Slog
News & ArtsWednesday, December 21, 2011
Religion Deliver Us From Our Dicks
Posted by Dan Savage on Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 8:37 AM
John Shore diagnoses what ails—and so thoroughly warps—many Christian priests and pastors:
A great many men go into the profession of spiritual leader because—and to whatever degree they’re aware of it—they are at war with their sexuality. They enroll in seminary at least partly because they are convinced that the closer they get to God, the further they’ll get from their genitals. God will save them from their evil thoughts. God will vanquish their craven desires. Once and for all will God, by the healing power of His merciful glory, deliver them from their dicks.
Which, of course, never, ever, ever works.
John is addressing one particular pastor in his post—a man who told a teenage girl who had just been violently raped that she should've fought back and died because "at least" she would've "died a virgin"—but that pastor isn't the only one out there who damages others while waging a futile and losing war on his own dick. Go read the whole thing.
2
You can't get rid of the yetzer hara. This is why religions that are sensible about the issue allow and encourage their clergy to get married.
3
Religious fuckwads must have some fundamental assumption that women are not, in fact, human beings with some inherent worth. Rather, our worth declines precipitously with the visit of every non-infant visitor to our vaginas. Dan, you've pointed this out especially with the HPV vaccine response - I mean, what reasonable person gives a fuck if a girl or woman is "encouraged" to have sex if she has a lower risk of cancer? (Like teenagers are thinking about that anyway.)
Which comes first, self-righteous hatred and fear of women's sexuality, or a God who blesses and nurtures the hatred and fear? For the loving religious folks out there, is it a struggle to conceptualize God in any other way? I ask because for those women who fall squarely in the slut/whore category, they're pretty bereft of real support for their humanity, from everybody. Cutting out a shitty God doesn't seem to help much.
Which comes first, self-righteous hatred and fear of women's sexuality, or a God who blesses and nurtures the hatred and fear? For the loving religious folks out there, is it a struggle to conceptualize God in any other way? I ask because for those women who fall squarely in the slut/whore category, they're pretty bereft of real support for their humanity, from everybody. Cutting out a shitty God doesn't seem to help much.
4
I had a great uncle who was never married and as far as I can tell never had sex. He is the last person in the world I would take advice for on anything! Fine if you shut yourself off from such a large part of the human experience, but stop telling other people how to live their lives!
5
Hmm, I wonder what in the world could have made them at war with their own sexuality? And @1 is right. By them I mean women too.
7
I'm guessing that God knew what he/she was doing when he/she created us. That includes our genitals. This means we are supposed to get enjoyment from our genitals. God is not the one who is causing us to be ashamed of our bodies. We managed to pervert religion all on our own, and created our own shame. I'm pretty sure God is up there just shaking his/her metophorical head at our stupidity.
8
Let's not forget that religious attitudes towards sexuality go hand-in-hand with their secular precursors; virginity is a good example. The only reason female virginity is such a big deal is because male secular authority has historically ceded it as the ONLY intrinsic value women possess, and male religious authority has self-servingly perpetuated this attitude.
That's why Mary HAD to be a virgin: Yahweh, as an expression of the ultimate male archtype, couldn't have been expected to plant his seed into the womb of a deflowered female, even if she was legally married to a mere mortal, because that would have essentially violated long-held cultural beliefs regarding maintaining the purity of bloodlines. I mean, can you imagine the donnybrook that would have erupted if poor Joseph had avouched he and Mary had had relations BEFORE the birth of Jesus?
That's why Mary HAD to be a virgin: Yahweh, as an expression of the ultimate male archtype, couldn't have been expected to plant his seed into the womb of a deflowered female, even if she was legally married to a mere mortal, because that would have essentially violated long-held cultural beliefs regarding maintaining the purity of bloodlines. I mean, can you imagine the donnybrook that would have erupted if poor Joseph had avouched he and Mary had had relations BEFORE the birth of Jesus?
9
I think it may be worth noting that John wrote "A GREAT MANY [emphasis mine] men go into the profession of spiritual leader because..." I would have gone with "a significant number", but my point is that this is not everyone who "receives a calling".
Celibacy, the religious vow to remain unmarried, can be much more about acknowledging the primacy of the marriage relationship, the "forsaking all others" stuff, and how that can easily be out of step with the need for the ministry to put God, the Church and the needs of the person or people to whom they are currently ministering first and wholly.
Unfortunately, it seems that the kind of sex religious leaders are famous for is either abuse or hypocritically gay, but it's not like there isn't a long tradition of religious leaders occasionally slipping up and slipping it in some consenting woman. Hell, I think there's a whole sacrament for that, I think they call it "Whoops".
Celibacy, the religious vow to remain unmarried, can be much more about acknowledging the primacy of the marriage relationship, the "forsaking all others" stuff, and how that can easily be out of step with the need for the ministry to put God, the Church and the needs of the person or people to whom they are currently ministering first and wholly.
Unfortunately, it seems that the kind of sex religious leaders are famous for is either abuse or hypocritically gay, but it's not like there isn't a long tradition of religious leaders occasionally slipping up and slipping it in some consenting woman. Hell, I think there's a whole sacrament for that, I think they call it "Whoops".
