-- Suicide/Euthanasia --


  The arguments against suicide and euthanasia (ie assisted suicide) have
always been moral (and therefore philosophical/religious) in nature.

  Some early Christians believed that to commit suicide immediately
after conversion meant their souls would be in its "purest" state and
thus ensure them entering heaven. The Orthodox Church came to disagree,
and in the fifth century, partly alarmed at the number of suicides,
declared it to be a sin.  The rational was that only God should have power
over life and death.

    Thomas Aquinas used three main arguments in his SUMMA THEOLOGICA to
reason why suicide should be considered immoral in all circumstances:


  (1)  because everything naturally loves itself, the result being that
    everything naturally keeps itself in being...Wherefore suicide is
    contrary to the inclination of nature, and to charity whereby every man
    should love himself.  Hence suicide is...contrary to the natural law
    and to charity.

  (2) because ... every man is part of the community, and so, as such,
    he belongs to the community.  Hence by killing himself he injures
    the community.

  (3) because life is God's gift to man, and is subject to His power...
    For it belongs to God alone to pronounce sentence of death and life....


  The last argument has been the most religiously powerful one. For it
assumes that human life is the property of God, in His capacity as the
Creator of Life.  Thus the individual, even if terminally ill and in
terrible pain, is not deemed to have the right to make up his or her own
mind on the issue.

  English common law came to consider suicide as a felony.  As it was too
late to punish the individual (ie since they were already dead)--instead
they were given an ignominious burial.  Their body was to be buried within
a public highway--and a stake driven through the body or else a heavy
stone placed over the body--to keep the spirit from rising out of the body
through demonic influences. (The last such burial in England was in 1823).

  The philosopher David Hume attempted to disprove Aquinis' argument
that only God has the right to take a human life at His time.  Hume argued
that human lives are clearly affected by NATURAL causes.  Thus, since
humans die all the time from such NATURAL phenomenon as poisoning, diseases,
and floods, etc, then these surely are NOT "divinely" directed occurrences.

  Of course, the deficiency with Hume's argument is that he had NOT proven
that God was NOT personally behind the poisoning, diseases, floods, etc.

(Theologians and religious scholars also cannot scientifically "prove"
whether God is behind these events either--and disagree among themselves on
this. See Section VI, Chapter 2. Therefore this doctrine remains
within the realm of ideology/religion, and not science--unless or until
God "allows" Himself to be scientifically observed!)

   The insistence on forbidding ANY human intervention in killing, has
led to some bizarre medical cases:

  For example, there was a 1992 court case involving a newborn baby
that was born with only a brain stem--a tiny stump of a brain.  Since
virtually the whole brain was missing, the baby would never have any
consciousness of its own existence. Indeed, doctors predicted (accurately)
that it would only be a matter of days before the baby would die. Her
parents wanted her declared dead, so that they might at least donate her
organs to help other sickly infants.  The state (Florida) refused. The
baby died ten days later, her organs so dilapidated by lack of oxygen,
that they were now useless for donation.

  The case highlights the dilemma of modern medicine in defining the
gray area where life ends and death begins. Because modern life support
systems can artificially perform the work of the heart, lungs, and kidneys--
the old definitions of watching a patient's breathing and taking a pulse
to determine if there is life, no longer applies.

  The issue at stake it whether these medical procedures are adding to
the quality of life--as opposed to EXTENDING OUT ONE'S PERIOD OF SUFFERING
AND DYING?   On the one hand, sometimes these devices can extend precious
life to people, who use the time to read, write, and meet with friends and
family. However, when a person is brain dead (and therefore consciousness is
not expected to ever be regained)--it can be questioned whether "heroic"
measures to extend the physical life--are not futile, even unfair--from the
standpoint of burdening the family with huge medical bills, or diverting
expensive resources away from other individuals who are expected to regain
consciousness after treatment.

  One problem though, is that modern medicine is NOT PERFECT in predicting
when a patient will recover, so sometimes MISTAKES do occur.  There have
been reported cases of individuals who were diagnosed as living the rest
of their life in a coma--only to surprise everyone by waking up again.
Because of this, there is good reason for keeping some people on the life
support systems--even when the probability for revival seems low.  However,
some cases are SO severe--that there is virtually no chance of the patient
ever reviving.  Such was the case of the poor unfortunate baby above--
Her parents wanted the baby to be out of its misery early--But religious
taboos and paranoia interfered with their very private decisions--merely
COMPOUNDING what was already a terrible tragedy.

