NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/soc/motss/48519

Text File | 1992-11-19 | 3.6 KB | 77 lines

Newsgroups: soc.motss
Path: sparky!uunet!newsgate.watson.ibm.com!news.ans.net!cmcl2!panix!mara
From: [e-mail] (Mara Chibnik)
Subject: Re: Fundamentalists and the clitoris
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 22:35:24 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>     <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: (getting there)
Lines: 66

[e-mail] (Mike Sunderland) quotes Bob Lodenkamper
at length, and then (apparently missing all of the points) says:

 >Seriously though, what is it that pisses you off about the "religious right"
 >so much? I mean what makes the religious right the bad guys?

It's a little hard to believe.

 >Ok, they hold a world view that is probably seriously at odds with yours.
 >They think you are doing something morally wrong in having sex with a partner
 >of the same gender as yourself. AND they want to make sure that everybody
 >hears about what they have to say about it. Are they wrong just because they
 >disagree with you and disaprove of something that you hold very dear, or is
 >there more to it than that? And what does all this creationism stuff have to
 >do with the subject?? Enlighten me.

We've been trying, but your lack of comprehension looks to me like
it requires an effort of will.

It's not just that they hold views that are at odds with ours-- they
want their views to be the law of the land and our views to be
outlawed.  They want to prevent *public* schools from teaching
science as it is generally agreed to be science.  Some of the
science that they don't want taught is evolution (hence the
"creationism"); some of it is the existence of the clitoris (see the
title of this thread).

 >BTW, on the judgement thing - am I not allowed to hold an opinion
 >about what other people do just because their activities don't affect
 >me? If I don't like what you do does that mean I am judging you? Is it
 >ok for me to believe that some things are open to personal preference
 >while some other things are not?
If you go around announcing that you don't like what I do, yes-- you
are judging me.  In fact, if you go around announcing that you *do*
like what I do you are juding me (but I'm less likely to object).  I
am not among those who claim it's always wrong to judge (although I
seem to remember a Biblical injunction on the topic).  Of course,
once you make your judgments of other people a matter of public
record, you make it possible for folks to judge you on the basis of
them.

 >I'm not trying to stir up a flame war or poke fun at anyone,
I'm trying to take your word for this, but you are really missing a
point that seems very obvious to me.

 >but I do want to understand. I am often annoyed when I see people
 >talking and acting as though sexual immorality were the only kind of
 >immorality - ignoring things like greed, corruption, dishonesty and
 >all kinds of injustice. But I think maybe you have some other
 >concerns?

What bothers me is the assumption that sexual (im)morality is a
matter of the sex (as in male or female) of one's partner(s).
That simply does not seem to me to be an issue of morality-- period.
Among moral issues that have to do with sex are whether you're
honest about the nature of your relationship and whether you
treat the other(s) involved with respect.  Greed, corruption,
and dishonesty are certainly immoral in my book.  Injustice is more
complicated; it may be immoral, and it is always unfortunate.


--

  Mara Chibnik
  [e-mail]                Life is too important to be taken seriously.