This desire for unfettered access to sex is probably one of the greatest reasons for this country’s unfortunate descent into the realms of atheism and agnosticism.
Of all the hubbub rightly surrounding the healthcare mandate handed down from the imperial throne of Barack Obama, one aspect of this issue has not been sufficiently discussed: the disturbing fact that sex has now made its way into nearly all aspects of American life. Many have written of the clash between First Amendment rights and those who would seek to curb them, while others have debated the moral evils of abortion, but few have sought to plumb the cause of it all: our national descent into the sexual gutter.
Without doubt or question, sex rules our airwaves, satellites and all the forms of human communication which comprise our leisure time. The subject of sex dominates our children’s education and overflows into the fields of sports, music and the so-called arts. It is indeed impossible to watch or listen to any form of entertainment without being bombarded with direct or indirect references to, or advertisements for, sex; its attainment, its glorification or the improvement of its ‘performance’.
When we speak of sex this does not, of course, refer to what was once known as conjugal love; that which in an ordered society is a beneficial and great moral good. No, the modern conception of sex is that exercise of bodily functions which exists only for the use of human beings by other human beings solely as instruments of physical pleasure; often perversely so.
This desire for unfettered access to sex is probably one of the greatest reasons for this country’s unfortunate descent into the realms of atheism and agnosticism. “A loving God would never be against___:” fill in the blank with “hookups” or any number of sexual deviations. After all, a creator who did not intend for our bodies to engage in rampant and random sex cannot really be worthy of worship, can he?
This has resulted in the loss of the idea that humanity was blessed with a divine gift which, in our manner of reproduction, differentiates man from beast. It is no accident that, when building his empire, sex magnate Hugh Hefner modeled his Playboy magazine around the image of rabbits; and his crude joke has now become public policy: humans are now free to mate without conscience or consequence.
Since the so-called sexual revolution, the exaltation of sex has corrupted much of what this country used to hold dear, especially motherhood. Prior to the 1960s, no one–except maybe adolescent boys–really associated pregnancy with what moderns call “sex.” Babies were brought forth as the natural extension of love between man and wife; the two becoming one flesh; the product of lawful marriage, which has always been the pillar of any civilized–or even uncivilized–culture.
Pregnancy was celebrated as the coming of a ‘blessed event’ or a ‘bundle of joy’ and mothers were revered as symbolic of America herself, along with baseball and apple pie. Today, pregnancy has been described as a “punishment” by our president, while full-time mothers are regarded as anachronistic failures by all but the most twisted of religious fanatics. So the inclusion of abortion and contraception into the area of healthcare is just the next step in the logical progression of the dismantling of marriage and motherhood.
Yes, sex has overtaken the common sense of otherwise sober Americans and now even intrudes itself into our government, via the despotic mandates of legislation that was unwanted by the majority of its citizens and blatantly unconstitutional. One wonders what our Founding Fathers would have though if confronted with the fact that in 21st Century America, sexual license would be included in the list of freedoms and inalienable rights to be protected and even funded by our government.
It’s a pretty good bet that they would be repulsed, as they knew that unless base, sexual urges are curbed, the nation would soon be overrun by pederasty, pornography, social disease, the objectification of women and generations of fatherless children. Well, in the words of a so-called churchman, those chickens have indeed come home to roost.
Has sexual licentiousness existed for thousands of years? Of course; history, literature and even the Bible are full of it. But remember that those lurid biblical tales, Shakespearean tragedies and operas about ‘the world’s oldest profession’ all came with moral lessons attached: participation in and glorification of illicit sex has always come with a price; the one we’re currently paying.
Two additional points. Lisa says; “A loving God would never be against___:” fill in the blank with “hookups” or any number of sexual deviations” This is an erroneous assumption made by people
1 Corinthians 6: 19 says; “Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own.”
John 2:19 says; “Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days."
Who would deliberately despoil a temple?
The second point goes to the core of liberal theology. Any philosophy or ideology that so adamantly supports the idea that there are groups of people out there that deserve to be given ’free’ stuff by other sectors of the population should be decidedly natalist. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that the larger the population, the more opportunity there is to expand both the group you want to take from (getting more tax money to spread around for votes) and expand the group you want to give to (awarding them for keeping liberals in office). Yet liberalism wants to confiscate more and more resources from one, give more and more to the other and all the while support policies that are guaranteed to reduce overall population.
The most humorous portion is that their own political allies are the people most likely to ascribe to their policies. They are advocating eventual self-extinction. Think it’s tough for democrats to steal an election now; just wait a generation or so. With Christian families having three or four kids while liberals opt for a single designer baby at 35 by the middle of the century liberals will be on the endangered species list.
Ms. Fabrizio, and other conservatives as well, should remember (and acknowledge) that a big part of what she and they regard as sexual excess is the result of that much-beloved conservative institution, the free market. The corporations that own the recording companies, film studios, publishers, etc. that produce and disseminate the materials criticized as evil by Ms. Fabrizio are not hotbeds of wild-eyed leftism but rather companies doing their best to give their shareholders a good return on investment. Sex sells. And companies that sell it can do very well. Supply and demand work here just as in any other market. Are conservatives willing to restrict the free market to enforce their moral views? I think the answer to this involves pigs and wings….
