News Clips: February 2009 Archives

Christian Science Monitor (of all rags) is reportingo n increased persecution of Christians in Britain. I've heard a lot of incidents along these lines and I'm glad the situation is gaining publicity. The issue, they claim, is multiculturalism; you can't be multicultural if you allow the public square to be biased toward one faith or another. But what does this have to do with whether you can wear a cross? Being neutral means you should be able to wear a cross, an ankh, a hijab, a star of David, a ceremonial dagger, or whatever. I fail to see how forbidding individuals to wear a cross is being neutral.

They quote someone saying, How would a Christian feel if, for example, a nurse offered them an Islamic prayer? Hey, I'd have no problem with this whatsoever. It's a show of concern on their part, and act of love. How can I complain about that? Even if a Satanist offered to pray for me, all I'd have to do is decline and thank them for the thought. What's the big deal?

Duh.

But at least science now proves it.

Scientists demonstrate that for men with "hostile sexism" (e.g., men who think women have vicious motives in their relations with men) the area of the brain that processes objects lights up (rather than more interpersonal areas) when they see scantily-clad women.

This idea of sex being distorted as an objectivization of the woman is a theme in John Paul II's excellent book Love and Responsibility. He distinguishes in marital love between seeking the spouse using pleasure as an object and seeking pleasure using the spouse as an object. In other words, if your goal is sexual pleasure, and you see your spouse as a means to that pleasure, this is a distorted and damaging view of the marriage relationship and will adversely affect it. If, on the other hand, you're seeking to love your spouse as a person, even giving yourself to him or her, and you see pleasure is a happy accident, your relationship is much more healthy.