  Today there are RIGHT TO DIE organizations, which encourage people who
are suffering with painful, incurable diseases to end their own lives.
Obviously "right to die" literature is not meant to apply to healthy,
depressed individuals who need psychiatric, medical help to deal with
their depression. If it were not for the moral, religious implications,
no one would complain, when a terminally ill patient makes the moral
decision to die so as to end their terrible physical pain and  suffering.
After all, virtually all humane animal owners now place their pets to sleep,
if the pet is suffering from a painful, incurable affliction.  Because some
religious groups place humans within a HIGHER moral order than animals (and
are determined to inflict their religious views upon all society!), many
intelligent human beings are not allowed to make this same humane and
rational choice for themselves! The founder of THE HEMLOCK SOCIETY, Derek
Humphry has put it this way, "Unless we can die according to our personal
ethics, we are not free people."

  Interestingly, Holland has long allowed euthanasia--ie Dutch law currently
allows the practice of medical assisted suicides. In about half of the cases
the patient is given an overdose of morphine or the withdrawal of life
sustaining procedures. In about  60% of the cases, the patients themselves
had made the decision to end their lives. In the other 40% of cases the
families and physicians had reached the decision on euthanasia after the
patient's deteriorating condition had rendered them unconscious, and there
was no prospect for improvement.  Unlike in the United States, euthanasia
in Holland has met with wide public approval, and most would agree this has
NOT led to any devaluation of human life.


                           --  Corporal Punishment --

     Both Catholics and Protestants held that babies were born in a state of
sin and wickedness--therefore strict measures were needed in order to
acquaint the young with the ways of God.

 Proverbs 23:13-14 was frequently quoted in support of this position, which
states:

 "Withhold not correction from the child for if thou beatest him with
 the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod and shalt
 deliver his soul from death".

 Proverbs 20:30 states:

  "Blows that wound cleanse away evil; strokes make clean the innermost
   parts."

  Other verses supporting physical punishment of children include:

 "For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely
  put to death....  (leviticus 20:9)

  "He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth
  him betimes."   (Proverbs 13:24)

   "Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction
   shall drive it far from him"    (Proverbs 22:15)

  And most harsh of all according to Deuteronomy 21:18-21:

    a man with " a stubborn and rebellious son" is commanded to stone him to 
    death. 


   These verses have been condensed to the popular saying (actually a
line from Samuel Butler (1664)):

    "Spare the rod, spoil the child".


    The belief is that a harsh whipping can keep a child from "going bad".
Sometimes parents give their sons beatings to "keep them strong", "to keep
them from growing up like a wimp", or more serious "to beat the Devil" out
of them. 

There have been several modern cases of children being BEATEN TO
DEATH by their Fundamentalist parents--who sincerely were NOT aware of the
consequences of their spankings, and believed they were "saving" their child
from leading a live of sin. They were truly shocked to find that beating
their child, unlike the verse promises, could indeed lead to their child's 
death!

  Psychologist have warned that harsh beatings have negative long term
affects on the child.  For example, Susan Forward in her book TOXIC PARENTS,
states that "[b]eatings have proved to be only temporary deterrents, and
they create in children strong feelings of rage, revenge fantasies, and
self-hatred. It's quite clear that the mental, emotional, and often bodily
harm caused by physical abuse far outweighs any momentary advantages."
(Susan Forward, TOXIC PARENTS, P 126)

   Surprisingly, social attitudes have not only changed towards child beatings,
but on definitions of child abuse as well.  Prior to the late 1800s, there
was no law that prevented maltreatment to children in the U.S.  

    Interestingly the first humane organization in America was formed to protect 
animals – not humans. In 1866, Henry Bergh, a philanthropist and diplomat, 
founded the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) 
and prompted the New York state legislators to pass the country's first 
effective anti-cruelty to animals law.   Eight years later, in 1874, a nine-year 
old girl named Mary Ellen was found tied to a bed like an animal, neglected and 
brutally beaten by her foster parents. 

  Earlier legal efforts to intervene on behalf of the child had failed,
because the law upheld parental rights of child discipline. The ASPCA was asked
to intervene to protect Mary Ellen by arguing that Mary Ellen was a member of
the animal kingdom--and thus entitled to the humane laws on the books that
protect the health of animals. (Darwin's theory of evolution was evoked in
support that humans are a member of the animal kingdom.) The case received
wide media publicity, and the Society of the Prevention of Cruelty to Children
(SPCC) was formed a year later, in 1876. The SPCC was an important element
of the growing social movement to outlaw child labor.

    Laws outlawing child abuse were not enacted, until almost a century after
physicians began reporting on the problem. The first medical study on child
abuse was published in 1888 by Dr. S. West. (T.Solomon, "History and
Demography of Child Abuse", PEDIATRICS 51 (1963) 773-6). In 1946, there was
a study by Dr. John Caffey on the subject of hemorrhaging that follows a head
injury.  (1)


   There was not much public interest in the problem of child abuse,
until Henry Kempe's article "The Battered Child Syndrome", appeared in the
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION in July of 1962. Not only were
descriptions of the injury included, but it was noted how the parents commonly
denied they had mistreated the children.  The publicity of the problem played
a major role in legitimizing legal intervention on behalf of children.  By
1974, eighteen of the fifty three US states and territories had set up various
laws against child abuse and neglect. By the 1980s, all states had established
some form of child abuse and neglect laws.  

