Sex In The Public Square - religion - Comments

More religious support for sexual diversity?

Elizabeth — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 16:55:08 -0700

Then there are these folks at Faith in America.

Of course just because we're all on the same page regarding, say, gay rights or transgender issues doesn't mean we'd all be on the same page on, say, sex work or pornography. It'll be interesting to see where our areas of mutual interest are, and where we can support each other's work.

In support of the religious left's sexual justice wing

Elizabeth — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 16:39:57 -0700

That's why I think it's probably important that when they do speak out we identify and amplify and support their messages.

So in that spirit, I am posting here, and will soon add to the "Links" page links to the Religious Institute (http://religiousinstitute.org) and to its founder Debra Haffner's blog (http://debrahaffner.blogspot.com )

Some thoughts on your thoughts

Lou FCD — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 09:47:39 -0700

After a couple days (adding up to twenty plus years) of observation, I have a few thoughts on this. They are not scientific in any way, just personal observations.

The right wing evangelical movement seems to me to have little to do with God, really. Even (or especially, I think) among the most fundamental of Fundamentalists, there is little in-depth thought about what it all means. There is a distinct lack of continuity and coherence present in the rules and regulations of Fundamentalism, and extrapolation outside the strict party line is verboten. I've read several strong cases that could be made that the uber-religious don't really worship God, even the god of the Bible, but rather the Bible itself. In that sense, they are idolatrous. I would go even further, and use the striking tendancy for Fundamentalists everywhere to be familiar with (memorized, usually) the exact same handful of passages from that Bible, and know little or nothing of the passages in between.

What does that mean in terms of Religiosity and Sex?

Show me the passage where the Bible specifically says that sex is not to occur before marriage. It's tough to do, because nobody memorizes or is even familiar with those passages (some would argue they don't exist, based on the slippery definition of "fornicate"). So where does the militancy come from and why, if there is not a plethora of unambiguous commandments against sex before marriage?

It's about control and it comes directly from the pulpit, not from either God or the Bible.

The human body has a few basic needs and drives that are nearly impossible to overcome. One is air, one is food, another is sex. Think about this: if you can talk a person into going without two of those three, you can pretty much convince them to do anything you want. And what are the two big indicators of a "godly" life? "Do unto others" and "Love thy neighbor" invariably take a back seat to fasting and abstinance. The word "prayer" is almost inseperable from "fasting" in conversation with and amongst the extremely religious, and the obsession with sex drips from their lips like ... nevermind, I'm not going there.

In any event, this is a big simplification, but if I were going to resurrect my little cult of personality days, that's where I would start. If I can talk a girl out of her vibrator, well... (Speaking of which, did you see that Bug Girl at Skepchick caught wind that the Supremes might take up the Alabama vibrator law ?)

What's really unfortunate is that minority at the extreme end of the spectrum, the one farthest removed from reality and sanity, is also the most vocal and most public face and voice of religion, and that's true of all the Abrahamic religions. The only people with the power to change that are the religious people who aren't mindless drones of the fanatics. Until they step up and speak out against the extemely visible fringe, I'm not sure those of us who are closer to the non-religious end of the spectrum even have a way to indentify them, let alone ally ourselves with them. All we can do is encourage them to open their mouths, which they have so far declined to do in any meaningful way.

Just my tuppence.

passion and church songs

will — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 20:27:34 -0700

your observations about the passion in the church music remind me of st theresa and her religious ecstacy; her description of love for the divine sounds like carnal love.

Yet more...

JanieBelle — Wed, 11 Jul 2007 16:02:32 -0700

Whoops again .

In Wednesday’s press conference, Flynt said he has also located five prostitutes in Louisiana who also allege that they have had sexual contact with Vitter.
“You can’t have a guy with four, five mistresses and at the same time attacking any similarity of gay rights and speaking about the sanctity of marriage, and abstinence programs, and voting the conservative line all the way down,” Flynt said.
“I don’t want a man like that legislating for me, especially in the areas of morality,” he added.
Vitter heavily campaigned on social values in his 2004 Senate race and was one of the top backers of a failed constitutional amendment that would have banned same-sex marriage."

More Details about Vitter

JanieBelle — Wed, 11 Jul 2007 13:14:15 -0700

Indeed RC. I seriously doubt this is the only or even remotely the highest ranking fundy on the list.

Well said, Elizabeth.

This wouldn't even be news except for the hypocrisy. But if the politician is going to make it his business to enforce his religious superstitions about sex and morality on the rest of us, then it goes without saying that he has made his own sex life our business.

On to the new details...

Whoops.

Another former madam on Tuesday said Vitter had also used her service.

"David Vitter has visited with my girls, and he has to be one of the nicest men and most honorable men I have ever met," Jeanette Maier, known as the Canal Street madam of New Orleans, told CNN affiliate WDSU.

Maier's business, the Canal Street Brothel, was shut down by federal indictments in 2002 and Maier took a plea deal.

Maier's attorney, Vinnie Mosca, told WDSU that he has "absolutely no recollection of David Vitter's name ever appearing on any document, book, or list, or having any association with the Canal Street Brothel or Jeanette."

Mosca also told WDSU that "Miss Maier misspoke," but later told CNN that he was referring to a claim that Vitter's name appears in Maier's "black book."

Vitter is the first lawmaker known to be linked to Palfrey's business, though State Department official Randall Tobias -- who promoted abstinence education as head of the Bush administration's effort to curb the spread of AIDS -- resigned in May after confirming he patronized Palfrey's business.

And just to add insult to injury, it turns out that Larry Flint (yes, the Larry Flint) may have been the one responsible for Vitter's getting busted. That's gotta sting.

Vitter: A good reason why sex should not be private

Elizabeth — Wed, 11 Jul 2007 07:22:33 -0700

This mornings New York Times has an article about the Vitter story, and one of the interesting aspects is that Vitter is Guiliani's Southern campaign chairman. Guiliani is quoted in the article as saying that he believes Vitter's situation is "a personal issue." I couldn't disagree more. If Vitter were a staunch advocate of sex worker rights and nonmonogamous marriage, then this would be a different story. But instead his actions demonstrate that he is not willing to live by the laws that he advocates, and that is definitely a matter of public interest for those of us who elect lawmakers. One important criteria that I have in thinking about electing lawmakers is this: Will this person advocate for laws that I can live with. If a person doesn't even advocate for laws that he or she can live with, there is a major breach of credibility. A quote from the Times article linked above:

Through it all, Mr. Vitter’s consistent themes have been family values, morality and ethics — his own, in contrast to what he has depicted as deficiencies in the local political culture. In Louisiana, where the well-documented infidelities of the onetime governor Edwin W. Edwards were all but a political asset, Mr. Vitter could easily survive any disclosure about adultery. Insincerity, however, is another matter.

If we assert that because something is sexual or personal that it cannot also be political, we deny the public a chance to know the sincerity of the people they elect to make laws that will restrict or expand their freedoms.

How Vitter and his family cope with his behavior is a personal matter. Whether Vitter, or any lawmaker, is willing to live by the laws he advocates? That is absolutely a public matter!

next?

RC — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 08:52:31 -0700

I wish I could say I was suprised. The only surprise to me will be if this fellow turns out to be the biggest fish on that list.