SMAD. An Organ of Student Opinion. 1934. Volume 5. Number 3.
More Sex—Less Religion
More Sex—Less Religion
Give me a soul to call my own,
Give me a pen that's free,
We will pull Satan from his throne
To banish misery.
Are we qualified to discuss sex and religion? We most certainly are not qualified, in the sense that our discussions on the matter will be of any value or lead to any improvements. Change the question. Are we any less qualified than our elders (bless them) to discuss sex and religion? Most certainly we are not. How did this idea of Christianity, being a matter for "patriarchal parasites" past their dotage, gain currency?
Christ himself was a young man. John Wesley was a student at Oxford when he formed the Holy Club. George Whitfield, at 21, was moving England. Jeremy Taylor, at 18, was holding men spell-bound in St. Paul's, London. And many others. It appears that if anybody is to discuss religion it is the young people; certainly not our elders. Who put into operation the theory of Apostolic Succession which plunged the world into error at the start of Christianity, and nearly made a mess of religion at the outset? As to sex, the late adolescent is more sexually alive I should imagine than any greybeard. Most certainly we are equally qualified to discuss sex and religion.
Can we derive any benefit from discussing sex and religion? Ah, there's the rub. The fact would seem to be that since the present mode of sex control has undoubtedly produced the most intelligent nations, no change is indicated, and discussion is futile. As for religion, since the essence of Christianity is faith in the unseen, an urgent demand for proof seems unreasonable and unfair. A great deal may be done in the way of proof, but that does not make fruitful discussion. Facts never do.
Unfortunately we have reached a position where we stipulate that we are qualified to discuss sex and religion, but no improvement in either can be effected by our discussion. But the result of a debate is not that the Christian becomes an atheist or the atheist a Christian; the invariable result is that the atheist is a more firm atheist, and the Christian is a better Christian. Both have co-ordinated their views and put their mental bric-a-brac in order. Each has sharpened his wits and proved to his own satisfaction that he is correct. Couldn't they do that just as well on some less contentious subject? No. if they are to gain from it, it must be vital to them; otherwise they just won't bother to ponder about it.
I understand it is "Smad's" editorial policy this year to get banned: I shall do my best for you. This infringement on our liberty of speech has gone too far; we must expatiate or bust. . . . I believe Mr Shaw said something about "Russians having their milk free. Disgusting as it may sound, puerile as it may be, I consider milk as a beverage infinitely preferable to beer. Free milk in Communist Russia ? Long live "Russia, Vive Communism, Vive Mark. Vive Anarchy!