                --  Attitudes Towards Environmental Conservation --

   Western culture has been criticized for wanting to CONTROL the environment
as opposed to working together WITH the environment.  The paradigm for
Western man controlling the environment can be found in the book of Genesis:


   "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and
    let them have dominion... over all the earth, and over every creeping
    thing that creepeth upon the earth..."  (Genesis 1:26)

    "And God blessed them, and God said unto them [Adam and Eve], Be fruitful,
    and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion
    over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every
    living thing that moveth upon the earth." (Genesis 1:28)

   Critics have challenged that these biblical verses encourage a selfish,
individualistic attitude toward the environment, with little or no concern
to preserve it for future generations.  Conservative Christians, who are
convinced that the "final days" were near, see no reason for trying to
preserve the earth.  Instead, they argued, one should be more concerned
with SPIRITUAL matters that affect our eternal life in heaven, not MATERIAL
matters that affect our short sojourn on earth.  Perhaps the most famous
incident occurred during the 1980's, when then US Secretary of the Interior
under Ronald Regan, James Watts, admitted "Why save it [the environment] when
the End was near?"  Many conservative religious groups have politically aligned
themselves with business republicans, who wish to exploit all the natural
resources now, for their own financial gain.  (In return, the latter politicians
are willing to sponsor social laws to legislate conservative positions on
prayer in school, homosexuals, and abortions.)

   During the late 1980s/early 1990s, more liberal Christian congregations
become more interested in protecting the environment.  For example, black
churches pledged to become more active in local environmental policies
that affected toxic and hazardous waste sites affect their communities.
During the 1990's, the Environmental and Economic Justice/Hunger Concerns
Working Group of the National Council of Churches of Christ in the US, published
GOD'S EARTH, OUR HOME: A RESOURCE FOR CONGREGATIONAL STUDY AND ACTION ON
ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE. In it, was a call for people of faith
to work for the environmental movement, such as recycling and conservation.
Biblical verses were found which stressed Christian  "stewardship" of the
earth, as opposed to human "dominion" over the earth.

   There is no decree against pollution or wanton exploitation of plant and
wildlife in the Bible (unlike, as we have seen in the Egyptian Book of the
Dead.  See Section IV, Chapter 1).  However, the following verses have been
used to justify a pro-environment attitude:

   *Job 12:17-10 states: "But ask now the beasts, and they shall teach thee;
    and the fowls of the air, and they shall tell thee:  Or speak to the
    earth, and it shall teach thee; and the fishes of the sea shall declare
    unto thee.  Who knoweth not in all these that the hand of the Lord hath
    wrought this?  In whose hand is the soul of every living thing, and the
    breath of all mankind."

    *Per Leviticus 25:2-5: "Speak unto the children of Israel, and say
    unto them.  When ye come into the land which I give you, then shall the
    land keep a sabbath unto the Lord.  Six years thou shalt sow thy field,
    and six years thou shalt prune thy vineyard, and gather in the fruit
    thereof; But in the seventh year shall be a sabbath of rest unto the
    land, a sabbath for the Lord: thou shalt neight sow thy field, nor
    prune thy vineyard.  That which groweth of its own accord of they harvest
    thou shalt not reap, neither gather the grapes of thy vine undressed: for
    it is a year of rest unto the land."


                       --  Suppressed Desires --

                              --  Drugs --

  According to Genesis 1:29 and Psalms 104:14, God is said to have given
man all the herbs (which presumably would have included the narcotic ones).
In Genesis 30:16, Jacob used the narcotic mandrake as an aphrodisiac.

  The New Testament is largely silent on the matter of drugs-- probably
because those of the mind-altering genre were not widely available in
ancient Palestine. Of course, this silence does NOT mean that Jesus (nor
any other great moral leader) would have ever condoned the dangerous mind
altering effects of modern drugs!

                               --  Alcohol --

  Some Christian sects define all alcoholic drinks as evil.  In the late
1800's, a growing conservative Christian movement, led primarily by women
(with Bible in hand, prayer stage-ins, and singings), formed the Anti-Saloon
League of America and called for the abolition of all alcoholic beverages.
Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, and Congregation churches rallied behind
laws favoring Prohibition.  Opposed to Prohibition were a less vocal group --
comprised of Episcopals and Lutherans, Jews, and Catholics.  Because many in
the latter group were recent immigrants to the U.S, many ranted and railed
against the evil customs that foreigners were bringing to the U.S. The
anti-German sentiment following WW I, also contributed to a "patriotic" call
against drinking, as many German-born Americans were in the alcoholic
beverage business.

