[Vision2020] Religious Liberty

[keely emerinemix]

You asked for enlightened Visionaries, but until you find someone, I'll 
offer a comment:

I think that the example you used is, in its obviousness, a good point -- 
some ideas, as measured against any reasonable standard, are foolish or 
dangerous or unproductive.  Excreta not being a part of my meditations, I 
would have to agree that such would not be enlightening or productive to me, 
and perhaps even be dangerous.  However, I applaud your right to have me be 
able to freely express my beliefs, odd though they may be to you.

On the other hand, if there's a reasonable, collective social standard 
embraced by all world religions and most non-believers in any faith, it 
would be that deliberately harming someone in the expression of another's 
religious belief is wrong.  I would call it sin, some would call it cruel, 
others would call it unloving -- but we would all agree it's wrong.  So, 
then, if an 8-year-old girl is raised in a village in which the male elders 
believe that her sexual organs and her expression of her sexuality is 
inherently dangerous and evil, they will feel justified in abducting her, 
holding her down, and performing female sexual mutilation to rid themselves 
and her of the "dangers" of her sexuality.  Now, I can argue vehemently in 
favor of the God-given beauty of women, bodies, sexual expression and 
tolerance, but my first job is to rescue the girl and condemn the 
perpetrators.  I could not side with the ultra-religious of that sect in 
saying that all is good if offered to a god, nor could I side with the 
relatavistic atheist who argues that while it's wrong to him (funny, it 
always seems to be a "him"), it's not uniformally wrong, evil, or 
impermissable in certain cultures.  I could only conclude that it's wrong, 
period, and violates a standard that I believe emanates from a Holy God, 
even if others believe that the standard I see comes only from an 
enlightened social consensus.

The former might make me a zealot to some; the latter is fascinating coffee 
house conversation.  But put into practice, they keep "the least of these" 
safe in the face of abuse, and speak truth to the powers who would abuse 
them.   Surely that's not only an irrefutable good, but a belief that should 
be held to be inviolate.

Pun:  "Don't violate" is an inviolate belief.

That's it for now.

keely emerine mix




From: Chasuk <chasuk at gmail.com>
Reply-To: Chasuk <chasuk at gmail.com>
To: Vision2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Subject: [Vision2020] Religious Liberty
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 13:35:39 -0700

I understand that religious freedom is protected legally, but does
that mean that every tenet of a religious belief is unassailable,
verboten, off-limits to debate?  I don't (knowingly) hold any beliefs
which could be described as inviolable, and I don't willingly cede
such protection to any belief, sacred or otherwise.

Certain sadhu have been known to sit for literal years with piles of
human excrement atop their heads.   This is apparently supposed to
enlighten them in some way.  I would unhesitatingly call this belief a
load of shit (obvious pun intended).  Of course, I might be wrong;
maybe I just lack the "faith" to undertake such an experiment myself.
Still, I place my level of concern over my likelihood of error at the
same level that I worry about Zeus appearing in my cereal bowl
tomorrow morning.

Why are absurd beliefs considered "special" just because we label them
religious?  Do any Visioneers have anything enlightening to say on
this matter?

_____________________________________________________
  List services made available by First Step Internet,
  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
                http://www.fsr.net
           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/