Empathic Musings

A funny thing happened yesterday, and it has prompted me to write a new blog post about a subject near and dear to my heart. I was talking with my parents on Skype, as I’m wont to do on Sunday afternoons, and my mother was telling me about how she used a “big word” that day at work and was very proud and excited to tell me about it. She laughed and suggested I should teach her some new “big words” that she could use from time to time. Naturally, my first thought was Ernest Hemingway’s famous rebuttal to William Faulkner:

Does he really think big emotions come from big words?

That said, I am a bit of a logophile, so I do have a penchant for admiring the savory goût of an unusual word. In fact, just a few days prior to my chat with my mother, I had raided my classroom for tools I could use in my ESL classes, and therein, I found a promising old box of “English Vocabulary Cards,” proudly containing 1,000 useful words.

Well, that box had been sitting on my desk up until Sunday, virtually unopened. But the moment seemed to proscribe its perusal, so I suggested my mother and I dive into its contents together and see what we’d find. I lifted the dusty lid and reached somewhere into the middle of the cards, ultimately selecting an unpresuming one from their midst. I was shocked at the word I randomly selected!

Why so surprised? Well, empathy has long been one of my favorite words and a concept I often discuss with people. Truth be told, I think it may be the single most important faculty we have in order to be good human beings. Here’s how the card defines empathy:

Of course, I’m not much of a person for the metaphysical or to think about crazy ideas such as fate or destiny. But I have to admit, it seemed rather fitting that, of 1,000 cards, I’d randomly be drawn toward this one, wonderful word. Yes, pure coincidence, I know. But still, cool.

So, what’s the big deal about empathy? I first began thinking about it in college, when I came to realize that a writer’s most useful tool is empathy. If you cannot actually experience the emotions—good or bad—of another person, as vividly in your mind and heart as that person experiences them, then it becomes a great challenge to ever effectively (and affectively!) write about the human experience. One of my favorite examples is the following poem, “She dwelt among the untrodden ways,” by the great Romantic poet William Wordsworth. Chances are, if you’ve spent any real time talking about literature with me, I’ve suffered you to hear a reading. So, here it is:

She dwelt among the untrodden ways

Beside the springs of Dove,

A Maid whom there were none to praise

And very few to love:

A violet by a mossy stone

Half hidden from the eye!

—Fair as a star, when only one

Is shining in the sky.

She lived unknown, and few could know

When Lucy ceased to be;

But she is in her grave, and, oh,

The difference to me!

In all honesty, every time I read this poem, I feel a shudder down my spine when I reach the final two lines. My cheeks grow flush and I feel a distinct flutter in my chest. That’s how powerful, how affective, this poem is. Wordsworth is famous for his slightly cryptic “Lucy poems,” and this is by far the finest. He praises this girl he loves, this girl whom nobody ever bothered to notice, with the most fittingly delicate imagery. But the kicker is that she has died, which has had no impact on anyone—expect for its having made all the difference in the world to the poet. He loved her, but he never got the chance to tell her. Lovely, simple, and harrowing. This poem is about unprofessed love and untimely death, and if your sense of empathy is sharp enough, you will feel (even if only for a mere moment) the exact heartache of the bard. Simply put, empathy allows us to connect and share. Empathy necessarily requires creative thinking and a certain openness with one’s sentimental side. Yet while it demands that openness, it also enhances it in the process—it acts as a cyclical process. The more you allow yourself to connect with people, the easier it will become, the more you’ll want to do so, and the more open others will be to empathizing with you. Instant karma.

I invite everyone who reads this to consider how open they are to feeling empathy toward fellow human beings on a daily basis. You’ll perhaps find it remarkably refreshing!

Understanding Polyamory

            Polyamory is the practice of simultaneously engaging in multiple meaningful, committed, loving relationships. It is a rational, beautiful alternative to the traditional monogamous relationship paradigm that has dominated the western world for centuries, and it is distinct from polygamy, open relationships, and swingers. Polyamory is a lifestyle, even a sexual preference, and it is the next movement in the sexual and relationship revolution currently taking place. I am polyamorous, and I would like to take some time to explain what exactly that means—and what it does not mean.