   In January 1920, the U.S. Congress adding an 18th amendment to the
Constitution which outlawed the sale and consumption of any alcohol.  The
result saw widespread opposition to the legislation, with an increase
in organized criminal groups and gang warfare to illegally manufacture and
distribute alcohol.  With the onset of the Great Depression, Prohibition
was blamed for accentuating the countries money problems:  Millions of people
had been thrown out of work in the alcohol industry and agriculture. Costs
of law enforcement had skyrocketed from the activities of organized crime
and the mafia. In addition, the federal government lost revenue through
taxation of alcoholic beverages.  Prohibition was repealed with the passing
of the 21st Amendment in 1933.

  Both those for and opposed to Prohibition pointed to a rich array of verses
in the Bible either supporting or opposing alcoholic beverages.  (Most of
the anti-drinking forces failed to note that these verses typically railed
against drunkenness, not alcohol itself)

  *"Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging; and whosoever is deceived
    therefore is not wise."       -- Proverbs 20;1

  * "But they also have erred through wine, and through strong drink are
    out of the way; the priest and the prophet have erred through strong
    drink, they are swallowed up of wine...they err in vision, they
    stumble in judgment."            --Isaiah 28:7

  * "It is not for kings, O Lemuel, it is not for kings to drink wine; nor
    for princes strong drink: Lest they drink, and forget the law, and
    pervert the judgment of any of the afflicted."    -- Proverbs 31:4-5

  *"Who hath woe? who hath sorrow? who hath babbling? who hath wounds without
    cause? who hath redness of eyes?  They that tarry long at the wine; they
    that go to seek mixed wine.  Look not thou upon the wine when it is
    red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, when it moveth itself alright.
    At the last it biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder."
                                               -- Proverbs 23:29-32


   A closer reading of the Scriptures, would indicate that both the Old
Testament and New Testament writers were NOT opposed to drinking in moderation:

  *According to Psalms 104:15, wine makes man's hearts glad.

  *According to Judges 9:13, wine cheers both God and man.

  *Ecclesiastes 8:15 tells us to drink wine with a merry heart.
  "A man hath no better thing under the sun, than to eat, and to
  drink, and to be merry." (See also, Ecclesiastes 3:13 and Isaiah 25:6)

  *1 Timothy 5:23 tells us to "Drink no longer water, but use a little
   wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities".

  *In John 2:9, Jesus performs the miracle of converting water to wine
for a wedding. (If alcohol were a crime, one would think Jesus would not
want to be associated with it, especially in miraculously CREATING it).

 *Jesus himself apparently drank wine:

--Matthew 26:29 tells how Jesus during his Last Supper stated that "I shall
not drink AGAIN of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new
with you in my Father's kingdom." (emphasis mine)

--Though Jesus probably drank wine, this does NOT mean that he would have
approved of drunkardness.  This can be seen by reading Matthew 11:19--
which has Jesus complain of how when HE came "eating and drinking" that
his enemies FALSELY accused him of being a "glutton and a drunkard, a
friend of tax collectors and sinners!"

  The ancient Greeks in general praised the qualities of wine, and included
it in their temple ceremonies. According to Euripides, "His [Dionysus] blood,
the blood of the grape, lightens the burden of our mortal misery.  When, after
their daily toils, men drink their fill, sleep comes to them, bringing relief
from all their troubles.  There is no other cure for sorrow."

    Plato warned against the effects of drinking alcohol among juveniles.
According to Plato, "Boys should abstain from all use of wine until their
eighteenth year, for it is wrong to add fire to fire."  Interesting, it is
the Platonic view that emerged in modern twentieth century--as it was illegal
in most states for minors (under eighteen) to drink alcoholic beverages.

   Medical studies have shown that alcohol consumed in small doses is
actually healthy.  In some European countries, families drink wine with
every meal. Although high alcohol consumption may bring on health-related
problems such as cirrhosis--still it is rare for there to be behavior
outbursts that are related to alcoholism.  In contrast, in those societies
that have prohibited alcohol consumption, alcohol is often demonized as one
of society's worst problems. Psychologists have noted that in these regulated
societies, people tend to drink alcohol in quick, explosive binges-- and
therefore are more prone to violent outbursts.  One theory advanced to
explain this very different behavior is as follows: Because the use of
alcohol is used within a social context, there is no suppressed desire
which would lead to uncontrollable usage of it.

                      --  Birth Control/Contraceptives --

   Use of contraception can be traced from the Greeks and Romans, to the
ancient Egyptians and Asians. 

    Early Christians theologians such as Clement and Justin were influenced
by the Platonic view that sexuality should only be engaged in for the creation
of new life. St. Augustine interpreted sexual desire as the "Original Sin"
that passed on from generation to generation--and the cause of our separateness
from God.  Augustine taught that sex for love and pleasure (even with one's
own wife or husband)  was filthy and sinful. In 572, the Council of Braga,
using St. Augustine's writings as their basis, formally banned the use of
contraceptions.

