....
Who put the mental into fundamentalism?
.
I have been engaging regularly with another blogger who has decided (for unrelated reasons) to cease blogging on political matters – this is AJ Chesswas. I did so because I have, what some may say is a masochistic tendency, to engage with those and ideas that are almost the complete opposite of mine. Friends know this in my collection of North Korean propaganda, but I also find engagement with socialists, ecologists, religious zealots and racists all intriguing. At best it challenges me on what I believe and tests it, at worst it just gets me wound up.
.
My main engagement has been the curious religious fascination with sex. As Muslims get all agitated about cartoons depicting Mohammed, Christians get most agitated in New Zealand about sexual behaviour. The opposition to the Civil Union Bill was driven by people opposed to homosexual behaviour and relationships. Simple as that.
.
My main engagement has been the curious religious fascination with sex. As Muslims get all agitated about cartoons depicting Mohammed, Christians get most agitated in New Zealand about sexual behaviour. The opposition to the Civil Union Bill was driven by people opposed to homosexual behaviour and relationships. Simple as that.
.
Opposition to legalising prostitution was driven by people opposed to sex being a commodity – although there is a wider concern about this, as prostitution makes many people uncomfortable with the “what if it was your daughter” argument. Few defended the right of adults to choose to have sex with money exchanging.
.
Christians got extremely wound up when sodomy and male same-sex acts (they ARE different, sodomy is not just a homosexual practice and lesbian sex has never been prohibited) were legalised in the 1980s. Marches with the flag and enormous petitions, concern that teenage boys would suddenly start bumming each other because it was legal. I was 15 at the time and it didn’t cause me to look at my friend’s bums in a new light.
.
So why do they get so wound up? I figured AJ Chesswas would enlighten me as his views on these matters are some of the most radical I have seen. I didn’t want just some quotes from the Bible, but some reasoning and to be fair, scripture was the weapon of last resort.
.
He, after all, got extremely agitated when I explained I had engaged in behaviour that, at one time, was illegal in New Zealand. Check out this :
.
“When a person consents to making a bad choice there is a huge duty on us to help prevent them doing it. How much more a duty when we are the one causing them to do it? How much more when as a man we're abusing the fickle choice of women who we know are so easily manipulated?”
.
“If only you knew the repulsion and wrath that is flamed in the belly of a God-fearing man when he hears of a woman being sexually perverted. Get help Scott. That is both an insult, a compliment and a threat.”
.
So before the lynch mob was sent on a plane to London (where, frankly we are talking genocide proportions if all the people in Britain who did this are going to get punished), I had to ask. Why does this matter? Why do they get SO angry?
.
If people respect each other, don’t assault, steal or defraud from each other and get along peacefully, isn’t that enough? Why should the state be involved in private matters and why, indeed, should individuals give a damn whether their neighbours are married or not, enjoying sodomy, banging their sheep or making chocolate capsicum and parsnip cupcakes?
.
It is a fundamental liberal maxim that people should be able to do what they wish, as long as they do not infringe upon the right of others to do the same. Christian fundamentalists dismiss this as a secular religion - and say to enforce this is "forcing my views on them", as if NOT doing something is MAKING you do something. Leaving people to choose is not forcing anyone, it is free will.
Opposition to legalising prostitution was driven by people opposed to sex being a commodity – although there is a wider concern about this, as prostitution makes many people uncomfortable with the “what if it was your daughter” argument. Few defended the right of adults to choose to have sex with money exchanging.
.
Christians got extremely wound up when sodomy and male same-sex acts (they ARE different, sodomy is not just a homosexual practice and lesbian sex has never been prohibited) were legalised in the 1980s. Marches with the flag and enormous petitions, concern that teenage boys would suddenly start bumming each other because it was legal. I was 15 at the time and it didn’t cause me to look at my friend’s bums in a new light.
.
So why do they get so wound up? I figured AJ Chesswas would enlighten me as his views on these matters are some of the most radical I have seen. I didn’t want just some quotes from the Bible, but some reasoning and to be fair, scripture was the weapon of last resort.
.
He, after all, got extremely agitated when I explained I had engaged in behaviour that, at one time, was illegal in New Zealand. Check out this :
.
“When a person consents to making a bad choice there is a huge duty on us to help prevent them doing it. How much more a duty when we are the one causing them to do it? How much more when as a man we're abusing the fickle choice of women who we know are so easily manipulated?”
.
“If only you knew the repulsion and wrath that is flamed in the belly of a God-fearing man when he hears of a woman being sexually perverted. Get help Scott. That is both an insult, a compliment and a threat.”
.