NONSENSE!
The author has it all backwards. The desire for sex is a perfectly normal and healthy human attribute. It doesn't cause people to become atheists or agnostics. Religion, to various degrees, has always tried to repress the normal and natural sexuality of its followers, and in all cases, it causes disastrous results.
Anyone with a basic knowledge of psychology knows that by forbidding something, it becomes more attractive to most people. This is especially true with kids. The more their parents and teachers tell them not to do something, the more likely they are to do it.
The worst example is Islam, which so totally represses normal & healthy sexual expression, that it has literally turned its women into slaves who are inhumanely abused by their men. Islam has taught its men that sex is so evil, that a man's wife or daughter can't even talk to a strange man without being subject to accusations of infidelity or promiscuity. But it specifically tells them that it's OK for them to rape non-muslim women.
Christians are taught from the earliest age that sex outside of marriage is a sin. Its priests are forbidden to marry, and it's not surprising that there's so much pedophilia present in the priesthood.
The vast majority of the people who are always moaning about the so called "sinful" sexuality of others, are obsessed with sex for this very reason. For the most part, they simply never get any, and are so enraged by it that they take out their frustration on those who do.
The religious right, is going to be the downfall of the GOP if they keep carrying on about gay marriage & abortion. These are not proper subjects for debate in the political arena. There are millions of independent voters who are so turned off by all their nonsense, that they stay home on election day, or worse, vote for liberals. If everyone would simply mind their own business when it comes to sex, we'd all be a lot better off.
fs
Swemson seems to know little regarding Christianity in general and Catholicism specifically. Episcopal priests are allowed to marry, as are Jewish Rabbis. Catholicism’s injunction over church clergy not being allowed to marry comes from the middle ages when bishops and cardinals had castles, armies, and lands: Riches that Rome didn’t want to see inherited out from underneath the church’s control because of the clergyman’s death. We have a married Catholic priest serving in our parish. He was an Episcopalian priest before conversion to Catholicism. Likewise, married men who become Catholic priests are not required to leave their families. It is estimated that as many as 20% of Catholic priests may be married.
As for the statement; “…it's not surprising that there's so much pedophilia present in the priesthood.” Swemson apparently doesn’t know the difference between pedophilia and pederasty. I’ll not defend the idiocy of the clergy covering up such things and believe that Catholicism is making progress at stopping this abomination within its ranks. But priests almost exclusively pursued boys, even in school situations where both sexes were available. Pederasty is all about man/boy relationships and allowing Catholic clergy to marry wouldn’t have dulled the penchant that drove a vanishingly small percentage of priests to do what they did. If Swemson’s theory was correct; then no married pedophiles or pederatists should exist. Evidence to the contrary proves Swemson’s theory to be wrong on two counts.
First; access to marriage doesn’t guarantee access to sex. Any married man that’s angered the wife knows this first-hand. Call it a sexist comment if you will, but it is accurate nonetheless.
Second; how many gay men or lesbian women have participated in a sham marriage for career or social reasons while still practicing their true desires in secret? C’mon Swemson; ‘man’ up and apply some logic, some , thought, and a little research to your posts.
The author of the post begins by saying:
"This desire for unfettered access to sex is probably one of the greatest reasons for this country’s unfortunate descent into the realms of atheism and agnosticism."
To which I commented: NONSENSE!
The varying degree of sexual repression put forth by the many different religious sects are irrelevant to the point being made. Sex is a natural, healthy and beautiful part of the essential nature of human beings, and religion, in almost all of its various forms, tries to paint it as dirty, shameful and sinful.
The age old struggle between the kings / politicians and the clergy for control over man continues relatively unabated today
As our civilization continues to advance its knowledge of how the universe works, our need for religion and the answers that it offers declines. This in no way invalidates or even questions the values and moral & ethical principles of our founding fathers, for the simple reason that all of those values and principles derive equally well from purely rational and objective thinking. One doesn't have to be religious to know that stealing, or murder etc., is wrong.
Mr. Wavering's attack above, isn't a rational argument against my comment, it's an attack against me personally because I reject religion in ALL of its various forms. The author's premise in the article is ridiculous and my comments stand on their own.
Conservatives need to stick to the arguments for free markets, small government, and personal freedom and liberty, that enabled us to prevail in the midterms in 2010, and stay away from all of the religious based mumbo jumbo if they want to have any hope of dislodging the progressives from our government in November. We're in desperate need of an honest and capable commander in chief, not a minister in chief, and if we select a sanctimonious hypocrite like Santorum to do battle against Obama, we're finished. They'll do the same hatchet job on him that they did on Sarah Palin, and the America that I and millions of other patriots fought for will be gone forever.
fs
Swemson,
The post questioned the statements you made to bolster your argument. That’s not a personal attack; although you may take having your didactic proclamations slapped down personally. Your rejection of religion in all its forms isn’t anything I can deduce from your post. This isn’t Facebook and there is no profile for me to peruse. Eschewing all religions is well and good. Maybe you should also refrain from using your assumptions regarding those religions to try to drive your debate points.