10
To think that some god or other is fucking virgins to produce a demi god is far older than Christianity. And ridiculous from a modern stand point. But all the bibles magic tricks were used long before Christianity. Emperors used tricks like turning water into wine and claiming their mothers were virgins. It gained them legitimacy with their ignorant subjects. And the twisted view of sex would be explained by this as well. But the fact we are instinctual animals is something they can't bear to admit. They want to believe so that we are devine some how. Phoooey.
11
I am not Catholic but married a not-very-religious one so have attended mass many, many times over the past 20+ years. And I have heard a sermon that was absolutely consistent with the advice given to this girl. My wife (and her more observant family) was appalled. Fast forward a few years, the priest was exposed for (surprise) multiple counts of sex abuse.
12
Reading John Shore makes me realize my agnosticism is really just atheism + make-believe. I wish I believed that evil-doers received punishment in a next life, but whenever I reach the wonderful Shore's mention of this I realize I just...don't. Sigh.
13
Agnosticism doesn't exist.
Atheism is a lack of belief in a god(s).
If you don't know that one can know if god exists you still don't believe that god exists.
Agnosticism doesn't exist, it is a useless, deceitful, incoherent label.
Atheism is a lack of belief in a god(s).
If you don't know that one can know if god exists you still don't believe that god exists.
Agnosticism doesn't exist, it is a useless, deceitful, incoherent label.
14
...waging a futile and losing war on his own dick.
No End In Sight was the original title of the documentary on my dick until that hack Ferguson stole it.
But seriously, folks.
15
@13
True, Atheism is a lack of belief in god(s). But Agnosticism by your argument should be a subset of Atheism. It isn't a belief in a deity, but it does leave the philosophical opening that one could exist. Agnosticism is not so much "I dunno" as "There's no way for me to know." Agnostics are mostly non-believers with open minds. As opposed to many Atheists (Richard Dawkins for example) who claim certainty of the non-existance of God. This is a difference without much of a distinction.
Besides, its not that Agnosticism doesn't exist, we just can't be sure...
True, Atheism is a lack of belief in god(s). But Agnosticism by your argument should be a subset of Atheism. It isn't a belief in a deity, but it does leave the philosophical opening that one could exist. Agnosticism is not so much "I dunno" as "There's no way for me to know." Agnostics are mostly non-believers with open minds. As opposed to many Atheists (Richard Dawkins for example) who claim certainty of the non-existance of God. This is a difference without much of a distinction.
Besides, its not that Agnosticism doesn't exist, we just can't be sure...
17
@15: Agnosticism isn't a subset of atheism; it just means that you are unsure. I'm an agnostic theist, for example; I believe that there is a God, I just don't claim to have the answers as to His nature.
19
@13, 15, 17, that's a very old discussion, in which some people want to legislate what other people's beliefs "really mean" or not and which usually ends with people "agreeing to disagree".
To me, of course, there is no pure atheism, because there never is absolute certainty (there is no such thing). So atheism typically means not being interested in the question anymore, because, for all intents and purposes, the question is reasonably (not absolutely, but reasonably) settled. Whereas agnostics either don't think the question was reasonably settled and believe there may be further evidence someday that will help settle it reasonably, or then believe that the question is unsettlable; either way they don't think one should state that the question has been so reasonably answered that we can assume the 'correct' answer as simple knowledge.
Ultimatetly it all boils down to what 'reasonable' means to you, how much possibility of error you're willing to live comfortably with. That may seem little, and in some senses it is; but note that this is also, in many cases, the difference between physicists and mathematicians. I.e., it can be a very meaningful difference.
To me, of course, there is no pure atheism, because there never is absolute certainty (there is no such thing). So atheism typically means not being interested in the question anymore, because, for all intents and purposes, the question is reasonably (not absolutely, but reasonably) settled. Whereas agnostics either don't think the question was reasonably settled and believe there may be further evidence someday that will help settle it reasonably, or then believe that the question is unsettlable; either way they don't think one should state that the question has been so reasonably answered that we can assume the 'correct' answer as simple knowledge.
Ultimatetly it all boils down to what 'reasonable' means to you, how much possibility of error you're willing to live comfortably with. That may seem little, and in some senses it is; but note that this is also, in many cases, the difference between physicists and mathematicians. I.e., it can be a very meaningful difference.
20
Reading John Shore is great. He really makes me have hopes for Christians and Christianity -- keep what is deep and meaningful about it, get rid of the hypocrisy that got accumulated as time went by. See the spirit of the message, not the letter of the law. Really believe that Christ's message was love, not just sanctimoniousness and holier-than-thou-ness and judgmentalness. I hope more and more Christians will think like Mr Shore in the future.
22
"As opposed to many Atheists (Richard Dawkins for example) who claim certainty of the non-existance of God. This is a difference without much of a distinction."
Oh, dear you are completely misinformed. Richard Dawkins has an entire chapter in The God Delusion in which he claims the opposite of certainty.
