|
“The Disgust Factor”
A
sermon by Rev. Brian J. Kiely
September 23, 2007 Unitarian Church of Edmonton
The Service included the reading of a newspaper column by Faye Flam of the Philadelphia Inquirer. While we do not have copyright permission to reprint the article, you can download here:
Sermon
I don’t know about you, but I am just like Jesus. Yup, I, too, was an Immaculate Conception. I had to have been, because I am sure that my parents never ever had sex. That whole idea is just gross!!! And I bet none of your parents had sex either, right?
When we consider the disgust factor, contemplating the sex lives of ours parents is a good place to start. In my experience it’s pretty much a universal eeewww! response.
But that’s what I want to delve into today. Is a sense of revulsion and disgust a natural biological wisdom at work, or is it a cultural prejudice? Or is it perhaps a measure of both? And what, if anything, do our Principles have to say about the subject?
I was first alerted to the topic when I read the Journal article we used as a reading today. It turns out the whole idea is relatively new. It first appeared in an 1997 article entitled “The Wisdom of Repugnance” by Leon Kass, one of President Bush’s bioethical advisors. Professor Kass was condemning the breakthroughs in cloning technology that had produced Dolly the sheep. He wrote:
Revulsion is not an argument; and some of yesterday’s repugnances are today calmly accepted — though, one must add, not always for the better. In crucial cases, however, repugnance is the emotional expression of deep wisdom, beyond reason’s power fully to articulate it...We are repelled by the prospect of cloning human beings not because of the strangeness or novelty of the undertaking, but because we intuit and feel, immediately and without argument, the violation of things that we rightfully hold dear. Repugnance, here as elsewhere, revolts against the excesses of human wilfulness, warning us not to transgress what is unspeakably profound. Indeed, in this age in which everything is held to be permissible so long as it is freely done, in which our given human nature no longer commands respect, in which our bodies are regarded as mere instruments of our autonomous rational wills, repugnance may be the only voice left that speaks up to defend the central core of our humanity. Shallow are the souls that have forgotten how to shudder. [1]
“Shallow are the souls that have forgotten how to shudder.” It’s a great line, but is shuddering truly a reflection of deep intuitive wisdom? My four year old daughter shudders at noodles with anything more than butter on them. In fact she screams and howls. Is that ‘deep biological wisdom’ at work?
I find myself more persuaded by the author of our reading. The things that revolt us change over time, as individuals mature and as societies mature. Inter-racial and even inter-religious marriage were both seen as shudder-filled abominations in our not too far distant past. In fact they still are seen that way in some cultures. One only needs to note the boiling racial tensions in Jena, Louisiana this past week to see how near they are. And I can’t help but note that the producers of the newest Survivor season deliberately put a Christian radio broadcaster and a gay flight attendant on the same team, no doubt hoping for some sparks.
It wasn’t long ago that sexuality was a taboo topic of conversation, although, immaculate conceptions notwithstanding, it doesn’t appear that sex lost any of its appeal. I bet that 40 years ago one of my Unitarian predecessors would have been risking his livelihood if he were to say penis, vagina, anal intercourse or dildo in a sermon. Certainly more Christian pastors would have been preaching their last sermon if they used any sexually suggestive word other than ‘fornication’ wrapped up in the sound of utter contempt.
But Unitarianism keeps growing and changing. Not only can I say those words, but here, in church, I can team up with my wife Teilya, with the full and enthusiastic approval of our Board of Trustees, to offer a course on Human Sexuality. The Our Whole Lives course, starting October 3, is not an appeal to prurient interest, but it is a frank and open exploration of sexuality. Says longtime UU religious educator Rev. Cynthia Breen, “To offer sexuality education in a congregation is to acknowledge that human sexuality is simply too important, too beautiful, and too potentially dangerous to be ignored in a religious community.” I agree.
Unlike Professor Kass, I don’t want to blindly follow my intuition when I feel a sense of disgust. I want to understand it. Why do I respond strongly to certain stimuli and not to others? Like a lot of people, I grew up thinking there was something wrong with homosexuality, mostly because the priests said so. But then a long time ago I started working in theatre and yes, I admit the stereotype, but it was there I met my first openly gay men and lesbian women. And I came to respect them for their talent and their humour, and appreciate them for themselves. The old prejudice that had been ingrained in my ‘intuition’ simply didn’t stand up to scrutiny or personal experience. Was I personally interested in Gay sex? Nope. But I wasn’t revolted by it. It simply isn’t a form of sexual expression that attracts me.