            To start, you have to understand the causes that led me to a polyamorous mindset. I do not consider it something I’ve chosen to live, but simply the route I have been supposed to take all along. Although there have been hurdles along the way, the same would be true of a monogamous relationship, so I don’t consider the difficulties I’ve encountered particularly salient detractions. Simply put, I look around me and see so much anger, jealousy, and negativity in the world. After a war that has dragged on for over a decade and a society that has come to take the word “terrorism” as a fact of life, I have wondered if an alternative exists. One does.

            Since polyamory is the act of loving multiple people, it stands to reason, then, that it is also the act of cultivating more love and positive energy in this increasingly hostile world. For that reason alone, it is worth considering.

            But more powerful is the knowledge that love is far from a finite resource. It is an emotion, a feeling, like so many others. It would be absurd to tell someone not to get “too happy” or “too sad”; these emotions, like all others, come in varying intensities and are instigated by various things. Indeed, the more things we have in our lives that make us happy, the happier we are. The same works for love. The more people we have in our lives whom we love, the more love we have to give and the more loved we feel. It’s really that simple.

            If you have ever found yourself wishing to connect with a friend at a more intimate level—be it holding hands, a hug, a kiss, or even sexually—then you probably have already felt what I’m describing. If you’ve ever had that feeling while already in a loving, committed relationship—without thereby lessening the already existing feelings toward your lover—then you have definitely felt what I’m describing. Take a moment now to think about that feeling.

            In a polyamorous relationship, these feelings are encouraged because the returns are great. Do jealousy and insecurity pop up? Initially, yes. But once we learn to acknowledge and then disregard these negative feelings, recognizing their petty, self-centered nature, we are able to break free of the yoke of social restraint and begin to develop something bigger

            As I already said, polyamory is distinct from polygamy, open relationships, and swingers. Polygamy is a typically religion-based practice of multiple spouses—often, one husband with multiple wives. Polyamorists typically are very hostile and skeptical of religion and marriage both, and they are certainly interested in having a level playing field rather than a male-dominated one. So polygamy and polyamory are clearly very distinct. Open relationships involve a committed couple allowing one another to engage in sex with other partners (often as a result of being geographically distant). Open relationships do not seek additional loving partners, but merely the gratification of sexual desires. And swingers are similar. Swingers are couples who swap partners or even engage in sexual acts all together, but they do not form loving, committed relationships. As soon as additional loving relationships are added to the open relationship or swinger format, it has actually evolved into polyamory.

            Sex, it would seem, is not a part of the polyamorous lifestyle, then. But to think that would be a huge misunderstanding. Of course sex is a part of the lifestyle! It is simply not the focus. However, most polyamorous people have healthy, open attitudes toward sexuality, are comfortable discussing it, and they do choose partners based in part on sexual attraction. Sex is a part of life, and we accept and embrace that rather than shun it. But it cannot be the motivating factor behind relationships in order for them to last.

            As an additional result of the polyamorous mindset, bisexuality is extremely common. Once a commitment to love more people has been made, it is a natural step to tear down any arbitrary gender-based boundaries, thus in effect doubling the number of prospective lovers.

            These points undoubtedly raise questions in the open-minded reader and skeptic alike. The most common: How many partners is enough? Similarly, how does one find enough time for all those partners? The answers to those questions are highly specific to individual needs, time, and polyamorous motivations. Polyamorous communes do in fact exist, harboring groups into the double-digits of people all living together and loving each other. But these scenarios are rare. More common are relationships based around three to five members, their relationships sometimes intertwining but sometimes kept separate. Imagine a web of relationships. Regarding the issue of time, that depends on proximity, levels of connection, and individual needs. But when you have multiple people fulfilling different relationship roles for the same person (as well as that person fulfilling different relationship roles for other people), then you are likely to find an economy of love that simply works its way out in the end—just as some traditionally monogamous couples are together constantly, and others spend lots of time apart. Both are functional, healthy relationship styles.