Atheists also don't claim that with certainty they can know that hobgoblins and unicorns don't exist, you utter dumbass, "agnostics" are not about being open minded, but about being deceitful bullshiters.
Oh, dear you are completely misinformed. Richard Dawkins has an entire chapter in The God Delusion in which he claims the opposite of certainty.
Atheists also don't claim that with certainty they can know that hobgoblins and unicorns don't exist, you utter dumbass, "agnostics" are not about being open minded, but about being deceitful bullshiters.
23
I consider myself to be a strong agnostic, so I don't think the question will ever have an answer and I think it is fundamentally unknowable.
For me, what matters here is the colloquial definition. New Atheists can come up with their own definitions all they want (largely because they don't like agnostics and want to discredit us), but when the average person hears "atheist" they think someone who is sure there is no god. And as much as Richard Dawkins and other New Atheists try to tell us that they're really not sure, the way they write about God is as though it's a given that God doesn't exist, and Dawkins himself has said he's 99.9% sure, basically, that there is no God, but just isn't stupid enough to think it's a complete given. No one who is convinced atheism means "no God" is going to be convinced otherwise.
It really depends, anyway, on which part of the word you think the "a-" prefix is modifying. People who argue that "atheism" includes agnosticism see it as "a-theism" - "not theism," lacking belief in a God. But it could also be seen as "a-the-ism," meaning "no-God-ism" - belief that there isn't a God. There is no definitive answer to the question like people like Mattyx think there is, and so, frankly, I'm just going to go with the more common colloquial meaning in that sense. And in the colloquial meaning, someone like me - someone who refuses to take a stance in the debate because I think it's unknowable - would be lying if I called myself an "atheist." Most people would hear that and their idea of my beliefs from that would not be what my beliefs actually are.
Personally, I think even leaning one way is a faith statement, even if you're willing to acknowledge that you don't know for sure. And therefore, someone like Dawkins who's 99.9% sure there isn't a God is still making a leap even if it isn't a complete one. If you're intellectually honest, you know that there is no evidence pointing EITHER way. And the unicorn and hobgoblin argument is a false analogy, because those are creatures who, if they existed, would probably leave some form of proof of their existence that humans could observe. However, the whole notion of a higher power is SUPPOSED to be beyond human consciousness, so it makes sense that a God could exist and we wouldn't know about it.
In any case, atheists like Mattyx who look for reasons to shit on other groups just make me want to be an atheist even less.
More...
For me, what matters here is the colloquial definition. New Atheists can come up with their own definitions all they want (largely because they don't like agnostics and want to discredit us), but when the average person hears "atheist" they think someone who is sure there is no god. And as much as Richard Dawkins and other New Atheists try to tell us that they're really not sure, the way they write about God is as though it's a given that God doesn't exist, and Dawkins himself has said he's 99.9% sure, basically, that there is no God, but just isn't stupid enough to think it's a complete given. No one who is convinced atheism means "no God" is going to be convinced otherwise.
It really depends, anyway, on which part of the word you think the "a-" prefix is modifying. People who argue that "atheism" includes agnosticism see it as "a-theism" - "not theism," lacking belief in a God. But it could also be seen as "a-the-ism," meaning "no-God-ism" - belief that there isn't a God. There is no definitive answer to the question like people like Mattyx think there is, and so, frankly, I'm just going to go with the more common colloquial meaning in that sense. And in the colloquial meaning, someone like me - someone who refuses to take a stance in the debate because I think it's unknowable - would be lying if I called myself an "atheist." Most people would hear that and their idea of my beliefs from that would not be what my beliefs actually are.
Personally, I think even leaning one way is a faith statement, even if you're willing to acknowledge that you don't know for sure. And therefore, someone like Dawkins who's 99.9% sure there isn't a God is still making a leap even if it isn't a complete one. If you're intellectually honest, you know that there is no evidence pointing EITHER way. And the unicorn and hobgoblin argument is a false analogy, because those are creatures who, if they existed, would probably leave some form of proof of their existence that humans could observe. However, the whole notion of a higher power is SUPPOSED to be beyond human consciousness, so it makes sense that a God could exist and we wouldn't know about it.
In any case, atheists like Mattyx who look for reasons to shit on other groups just make me want to be an atheist even less.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Portland Voters Are Stoopid by Goldy
-
An I-5 Bridge Over the Skagit River Has Collapsed by Paul Constant
-
Why They Break Windows by Unpaid Intern
-
Did You Steal Our Unpaid Intern's Camera? by Goldy
-
Usually When I'm Sent a Photoshopped Image of a Gun Pointed At Me... by Dan Savage
-
The Only Thing More Tragic than a Bridge Collapse Would Be a 10 Cent a Gallon Increase in the Gas Tax by Goldy
-
Tornado Truthers by Dan Savage
-
Star Trek Releases Deleted Scene of Benedict Cumberbatch Showering to Counter Claims of Sexism by Cienna Madrid
-
Boy Scouts Lift Ban on Gay Members by Paul Constant
-
Should I Buy One of These? by Goldy
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (23) RSS