If not Nature, What?

Schools teach students about the facts of life.

The assumption, I suppose, is that the facts of life are so basic that you can ask an administrator of information on behalf of a government agency (we call such folks “teachers”) to deliver them to the students, regardless of context, personal experiences, community commitments, family values, etc.

How, one asks upon thinking about this matter for 11 seconds, did we get to this point?

The answer, of course, is power politics, but that’s only the more immediate answer. How did we get to the point where a parent would allow a government agent, and then later an indirect government agent – one not paid by the government but doing its work for it – to teach something so wonderful and intimate and personal and life-building and glorious in the context of a classroom with a bunch of peers and in interpretive isolation (i.e. even though he is surrounded by his peers, none of them have the wisdom to interpret the information and the agents of the state certainly won’t remove their veil by admitting what they are really about)?

To figure that out requires a non-linear mode of thinking. One has to ask the question, “what is the foundation of their teaching?”

Clearly it is not nature. It is rather obvious by the fact that these teacher stand in front of a group of teens to teach them about their reproductive systems that they don’t know the first thing about sex or human nature.

But if not nature, what?

You’d better sit down for this, because the answer bears implications that extend into every domain of modern life. Literally.

The answer is utility.

We don’t think about the nature of things because we don’t, culturally, believe in the nature of things.

Instead, we think about how we can use things to get what we want. We will go so far as to evaluate the cost of things – i.e. the effects and consequences of a given action.

But we won’t think about those consequences as they concern the eternal soul and family relationships and spiritual state of the child.

We think about utility. Not nature; not purpose; not propriety.

A challenge: did any of you who took a “sex ed” class ever learn about the “nature” of sexuality? Did you learn about its reach into the wider relations it would affect? Did you learn about it as anything more than a physical act?

Did you learn the first thing about the purpose of sex?

I didn’t think so.

What did you learn about the appropriate use of your glorious sexuality? Or was it reduced to “the sex drive,” that abominable, instinctual, animal based concept that cut out your soul when you weren’t looking?

Of course, if propriety was an issue, they wouldn’t have been discussing it with you in the classroom setting.

Oh if only this joke were funny.

It will have to be paid for. It isn’t natural, and nothing good will come of it.”

JRR Tolkien LOTR P. 1

The Times We Inhabit

The discussion around the Dumbledore case is profoundly revealing. I posted the following to one participant in the NY Times  discussion. America’s heart is laid bear in these comments. So here’s my response to one of them: 

I read all the comments up to 155 and then I thought: Without doubt this is the most interesting post. So I had to respond.

Alevard, you said:
“Isn’t the one thing that our faith and leaders preach is the acceptance and loving of others? Isn’t God’s love universal? Or does God select whom to love?”

To which I would say yes, great point! In fact, not only is God’s love universal, according to the Christian Bible, “God is love.” Clearly, this is the foundation of a sound discussion.

Then you say:

“Clearly a few of you don’t support homosexuality, and you know what!? that is your right! But, just because in your eyes its wrong doesn’t make it wrong! Love is what it is. An unexplainable force that blankets us all.”

This paragraph amazes me. First, you generously remind us that we all have rights. In fact, people opposed to homosexuality have the right not to support homosexuality.

Then you remind us that nobody has the power to determine what is wrong. Even if I think something is wrong, I might be wrong. This is an essential point that we all need to remember. None of us has the power to base what is wrong on our personal tastes.

Then you hit a home run: “love is what it is.”

No matter what anybody has to say about it, it still exists as what it is. Give it another name, it is still love. Give other things the same name, love is still love.

And what is love? You even tell us that: “an unexplainable force that blankets us all.”

Well, I guess you didn’t tell us. An unexplainable force? I’m stymied.

Is it something that acts on us or is it something we do?

That’s actually a critical question, a little like asking whether we are victims of love or lovers.

It reminds me of Paul McCartney’s interview when he was asked how he felt about all the accusations that the Beatles were corrupting youth. He said something like, “We were singing about love. That can’t be bad, can it?”

Well, Paul, yes it can. Mislead us on love and we’re in serious trouble. If love is what I have for a hot babe at the bar (a somewhat unexplainable force) or if it is the same thing that will enable me to keep my vows to my wife “when I’m 64,” I’d call that a pretty practical real world difference.

The Christian conception of love is not that of a very strong feeling over which I have no control, that I cannot rely on because it will go away or redirect itself when something better comes along, and that makes me emotionally dependent on addictive behaviors.

The Christian conception of love is that at some point I choose to love even when the immediate attraction fades, that I resolve to continue loving “for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health” (i.e. no matter what), and that I will restrict the sexual expression of that love to the person with whom I am covenentally bound “till death do us part.”

Unexplainable? Yes. But we can still distinguish it from what it is not. It’s not about me. It’s about willing and acting for the well-being of the other.

Then you say:

“One more thing, for you parents that hide behind the shroud of “family values” there is nothing in this revelation of Dumbledore that should cause you to fret.”

Interesting phrasing. Why are we “hiding behind a shroud?” What are we hiding from? Your last sentence is only true if you are right, but you haven’t established that yet. Maybe you will below.

“If you take responsibility for being parents and guide your children to understand what is right or wrong (not that homosexuality is wrong) then your kids will grow up to be good people and active contributors to society despite sexual taste!”

But that begs the question. You have determined to tell us what is not wrong, while not allowing us to say what is wrong. That makes it hard for us to know what to teach our children.

One has to ask, and I don’t mean any rudeness, “who empowered you to tell us that homosexuality isn’t wrong?”

