The Threat of Pornography (Book Notes: With Pleasure)
| It's rare to see such ignorance prominently displayed. No, seriously. When was the last time you heard someone arguing that the world was flat on a scholarly level? That's the level of education that Austin Cline writes from and reviews a book with similar thinking. Why do religious conservatives find pornography abhorent? Cline answers "Perhaps because pornography is a threat to their position that sex must only exist for the sake of procreation." Huh? His and the book's premise is that religious conservatives don't like pornography because it shows unprocreative sex as fun I just find it so hilarious when ignorant people take shots at Christianity without even a rudimentary knowledge of the spectrum of Christian theology. The "procreative-only-sex" view is a very narrow understanding the of the Roman Catholic position on sexuality. Furthermore, I'll bet even very a small minority of individual Catholics would hold that as a tenet. Cline's bio is even funnier. "Both atheism and agnosticism are neglected in popular culture. When was the last time you saw an openly atheist politician, an article on atheism in a major periodical, or anyone discussing secular humanism as a serious alternative to religion?" Perhaps they're neglected because they hold little value and no one believes them, not because someone overlooked or has a conspiracy against them. He's not completely stupid though, he owns a Mac. Perhaps there is some hope for him. It's generally not in my nature to rip non-Christians (tho I have no problem ripping fellow Christians) but I was just amazed to see such ignorance held out as "information" at About.com. |
posted by theultrarev at 10:27 AM
Comments on "The Threat of Pornography (Book Notes: With Pleasure)"
-
Simon said ... (12:56 PM, May 23, 2006) :
-
Anonymous said ... (10:11 AM, May 24, 2006) :
-
theultrarev said ... (11:11 AM, May 24, 2006) :
-
Anonymous said ... (3:25 PM, May 24, 2006) :
-
Anonymous said ... (3:34 PM, May 24, 2006) :
-
Anonymous said ... (3:40 PM, May 24, 2006) :
post a commentMost people aren't smart enough to be a humanist.
Austin Cline has a Masters from Princeton. The level of education that he writes from is impressive. I'm sure he has a "... rudimentary knowledge of the spectrum of Christian theology." Anyway, I assume he knows more about it than I do; but I have some time.
Which is true: Christians don't like porn because 1) it is a threat to their position that
sex must only exist for the sake of procreation 2) the bible says it's wrong 3) it harms women 4) it harms children 5) it's addictive 6) it causes the break up of marriages 7) those who watch it are more likely to rape 8) it is rape 9) people should spend their time and money on better things 10) it gives viewers unrealistic expectations of sex. I probably left out something. There is more than one correct answer.
Books are written to make a point. I haven't read the book, but I assume the point was that Christians (some or many, not all, maybe not most) find porn a threat to their belief that sex should only exist for procreation. This is true. Most of the Christians in
the world are Catholic. From their official view on sex and birth control, "Contraception is wrong because it’s a deliberate violation of the design God built into the human race, often referred to as "natural law." The natural law purpose of sex is procreation. The pleasure that
sexual intercourse provides is an additional blessing from God..." To have sex primarily for pleasure (porn) is a threat to the "natural law." It's not a small part of the Catholic view of sexuality. You can dismiss it, though, by saying Catholics don't really believe it
You said, "Perhaps they [atheists, agnostics and secular humanists] are neglected because they hold little value and no one believes them." Humanists and atheists influence the scientific, humanitarian, political and artistic direction of the United States and the rest of the world. According to the American Religious Identification Survey 14% of the population do not subscribe to any religious identification. A 2000 Gallup poll says 10% of the US population doesn't believe in God. That's about 30 million Americans.
Some influential humanists: Carl Sagan, Isaac Asimov, Andrei Sakharov, Erich Fromm, A. Philip Randolph, Margaret Sanger, Gene Roddenberry, Julian Huxley, Brock Chisholm, John Dewey, Bertrand, Dora Russell, Albert Einstein, Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem, Edward O. Wilson and Oliver Stone. - American Humanist Association
From the Council for Secular Humanism,
"Secular Humanism is a way of thinking and living that aims to bring out the best in people so that all people can have the best in life. Secular humanists reject supernatural and authoritarian beliefs. They affirm that we must take responsibility for our own lives and the communities and world in which we live. Secular humanism emphasizes reason and
scientific inquiry, individual freedom and responsibility, human values and compassion, and the need for tolerance and cooperation." Although Christian fundamentalists often sound the alarm about the influence of secular humanism, millions of people agree with these values and think the world would be a better place if its political leaders had them.
pornstudent, Thank you for your thoughtful post.
One important point of clarification: when I said, "Perhaps they're neglected because they hold little value and no one believes them, not because someone overlooked or has a conspiracy against them." I was referring to the philosophical viewpoints of atheism and agnosticism that Cline referenced. I was NOT referring to the people who are atheists, humanists, agnostics, etc. From my belief system as a Christian I would hold that not all philosophical positions are of equal value but every single human life is of extreme value including atheists, humanists, agnostics, etc.
I appreciated your quote, "Secular Humanism is a way of thinking and living that aims to bring out the best in people so that all people can have the best in life." I had never heard that before. I'm glad to know that Christians and Humanists would hold that in common.
Thank you again for taking the time to read my blog and comment. I checked out your blog also. Looks like it has the potential to be interesting.
Atheism and agnosticism aren't philosophical viewpoints - no more than theism, by itself, is a religion. There are theistic religions (Christianity, Islam, etc.) and there are atheistic philosophies (humanism, objectivism, etc.). There are also atheistic religions (some forms of Buddhism, Raelians, Ethical Culture, etc.).
My bad. I meant to say "You said, 'Perhaps they [atheism, agnosticism and secular humanism] are ...'" My point is that there are many who have those views.
Silly me for not reading the original first. Doing so reveals differences between it and what you write about it. For example:
"His and the book's premise is that religious conservatives don't like pornography because it shows unprocreative sex as fun."
I see nothing there about this being the premise of the book. I don't see asking the question as establishing a premise, either. It seems to be offering an idea which, as pornstudent explains, has a lot of merit. It can't explain why every religious conservative opposes pornography, but it's an intriguing idea. This may play a larger role than most realize - even among those who don't consciously adopt it as a specific doctrine.
"I just find it so hilarious when ignorant people take shots at Christianity without even a rudimentary knowledge of the spectrum of Christian theology."
I don't see any mention of "Christainity," just "religious conservatives." And, if you had looked more closely, you'd have noticed that this isn't a book review - the name and graphic are linked to something titled a review. If you read that, you'd realize that what you claim to be the book's premise isn't. You'd also read that the assumption "sex is for procreation" is an assumption which is widely held, not simply a Catholic doctrine.
"It's generally not in my nature to rip non-Christians..."
But is it in your nature to read something too quickly, make a bunch of assumptions, and rip on someone because of that?