   During the renewed international concern over world overpopulation of
the mid 1900's (The United Nations World Conferences on Population in
Rome 1954, New Delhi in 1965, Bucharest in 1974 and Mexico City in 1984),
the Catholic Church strongly OPPOSED all measures aimed at lowering the 
population-  arguing that artificial contraception and sterilization were 
immoral.

   The Church's argument was then based on the premise that birth control
devices (such as condoms and diaphragms) were an ARTIFICAL barrier which 
prevented the act of marital intercourse from conceiving a new life. This, 
in turn, violated the sacrament of marriage-- since birth control devices 
interfered with the fertility of the partners.

   The Church (under Pope Pius XI) had decreed earlier in 1930 that the
rhythm method was an acceptable method of birth control (where a man and
woman voluntarily abstain from sexual relations during periods of a woman's
menstral cycle--when she is unlikely to conceive.)  The reasoning was
that rhythm was not "acting against marriage" (ie was an artificial 
impediment against marriage.)

     During the 1960's, the discovery of the pill was applauded by many
as the solution for birth control, as this was no artificial physical device.  
The pope appointed a special commission to study the Church's position 
on birth control and the discovery of the pill, to make new recommendations.  
After years of study, the commission voted 64-to-4 in favor of the Church
reopening its position on birth control.  Specifically, the commission
recommended that it should remain to be forbidden to practice artificial 
contraception so as to  NEVER have children.  However, it should not be 
forbidden to practice artificial contraception in order to limit the number 
of children, or to postpone their arrival.

   The pope shocked the world, by ignoring the advice of his own panel.
He instead CONDEMNED the use of birth control -- including the use of the
pill!  The pope insisted that every marriage act must instead be open to
the possibility of the transmission of new life.

   The pope's decision sparked the greatest crisis for papal authority since
the times of Martin Luther.  Leading theologians, priests, and Catholic laity,
openly criticized the pope's decision.  Because the pope had not acted
collegially with his bishops in pronouncing his encyclical, there was a new
sense among many in the Catholic clergy that the pope was acting above the
Church in a totalitarian manner.  The result saw vast numbers of Catholics, 
especially in Europe and the U.S. and Canada simply choosing to disregard 
the encyclical and to continue practicing conception.  Critics saw the 
unpopular decision as eroding belief in the pope's infallibility among 
Catholics around the world.

                         The Story of Onan

  Critics, then and now, have noted that there is no direct biblical edict
prohibiting the use of contraceptives.  However, conservatives had interpreted 
the biblical story of Onan to mean that God forbids contraceptives.

  The story of Onan may be found in Genesis 38:

     When Tamar's husband died ("he was wicked in the Lord's
     sight and so the Lord put him to death") her father-in-
     law ordered his other son to "Lie with your brother's
     wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law
     to produce offspring for your brother."

     But instead, Onan "spilled his semen on the ground, to
     keep from producing offspring for his brother.  What he
     did was wicked in the Lord's sight; so he put him to death
     also." (NIV)

   The text is not clear whether Onan "spilled his seed" via coitus 
interruptus or instead from masturbation.  The Catholic Church  (along with 
some Fundamentalist Protestant groups)  have interpreted the story of Onan 
to prohibit ALL methods of birth control (including coitus interruptus AND
masturbation.) That is, they argue that to take the passage literally, this 
means that a husband may NOT "spill his seed", except for impregnating his 
wife. 

   With the outbreak of AIDS in the 1980's, new questions surfaced as to 
whether condoms could be used, as an infected husband might endanger the life 
of his partner/wife.  Pope John Paul II (at the International Congress of 
Moral Theologians in Rome on November 12, 1988) still forbade the use of 
condoms:

  "Even for people infected with AIDS or for those who want to use condoms
   to prevent AIDS [the Church] allows no exceptions.  This sort of
   rejection of the Church's teaching makes the cross void."

   According to the pope's spokesman for marriage and family issues, Carlo
Caffarra, even if an AIDS infected husband could not manage to maintain
"total abstinence" for the rest of his life, then it is better for him
to infect his wife than use a condom, "because the preservation of spiritual 
goods, such as the sacrament of marriage, is to be preferred to the good of 
life."

  More liberal groups have argued that the story of Onan has been taken out
of context by conservatives, and refers exclusively to Jewish law.  That is,
because ancient Jews (prior to the Babylon Captivity) did not believe in an
afterlife, Jews looked to their children for their immortality.  Therefore,
it was important (if a person was not to symbolically die) to produce
offspring. According to this interpretation, Onan's sin resulted from NOT
impregnating the wife of his brother to produce ANY children.

