Sex and social justice

by: Mike Lux

Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 12:00


So all this talk against masturbation by Republican candidates reminded me of an email exchange I was having with a conservative relative recently. He said that us liberals always talked about Jesus talking about helping the poor and oppressed, but never talked about his stands on sexual immorality. Okay, fair point, I thought, so I decided to check my Bible and see how much emphasis Jesus placed on such issues compared with his discussion of social justice related issues. I figured the easiest way to check this out was just a verse count, which could give some sense at least of how much time he spent on one area vs. another.

I found 19 verses in the gospels where Jesus mentions divorce, which he was against. At that time in Jewish culture, men were quite cavalier about divorcing their wives, leaving them deserted in abject poverty (women of the time had little in the way of economic or civil rights) frequently with little prospects for remarriage, and Jesus was appalled at that idea, and so spoke out against divorce. His focus in these passages was not about the sex part, and was focused on marriage as an institution.

I found 9 verses which specifically referenced adultery and/or fornication. Three of these verses listed one or both on a long list of sins he was mentioning on his way to another point- for example, in Matthew he is discussing the idea that what makes you a sinner is at least as much about what is in your heart than what you do. The final six verses mentioning sexual morality were in the long (29 verse) section of Matthew where he again talked about how we should not just obey the laws but hold ourselves to a higher standard of personal morality, and he used several examples including murder, violence, lying, loving others, and adultery (the famous lusting in your heart verses which Christine O'Donnell was so eloquent about). That's it in terms of Jesus' worries about sex-related sinning- 4 mentions, all of them in the context of explaining a much bigger point he was making about how what's inside matters as much as whether you obey specific laws in the Jewish scripture.

Now, let's compare those to the social justice areas of the Gospel, which I think of as where Jesus talks about showing mercy to those weaker than us, not judging others, loving/forgiving/turning the other cheek to our enemies, forgiving enemies/blessing peacemakers in general, loving/treating others as we would ourselves, and what I would call the class warrior verses (the blessed are the poor/woe to the rich sections). Here are the numbers for these kinds of verses:

  • Mercy to those weaker: 24 verses

  • Do not judge others: 34 verses

  • Love and forgive your enemies/make peace: 53 verses

  • Loving your neighbors (defined as all other people, not just those who live next door) and treating them as you would treat yourself: 19 verses

  • Help the poor/the rich should sell all their possessions and  them away: 128 verses

All told, that is 258 verses about mercy, forgiving enemies, not judging others, loving all people, helping the poor and woe to the wealthy vs 9 verses which mention adultery or fornication in any way, and 19 more saying divorce isn't good. Oddly enough, Jesus didn't say a single word against homosexuality or masturbation or abortion or birth control, although if you listened to some of our conservative friends, you would think he was obsessed with those topics.
Those ratios are pretty daunting. About 14 to 1 on class war vs. sex. Almost four to 1 on just the simple idea of not judging others as compared to all the mentions of sex sins. If you combine all the things Jesus said about sex and divorce, and compare it to all the stuff he said about helping the poor and how the rich should give away everything they own, you get close to a five to 1. And if you combine all the stuff about sex and divorce vs all the stuff about social justice, it's more than to 9 to 1 in favor of us social justice lefty types.

Of course, 2,000 years after Jesus lived and preached, we can't know for sure how much he said or cared about these issues. All the evidence we have of his life and ministry are those four gospels, written probably 40-60 years after his death by fervent believers who didn't always agree with each other on the details of his life, death, and ministry. But what is obvious from the gospels is that the Jesus of the Bible preached and cared overwhelmingly about just two things: his followers' relationship with God, and their love and kindness toward others, especially the weak and the poor.

Why is this important to our modern society today? Because conservatives try so hard to twist the religion of the majority of Americans into a warped, unrecognizable version of the message its founder had for us.

At least conservatives like Ayn Rand were honest in their disdain for religious pieties about compassion and helping the weak. Those of you conservatives who are trying so hard to wrap yourselves in the Bible ought to try actually reading one someday.  

