On the Dinosaur Gods, Any Other Gods Whatsoever, Perceived Lesbians, and “Tommy C”

I’m not a member of any church (though I admit to a firm belief in the Divine Toothsomeness of the Dinosaur Gods, may they loll ever peacefully beside the Pierian Watering-Hole) and I don’t agree with the Catholic view of contraception or family planning any more than most liberals. It seems to me that the Church speaks in metaphysical absolutes about the sanctity of life (which is understandable) and then supports policies that end up diminishing that sanctity. The Church’s leaders believe life is sacred, so they should approach the matter of how and why children are brought into the world with common sense: common sense and the sacred need each other more than either would care to admit. Still, I think it best to make that point with due respect for a man who is revered by millions as il santo papa.

As I grow older, I grow less patient with arguments extolling the merits of reason and human self-sufficiency as opposed to the alleged irrationalist abyss of religion. Perhaps it is true, as Tennyson says, that “Our little systems have their day, / They have their day and cease to be,” but I also have great regard for the lines that follow: “They are but broken lights of Thee, / And Thou, O Lord, art more than they.” It’s the spiritual principle that matters; it’s the willingness to put kind hearts before coronets, as his verse goes: to privilege decency and generosity over rank and lust for material things. The forms and rules are helpful only if they advance the principle, in my view. All of this is pure Carlyle – yes, George Costanza’s “Tommy C” – but there’s something to be said for believing in belief, even if (as an irate reader once wrote of Carlyle’s own ranting prose) it leads us into the wilderness and leaves us there.

Now on to the lamentable case of the “perceived lesbians.” Wilde wrote that Jesus’ greatest cause for sorrow was that so few people ever understood a word he said. Well, to adapt a Blake verse, “A fool sees not the same Jesus as a wise man sees.” Anyhow, the problem permits of a solution, even if it isn’t a happy one: the parents of the two girls will most likely come around to the conviction that it would be a mistake to want their kids to remain students at the school in question. If the school isn’t taking public money, I don’t see how the state can force it to accept or even overlook beliefs or practices most of its members probably find abhorrent. I think the school is behaving in a bigoted and harmful manner, but forcing it to change its admissions and retention policy won’t change hearts: “those convinced against their will are of the same opinion still.” It would be different if we were dealing with a public school, or even a private country club that discriminated against minorities or gays without the veil of metaphysics to hide the nakedness of its ignorance. It’s true as Octo says that there’s a line to be drawn here: a church can’t abuse children, sacrifice puppy dogs, etc. – if they break the law, the offending parties can be prosecuted. Of course, what we’re dealing with here is the combustible mix of alternative sexuality and religious tenets, so that complicates things.

Perhaps the parents have learned a painful lesson about the belief system of the church to which they had given their allegiance (if indeed they were members – I’m not familiar with the particulars of the case and am therefore treating it in a general, hypothetical manner): if they were members, they should now be able to see how that system impacts people close to them, so it’s high time to put the girls in a more congenial school where they will not risk persecution or ostracism for what they either are or are “perceived” to be. I am very friendly to religion, but one feature of some religious communities is their tendency to define themselves by a process of exclusion: strict rejection of anyone who doesn’t hew to their notions and standards. There is room for the rejected to challenge the rejecters—else is no progress ever made—but I wouldn’t advise making a couple of children run such a gauntlet: I’d leave it to adults who know what they’re in for when they try to broaden minds.

The unfortunate side-effect of this kind of solution is that it encourages the perpetuation of sealed-off, self-defining communities. But there’s not much one can do about that in the short run. Jesus told his disciples to “shake the dust off their feet” when they ran into people who outright disrespected them; parents in such a bad situation might do well to follow that example.