in Western clothes accompanied by a man in traditional Muslim attire.

The fact of the matter is that many Muslim women in Britain and elsewhere in Europe live in what one might call a micro-totalitarian climate. It is in the nature of the case that it is difficult to estimate how many or what proportion, as difficult in its way as to gauge public opinion in North Korea. Choice is not for them; if they do not do what they are told, and do not comply with certain customs whether they want to or not, for example of marriage to a first cousin back ?home? in Pakistan upon whom they have never previously set eyes, they are severely chastised and may even be subject to ?honor? killings. The effect of such killings is disproportionate to their number, just as lynchings were in the southern states. Their demonstration effect is considerable.

Many young Muslim women attempt suicide or make suicidal gestures because of forthcoming forced marriages, but virtually no young men do. This suggests, at the very least, that while the whole system suits men very well, it does not suit women, or at least those women who, having been brought up in the West, know that something else is possible.

Likewise, if you go to the center of any British city on a Saturday night, you will see many groups of young Muslim men taking part in the crude, coarse, and vulgar delights of British popular culture, but you will not see any young Muslim women doing so. (Recently in Brussels, I witnessed the same phenomenon: lots of young men of Moroccan origin enjoying the degraded festivities of the city by night, and the young women emerging in their headscarves in the morning.) The young Muslim men have no objections to promiscuity and prostitution as such, provided it is among infidel women, but want to preserve their sisters and wives for a life of domestic subjugation.

This is the reality ? or perhaps I should say a reality, since no reality encompasses the whole ? in which the debate over the niqab is taking place. In essence, Mr. Straw was quite right in his observations. Moreover, the purpose of the niqab is not to comply with religious duties, but to maintain the domestic peace of Muslim men by ensuring the separation of Muslim women from the rest of society.

One might question the bona fides of Mr. Blair in his support of Mr. Straw. After all, his wife, a prominent lawyer, went to the highest court in the land to defend the right of a schoolgirl to attend school in distinctively unrevealing Muslim dress, not coincidentally just before an election when Mr. Blair needed the Muslim vote. His party resorted during a general election to mildly anti-Semitic propaganda in areas with large numbers of Muslims when the opposition candidate was Jewish. His government de facto removed the vote from Muslim women by extending postal voting in areas with a high Muslim population. But a good argument is a good argument; whatever their motives, Messrs. Straw and Blair are in this instance right.

Mr. Dalrymple is a contributing editor of City Journal and the author, most recently, of Romancing Opiates: Pharmacological Lies and the Addiction Bureaucracy.

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_national_review-veiled_threat.htm
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!