While rehearsing a litany of denomination-approved music to be performed during an upcoming Unitarian Universalist church service, our choir director mouthed words urging certain restrictive behavior to be taken to heart: making sure we understood not to exhibit or express ourselves in a way that is “sexually suggestive.”

That same advisory was put a different way by the church minister in early November, a time when Alice’s and my wardrobe were extremely limited due to our belongings held in captivity.  Consequently, we each only had a few pair of jeans to wear.

One morning after service was over, Rev. Christine Riley of the Unitarian Universalist Community Church of Washington County (UUCCWC) advised the service’s dress code discouraged wearing blue jeans, because “some people” were inclined to wear pairs with stylish tears and holes worn into them.  That kind of behavior inspired some to wear tops revealing “an unacceptable amount of cleavage.”

“Oh, really?” I wisecracked later to myself.  “I should attend church more often.”

Nevertheless, the admonition prompted Alice to stop attending the church’s functions.  And for me, it raises the issue of whether churches have a proper role toward inhibiting provocative behavior.  And if so, how should it be addressed?

In what way should a tax-exempt institution ban anything – behavior, clothing, cologne, aftershave, even lipstick –deemed sexually suggestive?  And who makes this determination?  Are we advocating the establishment of thought police?

For church leadership to bring up this subject raises all sorts of red flags.  We know Catholics never discussed sex in church.  What role did that play in allowing priests to have full reign with altar boys?

In terms of the UUCC church, what sort of problem used to exist for such a prohibition to be addressed?  Taking the admonition a step further, could the transparent loveliness of a couple’s demonstrative behavior – straight or gay – be adjudged “sexually suggestive?”  Shall we tell women to wear only loose-fitting shifts?  Maybe we should tell them to cover their face and hair?

At what point do we pander to alternative lifestyles because that’s the chic thing to do, yet experience feelings of revulsion and condemnation because of their “public displays?”

Looking at the issue yet another way, if we ban overtly sexually suggestive clothing, how shall we do it without causing impressionable people to find fodder for a later mind massage?

I’ve become relatively old in terms of years, but you’re never too old to feel the pang of desire.  Oh, and one more thing: As last Sunday’s service ended, the pianist played as a postlude Jim Morrison’s “Light My Fire.”

What’s up with that?  Or don’t the thought police realize they have to ban that too?

It’s not every day that I find something worth mentioning on the page “Media Matters,” but a recent film offering on IndiePlex deserves to be highlighted.

In September 2007, the late Roger Ebert was ecstatic in his praise.  Read how I discovered it here!

On Monday, Nov. 24, a pragmatic, sizable downtown Portland business-oriented audience heard four important guys relate how legal marijuana will be regulated and integrated into the state’s economy.

The mentally hip crowd of approximately 300 adult minds made themselves comfortable so as to optimize their attention during a four-man panel discussion about Maryjane.  Voters in the state’s populous Multnomah County two weeks ago had overwhelmingly endorsed Measure 91, the measure legalizing recreational marijuana, enabling the whole state to share in an unexpected conservative takeover.

“Conservative?” you might ask.  “What is going to make legal recreational Maryjane in Oregon different than what’s been happening in Colorado and Washington?”

“Our intention [by creating the act] is to minimize the illegal market” by regulating and taxing it “like alcohol,” said Dave Kopilak, author of Oregon’s Act 91, who deserves recognition for clear thought and legal proficiency in composing Plain English.

The thought of it boggles the mind.  Starve the cartels out of business by making weed/pot/maryjane legal, thereby lowering the price?  That’s what’s up, no doubt about it.

Kopilak announced his legal intent during a panel discussion also comprised of Anthony Johnson of the Oregon Cannabis Industry Association; Rob Bovett, legal counsel for the Association of Oregon Counties; Steven Marks, Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) executive director; and moderator Noelle Crombie, whose day job is marijuana reporter for The Oregonian, Portland’s daily metropolitan newspaper.

No one could be seen gasping, other than at the author’s unabashed bluntness, during the Oregonian-sponsored event in City Center’s Gerding Theater at the Armory, a/k/a U.S. Bank Main Stage.  No representatives of Portland’s legendary red-eyed stoners were in attendance to cheer on the panelists; the prevailing modus operandi was uniformly business-like.

Fifty-four percent of all Oregonian registered voters were recorded to have said yes.  Legalization formally begins July 1, 2015, and the discussion served to establish the methodology coming on board to promote, control the market and – the most expressed area of concern – limit taxation, thereby putting a stranglehold on drug cartels that depend on triple-digit profit margins.

The idea of using pot legality against cartels was seldom mentioned, if at all, during a plethora of televised advertisements prior to the election.  But now that Measure 91 is imminent, it is.

If America’s hidden marijuana tokers turn out to be more conservative than the image usually associated with Cheech and Chong stoners, the Republican Party might be infused with some new creative minds.  And who knows?  Maybe that’s what’s needed to reconcile unflinching sides making up the gentrified conservatives in our nation.

Now let’s see: If all the legal beagles attending the Oregonian Plus speaker series’ already were on board with the future of pot in the Beaver State, how far ahead of the nation does that put Oregon?