            A final question is, what about the children? Well, since homosexual couples have had to field responses to that same inane objection for decades now when trying to start their own families, it makes sense that polyamorous people have to do the same. The answer is simple; when children are involved, how can it ever be a bad thing to have those children surrounded by more people to love and influence them? If anything, they grow up with much healthier ideologies about love and sexuality and are overall happier people.

            To conclude, I am not trying to persuade anyone to my lifestyle. Anyone who knows me well and has heard me talk about these issues knows that my sole goal is to raise awareness and, with any luck, reveal to a few like-minded people that there is an alternative out there. I’ve done it many times already, so I hope this article continues with that success.

            Peace and love!

Suggestions for further reading:

http://www.planetwaves.net/compersion.html - article discussing the feeling of pleasure polyamorous people feel knowing that their partner receives pleasure being with another partner.

http://www.polyamorousmisanthrope.com/ - a cool polyamorous blog that offers an unapologetic look into the lifestyle.

http://aphroweb.net/nre_faq.htm - discusses “new relationship energy”—the impact on an already existing relationship exacted by falling in love with another person openly.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/07/28/only-you-and-you-and-you.html - discusses both the social rise of polyamory and the many challenges it faces in gaining acceptance.

http://lovingmorenonprofit.org/faq.php - a famous polyamorous online magazine.

Gift of Screws: A Quirky Lindsey Buckingham Sampler

I don’t think it needs declaring that I am a Lindsey Buckingham fanatic. If you know me at all well, you know who Lindsey Buckingham is and what the man’s music has meant to my life, my musical taste, and often, my mood.

Months ago, I did a post about Peter Green, the first guitarist for Fleetwood Mac and one of the greatest to ever live. In terms of sheer skill and authority with an instrument, the man has no comparison. He is undoubtedly one of the greatest guitarists to ever live. I wrote that post to pull the man’s story and talents out of musical limbo and to expose new people to his sound. I hope many of you found it enjoyable! This post is a bit different, however.

In 1975, Lindsey Buckingham joined Fleetwood Mac with his then-girlfriend, Stevie Nicks. They helped make rock & roll history with classic songs such as “Landslide,” “Rhiannon,” “Go Your Own Way,” “The Chain,” and so, so many more. Lindsey’s aesthetic was a perfect match for the group, and he helped create some of the most popular, enduring music from the ‘70s.

But those songs aren’t why I love Lindsey Buckingham’s music. They aren’t even a good representation of his full spectrum of skills and approaches to the song as a form. In 1979, he took creative control over the Fleetwood Mac album Tusk, playing every instrument on some of his songs. He became quirky, experimental, and even a little punk. But the record’s sales were not what the execs wanted, so he was forced to find a new avenue for his creativity.

In 1980, he released his first solo album, Law and Order. From that point forward, he’d have a love-hate relationship with Fleetwood Mac, bouncing back and forth between solo work and band work. Inevitably and famously, he quit the band in 1987, following the release of the Tango in the Night album and just prior to hitting the road for a supporting tour.

In the 1987-1997 interim period, Lindsey released only one solo album, Out of the Cradle, in 1992. Fleetwood Mac reunited in 1997, put out a new studio album in 2003, and have toured three times. From 2006 to 2011, Lindsey himself has released three solo albums, a live album, and three live DVDs—not to mention three solo tours (one currently still in progress in the UK).

Many people know Lindsey Buckingham’s sound and style, but few people know some of his more provocative songs. My goal in this post is to share a few of my favorites, provide some context and comments, and maybe pull some new fans to his ever-growing roster!

“The Ledge”

The quintessential quirky Lindsey song is track two off Fleetwood Mac’s 1979 Tusk, “The Ledge.” This song defiantly takes all Lindsey’s talents for crafting a radio hit and chucks them in the trash. The song is a two-minute, cacophonic blitzkrieg of monotonous snare drum, thumping bass, crunchy guitar, and, yes, moans and howls.