  (Note: Onan's sin has also been identified with masturbation. Leviticus
15:16-18 states that if a man copulates in his clothes, then he must wash
his clothes; and both he and his clothes are to be considered unclean until
that evening. Orthodox Jewish laws prohibited Jewish men from extending
their hands below their waist, least they might touch their genitalia. The
subject of masturbation is taken up in Section VI, Chapter 8.)

                            -- Sexual Taboos --

  Many sociologists and psychiatrists  believe there is a connection between 
repressing one's sexuality (for example by forbidding natural releases of 
sexual desire such as by masturbation) and later sexual misconduct. 
Psychologists will tell you that child molestors are frequently outstanding
church attenders.  Ministers and priests have also been known to be pedaphiles.
It is truly a serious problem, because it is a terribly tragic problem for
the victimized children. The situation is the same as for drinking--The
sexual fantasies can build up inside the person--and in some cases lead to
rape.

   Some psychologists warn that the Catholic church's doctrine of celibacy
for their priests, means there is no "natural" outlet for their sexual
drives, and can lead to deviate behavior. The Catholic church has only
recently begun to admit the extent of the problem.  Admittedly, sexual
misconduct occurs among only a small minority of the total number of priests--
Still, there has been evidence in a number of cases, where the Catholic Church
covered up wrongdoing. (This was no doubt to try to help their priests--but
with the result that additional molestations occurred.)  In this author's
opinion, even ONE sex molester is ONE too many--and action is rightfully
demanded by the victims!

                               --  Homosexuality --

  Homosexuality has often been denounced within Judaism and Christianity
(less so in Islam) as a degenerate moral "choice" on the part of the individual,
and an "unnatural" condition from God's original creation.  Even today, some
ultra-conservative Christians believe that all homosexual activity should be
punishable by death. Moderately religious individuals will often complain that
the "idea" of homosexuals makes them "uncomfortable".

   The ancient Greek philosopher Plato reasoned that homosexuality should be
condemned because it is NOT observed "naturally" within nature. That is,
animals and birds couple with members of the opposite sex. Therefore, it
followed humans should do so too.--Anything else requires one to use their
organs in ways that nature never intended. (This argument was picked up by
later Christians, and indeed has been frequently invoked into modern times.)

   The ancient Jews held homosexuality to be punishable by death. Relevant
Old Testament verses include:

* "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination."
   (Leviticus 18:22)

* "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed
   an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them."
   (Leviticus 20:13)

*  Genesis 9 implies that the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were divinely
   destroyed because the townspeople engaged in homosexual activity.
   (ie the townspeople wanted  "to know"  Lot's two visitors--which
   is usually interpreted to mean they wanted unnatural, or homosexual
   sex with them.)

  Although Jesus himself, NEVER discussed the subject of homosexuality--
 St. Paul DIRECTLY condemned it:

  * "...God gave them [mankind] up to dishonorable passions. Their women
   exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave
   up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for
   one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in
   their own persons the due penalty for their error."
   (I Romans 1:26-7)

  * "Now we know that the law is good, if any one uses it lawfully,
   understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just
   but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners,
   for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murders of
   mothers, for murderers of mothers, for manslayers, immoral persons,
   sodomites [including homosexuals], kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and
   whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine..."   (1 Timothy 1:8-11)

*"Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor
homosexuals...shall inherit the kingdom of God" (I Corinthians 6:9.10) and


    "Now concerning the matters about which you wrote.  It is well for
    a man not to touch a woman.  But because of the temptation to
    immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her
    own husband." (I Corinthians 7:1-9)

That is, it is best to be celibate--But to avoid sin, one must marry someone
of the OPPOSITE sex!

  In his CONFESSIONS (III.8), St. Augustine  wrote on the subject of
homosexuality:

   "Sins against nature, therefore, like the sin of Sodom, are abominable
    and deserve punishment wherever and whenever they are committed.  If
    all nations committed them, all alike would be held guilty of the
    same charge in God's law, for our Maker did not prescribe that we
    should use each other in this way.  In fact the relationship which
    we ought to have with God is itself violated when our nature, of
    which he is the Author, is desecrated by perverted lust."

  Still, during the Dark Ages, the Catholic Church was ambiguous regarding
its attitude toward homosexuality--usually considering it on par with
other sins --such as adultery.  This changed, after Thomas Aquinas
and the Scholastics redefined homosexuality as a heinous sin against the
Christian religion.  Following this time, homosexuality was strongly
condemned by both Catholics, and later Protestant reformers.

  This attitude was carried over by English settlers to the Americas. Colonial
ministers frequently lashed out against the "sin of Sodom" in their sermons.
Every American colony contained a statute that provided for the death penalty
for engaging in acts of sodomy (Footnote: The latter means unusual sexual
practices-- which also includes sex with animals). Five men were executed
under these statutes. Other homosexual acts, ranging from "sodomitical
practices" to lewd practices were punished through whippings and fines.
(Homosexuality, John D'Emilio,  THE READER'S COMPANION TO AMERICAN HISTORY,
edited by Eric Foner & John A. Garraty, Houghton, Mifflin Co., Boston, 1991).