Mike Lux :: Sex and social justice

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Sex and social justice | 33 comments
I should also point out that we have the apocryphal gospels (4.00 / 1)
Which, to my understanding, are even more social-justice oriented.  (though I haven't read them, and I could be wrong)
Actually Orthodoxy was more concerned about (0.00 / 0)
social justice than Gnosticism, and most other gospels were Gnostic.

The Gnostics were concerned about the personal spiritual journey, tended to disdain the physical and also tended to see Christians in two classes: the normal "fleshly" ones and the elite, "spiritual" ones with the secret gnosis.  All this contributed to a disdain for social problems or fixing them.

The Orthodox, on the other hand, were inclusive and saw salvation as extending to all who were in the Church and used social justice as a way to draw in the poor into the Church.

Thus it's not surprising that the canonical gospels are more social justice oriented than the non-canonical gospels, which again were mainly Gnostic.

I got this information from Elaine Pagels who is the most renown expert on the battle between Gnosticism and Orthodoxy in the early Church.  Also I should say that I am operating on long term memory, which is not always accurate.  Oh well.

Educate, Agitate, Organize, Mobilize, Act!

[ Parent ]
Who Actually Gives A DAMN What Jesus Thought? (0.00 / 0)
1. Today's liberals mostly with some obvious exceptions, point out Jesus's stand on social justice not because they are devout Christians but because they are pointing out conservative hypocrisy and deceit as a way of making the point that conservatives shouldn't be listened to with all their ranting about "morality."

That's because most liberals are NOT the "regular church-going" segment of the electorate. The typical liberal is non-denominational and includes a significant number of agnostic/atheists.

2. Conservatives don't really care what Jesus actually thought. They are authoritarians and can always find conservative reverend/pastor/priests to tell them that whatever they are doing is supported by the bible.

Even if it's slavery! For hundreds of years all the religious figures of the South told their parishioners that slavery was MORAL and God thought it was good!

The most pious are often the most corrupt and use their outward piety as a cloak for their inner private cruelty and rapacity.

This is proved every day when "conservative religious figures" call for holy war against people they don't like (today it's the Muslims, yesterday it was the "godless communists").

Only a small minority of people REALLY CARE what Jesus actually thought about anything and are willing to be honest with themselves about it.

And that's not even taking into account the large and ever increasing number of NON-Christians in our country.  

[ Parent ]
Hmm (4.00 / 2)
You forget to mention, Mike, that it doesn't matter what Jesus has to say about matters of public policy, because we have something called the First Amendment.  
And even if we didn't, (0.00 / 0)
Jesus said 'give unto Cœsar that which is Cœsar's, and give unto God that which is God's'.  

It's a pretty explicit statement that Christianity should have little to do with public policy.  

[ Parent ]
Thank you (4.00 / 1)
I prepared a post that made essentially this point but with far less tact. Lingered over the post button and thought better of it. It ended with a very crude answer to the question WWJD...

Did they get you to trade your heroes for ghosts? Hot ashes for trees? Hot air for a cool breeze? And cold comfort for change?
[ Parent ]
True, but on the other hand... (4.00 / 5)
One's morality does influence one's politics. Of course you don't need religion to have a morality, which means there are some policies with good moral arguments that are secular as well as good moral arguments that are religious. Those we can agree upon can be part of public policy, even though for some people those moral precepts are "religious".

