Too much false shame, not enough real shame

The human body and its functions, both those of intimacy and those of natural processes, are nothing to be ashamed of. It is ironic that rather than being more enlightened in this regard people have become laden with shame about the human body.

The reason that is happening is that people lack enough shame in how they promote usage of the blameless shame free body. For example porn and sexually explicit entertainment people ought to be ashamed that they are promoting exploitation and degradation of the human body and its functions.

It is one of the great lies that those who use sex in entertainment are "celebrating the beauty of the human body." That they are most certainly not doing. What they are doing is pimping for sexual dysfunction and promoting amateur and professional sex trade mentality. THAT is what they should be ashamed about.

Thus, let's look at stalking. The person who is photographed naked by a stalker has nothing to be ashamed of, although embarrassment is natural among many people who are so cruelly victimized. However, the stalker is usually the first hypocrite who claims that the human body is "beautiful" and "natural," but what they do with the exploitation of both the victim and the viewers belies their proper placement of shame.

Everyone in the media, including advertisers, who focus so much on nakedness, intimate acts and bodily functions in the flogging of their products claim they are just "getting the information out there" and being "liberating" because there is "nothing to be shamed about." They are being deliberately deceiving. No, there is nothing shameful about nakedness, intimate acts, or bodily functions, but their explicit marketing of them for money, entertainment, or cruelty is degrading to humanity.

Here is an example that is separate from what I am speaking of, but will best explain through analogy my point.

I had a dear friend, a man, one who is remarkable in both being a "regular guy" and also his very interesting life experiences. He's a guy who one would never run out of fascinating things to talk about, what he has done, who he knows and his interests. But he decided to no longer be a guy of many interests, but he is now "gay." His entire identity and all he wants to talk about with me is gay, gay, gay. In other words, rather than being a composite of being an average guy and an extraordinary guy, with tons of dimensions, one of those dimensions being that he is gay, he has packaged himself and will only communicate with me as being one dimension, being gay.

Suppose you had a friend who was a shoe maker. What if he refused to speak to you unless it was about shoes? EVER. He dressed like a shoe, lived in a shoe, would only speak in words that have to do with shoe or rhyme with shoe, and refused to discuss any topic that does not involve shoes. This is what my gay friend has become. He has no identity or interest in life except being gay.

This is what it is like when people claim they love the human body, yet then exploit it constantly in the media, and personally. It is a warping and a skewing of what is only one thread out of the total fabric of life. Sex, being naked, doing intimate acts and having bodily functions are only individual threads out of the entire fabric of a man or a woman. Coarse and exploitative entertainment, advertising and stalking pull that one thread of life out of context and rub people's faces in it repeatedly, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again until they have ruined the "naturalness" they claim to tout.

This is how my gay friend is. I wish I could just go to a restaurant with him, discuss his car or his airplane, shop for clothes, or just hang out together and discuss how one's day went. But all he wants to talk about is gay, gay, gay. He's no longer an uncle: he's a gay guy. He's no longer the guy who smiled about his first car: he's a gay guy. He no longer wants to talk about himself, unless it is about how he is gay. Before he broke off with me as a friend I would have to strain to find ways to discuss being gay with him for hour after hour after hour. Literally, he would insist on speaking of being gay for hours on end and refuse to make even one sentence comments on any other subject. I'm not joking when I say that I think he has studied if he can replace the entire twenty six A through Z English language alphabet with only the three letters A, G and Y. Likewise, I think that he no longer wishes to use the numerical digits 1 through 9 but only the numbers 6 and 9. I'm not joking.

Likewise the constant pimping in the media of nakedness, intimate acts and bodily functions render humans into nothing else but skin bags, rectum holes (for sex or gas) and pimps and procuresses (that's an old fashioned word for female pimps) for 'careers' or 'self images' to the young to think of themselves that way, as pieces of a whole rather than the entire human being.

So no, there is nothing to be ashamed about in the human body, but yes, there is something that everyone should be ashamed about, which is the dehumanizing of the the dignity of the human body in an overall life context, and not as a weapon or recruiting agent in a visual war of coarsening dehumanizing.

Case Study: Gays in the Military

Case Study: Gays in the Military, using faith and reasoning in decision making

I was just listening to an interview with General Colin Powell, former Secretary of State, on a wide range of topics, including gays in the military. He is the author of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy currently implemented in the United States. It gave me the idea of doing a “case study” on this topic, of how to logic one’s way through proper decision making, and of course to share my opinion.