If it is wrong, and multitudes of sound ethical thinkers have found reasons to suggest that it is, then it does affect the person’s character. It doesn’t make them pure evil any more than my character weaknesses make me pure evil (I hope).

But, if it is wrong, than practicing homosexuals are doing something wrong when they practice. That would imply some sort of character weakenss.

You continue:
“Isn’t that the bigger picture, raising the new generation to be socially accepting, tolerant and respecting of ALL people.”

Now you are playing unfair. Not only are you insisting that we can ‘t say what is wrong but you can, now you are establishing a whole new moral code by borrowing one element of “traditional values” and making it the new law. Now people shouldn’t be loving, they should be “socially accepting, tolerant and respecting of ALL people.”

I don’t know if you mean anything when you say that, but I think you probably intend to. So I’m trying to figure it out. Do you mean that we should accept, tolerate, and respect everything that everybody does? Or just that we should a, t, and r all people.

The latter is easy when you think of them as the image of God. I’m not sure why a person should feel that way about a blob of protoplasm headed toward the grave.

But I cannot believe you expect us or yourself to accept, tolerate, and respect all behavior. Some behavior is wrong. You said so above. Some is harmful to my loved ones. I won’t tolerate that.

So now we’re full circle. What behavior are we to tolerate? You want us to tolerate what many have regarded as deviant sexual behavior. Why? Because we don’t have the right to say it is wrong.

But by your reasoning, nobody ever has the right to say any behavior is wrong. There is no right and wrong, really, only group’s opinions.

So why are we supposed to follow your opinion? Ours is rooted in thousands of years of human traditions and in what we believe is evidently healthier for the human soul and for human society.

What is yours rooted in?

Then you give us some very wise counsel:

“step up to the plate of parenting! As long as you raise GOOD, CARING an COMPASSIONATE people that should be enough!”

Indeed. But what do the words mean?

“Please people you are always entitled to have your own opinions and views! But make it your OWN! Not something that you were taught or told or preached! Learn the good and the bad with your own wonderful mind and realize that we all live in the same world and strive for the same happiness.”

This is weird and I love you for this paragraph. Thank you for teaching us, telling us what we should do, and preaching your message to us! You have the seeds of a lot of wisdom. I’m serious.

Now think harder and make your thoughts consistent; apply the same standard to yourself that you apply to us, and you will grow to become a very loving husband and a wise father.

Don’t believe what you do just because everybody around you honors you for it. Explore your own human nature and learn its lessons. It flourishes when fed truth, goodness, and beauty. It starves when it feeds on illusions.



A few more thoughts about sex, guilt, multi-culturalism, and freedom

Sexual liberation is rooted, historically, in interpretations of Freud and developed by Herbert Marcuse. It’s all related to guilt.

Multi-culturalism has used a confusion strategy to assist it. Various cultures have varying sexual mores, the argument goes, therefore there are no sexual laws that are not mere cultural impositions.

The great crisis of multi-culturalism is precisely that there is no such thing as a multi-culture. Throw 50 cultures together and you have a new culture. If the leadership of that culture chooses a radical relativism as the foundation for decision making then the members of that culture will not have wise guides or principles to live by. Everything will be regarded as an imposition and everybody will be confused.

It’s analogous to learning manners. They’re binding at first, liberating later. It’s not comforting to never know what to do in a given situation.

The notion is that all conventions are impositions and limitations. They are not. They are means by which individuals become members of a community. They are means by which individuals rise from the aesthetic to the ethical. They are means by which individuals discover themselves, their powers, their tastes, their identities. And then they turn those identities, discovered in part by breaking from the stranglehold of community (something they could not have done if the community did not have a “stranglehold”!) and turning back into the community and serving it with wisdom, virtue, and self-denial.  

It’s also analogous to learning how to speak. Does it liberate you or bind you? You will always find it difficult to escape the patterns of thought and the limits of thought established by your language. So are you freer to think if you don’t know any language? Are you more liberated if your use of your own language is radically limited? Language is both the opportunity and the limitation of relationship.

But our supposed desire not to impose our morality on people from other cultures or religions or whatever is a fraud and a self-deception. First of all, it is a fraud. Those who champion the sexual revolution are not morally neutral. They have a worldview and a moral system that they have imposed with extraordinary success on our culture, especially through the colleges and universities and the entertainment industry (this may be the single most significant stupid thing Christians did in the 20th century when they regarded the entertainment industry as necessarily evil and let it go its own way rather than make movies that could have been sound aesthetically and morally responsible).

Secondly, it is a self-deception by the cowards who acquiesce. They have persuaded themselves that they are ever so kindly not imposing their own morality (as though they hold to a sound moral code themselves) on the young people under their own authority. Which is to say they are refusing to exercise authority, thereby abandoning their responsibilities. They are closet tyrants a la Dead Poet’s Society.

Do we believe for a moment that the university system would be so unspeakably immoral if it weren’t taken over by and now run by two classes of people: perverts and administrative cowards?

To be free from guilt over things that are wrong is not liberation. The guilt will submerge itself and manifest itself in other psychoses. When we do things that are self-destructive we ought to feel guilt – that is one of the evidences of self-respect.

And what about love? Isn’t that the hymn of the age? Are those free from guilt suggesting that sex without love is a good thing? Because that is the price of sex without guilt. The reason we should feel guilty about extra-marital sex is because somebody isn’t being loved; spouse, future spouse, self, person with whom one is uniting oneself. Thus the only way to avoid guilt is to completely eliminate love from our conscience in relation to the sexual act. Some freedom.

This is leading to a paganism that will enslave women into temple prostitution within two generations.