  Following the American Revolution, many states reformed their criminal
codes in the spirit of Enlightenment philosophy (Ibid).  However, revision of
sodomy laws for the most part, remained on the statues as a serious crime.
For example, in 1897, a court in Illinois cited sodomy as a crime "not
fit to be named among Christians."

  During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, early science, which did
not divorce its views from the religious mores of the time, rubber stamped
homosexuality as a pathological illness. (See Section VI, Chapter 7)
Indeed, the American Psychiatric Association did not remove homosexuality
from the category of a pathological illnesses until 1974! There was a great
deal of debate (then as now) whether homosexuality was acquired or inherited.

                     Are some Individuals BORN as Gays?

  During the late 1800's and early 1900's, the popularity of Freudianism led
the medical profession to proclaim that homosexuality was "acquired", as
opposed to being innate, or "born". This view argued that it was the child's
ENVIRONMENT which created a propensity towards homosexuality--For example if
the father figure was absent or very abusive.

   New scientific studies are pointing to the possibility that gays are BORN--
as opposed to this being a moral CHOICE on the part of the individual. This
means that the tendency to turn gay is inherited, as opposed to acquired.
There are numerous testimonials from gay men, which describe how they knew
even as young children that they were different--and could not "will" these
feelings to go away, no matter how hard they tried.  In some cases,
suppression of their feelings led to depression, even suicide.

  Many fundamentalist groups believe society should return to the strong
biblical injunctions against homosexuality--with some even desiring execution
as the penalty.  Humanist groups--both religious and secular-- on the other
hand, generally accept the view that two consenting adults should be free to
act in private, without any laws imposed by political or religious authorities.
However, arguably BOTH homosexuals AND heterosexuals STILL have the duty to
conform to "polite" social behavior--ie to treat their fellow humans with
consideration and respect (which includes sexual conduct)-- both in public
and in private.

                             -- Forgiveness --

  The Judeo-Christian ethic teaches: "To err is human, to forgive is
divine."  This is a common ethic in most of the major world religions.
Surely everyone has known a person who was SO obsessed with his or
her hatred, that they were obviously placing themselves under tremendous stress,
and setting themselves up for possible stomach ulcers or worse.--In short,
the ONLY person that they were really hurting was themselves! Therefore,
the person who lets up and "forgives"--is really helping themselves.

  Because of the Ten Commandment rule to "honor one's father and mother,
there is even MORE socio-religious  pressure to forgive in Judaic-Christian
culture, when the abuser is the victim's own parent.  Essentially no one
questions the validity and moral value of this commandment in most cases.
But what about the situation where a parent has shown extreme violence--
say even sexual molestation--against their children?  Must their children
truly "forgive" what was done to them?

  In her book TOXIC PARENTS, psychologist Dr. Susan Forward tells how some
of her patients' deep bouts of depression could be traced back to abuse
given to them by their parents when they were children.  In extreme cases,
such as sexual abuse and violence, she found that her patients' willingness
to forgive their abusive parents did NOT help them get over their depression.
"In fact, some of them felt even MORE inadequate. They'd say things such as:
'Maybe I didn't forgive enough'; My minister said I didn't truly forgive in
my heart'; or, 'Can't I do anything right?'" (Forward, op cit., p 188).

  She began to question this ethic of TOTAL forgiveness:

  "Why in the world should you 'pardon' a father who terrorized and battered
  you, who made your childhood a living hell? ... And do you really have
  to 'forgive' a father who raped you at the age of 7?"(Ibid) She came to
  realize that this was causing her patients to DENY that what happened
  to them was really terrible, and because they were burying their true
  feelings, their depression did not improve: "Clients all to often
  discovered that the empty promise of forgiveness had merely set them
  up for bitter disappointment.  Some of them experienced a rush of
  well-being, but it didn't last because nothing had really changed in
  the way they felt or in their family interactions." (Ibid, p 189)

  Her conclusion:

  "People CAN forgive toxic [abusive] parents, but they should do it
  at the conclusion--not at the beginning--of their emotional housecleaning.
  People need to get angry about what happened to them.  They need to grieve
  of the fact that they never had the parental love they yearned for.
  They need to stop diminishing or discounting the damage that was done
  to them.  Too often 'forgive and forget' means 'pretend it didn't happen'"
  (Ibid, p 191).

  Her experience has taught her that "over the years... emotional
and mental peace comes as a result of releasing yourself from your toxic
parent's control, without necessarily having to forgive them.  And that
release can come only after you've worked through your intense feelings of
outrage and grief and after you've put the responsibility on THEIR
shoulders, where it belongs." (Ibid)

  The same would apply to all forms of EXTREME abuse.