First of all, I have always supported gays in the military and I am far from a “Johnny Come Lately,” since support of gays in the military has always been my core belief. I have, actually, proof of that by relaying to you a “date and time stamped” event where I voiced my support. In 1980 I was hired into a certain major petrochemical company. The department manager was a former military guy, I’ll call him B. He was feisty and quite a character, and I admired his managerial skill, and of course his “war stories.” I did not get to work for him very long, as he was there only I guess a few months to a year of my time there. Anyway, in the fall of 1980 when I had a meeting with him, after the quick handling of business he became chatty in that fun way that he had and he commented on lots of topics, including his opinion of gays in the military. He told me he had no problem with them as people, but as a military guy he was very concerned that being gay was fertile source for blackmail by foreign agents. Remember, this is exactly twenty-eight years ago when many gays were still very much in the closet. Now, I disagreed with him then and I have continually. I felt that determined foreign agents will find anything to blackmail a soldier about, if that is their plan, and if they do not have something on the person, they will create something doing what spies call a “honey trap.” B, however, felt that the particular social onus of being gay made it an exceptional risk. So we agreed to disagree. That was fall of 1980 folks. So I have a firm and clear record of supporting gays in the military.

Now, this does not make it an easy issue for humans to solve, just because someone like me is “pro” gays in military, and other people are “against.” This is why it occurred to me to use this issue as a case study.

Let’s start with the Biblical context. Ah ha, caught you! I know that everyone immediately thinks I mean about the morality or sin associated with gay acts. Wrong! What I mean is when you analyze secular policy you must look to the Bible for categorizing secular versus moral issues. Thus one finds that Jesus said, regarding taxes, to render to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s. Thus you correctly identify gays in the military as an issue of “Caesar,” and not of God. Therefore God expects “Caesar” to determine policy and take care of governmental, military and other secular matters based on facts, prudence and justice. You can also think of gays in the military as a matter for the “good king.” The Bible underscores that Jesus did not get involved in governmental policy, but expected all humans to behave with justice and prudence (many of his parables underscore those qualities).

So, now that we realize that the Bible points you to a secular decision regarding gays in the military, how does one make a just decision? You do so by analyzing the issue and the alternatives using two measures.

1) What is the best decision or alternative to support the maximum effectiveness of the military?
2) What is the best decision or alternative to provide justice and equality for all concerned?

Let’s look at the first criterion for decision making. There is no evidence that gays fight less effectively or otherwise are a detriment to military service. To the contrary, we know that the military has suffered from the loss of gay service men and women over the years, both in the shortage of sheer number of service people and also from their talents and skills, both as combatants and in support.

Now, remember, the first criterion must be given due dignity of consideration, even in an obvious case such as this. This is because it is a slippery slope to only look at “effectiveness.” For example, young men and women are the strongest, most energetic and thus best recruits, so this is why the age of consent to join the military allows teenagers. However, suppose someone suggested that young children would be very effective additions to the military, because they are “easily trained,” “energetic,” “small and thus cheaper to house and transport,” etc. That would be appalling logic, putting effectiveness over decency. So one must always consider effectiveness in a moral context, one that is subservient to decent societal standards, which is we do not use child soldiers.

The second criterion regards equality and justice for all of the parties involved. Obviously on the “pro” side is that gays are entitled to the same right to service and justice in so doing as everyone else who is qualified to join the armed services. So this seems, like the first criterion, very obvious. However, one must give pause to consider the rights of everyone involved. The allowing of gays to serve in the military just like everyone else should not be viewed as giving approval to situations that create sexual tension in the military. This was, and is, exactly the same problem that had to be considered with permitting women into increased opportunities in the military. I admit, if I were the decision maker, I would want a lot of fact finding, analysis and persuasion by my managers and generals to be assured that undue sexual tension was not increased over that which already exists among ready, willing and able young men and women. I know what it is like to be stalked by both straights and gays, and to be viewed in terms of such “assessment.” The last thing any military person needs is to be viewed by a comrade as either straight or gay "bait," "in person pornography" or "opportunity." This is one reason I continue to be uneasy with the presence of women in certain areas of the military and I extend that uneasiness to gays.

Part of the problem is that extreme feminists and extreme gay rights advocates have, in society at large, had very loud mouths about hedonistic and cruising tendencies. Then they turn around and try to persuade skeptics that they are sober and prudent and not predatory in their demeanor. Just as I have some problem believing that about some women, (and of course the predatory men who would exploit them), I have some problem believing that every gay in the military has proper custody of his or her eyes, to use a religious expression. I think some men (those who assault their female comrades, to the men’s extreme discredit and disgrace) obviously have a problem with “custody of the eyes,” and most certainly with their actions. Likewise I think some women have a problem with “custody of the eyes” and also most certainly with their actions. And, in true equality, I think that some gays have a problem with “custody of the eyes” and also most certainly with their actions. Any decision regarding military membership must always protect the rights of those, men and women, straight and gay, who do have “custody of the eyes” and are there to do their job, and not to cruise among their comrades.