So before the lynch mob was sent on a plane to London (where, frankly we are talking genocide proportions if all the people in Britain who did this are going to get punished), I had to ask. Why does this matter? Why do they get SO angry?
.
If people respect each other, don’t assault, steal or defraud from each other and get along peacefully, isn’t that enough? Why should the state be involved in private matters and why, indeed, should individuals give a damn whether their neighbours are married or not, enjoying sodomy, banging their sheep or making chocolate capsicum and parsnip cupcakes?
.
It is a fundamental liberal maxim that people should be able to do what they wish, as long as they do not infringe upon the right of others to do the same. Christian fundamentalists dismiss this as a secular religion - and say to enforce this is "forcing my views on them", as if NOT doing something is MAKING you do something. Leaving people to choose is not forcing anyone, it is free will.
.
Not only is liberalism utility maximising (allowing maximum creativity, risk taking and accountability for risk taking), but is moral. It is moral because people own their lives – anybody else owning your life is called slavery. It is also moral because it seems absurd and offensive for anyone else to have control over your body - if you (and whoever you are with) consent to do something, why is someone not participating in a better position to not only say no, but to punish you for not agreeing? What made that person the guardian of your body?
.
Well this is the answer I got:
.
"Sex is a private act, and that is the basis of my resistance to what has become a very public debate. But it is only a private act when that privacy actually means something - ie when it is expressed monogamously in a committed and covenantal relationship. When it is exposed, or people expose themselves, that deviant sexual practices are not only common but being publicised, celebrated and encouraged - then sexuality is of significant concern to any moral person who's in touch with the next generation".
.
A private act, but only when you do it the way they want you to (and because they don't want any manuals of naked people showing you different ways of doing it), because otherwise it is a "bad choice”. Although he wanted to punish people for the bad choice too because:
.
“What I'm saying that where a choice is a bad choice then it doesn't matter whose consent is involved - it is a bad choice and both participants are acting in a destructive, irresponsible, undignified and inhumane manner.”
.
Not clear why it is destructive to enjoy a sexual act, irresponsible to whom, undignified (is just an expression of taste) and inhumane is unclear when two adults consent.
.
Then there is a plea to the majority – with one problem. Unfortunately Christian fundamentalists surround themselves with people who agree with them (as many of us do, life is happier when you don’t have to deal with others) he said:
.
“most people need little help in trying to understand how the practices you talk of are perverted!! Most people couldn't bear to even use the srts of terms you are using in this discussion!”
.
I said sodomy, oral sex and masturbation. Terms I have used in discussions with quite a few people. I think most people would not think of those as perverted, particularly the latter two – some may not be a personal preference, but he is clearly deluding himself if he thinks "most people" think that way. Given the best Christian political result in the elections has been around 6% for United Future (and much of that vote was not on religious ground), it is clear that, as a bumper sticker in the US read, the "moral majority is neither"!
.
Well this is the answer I got:
.
"Sex is a private act, and that is the basis of my resistance to what has become a very public debate. But it is only a private act when that privacy actually means something - ie when it is expressed monogamously in a committed and covenantal relationship. When it is exposed, or people expose themselves, that deviant sexual practices are not only common but being publicised, celebrated and encouraged - then sexuality is of significant concern to any moral person who's in touch with the next generation".
.
A private act, but only when you do it the way they want you to (and because they don't want any manuals of naked people showing you different ways of doing it), because otherwise it is a "bad choice”. Although he wanted to punish people for the bad choice too because:
.
“What I'm saying that where a choice is a bad choice then it doesn't matter whose consent is involved - it is a bad choice and both participants are acting in a destructive, irresponsible, undignified and inhumane manner.”
.
Not clear why it is destructive to enjoy a sexual act, irresponsible to whom, undignified (is just an expression of taste) and inhumane is unclear when two adults consent.
.
Then there is a plea to the majority – with one problem. Unfortunately Christian fundamentalists surround themselves with people who agree with them (as many of us do, life is happier when you don’t have to deal with others) he said:
.
“most people need little help in trying to understand how the practices you talk of are perverted!! Most people couldn't bear to even use the srts of terms you are using in this discussion!”
.
I said sodomy, oral sex and masturbation. Terms I have used in discussions with quite a few people. I think most people would not think of those as perverted, particularly the latter two – some may not be a personal preference, but he is clearly deluding himself if he thinks "most people" think that way. Given the best Christian political result in the elections has been around 6% for United Future (and much of that vote was not on religious ground), it is clear that, as a bumper sticker in the US read, the "moral majority is neither"!
.
However then we come to the crux of it – scripture was quoted and:
.