“Johnny Stew”

1980’s Law and Order provides this rocking gem with some of the catchiest guitar licks the man has ever put out. A fan favorite, every Lindsey fan is dying for the day he dusts this one off and plays it in concert. Dig the grunts and screams in the bridge.

“Come”

“Go Your Own Way” may be one of the greatest break-up songs ever written, but Lindsey certainly tops it with “Come.” He wrote this song after his break-up with Anne Heche and bitterly declares, “Think of me, sweet darling, every time you don’t come.” From Fleetwood Mac’s 2003 Say You Will. The guitar solo at the end is meant to be played ear-bleedingly loud.

“Go Insane”

The title track from his second solo album, “Go Insane” captures the man’s seeming decent into madness a few years before quitting Fleetwood Mac. Although he has since reworked the song into a beautiful, Spanish-style solo guitar piece, the original is catchy, quirky, and just a little disturbing at times.

“What Makes You Think You’re the One?”

Another Tusk gem, this song is one more brilliant Lindsey break-up piece. Rumor has it, he wrote it during the Rumours sessions in response to Stevie Nicks’s sleeping with drummer Mick Fleetwood. No wonder Stevie’s harmonies are absent on this track . . .

“Gift of Screws”

Pure madness. Mr. Buckingham here takes the words of a troubling, somewhat cryptic Emily Dickinson poem and turns them into a song rife with sexual innuendos, climaxing ultimately in a . . . well, a climax.

“Murrow Turning over in His Grave”

Imagine a song as catchy and rocking as “Black Betty.” Now imagine that song as a nightmarish horror story of corporations controlling the media and entertainment industry. That’s what Lindsey Buckingham offers in “Murrow,” long before the Occupy Wall Street movement. And the guitar solo at the end? About as close to the sound of a human scream as an instrument can get and still sound good.

“That’s How We Do It in LA”

But the man isn’t always crazy and obsessive; sometimes he’s merely eccentric. “That’s How We Do It in LA” is another great track from Law and Order, and it has the distinction of being the only song he’s ever sprinkled with a foreign language. But then again, it’s pretty hard to know what he’s saying even while singing in English on this track. Notice especially the intentionally unenthusiastic, monotone backing vocals. Listen carefully for the introduction of kazoo halfway through!

“Loving Cup”

This song blends everything campy about the ‘80s with everything Lindsey Buckingham does best. If you ignore the slightly-dated sound, this song is pretty awesome. The background “Hoo! Haa!” throughout is a cool refrain, and the creepy low-register voice singing backup during chorus is Lindsey’s own voice, the frequency slowed. But the best part of the song is the impressive arrangement and layering of both acoustic and electric guitar parts—especially the intense part roughly three minutes in.

“Wrong”

Never afraid to be a little obscene, Lindsey Buckingham calls his old pal Mick Fleetwood (about whom he wrote this song) “Mr. Rock-Cock.” It’s a standout track from his 1992 Out of the Cradle and it talks about corruption in the record industry. Don’t miss the sirens at the end!

 “Not that Funny”

The song that divides more fans than any other, “Not that Funny” is another Tusk track. It is rough, crude, and brilliantly simple. But the anguish in his voice makes it a gem. “It’s not that funny, is it? No one to turn you on; all your hope is gone. It’s not that funny, is it?” Bitter break-up lyrics at their finest here.

A Peter Green Primer

 As a guitarist and avid blues fan, I like to use Peter Green as my litmus test for how well other musicians really know the blues. Everyone has heard of B. B. King, and the man is undoubtedly a god in his own right. But only one man, he once said, can send shivers down his spine while playing the guitar, and that man is Peter Green. An unfortunate life plagued with mental illness quickly snuffed him from the public sphere, just as he was beginning to make a name for himself. As a result, he’s become largely forgotten. I’d like to offer a Peter Green primer for anyone interested in this post today.

Green’s story begins with the departure of another great, and much better known, guitarist from John Mayall’s Bluesbreakers, a band famous for discovering talent. In the mid 60s, Eric Clapton left the band, and John Mayall held auditions for his replacement. The young Peter Green stood out above the rest—so much so that Mayall proclaimed him to be “someone better” than Clapton himself. At first, nobody believed it was possible; Clapton was the guitar god everyone was talking about in England. But as soon as anyone heard him play, they agreed he was indeed an uncommon craftsman.