                               --  Self-Esteem  --

  Although psychologists and psychiatrists disagree in many areas of the
field of psychology--one fact that is virtually agreed upon is this: A
PERSON'S FEELING OF SELF-WORTH PLAYS AN IMPORTANT ROLE IN ONE'S SOUND
MENTAL HEALTH:  That is, people who generally "like" themselves, generally
find it easier to like others--and to be "liked" in turn.

  On the flip side, one common feature seen in many chronically ill and
psychiatric patients, is their LOW self-esteem. (Wendell W. Watters, MD,
DEADLY DOCTRINE, Prometheus Books, 1992, p 50) Recovering drug addicts will
frequently describe how it was only AFTER they regained their self-esteem
that they were able to improve themselves.

  Religion can of course, give one a positive sense of worth.  Being
baptized into membership of an "Elect" sect of God, can for example give
one a sense of importance and security.  Liberal religious groups tend to
build on this positive feeling, by stressing verses that love humanity
(for example stressing the theme "Jesus loves all the children of the world").

  However, this feeling of special worth can, in some cases, translate into a
sense of "superiority" over everyone else OUTSIDE their sect.  This is
especially true in conservative denominations, which stress the inherent
WORTHLESSNESS and SINFULLNESS of humans.  That is, when mankind is viewed as
inherently sinful and wicked, then believers may feel "justified" in looking
down with disdain towards the rest of mankind--who FAILED to convert into
their sect.

  Traditionally, some conservative sects, such as within Catholicism, have
stressed St. Augustine's doctrine of Original Sin).  From this, it followed
that MEMBERS must NOT like themselves--but instead should view themselves as
"nothingness". For example, in Thomas Kempis' best seller, THE IMITATION OF
CHRIST (written during the late fifteenth century), believers were told:

* "It is great wisdom and perfection to esteem ourselves as nothing, and
to think always well and highly of others."

* "Take not pleasure in thy natural gifts, or intelligence, lest thereby
thou displease God, to whom belongs all the good whatsoever thou hast by
nature."

*"But if I abase myself, and reduce myself to nothing, and draw back from
all self-esteem, and reduce myself to dust, thy grace will be favorable to
me, and thy light near unto my heart; and all self-esteem, however little,
shall be swallowed up in the valley of my nothingness and perish for ever."
(Thomas Kempis, THE IMITATION OF CHRIST, Moody Press, 1980, P 27, 35, 145
as quoted by Wendell Watters, op cit., p 52)

  As we have seen, it was this philosophical outlook-- or paradigm,
that was the common view of mankind during the Dark Ages.  Although there
are now OTHER paradigms, or outlooks of mankind, that compete with this--
the view of mankind as inherently sinful and worthless still exerts a
powerful influence on society today.

(1) 
   Only a few philosophers in the 20th century addressed the issue of corporaal 
punishment ie punishing students in the classroom.  John Dewey (1859-1952) while 
not saying anything directly on corporal punishment,  stressed the importance of 
leaving the student alone (as opposed to dominating him) to let him learn 
naturally.

Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) was an exception.  In his book, EDUCATION 
AND THE GOOD LIFE (New York: Liverright Publishing Corp., 1926) he 
stressed the important of not beating children.  His motto was "No rod 
and no God," and his idea of the treatment of children was a gentle one. 
 
    For my part, I believe that punishment has a certain very minor 
    place in education; but I doubt whether it need ever be severe. I 
    include speaking sharply or reprovingly among punishments. The most 
    severe punishment that ought to be necessary is the natural 
    spontaneous expression of indignation. (Russell, 1926, 167) 
 
He argued that inflicting harsh punishment on children made them cruel and 
brutal when they grew up:
 
   If one can judge from the books of old-fashioned disciplinarians, 
   the children educated by the old methods were far naughtier than 
   the modern child. ... I should think the fault lay more with his 
   parents than with himself. I believe that reasonable parents create 
   reasonable children. (Ibid, 168) 

    
   Physical punishment I believe to be never right. In mild forms, it 
   does little harm, though no good; in severe forms, I am convinced it 
   generates cruelty and brutality. It is true that it often produces 
   no resentment against the person who inflicts it; where it is 
   customary, boys adapt themselves to it and expect it as part of the 
   course of nature. But it accustoms them to the idea that it may be 
   right and proper to inflict physical pain for the purpose of 
   maintaining authority -- a peculiarly dangerous lesson to teach     
   those who are likely to acquire positions of power. And it destroys 
   that relation of open confidence which ought to exist between 
   parents and children as well as between teachers and children.     
   (Ibid, 176) 
 
   (Interestingly Russell's position, although unpopular at this time, is the 
predominant view held today in modern psychiatry.)