Author: R J Adams

Usually, writer’s block is due to an empty head with seemingly nothing worthwhile to put on paper. Occasionally, the reverse may be true; a head so full of ideas and subject matter that trying to pick out one and concentrate on it is next to impossible. Thoughts on many topics keep crowding in; a mishmash – like a ball of tangled string with no apparent end to work on.

That’s how I feel today.

It was my intention to write of my views on sex and religion – the effects of one on the other – but again, I can’t find an end to get me started. Perhaps if I write just about sex, the involvement of religion may drop into place?

Ever since I was old enough to think of such matters, I have never been able to fathom why sex is so difficult for human beings to assimilate and accept. Why so many taboos; so many rules? After all, it’s one of the most natural things we experience, isn’t it?

Now that I’ve lived long enough to have gained some perception of human life, the answers to those questions are more obvious. But, if the answers are so clear to me, why is the rest of the world seemingly oblivious to them?

OK, here’s where the religion bit come in.

To discover the source of our species’ unease with matters sexual it is necessary to unearth a society where sex was accepted as a normal, everyday practice to be enjoyed without the restraint of pernicious societal law that regulated when, where, and most definitely how, the function and everything related to it, was carried out.

That’s not an easy task, but possibly one of the best examples was in Polynesia, before the Christian missionaries arrived and spoiled it all! The warm waters of the Pacific Ocean, the balmy sun-kissed beaches and relaxed atmosphere apparently had a similar effect on the inhabitants as when British tourists first discovered the Spanish Costa del Sol. Not only heterosexual, but also homosexual behavior was considered normal and deregulated in these idyllic surroundings.

Or, at least, they were until recently when a New Zealand researcher, Dr Lee Wallace, wrote in her book, “Sexual Encounters” that such ideas were all hogwash and the Polynesians were, in fact, a male-dominated, vicious race of people who practiced homosexuality and treated females as property – before the Christian missionaries arrived and taught them better ways!

While Margaret Mead’s 1928 book, the only modern, authoritative account of Polynesian pre-Christian life, was ridiculed much later by Derek Freeman, his refutation of Mead’s work was seen by many as suspect, not least because he himself was a strong Presbyterian, and most of those women who had contributed to Mead’s work, and whose testimony he used to base his refutation, were old and had long converted to Christianity.

While Lee Wallace states that we learned our modern interpretation of homosexuality from the Pacific Islanders, and before that the practice never really existed (she seems to have totally ignored the ancient Greeks!) and both she and Freeman insist the idea of a relaxed sexual attitude among pre-Christian Polynesians never existed – despite the writings of Cook and his lieutenant, Joseph Banks, William Bligh, and even the French artist Paul Gauguin – Margaret Mead reached the conclusion from her research that the transition from childhood to female adolescence in those islands carried none of the emotional or psychological distress, anxiety, or confusion she had seen and studied in the United States.

I, personally, have no doubt she was correct. Our evolution has not caused the stress-related state our society suffers when dealing with sexual matters, it has been created by our society in vain attempts to regulate and control.

Without doubt, one of the most successful of society’s sex-control ideas has been – the invention of “SIN”.

“SIN” – the “evils” thereof preached from a million pulpits every Sunday morning.

“SIN” is the ultimate control tool. “SIN” is not a wrong committed by one person on another, “SIN” is a wrong-doing against “GOD”.

Has God told us this himself? Does He stick His Divine Head down through the clouds and bellow, “THAT’S A SIN! DON’T DO THAT!”

No, he conveniently leaves it to a group of individuals, sometimes dressed in fancy robes, often wearing silly hats, occasionally carrying a stick to hook sheep, ALWAYS telling us what to do, and WHAT NOT TO DO!

Why?

Because GOD says you can’t do that.

How do THEY know GOD says that?

BECAUSE GOD TELLS THEM! He doesn’t tell US – He tells THEM – in their silly hats, fancy robes and sheep sticks!

IT’S A “SIN”.

Suppose they’re wrong? They pore over one book all their lives in order to tell us how to live our lives.

Suppose they’re wrong?

Jesus never said we should listen to men in silly hats with fancy clothes and sheep sticks, who yell at us every Sunday. Yet these same men tell us HE was the Son of God.

Organized religion created the concept of sin, and its accompanying polarities of “right” and “wrong” to better control the masses. It worked – probably beyond their wildest dreams. The same concept is used today by politicians. They create a fabric of deceit, spin it to the masses as truth, and because we have become so indoctrinated into accepting the word of those “in authority”, we believe it without question.

Take Iran as a current example. A member of the “Axis of Evil” – (“evil” equals “sin”) Politicians spin so much crap they soon believe it themselves. Iran has done absolutely nothing against America. It’s nuclear aspirations are totally legal within the framework of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty, but by labeling Iran an “evil regime” it allows the US government to attack Iran, or goad Iran into attacking America, when the US government decides it is ready to commence stage two of of its invasion of the Middle East – which is scheduled, of that there is no doubt.

There will never be peace in the world while the concept of “SIN” remains. There will be no happiness, either. “Sin” is so bad it demands wrath and punishment. Isn’t the tale of Iran a good example of that?

All of Jesus’ teachings can be condensed into three words. He said, “Love one another.”