“In marriage a husband and wife have chosen to refrain from the most pleasurable experience available to them, and save that as a gift for each other. This gift and its ongoing life withtin their marriage is a symbol of the exclusive love and life they share in their hearts for each other. When people figure out the right place to put things the blessing that follows is the joy of being a parent. The joy of bringing into the world new life, and meaningfully recreating something that will live and last because of you”
.
Ok, I would disagree with much of that, but – setting aside agreement on this - this surely is still a matter of choice. Why regulate to require people have no sex unless it is heterosexual coitus within marriage? Why throw people in prison for sodomy? Well..
.
“How can such an important matter not be the interest of a people's government? This is even more important than things like smoking, alcohol and obesity, because it deals with a person's core relationships and identities. If we get this right, and children are given the right start to life by two parents who truly love each other, we probably won't even have to deal with the problems and addictions that arise from a person's depression and lack of meaningful relationships and identity.”
.
Furthermore..
However then we come to the crux of it – scripture was quoted and:
.
“In marriage a husband and wife have chosen to refrain from the most pleasurable experience available to them, and save that as a gift for each other. This gift and its ongoing life withtin their marriage is a symbol of the exclusive love and life they share in their hearts for each other. When people figure out the right place to put things the blessing that follows is the joy of being a parent. The joy of bringing into the world new life, and meaningfully recreating something that will live and last because of you”
.
Ok, I would disagree with much of that, but – setting aside agreement on this - this surely is still a matter of choice. Why regulate to require people have no sex unless it is heterosexual coitus within marriage? Why throw people in prison for sodomy? Well..
.
“How can such an important matter not be the interest of a people's government? This is even more important than things like smoking, alcohol and obesity, because it deals with a person's core relationships and identities. If we get this right, and children are given the right start to life by two parents who truly love each other, we probably won't even have to deal with the problems and addictions that arise from a person's depression and lack of meaningful relationships and identity.”
.
Furthermore..
.
“And if there are any sexual acts that are more risky than sodomy they certainly should be illegal!! Force is certainly a very good argument when dealing with the immoral and unreasonable!”
.
I wont even mention a long list if he wont search the internet for them!
.
I wont even mention a long list if he wont search the internet for them!
.
Apparently the state should control our core relationships and identities. Keen on a state arranged marriage anyone? Can’t have been hooking up with the wrong partner now can we? Should the state determine your career (identity)? What else must the state protect us from?
.
Two people apparently will truly love each other if they withhold sex and this will deal with the problems from depression and lack of meaningful relationships. Of course if you are gay, then the glowing “love” of those who “care” will seek to “cure” you, because, after all, just because you are “immoral and unreasonable” doesn’t mean you can’t repent – rather like those who offend against the Party under communist systems.
.
So there you have it – beyond simply saying the Bible says so (the Bible bans eating shellfish as well) it is simply immoral, offends Christian fundamentalists and apparently has some amazing effect on depression, meaningful relationships and identity. Anyone who has had a less than optimal marriage or is gay will find this laughable. I believe Christian fundamentalists (and other religious fundamentalists) have an obsession with sex for bigger reasons. Yes, the Bible is strict on these things (although the Adam and Eve story means that humanity was bred from the incestuous coupling of their children), but I think sex cuts to the heart of what it is to be human in many ways and that is why religious people want it regulated. Mr Chesswas once argued:
.
“Comparing fihgting to sexual immorality is like comparing apples to sausage rolls. It really bugs me when people say it's hypocritical of Christians to want to ban pornography, but not violence.”
.
Well when you are into banning, which is a violent act in itself, it would be more hypocritical to ban people from it! In short, this was in the context of how good fist fighting can be!! Mr Chesswas regards that as ok, but many sex acts as abominable.
.
Sex is an expression of self – the most selfish act anyone can commit. You can’t have sex (short of lying on your back and thinking of England) properly without it being something you want and enjoy. If you do it just to give someone else pleasure (while you are nonchalant about it) you are – more than any other activity – being untrue to yourself, and you wont do it very well. Sex is THE act of selfishness, two people (or more) getting immense personal pleasure from performing acts for their own gratification. It just so happens that you enjoy giving the other person their gratification as well, as it heightens YOURS.
.
It is immensely pleasurable, one of the most highly regarded entertainment activities – partly because it doesn’t happen very well without someone else wanting to do it, and because it involves revealing physical and personal traits and habits that most of us don’t want to observe in most people we know. In short, most of us find a small proportion of people attractive for sex and of them, a small proportion find us attractive, and of them, some still wont regardless – making it highly prized, highly pleasurable and very selfish. Sex is the ultimate hedonistic experience – highly desired and often denied and often restrained by reality – you can never always have sex with whoever you want. When you use force or try with those unable to consent, it is a crime and rightfully so.
