Here’s a hot topic: sexuality. Everyone knows sex sells: Hollywood, Playboy, anyone advertising virtually anything. Sexuality is a powerful force, there’s no denying it: heck, it’s one of the reasons why we’re all here, might as well admit it.
But how we do sexuality: ah, that’s when the real tremors begin. Conservative? That’s me. Liberal? That’s many of us. But the wars!
We could talk about sexuality for hours: maybe we should, instead of warring about it – recognise and allow for the differences. But the topic that is really seizing me right now is the connection between religion or non-religion, or anti-religion, and sexuality.
Is there a connection? Talk to me.
It has been said that people only reject or avoid God because of a desire for sexual freedom. True? False? Ah, maybe…? Sometimes?
So, then: let’s talk about sexuality. What is sexual freedom? Why conservative? Why liberal? How does Christianity or agnosticism/atheism influence sexuality? And are we sometimes choosing our worldview on the basis of our sexuality?
What do you say?
How does religion influence sexuality? Perhaps we should ask the Catholic Church that question. A church which follows the teaching of Paul, that allowing sexual partners takes you away from God, and that ideally you should remain celibate. And lets ask what the outcome of that commitment was; [sometimes](edited) the rape of small children under their care and the protection of those who committed these rapes.
The Catholic Church appears to be far from the only religious organisation concerned with what consenting adults do in the privacy of the bedroom. The vilification of homosexuals is exclusively the domain of the religious. Lets look at the Bible and the ten commandments. Adultery is mentioned, but rape or slavery not so much. In fact instructions are provided regarding how to treat slaves.
From a humanist perspective a single principle can guide our moral view; treat others as you would be treated. Not because there is some deity who will punish you for all eternity if you don’t, but because it is the best guide to getting along in a society of competing concerns. In terms of sexuality that boils down to consent. Don’t do things to others that you wouldn’t consent to yourself.
Do we need to talk about the good man Lot, and how he offered up his daughters to be gang raped rather than allow the same fate to fall to some strange men who arrived at his door? The Bible is not a reliable guide to moral behaviour. Or would you prefer to talk about the statistical differences between outcomes such as abortion, marital abuse, rape, divorce and sexually transmitted diseases? We can do that if you like. We could examine the differences between non religious countries or states and religious ones.
Plenty to respond to here!
(For anyone who’s reading, I’ve touched on a few sensitive topics here: probably more suitable for over 18. Also, I am writing out of a New Zealand context, so can’t comment on any other country.)
Firstly, re Paul: marriage does, it’s true, draw one’s resources from other commitments, as does family – and a strong commitment to another cause, be it the Church, the armed forces, other high risk ventures (and the Church was high risk in Paul’s time), can certainly impact on marriage or family commitment. Hence his advice to those he was writing to at the time (who, by the way, were not humanist, but Christian): that in those tenuous times, considered End Times, in which Paul writes his view that ‘time is short’ (I assume you’re referring to 1Corinthians7?), he considered it was good to ‘remain as you are.’ If married, remain married: if unmarried, remain unmarried. I’m not sure the context into which he was writing is the same as now, 2000 years later, so I don’t see relevance in your point for today. But I can’t comment on how the Catholic Church approaches this, as I am not Catholic.
The Catholic Church is not the only church that follows Paul, and Protestant churches don’t require celibacy in a priest – though I’m sure some Protestant ministers may voluntarily choose this path. And, by the way, from what you have written: are you suggesting paedophilia is an inevitable outcome of being male and single? Because that assertion would be surprising to read from a male humanist. Homosexual paedophilia, I’d suggest, has a lot more behind it than merely an unmet adult sexual drive.
The crimes that have taken place in the Catholic Church internationally seem to inevitably come up in a discussion about sexuality between a Christian and a humanist. Why? At one level, it’s understandable – they were crimes, they were mismanaged, the Catholic Church has changed its approach, as it should have. But why, Peter, are you and I talking about the incidence of rape by Catholic priests in different countries and in an international Church numbering over one billion? Shall we instead discuss the incidence of childhood rape in our own general community, and how to manage this? Paedophilia is a tragedy wherever it takes place: and, sadly, many different family and community roles in our own society have been corrupted by this. Or would you rather continue to use this profound and criminal human weakness only to define a worldview different from your own? This is stereotyping: and humanism seems to fail in its goal of mutual respect when it uses only criminality to define Christianity.
The idea of the ‘vilification of homosexuals’ is a humanist one, and not a Christian one. As an atheist recently wrote to me, it is possible to dislike or disagree with an ideology without actually disliking or disagreeing with a person who holds to the ideology: the context of this comment was out of a post about strong reactions against Christianity seeming to be fuelled by hatred of Christians or hatred of God. (A different topic, but it illustrates the same point on the other side of the coin.) Christians who do not agree with the practice of homosexuality are not saying that they hate homosexuals: they are simply saying they do not agree with the practice of homosexuality. It seems to be extremely difficult at times for liberals to understand that the conservatives in their society have a different opinion. But there it is. The conservatives are vilified. Better, I think, that both sides acknowledge the existence and the human equality of the other (I would have thought a humanist would agree with this), and enter into dialogue, seeking to understand the differences. Best not, I suggest, to paint the other side only through the lens of criminal activity.