Humans being humans I had very serious concerns about exactly this problem with the expanded role of women in the military. I believe that the military has, however, painfully learned how to deal with predators and exploiters who act inappropriately in both behavior and in having an invasive view of their own comrades’ dignity. Thus while I am uneasy about this aspect of the problem, I could be persuaded by generals and managers who have expertise in this issue that what was learned about women expanding in the military can be applied to dealing with problems that may arise with expanded and open gay participation. This means that I would expect gays to be treated with dignity, and I would expect them to treat their comrades with dignity. It really is as simple as that. Just as predatory straight men or women should not be part of the military in any way shape or form, I would expect the same about gays; either those being exploitive or being exploited themselves. When the military lacks cohesion, dignity and a certain “being above sex on the job” attitude among its members you have a dangerous meltdown, one that results in things like naked pictures of prisoners being tormented in Iraq. A military that does not have detachment, dignity and “custody of the eyes” among themselves creates an exploitive rabble rather than a proud protective force.

Thus, to recap, I have always supported gays serving in the military and have proven this by referencing my stance as long ago as twenty eight years ago. I also wish to underscore that there is a proper way to use both “faith and reasoning” to analyze how to arrive at the proper and best conclusion with issues such as these. It is also important to always bear in mind that in pursuit of justice and equality, one does not need to be blind, in denial or disingenuous regarding implications of equality, and to analyze systems and procedures so that everyone can maintain their equality and dignity during a time of change.

I hope that you have found this helpful.

Thinking case study: "Gay versus Evangelicals"

As part of the continuing series on how to improve one’s skills in faith and reasoning, and particularly one’s intellectual and discernment faculties, here are some thoughts prompted by an editorial I read. The editorial was really a, how do I describe it; I guess “witty gloat” about how a recent anti-gay boycott effort by evangelical Christians has generated no press. The editorial was entirely focused on gloating, and being as word smithy and mocking as possible. And that is cool, if that is the purpose. But once again I was sad at a missed opportunity, and I emailed the writer saying so. I could reproduce what I wrote here, but it was brief and chatty, and not instructive, and that is what I want to provide here instead.

Regular readers know I am no fan of evangelical Christians as a movement or a bloc. They have been very unkind, in general, to Catholics, and show an incredible lack of charity. While they consider themselves the standard bearers of morality, they missed huge opportunities to put their money where their mouths are, for example, stopping abortion in the bud by using their money and influence to promote adoption and monetary and societal support structures for those with unplanned pregnancies. Further, many make money off of crass lies about scripture, such as the “Left Behind” series. No, I am no fans of theirs.

But having said that there are two things that are commendable and undeniable: most of them love Jesus Christ in truth, heart and soul, and they firmly and honorably believe in God and his teachings. Their ardor for Jesus is unmistakable, though their perception of God is somewhat more obscured. For that and for the many good things they do, especially keeping their own lives and families within grace, they deserve a lot of credit. And here is the point I am leading up to: secular critics of theirs need to understand that these people genuinely fear for EVERYONE’s soul and salvation. Let’s use a secular example.

Suppose a man bursts into your home and points a gun or a knife at you and your family. Would you say, “Um, I don’t believe that the technology to build a gun or make a knife exists. “ And then conclude, “So what you are holding is not real.” Of course you would not. I’m not saying you think it is a fake gun, which is why I say in this example a gun or a knife. I mean, would you deny that the person is holding any sort of weapon at all, and that his hand is really empty? Not on your life; even a crazy person recognizes a weapon in the hand.

The pious faithful, from the most private and low key believer all the way to the screaming zealot, all believe one thing in common: they believe in the reality of God, and they believe in the reality of eternal reward or eternal punishment. You cannot have an intellectual thought about faith dialogue without reminding yourselves that the truly pious, even if they are quiet, “See the gun or the knife.”

Suppose that the gunman bursts into a public place, where you are there with your family and strangers. If he started to shoot, would you shout out, “Don’t hit us! Hit that gay guy over there!” Of course not, and neither would a pious Jew, Muslim or Christian. They would share equal alarm and dread based on anyone and everyone being a victim of the threatened shooting or knifing.

So using the evangelical Christians as an example, they “See the gun or the knife” and they fear for not only themselves, but their children, their community and yes, even the gay guy over there. They fight against what they see as grave moral sins and acts because they fear that very real “gun or knife” on everyone’s behalf, including the guy who sits there and says, “You morons. That man is not holding a gun or a knife. I don’t believe the tech exists to create a gun or a knife. What are you shouting about? You just want me to leave the public place because I’m gay. You hate me. I hate you.” Etc. etc.

So do you see what I mean? Modern people are so factionalized and anti-intellectual that they are unable to perceive the stance of the very people they argue against. They assume that God fearing people are mean morons. They do not recognize that these people genuinely fear for not only their personal, community and societal safety, but also for the safety of the very people they seem to be “against.” They see the gun or the knife.