With the Bluesbreakers, Green recorded only one album, A Hard Road, but it secured his success as a guitarist. He especially shined with such tracks as “The Stumble” and “The Super-Natural,” both of which were instrumental powerhouses foreshadowing Green’s future.

He became friends with the band’s rhythm section of Mick Fleetwood on drums and John McVie on bass, ultimately leading to their spending some time together in the studio working on a short instrumental piece as a trio. This song Peter titled “Fleetwood Mac” as a humble nod to his two friends. Before long, the three broke away and added guitarist and song-writer Jeremy Spencer to their ensemble to form one of rock and roll’s most famous bands. When it came time to name the band, Green famously insisted his name not be a part of it, as he knew he’d eventually leave. Instead, he wanted the rhythm section to have a name to carry with it. Sure enough, through four decades of personnel changes, Fleetwood Mac’s rhythm section of Fleetwood and McVie has been the only constant.

With Fleetwood Mac, Peter Green recorded a mere four studio albums in just over two years: Fleetwood Mac (often referred to as the “Dog and Dustbin” album), Mr. Wonderful, The Pious Bird of Good Omen (released as English Rose in the US with a slightly different track listing), and Then Play On. Growing increasingly disillusioned with his fame and fortune while simultaneously experimenting with heavy drug use, Peter Green was already becoming a controversial member of the band, which had expanded its lineup to five members with the addition of brilliant young guitarist Danny Kirwan. He began wearing his hair and beard long and donning long, loose robes, striking an unmistakable resemblance to Jesus. When he began demanding the band give away all its money to charity and embark on relief missions to help starving children, the band suspected he was losing interest in music all together.

In a now infamous incident in Munich in 1970, Fleetwood Mac went to a bizarre party at an enormous, secluded home. Multiple witnesses have suspected it was the home base for a cult of some fashion, although it remains shrouded in mystery. What is certain is that Peter Green and Danny Kirwan were both given a powerful, LSD-based drug. When the band’s manager found Peter playing bizarre music in the basement in a disturbing mindset, he insisted on getting the band out of the scene as quickly as possible. Unfortunately, it was already too late. Within months, Green would announce his departure from the band he made famous.

Eventually, Green formed a new band and released his first solo album, the controversial End of the Game album released under his own name. The entire work is an unstructured jam session, heavily percussive, and lacking the masterful feeling once present in Green’s guitar playing. He was losing touch with reality, it was later discovered, due to the onset of schizophrenia.

Over the next decade, Green moved back in with his parents and went in and out of mental hospitals, regularly receiving electro-shock therapy. During one particularly famous bout of instability, he threatened to kill his accountant, supposedly because he did not want to receive royalty checks any longer. He grew his nails out, let his hair and beard turn into a wild, unkempt mane, and apparently would at times get on all fours and howl like a dog.

Today, Peter Green is somewhat more mentally stable, but still clearly fragile and a bit difficult to follow at times in conversations. He plays with his long-time friend Nigel Watson in the Splinter Group, a prolific blues band. But his medication saps his energy and makes it difficult to concentrate, leaving him with little interest in playing guitar at times.

Peter Green’s fame rests almost entirely with his output with Fleetwood Mac. From the very beginning, his songs demonstrated a tormented mind wrought with anxiety, evident in his solo number, “The World Keep on Turning,” from their first album. His clear, saturated voice and explosive guitar playing combine to make the song a haunting listen.

 

 "The World Keep on Turning" would be the precursor to other, similar songs of mental anguish, such as the beautiful “Man of the World,” in which he proclaims “There’s no one I’d rather be; I just wish I had never been born.” The gentle guitar playing of this piece and the powerful melodic structure paired with some of his finest lyrics produce a piece not easily forgotten. 

