Building the Perfect Religion: Balance, Humility, and–wait for it–Sex…
Okay, back to the work grind: creating the perfect religion. We’ve got work to do, and time is growing short. Some people say you can’t do that, cherry-pick the best of each religion, that you have to take them fully blown, as handed down, all or nothing. I call b*llsh*t. Ever heard of Protestantism? I smell the workings of religious corporatist monopolies whose major goal is to preserve themselves, not liberate you and me from the seminal sweat and tears of life on this planet and the fear and anxiety of life with no plan. Let’s cut to the chase scene: one man’s divine writ is another man’s working lunch.
So let’s get started. Here’s what we’ve got so far:
Building Blocks for the Perfect Religion:
- Balance: the first tenet previously noted as primary in my metaphysical system is balance, the middle path, avoidance of extremes, and most importantly, everything—ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING—in moderation, the emphasis on balance matched by the emphasis on diversity…
- Humility: second on my list, though not necessarily in importance, is humility, (not humiliation), either inflicted or received, simply a recognition that we are but small cogs in a very big picture and that our lives are infinitely better by finding our proper place within that system rather than trying to bully others and impose our will.
Okay, now let’s get this next tough one out of the way, since it won’t get any easier: sex. I don’t know why none of the major religions deal with this directly, though it’s always implied: ‘right actions’, ‘thou shalt not commit adultery’, etc., but this is just beating around the bush, no pun intended. The fact is that our Western-oriented system of values puts sex right at the top, even when that is re-cast as ‘love’. It’s really still pretty much the same thing—passion. See the beautiful patterns in a leaf? That’s love. Baby’s smile? Love. What will be left when our civilization collapses? Same thing—love. Oh, boy…
I suspect that the reason it’s never been directly addressed in any religion is the inherent conflict of interest—growth, in the form of population expansion. Up until very recently, population growth was THE prime interest of every culture in the world, the basis of all wealth, the reason for all wars, to capture new citizens, women and children, at least, rather than annihilate them. It’s only within the last hundred years or so that campaigns have been waged to limit immigration. So go forth and multiply, it was said, and all that rap. Instead, we went forth and divided, of course.
So here we are, five thousand years after the birth of advanced civilizations, ready to deal with the subject of sex as something separate from reproduction cycles and population necessities. Fortunately much valuable work has already been done on this subject, mostly by Jerry and Elaine on the old Seinfeld show, but also George and Kramer, too. The plots, of course, revolved around the fact that the ex-lovers eventually evolved into best friends, but not without occasionally reverting to their previous status as lovers—with mixed results. Bottom line—it’s complicated.
It’s possible, though, and worth the effort, for men and women to be ‘just friends’. But I think sexual repression is something to be avoided also. I suspect that half the problems with Muslim fundamentalists are due to that very thing, the fact that these guys cannot have anything resembling a healthy sex life. And I’m not talking about promiscuity, either, which I detest, frankly (yeah yeah, I know, but I was younger then). The narrative is so skewed in places like Afghanistan that most problems involve young boys simply because healthy interaction with women is so near impossible!
Okay, so let’s cut some deals here and split some differences. What say we embrace sexual responsibility—read monogamy—whether formally married or not, whether mixed or same sex, okay? After all, the goal is health and prosperity, not prohibitions and not promiscuity, right? Balance and moderation, right? The only problem I have with LGBTQA’s, etc. is the too-frequent obsession with sex, and a somewhat constantly-shifting narrative. I mean, the minute they’ve wrested control of the formerly Biblical concept of marriage, not mere civil unions, they want to celebrate their sexuality, too!
Is sexuality something to be celebrated? I don’t think so; just the opposite, I’d say: same as money. Get what you need so you don’t have to think about it all the time. Looking for it on street corners is no good. Sex is not such an interesting subject to talk about, frankly, IMHO, best avoided once satisfied, in favor of more socially fulfilling forms of love, the kinds that exalt and elevate behavior, not debase it. Frankly I don’t particularly care for public displays of affection between heterosexual partners, so it’s not homophobia, just politeness, really. And let’s cut down on the cleavage, okay? Pun intended…
It’s no secret that the beefiest guys and the cutest girls can pretty much get what they want sexually anywhere any time they want, so there’s no need to remind the rest of us that we’re imperfect, flawed normal human specimens struggling to put nouns and verbs together, struggling to put food on the table, and struggling for companionship. This is the way it should be and the goal of society to advance together, not worship in awe the lucky few who get all the looks and books for free. I pity them, frankly, that they really don’t know or even understand the rewards for struggle.
So sex in moderation is good, then, right? And same sex couples are no problem, right? And guys and girls should be best friends, defined by their humanity, and not by their sexuality, right? And monogamy is the goal, correct, even if it takes a few tries to get it right? I frankly have no problem at all with prostitution, even, as long as its clean and clinical, not drunken and dirty. Call the worker ‘trafficked’ and it’s one thing, but call her a ‘sex therapist’ and it’s all different, isn’t it? Why, but, of course. So now we’re getting somewhere. I’m feeling better already…
davekingsbury 8:04 am on November 2, 2015 Permalink |
Philip Larkin had a go at doing the same. I reckon yours would be more fun, though
Water
If I were called in
To construct a religion
I should make use of water.
Going to church
Would entail a fording
To dry, different clothes;
My liturgy would employ
Images of sousing,
A furious devout drench,
And I should raise in the east
A glass of water
Where any-angled light
Would congregate endlessly.
From Philip Larkin’s The Whitsun Weddings, Faber & Faber Ltd, 1964. Reproduced without permission.
hardie karges 8:43 am on November 2, 2015 Permalink |
I like it. I like it a lot–metaphors with meaning. Poets rock, or used to, anyway, though I’ll admit to always having been more aware of Larkin than actually reading his stuff. Something sticks in my mind from him, though, will have to look for it. Thanks for your comments!