.
Christians don’t like the pleasure from sex – they prefer sacrifice. After all, they worship a God who is said to have sacrificed the life of its son for the sake of everyone else alive then and forever more. Not just sacrifice the life, but through an enduring humiliating painful torturing death. The omnipotent God does this to its son and this is an act of love? Bizarre. However, throughout Christianity is an asceticism and denial of self. Christians accept sex for procreation because biology means they have to. You can live your life without any sex of any kind – women will still menstruate and men will still ejaculate spontaneously (through overflow), but it is rather sad. It is no coincidence that nuns and priests are meant to be celibate (choir boys were nowhere in the Bible as an exception), sacrificing themselves to God.
.
Christian fundamentalists have taken this further by celebrating the pleasure of sex within heterosexual matrimony as a privilege that is granted by God – in thanks for you making a procreative couple. If God wanted children (explains the interests some priests have in them) then, the omniscient being could have ensured women laid countless eggs and men fertilised them extra-corporally.
..
It is a paternalistic authoritarian attitude which effectively claims ownership of everyone’s lives under the umbrella of “love”. In George Orwell’s classic novel 1984 – the state had perfected artificial insemination, in order to ban sex and intimate relations between people. This was because they interfered with love for Big Brother. How close is that to the theocracy proposed by Mr Chesswas? The acts are to be banned and depictions and promotion of them too – so your body is controlled and your mind too, through censorship.
.
The best explanation of the attitude was in THIS comment
.
“There is a big difference between administering law and punishment responsibly and lovingly, and doing it hatefully a la Hitler. This is very much a reality in the way a loving parent disciplines and punishes their children..
.
No there isn’t – it is mere semantics and a matter of degree. There is nothing loving about locking someone in prison, the difference is that Nazi Germany exterminated many of those it despised – a matter of degree. The state lovingly will do violence to you, lock you up and tell you what you did is wrong – because the state is controlled by people who believe in a ghost you don’t believe in and which cannot be proven to exist. Brian Tamaki and those Christian voters who switched to National in their droves last election are seeking an Iranian style theocracy - like Europe had in the middle ages. One that treats you all as children, and which has the state controlling your body and your mind. The fundamental difference with Nazi Germany or Maoist China is degree – theocrats would probably not be genocidal, just prison wardens.
.
There is no substance of reason behind Christian fundamentality – it is as dangerous an idea as Islamic fundamentalism – both forms of religious fascism, both trying to enforce a subjective supernatural based belief system and ban others. The key difference with Islam is that, outside the USA, there are very few Christian fundamentalists. They want your body and your mind, as the followers of fundamentalist religion not only know the truth, but they will use all means they can to enforce it.
.
As a footnote Mr Chesswas has noted that he is being challenged already because of “a romantic involvement with a Labour party campaigning feminist law graduate! All of this has resulted in a significant challenge to my views on biblical literalism. But then, as has so often been pointed out, if I were to truly be a biblical literalist I’d have to tie scriptures to my hands and my forehead, refrain from trimming my beard, and not wear clothing made of different types of material!”
.
Indeed! I think it is odd that people who hold a book in such esteem then decide it is appropriate to skip over significant portions of it. Now I am no theologist, but I don’t think the Bible says anywhere “these chapters supersede these ones”. That is why I find it difficult to understand people who choose a religion, but only those parts they like, it is like they want a “god” but the “god” they want must be too nice to have meant all that was said in that “holy book”. Maybe they are too scared to do this.
.
So there you have it – beyond simply saying the Bible says so (the Bible bans eating shellfish as well) it is simply immoral, offends Christian fundamentalists and apparently has some amazing effect on depression, meaningful relationships and identity. Anyone who has had a less than optimal marriage or is gay will find this laughable. I believe Christian fundamentalists (and other religious fundamentalists) have an obsession with sex for bigger reasons. Yes, the Bible is strict on these things (although the Adam and Eve story means that humanity was bred from the incestuous coupling of their children), but I think sex cuts to the heart of what it is to be human in many ways and that is why religious people want it regulated. Mr Chesswas once argued:
.
“Comparing fihgting to sexual immorality is like comparing apples to sausage rolls. It really bugs me when people say it's hypocritical of Christians to want to ban pornography, but not violence.”
.
Well when you are into banning, which is a violent act in itself, it would be more hypocritical to ban people from it! In short, this was in the context of how good fist fighting can be!! Mr Chesswas regards that as ok, but many sex acts as abominable.
.
Sex is an expression of self – the most selfish act anyone can commit. You can’t have sex (short of lying on your back and thinking of England) properly without it being something you want and enjoy. If you do it just to give someone else pleasure (while you are nonchalant about it) you are – more than any other activity – being untrue to yourself, and you wont do it very well. Sex is THE act of selfishness, two people (or more) getting immense personal pleasure from performing acts for their own gratification. It just so happens that you enjoy giving the other person their gratification as well, as it heightens YOURS.
.
It is immensely pleasurable, one of the most highly regarded entertainment activities – partly because it doesn’t happen very well without someone else wanting to do it, and because it involves revealing physical and personal traits and habits that most of us don’t want to observe in most people we know. In short, most of us find a small proportion of people attractive for sex and of them, a small proportion find us attractive, and of them, some still wont regardless – making it highly prized, highly pleasurable and very selfish. Sex is the ultimate hedonistic experience – highly desired and often denied and often restrained by reality – you can never always have sex with whoever you want. When you use force or try with those unable to consent, it is a crime and rightfully so.
.
Christians don’t like the pleasure from sex – they prefer sacrifice. After all, they worship a God who is said to have sacrificed the life of its son for the sake of everyone else alive then and forever more. Not just sacrifice the life, but through an enduring humiliating painful torturing death. The omnipotent God does this to its son and this is an act of love? Bizarre. However, throughout Christianity is an asceticism and denial of self. Christians accept sex for procreation because biology means they have to. You can live your life without any sex of any kind – women will still menstruate and men will still ejaculate spontaneously (through overflow), but it is rather sad. It is no coincidence that nuns and priests are meant to be celibate (choir boys were nowhere in the Bible as an exception), sacrificing themselves to God.
.
Christian fundamentalists have taken this further by celebrating the pleasure of sex within heterosexual matrimony as a privilege that is granted by God – in thanks for you making a procreative couple. If God wanted children (explains the interests some priests have in them) then, the omniscient being could have ensured women laid countless eggs and men fertilised them extra-corporally.
..
It is a paternalistic authoritarian attitude which effectively claims ownership of everyone’s lives under the umbrella of “love”. In George Orwell’s classic novel 1984 – the state had perfected artificial insemination, in order to ban sex and intimate relations between people. This was because they interfered with love for Big Brother. How close is that to the theocracy proposed by Mr Chesswas? The acts are to be banned and depictions and promotion of them too – so your body is controlled and your mind too, through censorship.
.
The best explanation of the attitude was in THIS comment
.
“There is a big difference between administering law and punishment responsibly and lovingly, and doing it hatefully a la Hitler. This is very much a reality in the way a loving parent disciplines and punishes their children..
.
No there isn’t – it is mere semantics and a matter of degree. There is nothing loving about locking someone in prison, the difference is that Nazi Germany exterminated many of those it despised – a matter of degree. The state lovingly will do violence to you, lock you up and tell you what you did is wrong – because the state is controlled by people who believe in a ghost you don’t believe in and which cannot be proven to exist. Brian Tamaki and those Christian voters who switched to National in their droves last election are seeking an Iranian style theocracy - like Europe had in the middle ages. One that treats you all as children, and which has the state controlling your body and your mind. The fundamental difference with Nazi Germany or Maoist China is degree – theocrats would probably not be genocidal, just prison wardens.
.
There is no substance of reason behind Christian fundamentality – it is as dangerous an idea as Islamic fundamentalism – both forms of religious fascism, both trying to enforce a subjective supernatural based belief system and ban others. The key difference with Islam is that, outside the USA, there are very few Christian fundamentalists. They want your body and your mind, as the followers of fundamentalist religion not only know the truth, but they will use all means they can to enforce it.
.
As a footnote Mr Chesswas has noted that he is being challenged already because of “a romantic involvement with a Labour party campaigning feminist law graduate! All of this has resulted in a significant challenge to my views on biblical literalism. But then, as has so often been pointed out, if I were to truly be a biblical literalist I’d have to tie scriptures to my hands and my forehead, refrain from trimming my beard, and not wear clothing made of different types of material!”
.
Indeed! I think it is odd that people who hold a book in such esteem then decide it is appropriate to skip over significant portions of it. Now I am no theologist, but I don’t think the Bible says anywhere “these chapters supersede these ones”. That is why I find it difficult to understand people who choose a religion, but only those parts they like, it is like they want a “god” but the “god” they want must be too nice to have meant all that was said in that “holy book”. Maybe they are too scared to do this.
