truth1now
May 28, 2015 at 4:41 am I will
endeavour to answer your question as best I can.
As an introduction, I have just read a
report in the Times by David Sanderson of a talk by Diamaid
MacCulloch (who I take to be a Scot who has come south!!!), 'an
Oxford Professor and TV presenter' and Deacon in the Church of
England (His profile can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diarmaid_MacCulloch)
regarding the western obsession with
sex and the effect this may have on the view taken of us by other
religions and cultures around the world. His specialism is the
history of the church, though he has declined ordination because he
disagreed with the CoE's position on gay marriage, influenced no
doubt by his personal leanings on the matter. Whether we agree with
'gay marriage' and think it 'biblical' or not, I doubt anyone could
challenge his main assertion at Hay, that Western culture is
dominated by sex in all its aspects, and that this is one of the
biggest issues fuelling antipathy and even violence between religions
of the world. Whereas the west, increasingly from Freud onwards, has
seen sexual honesty as a beneficial aspect of individual 'freedom',
others have seen it as an indicator of moral turpitude and cultural
decline.
Where we stand on this spectrum is
greatly influenced by our personal belief system, that draws from two
thousands of years of human thinking dominated by acceptance of a
supernatural being to which has been ascribed different names through
time. This is now challenged by many, particularly in Europe. Whether
believing in a universe of incorporeal spirits, or convinced that it
works to scientific laws without the need for them, most humans
ascribe to some sort of moral behaviour, which in its simplest form,
comes down to 'doing unto others as you would be done by'. Human
actions both east and west fall short of this standard. How are we to
decide overall which is better or worse?
Sex is an activity and proclivity that
is 'hard-wired' not only into humans but the whole of organic life on
earth. In other words it is a natural and irresistible force that is
not going away. Perhaps uniquely, humans have developed intricate and
complicated social rules governing how it can be exercised and
controlled using custom and ritual to confirm and standardise - and
woe betide those that break the rules. The shibboleths and taboos are
curiously both consistent and various, reflecting the shared
acceptance of the power of the sexual urge and its potential to
inflict both personal and societal damage.
This affects such things as
relationships before and after 'marriage'; the acceptable age at
which sexual relations might begin; the acceptance of age difference
in relationship; the attitude to physical mutilation, pregnancy,
child-birth and abortion; and same-sex relationship, to mention just
a few.
As MacCulloch points out, the sea
change in western attitudes can be traced to the 18th C.
'Enlightenment', accelerating perhaps in the last half century. It
may be characterised as 'traditional' versus 'modern' views of human
behaviour and the corresponding weight given to personal freedom as
against imposed societal rules? In any event, the clash can have far
reaching and disastrous consequences for individuals - being shunned,
excluded or even injured or killed.
We are familiar with so called 'honour
killings', of male and female genital mutilation, of child marriages
and under-aged births, of the mistreatment of women and homosexuals
in predominantly other cultures that the West vociferously decries;
whilst conveniently and hypocritically passing over the issue of
aborted foetuses, rampant venereal disease, the huge market for porn
and child abuse, family breakdown, an epidemic of low self-esteem and
self-destructive behaviours, and the general issue of the treatment
of children, of which Hampstead is the latest and perhaps most
flagrant, example. It is not long since it was standard policy to
forcibly remove babies from unmarried women to either be placed for
adoption, or transportation or be allowed to die in Catholic
so-called nursing homes. The horrors continue today with human
trafficking and the abuse of children, on perhaps wider scale than
ever before.
Both east and west we take an
ambivalent, even contradictory, approach to sexual activity, on the
one hand expecting full disclosure by our public figures, whilst
expecting the opposite for ourselves; of enjoying and supporting
'gay' entertainment figures, yet being shocked when we learn of their
actual behaviour; holding to religious beliefs whilst turning a blind
eye to abuse by its leaders and institutions; secretly being as
interested in prurience whilst claiming to condemn it; maintaining an
inconsistent public persona to actual or fantasy life in private.
Sadly, outward religious observance is no guarantee of inward
sanctity. An approach to personal sexual proclivities that best left
them undisturbed and uninquired into, may have contributed to the
reluctance to publicise activities by public figures that crossed the
boundaries of what anyone could regard as acceptible.
Christianity is of course only one of
at least five major religions and many other 'smaller' ones, but it
has had a huge and ascendant impact on European culture and its
off-shoots around the world by virtue of empire - Roman, Holy Roman,
Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, British, American and others. When we
refer to 'Christian' we mean initially 'Roman Catholic' for about the
first fifteen hundred years, until politics, science and theology
forged a great divide. What started as a theological rebellion with
Luther was reinforced by the scientific and political one with
Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Locke and others. We have never been the
same since. Better or worse, you decide.
Galileo first undermined the Church's
view on the centrality of the earth in the cosmic scheme of things,
and by extension, man in God's plan; Descartes questioned the
existence of the soul and everything revealed free of reason; Newton
provided an explanation of the cosmos that relied on mathematics
rather than divine intervention; Locke provided a rationale for
representative government and the primacy of analytical empiricism
wherever it might lead. Meanwhile advances in anatomy and physiology
began to remove mysticism from medicine.