That’s the purpose of the Our Whole Lives course, to discover and affirm our sexual selves so that we can then explore other sexualities as equally significant expressions of other people. But secure in our own sexual selves we are not threatened by others, as long as mutual respect is maintained. As with our Principles and Sources, we begin with our direct experience, affirming it as authentically a part of us. And then we affirm the inherent worth and dignity of others. And through it all we will end up exploring some of the cultural overlays of disgust and repugnance about sex. We need to make sex and sexuality something we can discuss openly, especially with our partners. If our religion encourages us to be complete beings, then certainly our sexuality must be part of that equation. To leave it ignored, suppressed and repressed is to invite ill health and disharmony.
Professor Kass would argue that we should follow the dictates of our revulsion and disgust without further exploration. To me that’s simply the kind of ridiculous statement I would expect from one of President Bush’s advisors. This is an administration that has done all in its power to suppress questioning and to undercut all attempts to discuss their agenda and actions openly and honestly. To blindly trust a sense of disgust or even just the ‘eeeewwww!’ reaction just doesn’t make sense to me. If, as an amateur chef, I let disgust be my guide, I would never have tried eel or squid or liver or sushi. And having tried them I can now make an informed decision that sushi is wonderful, eel delectable, especially when smoked, squid is okay and liver is still liver.
It’s a little like what we say to our daughter at the dinner table, “How can you know if you don’t like it if you don’t at least taste it?” Well, perhaps with things sexual, I should amend ‘taste’ to a less directly sensory verb. But the point is the same, if we don’t give something proper consideration, we really have no right to dismiss it. This idea that intuition, especially an intuition of disgust is sufficient to make final moral decisions is ludicrous. Yet, Professor Kass claims that disgust and repugnance are ancient human biologically ingrained wisdom
Now I am a man who relies on my intuition rather a lot. My personality make-up gives a lot of credence to gut-feeling when making important decisions. Because of that I have spent a lot of time pondering the nature of intuition. I have come to the conclusion that it really is a kind of software in our brains. And more significantly, parts of that software code can be changed. Why? How?
Well, part of that software is biological – as in the fight or flight response. Part of it is also social and cultural. We factor in the moral lessons learned from parents and religion, like what I was taught about homosexuality. Add in some childhood fears and experiences, like the time we were scared by a spider or fell out of a tree, or walked in on our parents having sex (eeewwwww!). That forms the basic intuitive response. But later, it is reshaped as our experience grows and our intellects develop. Professor Kass ignores this. Ideas and philosophical views we consider are taken to heart and they reshape the reactions our intuitions generate. We have to allow for the possibility of our own moral growth. To simply dismiss the different or the untried because our gut feeling is negative is an invitation to judgmentalism, to prejudice and the theft of human rights. Our faith affirms the inherent worth and dignity of every person. By accepting that Principle we become obligated to rise above first impressions and intuition. We have to challenge our own biases and truly look at the person in front of us...even if that person is looking back from the mirror.
That’s why the Our Whole Lives course is religious work. It is especially Unitarian Universalist religious work, because so much of its approach is shaped by our Principles and Sources.
OWL Development Director Judith Frediani writes:
We believe that Our Whole Lives is religious because it nurtures:
- Religious community
- Spiritual depth
- Prophetic vision and action for justice
- Values congruent with participants’ religious beliefs and skills, attitudes and knowledge to live out those values
- The worth and dignity of each participant
I love my Unitarian faith because it continually challenges me. There is very little I can take for granted for too long. In fact, I am someone who does trust intuition. When I ran into the idea of intuition as natural biological wisdom last June, I was at first intrigued. I mean, who wouldn’t be attracted by such validation of one of their favourite tools of decision-making. But as I read on I realized that Professor Kass was trying to take the cultural prejudices that shape some of our reactions of repugnance and disgust and elevate them to an irresponsible degree. That forced me to think it all through again. That’s the Unitarian way.
The reading referred to another psychologist Jonathan Haidt. He observed that secular and liberal-minded people in the West base their moral beliefs on fairness and avoidance of harm. If the alternative is an untested acceptance of gut-reaction, then I think we make the better choice. May we never stop searching for more complete and satisfying answers.
[1] Kass, Leon R. “The Wisdom of Repugnance.” New Republic Vol. 216 Issue 22 (June 2, 1997). U of Chicago Professor.
Back to Sermon Archive
|
