Rev. Joe

I am a strong advocate for free thought on all subjects, yet it appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against Christianity; theism produce hardly any effect on the public; freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men's minds, which follow[s] from the advance of science. It has, therefore, been always my object to avoid writing on religion; I have confined myself to science.

-- Charles Darwin

Some have not taken this approach in the promotion of reason.  Thus, we have an atheist reference a discussion on why "sex is not spiritual."  Generally speaking, the problem is:

All the sweat and cum and juices and the delicious, confusing carnality of sex get shoved back into the closet in favor of much tidier abstractions so that we can believe that we're not just shallow hedonists.

That is, the issue is that sex is not some higher plane but just plain fun and messy.  I find this sort of thing depressing.  The answer to the fun is guilt school  is not to rob such things of some higher meaning.  After all, even this person speaks of it being "delicious" and "confusing" and such.  Something can be of this world and still have some sort of special meaning.  That is what "spiritual" means. It can mean a lot of things really, including the non-theistic "deepest values and meanings by which people live." And, darn, sex can have some special meaning.  It might not.  It depends on the experience.  Ditto a lot of other things.

Events that many see as having a spiritual component repeatedly have a messy aspect. Pain and suffering, for instance, can have a spiritual aspect.  This doesn't suddenly, though the type of sentiment this person might find bothersome might make it so, make it okay. It still can be fucking hard (I'm watching Slings and Arrows -- they say that word a lot; apparently, it's okay Canadian T.V. sometimes). It is quite real and concrete.  But, at times a higher meaning can be found.  That is what humans do.  They give things meaning, including spiritual in nature. 

Sometimes, language can divide, but other times, it can serve as a uniting force.  Some words have that character in part because they mean so many things to different people.  The Constitution is like that at times -- basic things like "speech" or "due process"  can be agreed upon, but the specifics cannot.   For many, if not all, "spiritual" has that flavor, since it doesn't quite seem the same as "religious" which suggests some things with which certain people rather not associate themselves.

Others want to force the issue.  I'm not quite like Darwin, but I rather not when it can be avoided.