Then the biblical view of creation was
fundamentally challenged by people like Lyle and Darwin by suggesting
that the universe was much older than the Old Testament version of
creation and the human race was not only closely linked to the animal
kingdom but might actually have evolved from it! So the great divide
between science and religion opened up and has not been convincingly
bridged since. However it was not really until the arrival of Freud
and his psycho-analytical friends, that the individual human being's
view of himself was fully challenged, in his suggestion that man,
rather than being the epitome of logic and reason, was in fact
controlled by 'sub-conscious' processes and instincts, of which he
had little cognisance.
These, and other views by Jung and
others on the 'collective unconscious' and the mystical, had a
profound effect on thinking and energised the new subjects of
psychology and psychiatry and the army of its students, researchers
and proponents. Pavlov and Skinner were able to prove that humans
were, like dogs, pigeons and rodents, subject to fundamental rules of
conditioning that led to discredited theories of eugenics and mind
control such as 'MKUltra' much discussed in connection with the abuse
of adults and children to create something akin to the well-known
'Jason Bourne' character.
One of the things that most shocked the
public in this new Freudian universe was the predominant role of sex
in motivation, pleasure and behaviour and particularly in that of the
child. Although in Victorian Britain child prostitution was
widespread and commonplace, it was also unacknowledged and shameful
in polite society. Freud challenged the notion of the innocence of
the child and suggested that sexual urges and attraction started much
earlier. Others, such as Jean Piaget in France, used his own children
to document phases of development in children, including their sexual
development.
I am not sure we have yet come to terms
with what is known about sexual activity in humans, either pre or
post puberty. There is still a reluctance to admit the facts or
implications, perhaps best illustrated by the attitude of Margaret
Thatcher in the 1980's, who prim and proper about the subject,
refused to approve a proper scientific survey of attitudes and
behaviour, yet was happy to countenance leading members of her
personal staff, ministers and intelligence service, not to mention
her predecessor, were deeply involved in child abuse and cover-up.
This is the hypocrisy that still has the potential to rock the very
foundations of the political system.
It provides part of the reason why the
the police, and especially Special Branch, acted to close down
anything that got close to revealing the truth, whilst doing nothing
to stop what was going on. It has been alleged that Prime Ministers
much closer to us in time were similarly protected from potentially
damaging revelations and that many MP's were secretly kept in line by
Whips, who were party to the indiscretions. So gradually as the full
extent of the perversion and corruption leaks out, possibly with the
assistance of foreign governments anxious to benefit, so our respect
for our politicians and institutions continues to decline, from which
no one is exempt.
However we must be careful we don't
find ourselves in some sort of hypocritical bind here. Often those
that have been in the forefront of protests, have themselves been
guilty of indiscreet or questionable personal behaviour. 'Those in
greenhouses' and all that jazz! What I think we must aim for, is an
honest acceptance and understanding of human sexuality, without all
the imposed religiously inspired hang-ups and impositions. Ignorance
and secrecy only encourages abuse. This is not to say that education
in this area should be value or constraint free. I am of the opinion
that to teach the physiology of reproduction, without the ethical and
social imperatives and consequences, borders on the the negligent.
Previous generations got by without it and somehow discovered what
they needed to know, but we must also acknowledge this this was at
the largely unquantified cost in foetuses and children abandoned,
young people abused against their will, and the mountain of
psychological pain and injury that has ensued.
We still haven't got the balance right
and Hampstead is eloquent proof of it. Even where convincingly
revealed, our enforcing and judicial systems fail abysmally, even it
might be argued, criminally. We need to be persistent and unflinching
when investigating and understanding how such a situation, with the
backing of a wholly discredited BBC in particular, can still be
happening?
The alleged events at Hampstead are
profoundly disturbing because of the nature and extent of the abuse
to young children, children that had no choice but to comply, and
when finally revealing have been treated so shabbily.
So to return to your original question
'truth1now', my position is with Queen Elizabeth I, to refrain to
look into men's souls. A freedom to believe sincerely what one wishes
and to express the same without fear of recrimination by government,
is fundamental to the modern democratic state. Sadly it appears this
government, to its shame, is intent on attacking the principle and
limiting the freedom, whilst increasing its own powers of
surveillance.
Nevertheless I believe that if and when
these beliefs stray over into irrational and damaging behaviours,
particularly if they threaten the life or well-bing of vulnerable
children, we have a duty to challenge it and prevent it. Belief in
God is a personal matter. In the words of Jesus, it is to be judged
first and foremost by its 'fruits' or outcomes. It can, as we have
seen particularly with the Catholic Church – though not exclusively
– be a cover for serious abuse but it has also resulted in much
humanising good. In contrast I believe 'Satanism' and its collaterals
as defined, are intrinsically dangerous, extolling as they do a
warped and irrational view of the world and the exploitation of its
adherents, permitting and even encouraging sexual activity
disconnected from a natural empathy or over-riding ethical position.
If ever there was a belief system contrary to every progress humans
have made over the last five hundred years, this is it.
Sexuality when properly understood, can
only operate acceptably within a framework of informed consent and
consideration for the partner, clearly absent in the circumstances
described believably by the Hampstead children and thereby to be
censured and deplored.
I
am not sure I have answered your question truth1now now but I’ve
certainly wandered round it! Apologies everyone.END.