The final song he recorded with Fleetwood Mac, “The Green Manalishi,” finishes the evolution from straight-forward blues guitarist to poignant, experimental genius. The song documents his hatred of money and greed, which he felt haunted his every move. It is a clear precursor of the punk rock and heavy metal that would begin developing throughout the decade and is often cited as his masterpiece.

For straightforward blues, too, Green was able to deliver a powerful punch. His “I Loved Another Woman” is a brilliant example of economical use of notes and thoughtful bending, offering a unique sound to a standard chord progression. 

“Stop Messin’ Round,” meanwhile, is a standard, feel-good blues-rock number with his unmistakable sound infusing the genre with unprecedented life. 

Today, the three songs he is best known for are Fleetwood Mac’s biggest hit ever, the instrumental “Albatross;” a song Santana would make famous, “Black Magic Woman;” and arguably one of the greatest blues-rock songs ever recorded, “Oh Well.” All three capture the essence of the blues without sticking to the typical blues sound. “Albatross” is one of the most gentle, simple songs ever recorded, yet it is a complex listening experience that communicates between the notes at an almost primal level. 

“Black Magic Woman” adds a supernatural feeling to a standard blues sound with shrill tone and a thumping rhythm, producing a piece of surprising sophistication.

And “Oh Well” is a sort of spiritual Bildungsroman in song, contrasting the starkness of Green’s voice with the sharp edge of his guitar.

If you like what you've heard here, I strongly recommend getting your hands on some early Fleetwood Mac recordings to see the full spectrum of what Peter Green had to offer. His fall from fame is a tragic story, a sort of musical cautionary tale, as there is little question that he was in 1970 just starting to demonstrate his genius.

The Problem with Faith

           I spend a lot of time arguing with religious people. As I live in North America and am a United States citizen, that typically means I argue with Christians. And I love it. Really. Every time I plant even the smallest seed of doubt, every time I deconstruct a worldview based on tradition and faith rather than reflection and reason, I get an indescribable feeling of satisfaction. It isn’t because I’m sadistic or even because I simply believe that life should be about enlightenment, constant improvement, and discovery of the truth. It isn’t because I have a vendetta against religion. It’s because, and I say the following without reservation, I have never met a religious person whose religion actually improved his or her life. I have always found the precise opposite to be true.

            The facts are painfully straightforward. Religion essentially is the imposition of a given worldview upon an individual. One’s conception of morality becomes rules, dogma, law. As such, it is unshakable, unerring, and unavoidable. Even in cases of doubt. I don’t need to get into the ways religion has spawned fanaticism, bigotry, and violence. The events of September 11 in New York City, the murders of doctors who perform abortions, and the oppression of homosexuals, among other crimes against humanity, are well known catastrophes religion has engendered. Discussing these issues all over again would be redundant (although I cannot stress enough the value of restating the truth again and again; the more places it is in print or in the air, the more places people will become exposed to it).

            Instead, I want to discuss some of the crimes against humanity religion yields against its own followers, and then I want to discuss the major roadblock in making these believers see their oppression—faith. Again, this subject is a mammoth one, and it has been well documented. Catholic priests molesting little boys and the unparalleled cover-up from the Vatican down to the President of the United States is no secret. If you don’t know the facts, you’ve never used Google properly. Or the recent spread of fundamentalist Christianity, predominantly in the southern United States (the dreaded “Bible Belt”), which encourages a literal reading of the Bible and an outright rejection of virtually all scientific studies, is another fairly mainstream issue. Evolution isn’t real—an “intelligent designer” made everything and everyone in six days somewhere around five thousand years ago. Dinosaur fossils were either put here to test peoples’ faith, or dinosaurs coexisted with humans not too long ago and current scientific methods for dating fossils are incredible inaccurate. Or my favorite: The Grand Canyon was formed, not over centuries of natural erosion, but during the Great Flood. Yes, the Grand Canyon is frequently cited as proof that Noah actually produced an ark in the not-too-distant past and saved the future of all life from God’s wrath during the deluge.