Isn’t that what sex between two people who care about each other really is? The physical manifestation of spiritual Love?

Filed under: Nature ramble

Islamic law is harsh. It shows no mercy. Take the case of a boy we’ll call Mohammad. He was seventeen years old and lived in a small, forgotten town some miles from Tehran. Mohammad was a bright boy; athletic. He attended a school where his sports abilities ranked him high among other students. He had a bright future.

Mohammad was always a bit on the wild side. He loved to party, occasionally drank illegal alcohol, even smoked hashish when it was available. His antics would have landed him in serious trouble with the Islamic authorities were he ever to be caught.

One night, during the celebration of a religious festival, Mohammad and some of his friends were partying. A couple of girls came around and before long the party turned into a sexual free-for-all. For fun, one of the boys used his video recorder to record Mohammad having oral sex with one of the girls, who was only fifteen years old. In fact, it was the girl who instigated the act with Mohammad.

Later, the video camera fell into the hands of the local police. Mohammad was arrested. He’s now serving ten years in jail, with no prospect of parole. His crime – child molestation.

Mohammad was a victim of his own raging hormones and a fifteen year old girl unable to control her desires. Neither did anything that most of us, if we are honest, have not indulged in at some time during our pubescent years. But, Islamic law is strict and shows no mercy…………

……..except, Mohammad does not live in a small, forgotten town some miles from Tehran. His name is not Mohammad, but Genarlow Wilson. He lives in Georgia, in the USA.

He was not sentenced under Islamic law – Genarlow is not a Muslim – but under the laws of the United States of America.

You can read more of the story of Genarlow Wilson at this CSpan link – once again, my thanks to Mike at “From Chaos To Order” for bringing the story to our attention.

For sometime, US politicians have been criticizing harsh Islamic regimes for their treatment of wayward citizens; the state of their jails; the lack of freedoms and rights afforded to ordinary folk.

From where I’m observing, there seems little difference between such regimes, and that of the United States of America.

Filed under: Perceptions

Today, on a blog, I wrote a comment castigating a young man for describing America as “….still the greatest country in the world.” Prior to that statement he had gone to some lengths in describing much that was wrong with the “greatest country in the world”, hence the “still” that preceded his remark.

I was, with hindsight, a little hard on him. At least he had the intelligence and thoughtfulness not to support his government’s present policies, unlike many much older than he. It got me musing on the concept of “the greatest country in the world”, and what exactly is determined by that phrase.

One could be forgiven for allowing it to trip off the tongue. After all, it’s hardly new. As a child, I was taught that America was great. I was also taught that Britain was the greatest country with the finest empire, an empire filled with the grateful recipients of Britishness. Fifty years on, it was all a load of what Americans love to call “bullshit”; a political doctrine designed to assuage the masses and disguise the brutish and economic rape of weaker nations overpowered by force of arms.

Websters lists eleven definitions of the word “great”. The first deals with size, so in that sense America could be described as great – though not the great-est” as it is beaten into second* place by Russia.

The second concerns “large in number” i.e. numerous. Well, there’s only one America, but lots of Americans. Perhaps it is the most populous nation? But no, still way behind China and India.

Seven of the other definitions couldn’t even remotely apply, which left two that might just fit the bill. The first was a general term applicable to “greatness”, in the sense that “I had a great time on vacation in America.” Unfortunately, in this context, the word is descriptive of the “time”, rather than the place, and while the place probably would have a bearing on the quality of time spent there, even if the sentence was condensed to simply “America was great”, it only refers to that person’s limited experience of the time spent there, not the country as a whole.

Having whittled down the opposition, we are left with only one possible definition that might fit the context of our phrase, “the greatest country in the world”.

Websters defines “great” as: “markedly superior in character or quality; especially : NOBLE”

Here we run into a serious problem. Is there evidence to support the idea that America is superior in character or quality to every other nation on the planet? The obvious answer, to anyone who’s traveled further afield than the Mexican or Canadian borders, is “No.”

America may have some superior traits compared with certain other countries, but not enough to warrant the title “greatest country in the world”. Other countries are superior to America in many areas where this nation fails to reign supreme.

So, having decided America fails the test, which is the greatest country in the world?

The simple answer is: there isn’t one.

Any independent-minded, seasoned traveler will tell you that each country has its good and bad points. None is superior in all aspects, and certainly there is no such thing as a “noble” nation – the defining adjective for our final definition of “great” as supplied by Websters. In fact, given the politicians and political systems that have developed in most countries, the term “noble” would be laughable were it not for the misery and suffering caused to many of their citizens by laws designed to trap them in poverty and despair. In that league table, America only manages to achieve a place somewhere in the middle, with most of Europe having better social security and health systems than their transatlantic cousin.

Why is it then that the idea of a superior America so readily leaps from American lips, even when their country is living through an era when it is despised by most of the world?

Perhaps it is exactly for that reason – insecurity.

Here, maybe, is an insight into why my young blogger rushed to console himself and his readers after just reeling off a whole list of reasons why America was quite definitely not “the greatest country in the world”.

He needed to reassure himself that, in spite of all, maybe, just maybe, it could be one day.

* _{NOTE: In fact, measured by geographical size, the US ranks fourth, behind Russia, Canada, and China. My thanks to Sister Anan for pointing out the error.}

Filed under: National pride