In Response to Questions about my Progressive Prohibitionist Religion

In response to the many questions I've received from Austin-area residents about my one-member (myself, only) and non-proselytizing Progressive Prohibitionist Religion, I would like to offer the following information:

QUESTION: IS YOUR PROGRESSIVE PROHIBITIONIST RELIGION A CHRISTIAN DENOMINATION?

ANSWER: No, it it not a Christian religion. Nor is it Judaistic, Muslim, Shinto-Buddhist, Quaker, MCC-affiliated, Christian Scientist, Mormon, or Unitarian, for that matter.

QUESTION: WHAT ARE YOUR RELIGION'S MEMBERSHIP ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS?

ANSWER: My religion is limited to permanently alcohol-free, permanently tobacco-free, permanently illicit-drug-free, facially-cleanshaven (no facial hair), civil and law-abiding, conscientiously vigilant, law-enforcement-minded, consistently clean-talking, honest and honorable persons with no felony-conviction record. My noble new religion, a religion for true gentlemen and true ladies, is also limited to persons who have no previous addiction to illicit drugs or alcohol. These are just a few of the membership-eligiblity requirements. This, of course, eliminates a lot of individuals from consideration as prospective members. My religion is an honor society, and this helps explain why my religion is so very, very selective in its membership-eligibility requirements.

QUESTION: HAS ANYONE APPLIED WITH YOU FOR MEMBERSHIP IN YOUR PROGRESSIVE PROHIBITIONIST RELIGION?

ANSWER: No one has. This is a further reminder that my own religion definitely does NOT hold anyone hostage or kidnap anyone or seek to "deprogram" anyone or pressure anyone into applying for membership, for that matter. My religion is freedom-loving, and reveres the legal and Constitutional right of any non-member to choose to apply to join a denomination other than my Progressive Prohibitionist Religion.

QUESTION: WHAT ARE SOME EXAMPLES OF RELIGIOUS ISSUES, IN YOUR OPINION?

ANSWER: One religious issue is the current dearth of mini-essays that might offer a tangibly helpful and pragmatically enlightening "thought for the day" to idealistic and honorable Americans with a healthy moral vision. My religion will strive to sponsor each day the daily publication, including on the Internet, of a "quick read" mini-essay of 10 paragraphs or less, say, that offers substantive insights into the world of today and into values that can help to guide a person in his life. For instance, one pragmatically helpful mini-essay might note which of the current mutual funds available to investors are currently the most beneficial to the environment, by investing in eco-friendly companies, while also at the same time excluding investment in the alcohol or tobacco industries.

QUESTION: I HAVE HEARD THAT YOUR RELIGION GENERALLY ESCHEWS AND DECLINES TO PROMULGATE THE ABSTRACT NOUNS AND BIBLICAL CITATIONS FOUND IN MANY OTHER RELIGIOUS DENOMINATIONS.?

ANSWER: The informal reports you've heard on that are correct. My Progressive Prohibitionist Religion is implicitly deistic as well as rationally deistic. My non-Christian and modern religion emphasizes that deism itself is best manifested through empirically verifiable or factual observations and statements and tangible contributions during one's own lifetime by human beings. Religion should explore what we do know, along with what modern science is helping human civilization to add to our entire world's body of knowledge.

QUESTION: IS IT TRUE THAT YOU DO NOT BELIEVE IN PRAYER?

ANSWER: No, I do not. I don't presume to have a personal relationship with any cited "deity." To make any such "religious" claim of my having a one-to-one "hotline" access to a deity would, to me, be both delusional and narcissistic. But I do feel confident that I can, in fact, use reasoning skills and engage in mutual-consent dialogues and research and mutual-consent projects with other human beings that provide me with solutions to life's challenges.

QUESTION: ARE YOU AT RISK OF COMING ACROSS AS GODLESSLY ATHEISTIC WHEN YOU SAY THAT YOU DO NOT ENGAGE IN PRAYER?

ANSWER: My religion is definitely NOT atheism. Atheism is negativism: atheism is dreary nihilism. My own religion, to the contrary, offers solid and constructive and specific values for living. Also, my own religion heartily embraces the idea of deism in very pragmatic and empirically observable terms.

QUESTION: YOU JUST USED THE WORD 'EMBRACES,' AND INEVITABLY I'M REMINDED OF A QUESTION THAT MAY BE ON THE MINDS OF SOME OBSERVERS OF YOUR RELIGION THESE DAYS. I HAVE HEARD THAT YOUR NEW RELIGION IS ANTI-SEXUAL. IS THAT TRUE?

ANSWER: Not at all. Non-marital, marital, and premarital sex, provided it is legal and involves mutual consent, does not alarm me in the least. In fact, I have publicly praised vasectomy surgeons for the noble contributions to human civilization they offer. Those vasectomy operations, as you know, greatly enhance a gentleman's ability to enjoy a mutual-consent sexual romantic life without any risk of his impregnating his female sex partner. So what the vasectomy surgeons offer to human civilization is quite a noble service, freeing women from unwanted pregnancies and the accompanying possible need for an abortion.

QUESTION: YOU CLAIM TO NOT BE ANTI-SEXUAL, BUT ISN'T IT TRUE THAT YOUR RELIGION PLACES HEAVY EMPHASIS ON THE ROLE OF MUTUAL-CONSENT AND HONEST PLATONIC PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS AND HONORABLE PLATONIC PROFESSIONAL RELATIONSHIPS IN LIFE. I'M REFERRING TO RELATIONSHIPS IN WHICH CONTACT BETWEEN EACH PARTNER IS LIMITED TO HANDSHAKES OR VERBAL HUGS, IF YOU WILL.

ANSWER: You are correct in noting that my Progressive Prohibitionist Religion places primary emphasis on platonic relationships and platonic relationship skills. The fact is that for virtually every American citizen of today, 99 to 100 percent of all of his or her relationships in life are, in fact, platonic or defacto platonic. They're platonic because they do not involve any sexual penetration per se. My new religion maintains that platonic relationships between persons not related to each other have traditionally been neglected. This is truly tragic, when you consider that platonic relationships have a huge bearing on your own level of happiness and medical as well as emotional health.

QUESTION: WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO ELABORATE ON THAT POINT?

ANSWER: One recent Swedish study even found that personal friendships generally have more impact on a persons' cardiovascular health than does his relationship with his sexual romantic partner or spouse.

QUESTION: DO YOU ALSO SUBSCRIBE TO THE VIEW THAT ADULT PERSONS SUCH AS YOURSELF CAN BE GOOD AND LASTING MUTUAL-CONSENT PERSONAL FRIENDS TO INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE CURRENTLY EITHER CHILDREN OR TEENAGE PERSONS OR COLLEGE STUDENTS?

ANSWER: Yes, I do. I definitely believe that we should assign highest possible priority in our modern new religion to helping befriend children and other persons under age 30. It seems to me that mutually-beneficial, mutually-respectful, and healthy inter-generational platonic relationships with younger persons can comprise humanity at its most sublimely beautiful.