            Let’s talk about the more personal issues that we may encounter with religious people in daily life. For me, the most destructive aspect of the religious worldview on the worshipper is how it corrupts the natural order of love, relationships, and sexuality. Imagine for a moment a perfect human being, of either gender. Well-rounded, intelligent, affluent, physically attractive, athletic, charming, artistically talented. The ideal mate, many would say. Now couple within this Übermensch the Christian religious tradition toward relationships. I’m no expert, but I’m at least informed. So here’s more or less how our sex drive works within the framework of God’s divine plan.

            When we see fellow humans, we almost immediately determine whether they are physically attractive or unattractive, based on our preferences. This phenomenon is one we have all experienced on a daily basis since a young age. A normal, rational person will then either determine to pursue this individual for the sake of mating and perhaps long-term courtship, or they will instead decide they are not interested and will move on (granted, plenty of grey area exists within this process, but more or less, that is how it works). In the former scenario, they will be subjected to the same scrutiny as already applied to the other member of this relationship; if selected, the common social practice of dating will ensue. If rejected, then the individual will have to deal with rejection and perhaps learn to alter their approach. In the latter scenario, the individual simply moves on from the very start.

            Unfortunately, Christianity (and most of the world’s other religions, especially the religions of Abraham) teaches that objectification is a terrible sin. God wants us always to see people for who they are under the flesh. Purely determining interest in relationships based on physical attraction, especially at the start, is wrong and must be avoided. The logic is that the relationship would develop out of lust from the start, not love. But this system is inherently flawed; aside from the rules of nature, which insist that we absolutely need attractive mates, it leads to a paradox. In order to avoid entering a relationship based on lust, the good Christian should presumably only woo people he or she finds, believe it or not, unattractive. After all, how else can lust ever be written out of the equation? Based on the logic of Christianity, we should all be going after the people we have no interest in physically. But isn’t this just a form of objectification, in and of itself? The person is being reduced to an object suitably distasteful to one’s sex drive, so much so that sex becomes entirely not an issue. Which leads to the next problem, of course. Hypothetically speaking, if somehow this damp green wood is properly kindled into the flames of a romance, what will the effects of these sidestepped laws of attraction be on mating? If the end of relationships is procreation (at least Biblically), shouldn’t we all really be going after the most attractive people we can find, as a way to entice us to, well, procreate?

            But the fun doesn’t stop there. The whole sex thing is an issue in and of itself. Two major forms of sexual release are forbidden under Catholic tradition: masturbation and premarital sex (we won’t even talk about sodomy . . . ). That may be all good and fine for some people, but frankly, you show me a man who is not sexually active, and I’ll present you with a habitual masturbator. Plain and simple, it is healthy. Our bodies inevitably need release. What happens, unfortunately, is that men and women alike are taught that auto-eroticism, as some would call it, is sinful, abhorrent in God’s eyes, and just plain wrong. Can it really be healthy to attach such a perverted stigma to a perfectly natural, universal sexual practice? What happens to a person’s self-image when he or she is constantly fearing God’s judgment for the sin of self-pleasure? Especially in a pre-marital world where no alternative exists! Because God wants us all to save our chastity for marriage. He wants purity, he wants cleanliness, and he wants the act of devirginization to be a holy event. Maybe he’ll even be spiritually present somehow to celebrate that big moment.

            To summarize, religion promotes hasty marriages by sex-starved young people who find each other unattractive. Any union but one of that nature will presumably be sinful, or at least inferior. Which really doesn’t leave much room for love, does it? After all, isn’t a big part of love the physical side? You don’t have to be dating a supermodel to find your partner indescribably attractive, and you should look for the person who fits that protocol. If they catch your eye the first time you ever see them enter a room, their presence will undoubtedly ravish you every time from then on. Furthermore, having time to develop one’s sexuality with a partner, ideally a few partners even, before settling down is immensely important. Taking it on faith that you and your partner will have a fulfilling sex life without ever giving it a practice run, so to speak, is as foolish as buying an expensive house in an undisclosed location that you’ve never seen or even gotten a description of, but agreeing to live in it for the rest of your life, for better or for worse. But I suppose if that were in the Bible, it would be a virtuous practice also.