Where discernment needs to take place is that what one does when one sees a gun or a knife can differ according to your charity and trust in God. Since I cannot appeal to secularists who are anti-God or disbelieving in God about trusting God, I have to appeal to them to be more charitable. Gays who are angry at “anti-gay” evangelical Christians are missing out completely in seeing that for the most part, sincere evangelical Christians are afraid on their behalf, not just repelled or feeling repugnant about a lifestyle choice. Evangelical Christians who are sincere, and most are, see the gun or the knife, and fear on behalf of the gays too. If gays could exercise charity, they would have much more fruitful and less confrontational dialogue, and could even collaborate on common ground, such as keeping children safe.

So I wrote to the editorial guy saying yeah sure, you had a good gloating mocking rant (and he used imagery where he claims to know what God would really think about those bad evangelicals, just to be provocative). But his piece could mock and gloat all it wanted with cleverness, but would it not have been also zesty and a great opportunity to insert just a few charitable sentences, pondering what next, and how both sides could do better?

Many anti-Church bashers and they include lots of post Reformation Christians, like to drag up killings and persecutions of the past, such as of course that favorite “Spanish Inquisition.” You need to understand that my “seeing the gun and knife” analogy applies and explains those horrible events too. Each side has a genuine and real perception and fear that they see the gun or the knife in the other’s hands, because that side is “disobeying God” and will feel his wrath someday. People in those days literally thought it was better to torture someone into your “true” faith than risk their heresy imperiling you, your family, your community and yes, the person they were torturing. I’m not saying that’s cool. I’m saying that no one can claim to be a scholar or historical analyst, or even an armchair expert, if they do not understand that. One needs to use wisdom and charity when interpreting the Inquisition, the Crusades and yes, the other side, the Muslim invaders and conquerors. Each side genuinely “sees the gun or the knife” and fears the consequences both personally and societally, including “the heretic” or “the infidel.” Believers kill other believers when they feel that they cannot convert them AND they see a gun or a knife rather than the possibility of peaceful co-existence.

Those who oppose gay agenda items see the gun or the knife pointed not only to them personally, and their families, but toward the community, society in general, and the people whose actions they oppose. Vilifying the evangelical Christians and/or anyone who opposes any part of the gay agenda is not only uncharitable, but it is intellectually flawed and it is stupid, because you eliminate the possibility of peaceful co-existence. If peaceful co-existence comes because the other side is finally “defeated” and “silenced” rather than gloat, you ought to be a little disconcerted. Why is that? It is because they have stopped caring about your soul.

I know secularists who either don’t believe in God or “believe in a different, kinder, more all inclusive God” may say “Hurrah” if the evangelical Christians no longer care about your souls and/or dampen their concern about their own family, community and society in general. But I do not think that is something to celebrate and neither does God. Whether you believe in God or not, you should not celebrate if a community of believers no longer gives a rat’s ass about your soul or well being. There are both pragmatic and character based reasons you should care. The pragmatic reason is that someday you will need a hand and you will not have it extended to you. You may think that you can build Gay Nation where you do not need the concern and collaboration of your ideologue opponents, and who knows? You may be right. But it is not wise to assume that you never need the help of a group of tax paying, food growing, and school building God fearing people. Think about it. I did not hear of any evangelical Christians who refused to look into a microscope when the AIDS epidemic was first identified. People may have said unkind things, had ignorant unkind thoughts, and argued about remedies, but the tax dollars, the public health drives and the research came from God fearing and secular people alike. That is just one example, and a highly pragmatic one.

The character example is something that is easier to feel but harder to describe. When one hates and writes off an entire group of people, even if, like ignorant children you point and yell, “He started it first,” you shut down part of your own character diversity and humanity at the same time. There is a terrible ennui that at first looks wonderful when one has something goes entirely your own way. When you beat or mock opponents into the ground because you hate them or their message, it does not make your character better or stronger and it sure does not make your character more diverse. Isn’t it interesting how “diversity” is the new idol to many, yet you prune away your own character so it loses rather than gains “diversity?” Character is what takes you through the many stages of your life, and through the unforeseen challenges. If you pound your ideological opponent into the dust, hating and mocking them, how does that enhance your character, your life skills, and your options when difficulties and challenges arise? And what if you inadvertently shut down someone who in the long run could give you the wisest advice?

So the evaporation of a pious person’s opposition to some of your actions should not be something you celebrate. I speak from experience, as someone who has been repeatedly rebuffed, despite my good intentions, until I have reached the point that I genuinely no longer care about people I once did so deeply… and I no longer care if they fall into the pitfalls that I’ve only been mocked and hated for pointing out, and for trying to find mutually agreeable compromises. It is not a thing to brag about when nice people, even if you hate their specific ideology, no longer care about you and drop their emotional investment in you.

I hope you all have found this mind expanding and helpful, perhaps even thought or wisdom provoking.