Upon further review of your post; “ NONSENSE! The varying degree of sexual repression put forth by the many different religious sects are irrelevant to the point being made.” My question now becomes: “How would you know?” Your next statement convicts you. “Mr. Wavering‘s attack above, isn‘t a rational argument against my comment, it‘s an attack against me personally because I reject religion in ALL of its various forms.”
To accuse someone of mounting an irrational and personal attack against you just because you spent the bulk of a previous post commenting on a subject you yourself have admitted to have severed all ties with isn’t exactly the pinnacle of rational thought.
Let’s now turn to your latest declaration. “The author‘s premise in the article is ridiculous and my comments stand on their own.”
John Adams is credited with saying; “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
Case in point: In other essays here at IC we are debating the HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’ recent declaration that all businesses provide, free of charge, contraceptive devices/procedures/abortifactants to all women; religious objections of conscious notwithstanding.
Such a discussion seems apropos here. The US Constitution does not ’grant’ rights. It enumerates and describes inalienable rights granted by the Creator (see the DoI) I would submit here that an enumerated right; religious freedom, trumps a ‘suggested’ right; Roe versus Wade.
Several questions arise from this ‘demand’ Ms. Sebelius; a feminist member of the Margaret Sanger/Planned Parenthood eugenics crowd announced.
If access to such items is already universal why make the declaration? There isn’t a Kroger, Wal-Mart, Walgreen’s, or any other drug store or grocery store that doesn’t have an aisle literally stacked to the rafters with this stuff. It isn’t a financial burden because any woman can purchase this stuff for @ $40 per month. Those on Medicaid or financially burdened can receive these devices/procedures/substances at significantly reduced cost or free.
So if it is not a question of access; it must be a question of moral authority. Progressives cite a study which claims that a majority of Catholic women ignore Church teaching and use contraceptives anyway; as if the evidence that most Catholic women are poor Catholics is grounds for the government to make a declaration that violates 2,000 years of Catholic precept.
The declaration is clearly designed to demonstrate that in the eyes of government, the government is the new ’moral’ authority in this country and has supplanted religion in this regard. The HHS Secretary herself gave an interview where she said that years of study had already proven that prevention was a more cost effective method of treating disease than curing it; placing pregnancy on par with smallpox or polio: Something to be eradicated.
If this is the path you walk to get to the statement; “This in no way invalidates or even questions the values and moral & ethical principles of our founding fathers, for the simple reason that all of those values and principles derive equally well from purely rational and objective thinking.” then I say you are wrong on both counts.
The author’s point that as we’ve become more narcissist by:
A. A constant bombardment of more sexualization on society.
B. This has resulted in people demanding a set of conditions that result in ‘screwing’ without consequence.
C. By approving more and more graphic methods (oh, any ’hole’ will do) to titillate our desire.
We diminish the moral anchor that provides us the ability to draw a line and say; “This far and no farther!”
John Adams is also quoted as saying; “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
So far; IMHO the author has come a good deal closer to proving her debate point than you have. Nothing personal.
Nothing personal ?
Yeah.. right….
"I'm getting very horny lately from all those sexy commercials… therefore there must be no such thing as god"
The only thing more foolish than that premise, is the idea that some bible thumping bigot would spend so much time arguing in support of it.
Get a life!
fs
Swemson,
Ms. Fabrizio’s editorial references overt sexualization in the areas of child education, sports, music, the arts, entertainment, and yes commercials. She also covers the dehumanizing aspects included in the modern demand for access to and consumption of sex as nothing other than a physical pleasure. She goes on to point out that this is has become so ubiquitous that we’ve gone to the point to enshrine this carnal desire into federal legislation as a ‘right’. And the commercials are the only point she made that drew your attention?
I understand that to attempt to describe to you the feeling of completeness that my wife of 23 years and I still experience; the fulfillment we both receive through the ‘unprotected’ sharing of each of us with the other could be outside the experience of one who has written religion out of their lives. It’s your choice and I’ll not denigrate it..
I still don’t believe that any reasonable person can deny that overt sexualization of literally every facet of our society has had harmful consequences. STD’s, teen pregnancy, fatherless homes, and all the other disadvantages foisted upon both women and their unplanned children as a result of this. That most persons strive to relieve the consequences of that sexualization while keeping the joy ride; as opposed to totally rethinking the strategy regarding such, is IMHO, a monumental human tragedy.
To complete the conversation: I would ask exactly who is now engaging in personal attacks? You’ve not been able to defend; and apparently have surrendered all your debate points. You take cover in the final refuge all progressives eventually retreat to; derision.
With no prominent points left to offer, as they’ve all been destroyed, you declare me foolish. A Bible-thumping bigot that needs to get a life. How significant. How salient. Just another “Progressive Jihadist” who says; “I wants it that way…well…because I said so!”
Ah well; hope springs eternal. Just once I'd like to engage in an intellectual ‘real issues’ debate with the other side and not have them drive it straight into rancor.
See ya’ out there!