Social justice has both secular and religious arguments. As long as it has good secular arguments, I don't think we should be concerned that many people are swayed by the religious arguments. The more people that are on the side of social justice, the better.

 http://www.SincereJobs.com

[ Parent ]
well, you see, the Lord was really keen on DOMA (0.00 / 0)
and probably a fan of NAFTA

not so much of Sista Souljah

[ Parent ]
you're still citing texts from dead White Men :P (0.00 / 0)
How about - we can think for ourselves, make decisions together, and act on the basis of what we believe, governed by rules of mutual respect that we decide are appropriate.
[ Parent ]
Silliness (4.00 / 2)
I'm defending the First Amendment not because it's "sacred" and not because it's in the Bill of Rights, but because it's a damn good idea. Do you disagree?
[ Parent ]
well, that's great (0.00 / 0)
I understand my point wasn't crucial to the content of what you were saying, but it still matters, to me when, as you're aware, almost all political arguments in the U.S. are rooted in the idea of Consitutional sacredness (even if it's of broader rather than narrower interpretation).  The more reliant you are on it as the basis of your arguments, the less we think about why we choose the first set of words here rather than the second, or others, or none:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

vs.

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Very similar words, with important differences (e.g. negative powers on Congress vs. positive establishment of individual rights, freedom of peacable assembly vs. freedom of assembly and association, etc.)

I think it's worth at least talking about why we should choose words - any words, and if so which words we choose, to justify our arguments, who wrote them, how they're use, how they function in politics, etc.  And place the emphasis where you placed it - on what YOU think is a good idea and what I think is a good idea and that interaction.

[ Parent ]
What are you talking about? (0.00 / 0)
You have to hold a very bizarre understanding of the First Amendment to believe this. The Establishment Clause bars the government from using religious reasons as the basis for action - it does not bar people from making religious argument (in fact, it protects them).

It's also hard to imagine a progressive politics that excludes the Civil Rights Movement and the Abolitionists from legitimacy because they made religious arguments.  

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

[ Parent ]
???? (4.00 / 1)
It doesn't bar people from making religious arguments but it bars policies from being enacted for religious reasons.

To argue for policies because of beliefs that a guy named Jesus allegedly held is not only illegitimate, it's manipulative. Worse, it is, by definition, to argue for theocracy. We were right to enact the policies pushed by the civil rights movement because they were right not because they comported with one side's interpretation of the Bible.

It simply doesn't matter, in terms of a policy's rightness or wrongness, what people claim Jesus believed.

As it happens, my first full-time job out of college was with Lux's old employer, People for the American Way, which took the right-wing to task all the time for claiming God's support for conservative policies. But it stayed silent when Democrats, like Bill Clinton and Marian Wright Edelman, did the same.  That was but one of the reasons I soured on the place.

[ Parent ]
I'm not sure what the distinction is that you're drawing (0.00 / 0)
You say:

To argue for policies because of beliefs that a guy named Jesus allegedly held is not only illegitimate, it's manipulative. Worse, it is, by definition, to argue for theocracy.

which is, I think, a point about the grounds one can make arguments on.

But then you say:

We were right to enact the policies pushed by the civil rights movement because they were right not because they comported with one side's interpretation of the Bible.

which may well be true, but ignores the grounds that the Civil Rights Movement argued on, which included religious arguments.  So how is that not theocracy, based on the first quote above?

I think the distinction is this - to say that government must do something for religious reasons is indeed theocratic, while to say we must do something (like demand government do something) for religious reasons is not. At least that is where I would draw the line.

Either way, the Establishment Clause is about what government can and can't do, not what citizens can and can't do.  

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

[ Parent ]
"Government" is a collection of people (0.00 / 0)
almost all of whom are religious.  So they may enact laws all the time using religious arguments.  The key is that there are also good non-religious arguments for those laws.  If the only arguments for a law are religious ones, that law would be theocratic.
[ Parent ]
Leading To The Age-Old Question: (4.00 / 3)
What's worse?  Conservatives' ignorance of science?  Or conservatives' ignorance of religion?

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
Many candidates (0.00 / 0)
Ignorance of history, ignorance of other countries, ignorance of political economy, and so on.

Did they get you to trade your heroes for ghosts? Hot ashes for trees? Hot air for a cool breeze? And cold comfort for change?
[ Parent ]
I think just plain old "ignorance" will do (4.00 / 2)

[ Parent ]
Dirty little secret (0.00 / 0)
I think most of the people who constantly bring up the Bible in political arguments, whether they're politicians or regular people, haven't actually read the entire Bible, or even any of it.  They're just going off of what they've heard the Bible says, from their friends or pastor or whatever.