            Sex and love are far from the only aspects of one’s life religion disrupts and corrupts. Indeed, the ego is perhaps the worst-hit part of the devout one’s being. What I’m talking about now are pride and righteousness. Having a precise list of certain rules one is supposed to follow in life always leads to a “holier than thou” attitude. Without exception. If you don’t believe me, talk to a Christian someday about the value of being Christian, and I guarantee you’ll hear the word “perfect” an awful lot. I always do. Granted, it takes an especially deluded person to claim perfection outright, but many will proclaim a devotion to perfection. They’ll explain how they ask God forgiveness for their mistakes and work hard to get back on track when they are led astray by their worldly desires. Overall, the idea is that God has this perfect spotlight of morality shining down upon the world, and those lucky enough to have read his word can see it and follow it into perfection. But wait . . . isn’t this entity the same one that teaches humility, that has even punished angels for the worst sin of all, that of pride? Religion discourages the objectification of others for personal pleasure, plus the rejection of any worldly possessions, really, while essentially encouraging an objectification of the self. No greater foppery exists than religion.

            The end result of all this corruption of human nature is a life that feels shallow, unfulfilling, and even somewhat dead. Which is, of course, the goal: we all want basically to live good lives, but hurry up and die so we can be blissfully at one with God in Heaven. In Christianity, at least. Well, that rather takes the joy out of life—not all of the joy, but a huge range of enjoyable experiences. Experiences that go deeper than mere masturbation, for all its incontrovertible charm. I mean the experiences of discovering right and wrong for oneself, which can be difficult, but are truly essential to the human condition.

            So, to the main point, at last, of this little piece: the problem with faith. Although it is impossible to say for certain whence religion originally sprung, many unbiased anthropologists and theologians concur that it began during the earliest days of human civilization as a byproduct of the development of the human brain. At some point during the evolution of human consciousness, we became self-aware. This self-awareness led to an awareness of opposition—mainly, humans realized that they were different from the animals. Humans carried the bleak awareness of death and were incredibly preoccupied with understanding why they alone stood out from the rest of the animal kingdom. Not surprisingly, certain stories began to spring forward. Two that have carried on through various incarnations are the Genesis creation accounts in the Old Testament. The second account, when read allegorically, is truly a masterpiece of world literature and a touching portrait of the early human psyche attempting to find its place in what must have been a frightening, hostile world. They reasoned that they were created by the same being that created the animals and that they once lived harmoniously with them. However, upon choosing to eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, humankind became enlightened and was thus rejected from Paradise (Eden) by the creator (God). In many ways, this story is actually true—what separates humanity from animals is, in a sense, knowledge. Rational powers. Reason. But it isn’t literally true; it is true in the sense that a great work of literature can express universal ideas, sometimes ideas that cannot even be readily summarized in words, but still be, at the end of the day, a work of fiction. Which is precisely what every creation account from every religion or mythology ever to exist has been: fiction.

            So the next time you argue with a person of faith and come to that most dastardly roadblock of faith, so frequently used as justification for any far-fetched notion or simply as a cop-out to avoid an uninformed discussion, offer this idea. Humans are unique in our ability to reason; it is the one power that truly separates us from the animals, and we are indeed such weak, pathetic creatures, that without that power, we’d really have no chance of keeping separate from the bigger, hungrier animals. Evolution at work. So if reason is our highest faculty, our greatest gift, we should cherish it, especially if it came from God, if we must use that silly idea as a starting point. Faith, on the other hand, is the opposite of reason. It’s essentially instinct, taking an idea as the truth based solely on a gut feeling, not on any real evidence or observations. Animals use their instincts, but humans use their reason. So we must never be content to use faith as our justification for anything, for faith alone can be used to legitimize the greatest of evils. If you can convince a Christian that faith is truly inferior to reason, and that reason was actually God’s greatest, defining gift to humankind, if we are to look to Genesis allegorically, then you have done enough. The rest of the argument will logically take hold in his or her brain with further careful consideration.

            After all, it’s the very train of thought that initially led me to atheism. I know it works.