Wednesday, February 01, 2006

Michelangelo's David and bin Laden's Niece

If there is such a thing as goodness, is it not logical to assume that this is a general principle that underlies "values" in various fields? Is not goodness somewhat "constant" in the areas of both ethics and aesthetics, or behavior and art? for example?

I think so.

That is how I manage the transition from musician to nurse, and then back again, without difficulty. A musician understands and practices "goodness" or "beauty" in the aesthetic realm of concocted sounds, and a nurse understands and practices "goodness" or "beauty" in the ethical realm of behavior to other, frequently ill, fellow human beings. The underlying goodness is a "constant," so to speak.

But all modern religions fail to acknowledge this, and fail more crudely in the application of the concept of goodness even to all people; people they might wish to address and perhaps even "save." Religions are just tribal warfare made manifest in dubious scriptures and even more dubious prophecy. That explains their uselessness, from a moral, aesthetic, or ethical aspect.

Perhaps you see this as harsh. If so, then you are likely not guilty of making the mistake that I assume is so common here. There are those who avoid this mistake. If that applies to you, then I regard your spirituality as morally intact. Not such a common thing, really. Reverend William Sloane Coffin, I bow to. Not all religious people regard others, consistently, as equal.

Both the Bible and bin Laden are uneven in their application of goodness. Gay marriage, anyone?

Check out this:

(vi) You are a nation that exploits women like consumer products or advertising tools calling upon customers to purchase them. You use women to serve passengers, visitors, and strangers to increase your profit margins. You then rant that you support the liberation of women.

That sounds like a bad thing, no? But an honest criticism of modern American television culture, coming perhaps from a Southern Baptist perspective. Or not.

Not, as it is.

But sheesh. What about sexual liberation? Pardon me, but I hold that the regard for the privacy of adult non-violent consensual behavior of any mutually respectful kind; sexual, economic, educational, aesthetic, or ethical, is fair and allowable. It is not bin Laden's business if a penis should encounter, with adult legal consent, anything. Same goes for vaginas and various fruits or other foodstuffs. These are not religious issues.

Sex is the crucible upon which all modern religions fail.

And the reason for this is equality. A thing to be denied one of the sexes. Stupidly, senselessly.

Interestingly, this is both a family and a societal problem. (Warning: yowser alert.) Bin Laden's niece. That is the problem. For Shariah, the Taliban, the Southern Baptists, Jerry Falwell, the American Family Association, and incidentally, my spouse.

Just kidding. No chance there, so no foul.

What the hell.

Be excellent to one another, and party on, dudes and dudettes.

No comments: