Today's Ross Douthat column lumps together three recent news developments, in two different countries, and concludes that they're all signs that people like himself -- good, upright believers in "Western monotheism's ideas about human sexuality" -- are being persecuted, or at least relegated to the status of people who believe in human sacrifice.
The three affronts to his sensibility are the birth control mandate in the Obama health care law, a decision by a court in Cologne, Germany, that restricts circumcision, and recent statements of opposition to Chick-fil-A by a number of U.S. municipal officials. Never mind that prominent opponents of Chick-fil-A have backed off attempts to prevent the chain from opening new restaurants, and that a number of liberals have denounced attempts to restrict the chain. Never mind that the circumcision ruling has been denounced by Angela Merkel and by other German politicians. And never mind the fact that the birth control mandate is already on the books in 28 states. Help, help -- Douthat and his fellow sexual traditionalists are being repressed!
... of course every freedom has its limits.... You can believe in the gods of 15th-century Mesoamerica, but neither Chicago values nor American ones permit the use of Aztec sacrificial altars on the South Side.Working back, let me just point out that the folks at Chick-fil-A don't simply want to make people "uncomfortable" with their sexual orientation -- they want to make them feel that they're (a) destined for hell, (b) destroying America, and (c) discriminating against sexual traditionalists. Oh, and the Chick-fil-A folks are spending large amounts of money to keep a traditional expression of "sexual choices or identity" illegal for one group of Americans. Even then, I'd say they have a legal right to open their restaurants (which I then hope will be widely boycotted).
To the extent that the H.H.S. mandate, the Cologne ruling and the Chick-fil-A controversy reflect a common logic rather than a shared confusion, then, it's a logic that regards Western monotheism's ideas about human sexuality -- all that chastity, monogamy, male-female business -- as similarly incompatible with basic modern freedoms.
Like a belief that the gods want human sacrifice, these ideas are permissible if held in private. But they cannot be exercised in ways that might deny, say, employer-provided sterilizations to people who really don't want kids. Nor can they be exercised to deny one's offspring the kind of sexual gratification that anti-circumcision advocates claim the procedure makes impossible. They certainly cannot be exercised in ways that might make anyone uncomfortable with his or her own sexual choices or identity.
Regarding the circumcision case in Cologne, has Douthat even read the judge's ruling? It's online in translation, and it's very brief. There's not a word about "the kind of sexual gratification that anti-circumcision advocates claim the procedure makes impossible." The court decided (in a case involving a circumcision that led to excessive bleeding) that circumcision of a minor is, by definition, unacceptable bodily harm without the possibility of informed adult consent. I see both sides of this: I'm circumcised and don't feel mutilated, but I'm sure it hurt like hell, and I'm inclined to think I wouldn't have wanted a son of mine circumcised. But I'm opposed to a ban on the practice, because its effects are not like those of clitoridectomy, and it's a deeply meaningful ritual to two major religions. And I think a lot of liberals come down pretty much where I come down on this.
I'm not surprised that Douthat distorts the Cologne ruling -- his distortion dovetails so perfectly with his Santorumesque view of sex, which is that it really isn't supposed to be fun and it really must always be procreative within marriage. (For the record, Pat Robertson doesn't even believe that all married sex must be procreative.)
I understand that Douthat is repulsed by gay marriage and sexual pleasure and birth control and voluntary sterilization. I understand he wants to be the bestest Catholic ever. What I don't understand about Douthat and other non-cafeteria Catholics is why they don't take it all the way. For instance, when are strict Catholics going to start complaining that their tax dollars help pay for divorce courts? Surely that's religious bigotry! Surely that should be stopped immediately! It's bad enough that America offends "Western monotheism" by allowing divorce, but the legal system in which it's obtained is government funded! Unfair! Unfair!
There you go, demanding logical consistency of principles from religious conservatives, and that misses the point of intellectual conservatism completely.
ReplyDeleteDouthat subscribes to the Calvin and Hobbes school of op-ed writing, because the purpose of his writing is to "inflate weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning, and inhibit clarity."
So now we need both David Brooks AND Ross Douthat to sign-off on who we peasants f*ck, and the when, where, why, how, and what the reason is, that we want to f*ck?
ReplyDeleteI have an idea - FUCK THEM!
I think he has it right, pretty much, in the passages you quote.
ReplyDelete"To the extent that the H.H.S. mandate, the Cologne ruling and the Chick-fil-A controversy reflect a common logic rather than a shared confusion, then, it's a logic that regards Western monotheism's ideas about human sexuality -- all that chastity, monogamy, male-female business -- as similarly incompatible with basic modern freedoms.
Like a belief that the gods want human sacrifice, these ideas are permissible if held in private. But they cannot be exercised in ways that might deny, say, employer-provided sterilizations to people who really don't want kids. Nor can they be exercised to deny one's offspring the kind of sexual gratification that anti-circumcision advocates claim the procedure makes impossible. They certainly cannot be exercised in ways that might make anyone uncomfortable with his or her own sexual choices or identity."
Well, that last sentence is questionable.
But, on the whole, he's right.
That's why they call it "culture war."
But its teachings regarding sex are by no means the only ways in which Christianty is incompatible with modernity.
There is the whole controversy about evolution.
And the ongoing insistence of right wing American Christianity on unreserved American support for Israel.
No doubt anyone can think of more.
Fuck is, of course, Fornication Under Consent of the King.
ReplyDeleteBut its teachings regarding sex are by no means the only ways in which Christianty is incompatible with modernity.
ReplyDeleteThere is the whole controversy about evolution.
The Catholic Church I was raised in accepted the scientific truth of evolution. As far as I know, it still accepts evelution, though I'm not sure Douthat, Santorum, and other winger Catholics got the memo.
Is victimhood a natural part of conservatism, or is it just an import that comes along with Christianity? For that matter, are other religions also attached to martyrdom, or is it just Christians?
ReplyDeleteSomeplace recently I believe I read that the Catholic Church accepts evolution provided it is not incompatible with all humanity having for their ancestors just one first human couple.
ReplyDeleteIt never seemed clear to me how that requirement could be compatible with any scientific scenario.
The fact that the Mayors have "backed off", now, from what they said is quite irrelevant to the general thrust of Douthat's article. After all, had Chicago's alderman's statement carried absolutely no tooth to it, Lemieux (a liberal) would not have written an OpEd why his statement went too far. Claiming, as you do, that they "backed off" implies the their willingness to prevent them from being in the city. So Douthat is correct to write his concern about the very IDEA that a mayor [or anyone else with power]would step up onto his bully pulpit (the Mayor's words) and say he would do anything to stop them.
ReplyDeleteThe law prevents it and The Evil Liberal Juggernaut That's On The Verge Of Destroying All God-Fearing Americans is, as it turns out, deeply divided. So Douthat is crying "fire" in a crowded theater because he saw a lit match that's been blown out.
ReplyDeleteImmaterial. The idea is being attacked, just like Lemieux saw fit to attack it as well....even though he knows legally, nothing like that can happen. When elected officials representing the law start implying that they will do anything they can to prevent a business they don't like from opening, than you better believe you need to yell "fire."
ReplyDeleteNo. Cooler heads were in the process of prevailing. This was going to be a non-starter with or without Douthat's bleating.
ReplyDeleteHe's writing an oped, not storming the bastille.
ReplyDeleteIm also curious as to how Douthat distorted Cologne ruling. Judaism REQUIRES circumcision at 8 days old. And while the judge did not outlaw circumcision in general, the ruling pretty much outlaws a Jewish practice. You have to read his point in context.
ReplyDelete>There's not a word about "the kind of sexual gratification that anti-circumcision advocates claim the procedure makes impossible."
I don't understand, you wanted the judge to say something like that? Obviously not. But from personal experience, I was part of the crew for the filming of an interview of one of the backers of the anti-circumsision law recently in California. His main concern, was the 'moral' concern which WAS the lack of sexual gratification. That is all he talked about. He even has a website for products to stretch out skin and "re-create" forskin for sexual pleasure. But obviously, sexual gratification is not an applicable legal argument. So he MUST find a legal argument to back up his anti-circumcision law. In this case, that is where he brings up lack of choice on the part of the infant.
So in sum, the legal argument is only there for him to push his true concern, which was sexual gratification that he felt was taken away from him.
I'm sorry, Hyrax -- the judge in Cologne must have believed what one guy in California you heard being interviewed believes because ... well, just because? Because circumcision opponents have a hive mind, like the Borg?
ReplyDeleteI don't see how that has anything to do with what I said.
ReplyDeleteI never implied that that is what the judge had in mind (I mean, maybe he did, who knows). I was mentioning that Douhtat has a point in what he says regarding the mental push of why they want circumcisions banned.
The Cologne ruling was based on the German Basic Law, which guarantees bodily integrity. Like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it can be traced back to Sir William Blackstone in 1765: "Besides those limbs and members that may be necessary to man ... the rest of his person or body is also entitled by the same natural right to security from the corporal insults of menaces, assaults, beating, and wounding; though such insults amount not to destruction of life or member...." - Commentaries on the Laws of England
ReplyDeleteWhile the Bundestag could pass a hasty resolution to allow the rituals to continue, it will be hard for the government to draft a law that allows any male genital cutting, forbids any female genital cutting (even the mild, surgical kind common in Malaysia and Indonesia in the name of Islam), AND maintains equality of the sexes.
To want a foreskin for sexual pleasure is not an illegitimate concern. If a richly innervated, uniquely mobile structure so strategically placed does not confer pleasure, what was Natural Selection/God thinking? Almost any intact man (or, perhaps even more telling, one who has restored a facsimile of his foreskin) can tell you it does.
The fact that circumcised men are wont to protest that they are not missing anything, because they can still "reach orgasm", is also telling. Don't women complain that men are too goal-directed about sex; they don't slow down and enjoy the journey?
The fact that circumcised men are wont to protest that they are not missing anything, because they can still "reach orgasm", is also telling.
ReplyDeleteWhat's telling is that you feel the need to put words in our mouths. I never used that phrase. You probably never actually heard that phrase from a circumcised man. But it sets up your rebuttal perfectly, so you quote it as if it's a real statement. What I'd say is that circumcised men, as a rule, feel they have a full range of sexual response, not just "oh, yeah, I am capable of reaching orgasm."
I'm not even arguing in favor of circumcision. I'm just arguing that most circumcised men don't feel deprived in the way you want us to.
American men are such wimps to let their sons be subjected to this absurd surgery. If it were women tied down & cut, the Feminists would be howling all over the world. The male genitals are a cheap commodity.
ReplyDeleteI looked at the one post at your blog, CARV. "The purpose of circumcision is to break the man's spirit forever"? Seriously?
ReplyDeleteA barbaric practice wrapped in bu!!$h!t.
ReplyDelete