The Bible is actually a very difficult read.  I tried reading it once, and made it from Genesis to the end of Joshua before I gave up. (I'm gonna take another crack at it when I have more time.) Most of it is boring as fuck and I had to skim through large portions of it that were mainly devoted to talking about how many kids Adam had and how many centuries each of them lived, or how many cubits wide a shrine to God had to be. (And for someone who's supposed to be omniscient and compassionate, God speaks like a brutish meathead.  Every line of his is basically some variant of "DO THIS, BECAUSE I FUCKING SAY SO".)

Given all this, and given how most of the Bible thumpers appear to be rather unintelligent and too impatient and unfocused to have the discipline to make it through the meat grinder that is reading the Bible, I highly doubt that they've actually bothered to read the damn thing.

does this include the author of this post? (0.00 / 0)
this is the second time this month...
[ Parent ]
What? (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
resorting to religion in political discourse (0.00 / 0)
which is to say, "who gives a fuck what the bible says?"
[ Parent ]
I think it's because others bring up religion dishonestly (0.00 / 0)
so we have to counteract that.  Personally, I think a comprehensive two-pronged approach is best.  Expose the invalidity of the Bible-thumping arguments, AND point out that even if they were legitimate, they have no place in the political discourse of a secular nation.
[ Parent ]
or keep supersition out of the conversation (0.00 / 0)
and instead discuss why this country is so fucking petrified of sex in terms of science and fact

there are people who are legitimately arguing "so she's against masturbation, so what?"- that's an awful, awful thing

[ Parent ]
I think that too (0.00 / 0)
in the sense of "what would/can she actually do about it, if she were in the Senate"?  Nothing, which is why it's a non-issue.  Better focus on areas where her vote and her voice actually could make an impact.
[ Parent ]
DOMA is sitting right over there (0.00 / 0)
about two or three degrees from a bill outlawing jerkin' it because it annoys Christ
[ Parent ]
DOMA is not an anti-masturbation law. Not even close (0.00 / 0)
One has to do with recognition for government benefits.  The other has to do with regulating a personal behavior in a way that would violate Lawrence v. Texas, and it'd probably get at most 5 votes in the Senate.
[ Parent ]
"Defense of Marriage" is barely secular framing (0.00 / 0)
and there's always time for Elena Kagan to sell her vote on overturning Lawrence in exchange for, say, a sandwich or perhaps a hug
[ Parent ]
my favorite thing about creationists is that they don't say and possible don't believe that there are two separate creation stories in genesis alone! (0.00 / 0)
:D
[ Parent ]
you have a point re. difficult read (0.00 / 0)
I found comprehension much easier using a newer translation. The language has changed since King James' time.

There are several renditions and translations written in modern english. My favorite is "New World Translation". Get one of these before you try again. It IS worth the effort.

Government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob..... FDR

[ Parent ]
second try at this reply (0.00 / 0)
You have a point re. a difficult read. The language has changed since King James' time. I find comprehension easier using a newer translation.

There are several renditions and translations available in modern english now. Get one of these before you attempt it again. My personal favorite is the "New World Translation", revised last, I think, in 1984.

I wish you success this time, it IS worth the effort.


Government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob..... FDR

[ Parent ]
Thanks for this - i appreciate the post a lot (4.00 / 1)
At one point I spent a lot of time arguing with Hindu fundamentalists and I realized that religion is not only a legitimate terrain to have arguments about politics about, but perhaps a vital one.  Especially in this era.
Bible (0.00 / 0)
Yes, by all means let's go through a bronze-age collection of myths and folklore and count how many times this or that action is condemned.  Then, once that's done, we can decide how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.  One thing is for sure, though:  by keeping focus on what the other side wants it to be on we can win this debate, because fighting battles on the enemy's territory and terms is a wise idea.
Sex and social justice | 33 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox