My commute in and out of Washington, DC exposes me to a large variety of people and ideas. Some through casual conversation and other through eavesdropping and shoulder surfing. This evening, on my ride home, I chanced to look over at the work on my seat mate's laptop (an Apple iBook G4 by the way, which is what I was really looking at - at least initially).
At first, I thought he might be a researcher or field expert for one of the several (dozen) think tanks in and around the National Capital Region but by the end of the trip it was clear that the piece he was working on was not something that I would want endorsed. Unfortunately, in the current version of the United States, his topic was not only timely but one that seems to have a large following.
He was working on a presentation. He had a large amount of support material and some of it looked pretty good accurate and important in its own right to the issue he was documenting. But then it devolved into what I would not call authoritative references and accurate information. The presentation looked, by the end of my trip, to be targeted at teens and dealing with sex. Now, normally, I would be applauding the topic. He had information about sexually transmitted disease and the risks of HIV and AIDS. Very responsible. He had slides on pregnancy and its affects on young children, both physical and psychological as well as the very practical cost aspects. So far, I was 100% on-board with the topic. All of these things need to be taught and he had adapted the "Who Wants to Be A Millionaire" game show format so it looked fun too. I went back to reading my book or looking out the window or some such activity and when I looked over again, my nose wrinkled and it took a great deal of willpower to ask him what he thought he was doing. You see the fantastic job he was doing, in my mind anyway, seemed to devolved into a religious prattle.
The last page that I saw before I got off had some suggestions. For example, if you want to avoid sex, you do not have to date. Well, as an idea, it is a good one, but hardly realistic. Most 12 year-olds are dating whether you mean going out on formal dates or hanging out at the local whatever, it is still a date, and in many cases more dangerous from a sexual activity perspective than a more formal date.
Date other Catholics (I put this in capitals because he referenced the teachings of the Roman Catholic church several times) was another suggestion. I know several Catholics, of both sexes, that were more sexually active than I was before they were 18 and from very devote families. You will excuse me if I start snickering at this point.
Another suggestion (and the only one I happen to agree with because it does make sense) is make decisions about the issues of sex (everything from kissing up to the full Monty - my words not his) before you actually go on a date. This is good advice. I cannot knock it one bit.
The last piece was avoid touching and focus on conversation. Well, again, as advice goes it is good but realistic it is not. Take any TV show today and you will find the leads all over each other (and just about anyone else involved). Heck, even in a semi-normal home, I would hope that the parents (mother and father in this case, but I do not want to imply there is any less love in a single sex home) hug and kiss each other in front of the kids. That is just natural. Unless these kids have been somehow chemically altered to not have hormones there will be a natural reaction to touch each other. Frankly there is nothing wrong with that - at least intrinsically.
What really set me off, other than the generally unrealistic advice was the heavy dose of religion. Now, it has been well presented that you cannot have a conversation with a religious person about religion because there generally can be no logic applied by the religious person to their position. This theory, which, especially when discussing Catholicism, holds a lot of water, was put forward in "The Closing of the Western Mind."
More so though, Freeman puts forward several historical examples of things that are now taken as fact (OK gospel, fact is a slippery term when dealing with religion and religious teachings) that form the foundations of the opinions and theories that are the basis of the religious culture and attitudes that generally permeate the American psyche.
The first one that really drives me nuts is this supposed myth that sex can be repressed. Call it abstinence or refusal, it is all based on the early traditions of the first generation Christians that practiced askesis, a Greek tradition of disciplined training that became the ascetic tradition. This warped idea of locking away the sin of the body is still being bandied about today. What was a philosophical idea put forward by Plato as a higher ideal was adopted hook, line and sinker by the catholic community. The problem is that Plato was talking about a philosophical idea, based on logos (logic) while Catholicism is based on mythos (religion). This of course would have had Plato, and the other Greek thinkers rolling in the aisles if they could overcome their incredulity.
The second, and more damning issue though, was the heavy use of Paul's letters. Now I bash Microsoft a lot as a marketing engine instead of a software company, but Paul was a better showman and marketing shill for the catholic religion than anything Microsoft has ever done or will ever do. The problem is that Paul was not loved, as far as can be determined, by the Apostles or, in fact, most of the leaders of the church. Several wonder if Paul was in fact sponsored by anyone and was pushing his own agenda. Paul was very much from the ascetic tradition and it shows in his letters and historical documents that have been recovered thus far.
The bible is a wonderful book. A lot of lists and stories and ideas. Some are good, most are of little more value than a pulp novel. To use them as a cite reference for how to behave in the 21st Century is as laughable as the value they were given when they were adopted at Nicea or any of the dozens of conferences since.
Religion is a good thing, but decisions about sex are not, nor should they be, based solely on faith and hope. They should be based on rational decisions and information. Not on ideas that were antiquated when they were first proposed and improperly adapted to boot.
10:07:13 PM 
|