Re rape and slavery: what would you say is the prevalent Christian view toward these activities today, within the Church? Christ’s two main commandments, on which he said the rest of the Law was based, were ‘Love the Lord your God,’ and ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’ Personally, I see a lot in common between the second and humanism: it is a natural Christian perspective today to see rape and slavery as wrong, of course.
Slavery 2000 years ago is a different topic: Paul was writing out of a setting of Roman oppression, for example, and the OT is a different setting again. I find it interesting how often people seem to be looking at what happened 2000 years ago or more in forming views about religion, or at extreme examples today, rather than at average current happenings across over two billion people. Why? That is the question. The typical experience of a Christian doesn’t contain anything so dramatic.
The humanist principle you have quoted was taught by Christ. ‘Do to others what you would have them do to you.’ This is already very familiar to Christianity, which was established after the OT, 2000 years ago. I agree with it, but I find repeatedly that humanists often don’t treat me, being Christian, this way: there is usually no mutual respect for my different worldview. Granted, Christians also can fail to treat atheists/agnostics with mutual respect. But, getting to the point, I don’t consider this principle of mutual consideration amongst humans is enough, for humanity. There are times when a perception of God can get a person beyond what human love and respect can achieve.
Onto your next assertion: does sexuality only boil down to consent? Certainly not, I’d suggest. What about under-aged sex? What about a consenting minor with an adult partner? What about consenting incest? These three categories are still defined as against the law in New Zealand: the first often not enforced, the second and third enforced strongly. Consent is only part of the question: the other part is necessary or wise boundaries. That is where the true discussion resides, I think.
Do we need to talk about Lot? No, I’d suggest not. Because I am referring here to Christianity, and we haven’t begun to explore a Christian understanding of sexuality yet, which is based much more in the New Testament. The Bible is not a reliable guide if it is used randomly, as I experience it being used here: I agree with that. But the approach you have outlined here is not actually Christianity: it is, instead, a common negative lens from humanism.
Re statistical outcomes: do statistics define the truth of a worldview, or the value of a moral system? If humanists were shown to be very poor at respecting people who are not humanist, would this remove the value of the goal of humanism? I would say not. Stats of failure only show our human vulnerability: a reality which is at the heart of Christianity. How does humanism address human failing when it takes place?
Here’s what I would be interested in examining: the differences and the commonality. Because for me it’s not a battle, it’s a quest for mutual real understanding.
Would you like to understand the other side?
First things first (deepest level): the connection? Nope. Sexuality is about human (bodily) function; religion the discussion of the objective (or other) nature of things.
Do people reject God out of desire for sexual freedom?
As above – acceptance or rejection of God is a matter of intellectual/other assent. Last time I checked it had nothing whatsoever to do with whatever we may do in our bedrooms. 🙂 That said, the CHURCH can be rejected on the grounds of sexuality, oh sure. Those who see religion as just another philosophy see themselves as being perfectly free to accept or reject its teachings – as they do with any other philosophy.
I think the commonly accepted understanding of sexual freedom is the freedom to use the instrument that is/are our bodies as we will to the extent that whatever we do remains:
a. Consensual (in the legal meaning of the word), and,
b. Tending towards what is understood to be public taste at the time (on the one hand public orgies in ancient Rome and topless sunbathing on south of France beaches to the other: full head veils in places like Saudi Arabia.)
On a pure libertarian understanding, this freedom extends even to our right to do ourselves to death … but understandably that’s an extreme take. And the ‘public taste’ thing is no more than common sense: straying too far from a nudist beach with no clothes on will soon see the full weight of society dumped down on the head of nudists – and there goes their use of their own private beach. (And these comments are referring to pure sexuality, too – reproduction would need another entire essay!)
Why the politics of it? Many reasons: some due to true taste, others due to upbringing, others to healthily developed understandings: developed wisdom, others due to bad experiences (the latter on both sides.)
How do feelings about religion influence sexuality? As expressed, in a pure form not at all. In the form of teachings (seen as its philosophy), well like any other world-view/philosophy if you’re in it/accept it, its teachings are expected to be integral to your behaviour; if you’re out of it … ditto in the other direction.
As per the very last question above: yes. But that (to me) is not a question sourced in religion, more philosophy. If I’m of a tendency to practice sexual licence am I likely to find the teachings of, say, Jesus on sex attractive? Not particularly. And am I likely to find the teachings of, say, a sexual-licencee on sex attractive? Quite likely. Does this influence in any way my views, perhaps deeply held, that, say, I am a created being or that Jesus walked on water? I can’t see how. These latter are religious questions, the former more personal/worldview, the objective/subjective split gets in the way here.
Good to think all this thru! 🙂
what do I say?
said! 🙂