Monday, November 03, 2014

Religion vs Rightful Liberty

My political/social opinions on religion pretty much begin and end with whether that religion- put into practice- violates Rightful Liberty.

All religions may have good points and bad points- I'm not familiar with all religions, or everything any of them teach in every instance. I suppose if there were no positives, no one would have ever began following it. I could be wrong.

The ancient texts may advocate horrendous things that the modern followers mostly ignore. In that case, the religion is worse than it's modern followers.

Or, the ancient texts may show a path of rightful liberty and neighborliness the modern followers ignore in order to push an agenda they prefer. In that case the modern followers are worse than their religion.

Both circumstances can even happen simultaneously in the same religion, depending on what part is being focused on.

Or, a religion can be vile, and it's modern followers may follow the vile precepts to the letter while adding their own abominations to it. I think we can all see this happening quite a bit today.

In all my readings of the Bible, I never remember even one instance of Jesus saying "There ought to be a law."

Nor "Vote ye, therefore, for the lesser of two evils so that the laws of the world can be changed in order to bring Heaven on Earth."

Didn't happen, and goes against everything else he is quoted as saying.

If, as a Christian, you try to enshrine your religion as "law", you spit on your religion and on Rightful Liberty.

If, as a Muslim, you try to enforce your religion as "law", you may be following the rules of your religion, but you are still trampling Rightful Liberty- which trumps any religion. Sorry.

In both cases, I will defy you.



  1. What most Americans don't understand, I believe, or if they do, then they actively support it, is that many laws in the United States, from city councils to the federal government, are based on Christian religious beliefs. "We think certain behaviors are immoral, according to our religious beliefs, therefore they should be illegal."

    That's basically "establishment" of religion when the secular government passes laws directly supporting specific religious beliefs. The so-called war on drugs is the result of certain religious groups lobbying Congress to get the Harrison Narcotics Act of 1914 passed. That was at a time when there was no criminal justice problem associated with drug use.

    Peaceful, honest and, especially, consenting adult behavior is in the secular realm and when laws are passed to prohibit such "rightful" behavior, then the law is enforcing a specific religious or personal moral agenda, and the law violated the so-called inalienable rights of those involved in said behavior. I say so-called inalienable rights because inalienable rights are a myth. You only get privileged granted to you by the government.

    Yes, in America we are to do whatever the government allows us to do.

    1. Yep. You have rights, but they are always going to be violated from all sides. What are you going to do about it?

    2. Observation has brought me to believe most individuals will embrace a "religion" because they don't want to examine and catalog and follow their personal beliefs. Some "libertarians" fall into that category when they insist we should all follow what is touted as "the-non-aggression-principle". As if it needs to be posted somewhere by an all-knowing authority.

      In other words, pure mental laziness. I've been guilty of that through much of my life. I dived into "religion" because I was a young Israelite with a rapidly expanding Catholic family that I had no idea how to "control". Much later I came to see that I don't "control" anybody -- especially my own children. I provide leadership (hopefully), but they are each individually in control of herself or himself -- as I am in control of myself.

      If it's going to be, it's up to me. Sam

  2. Trust me, the only real religious issue is when they require you to live under the rules of their religion.

    Or as I asked some folks years ago, "Why does your elightenment require that I sacrifice?"

  3. Neo, you probably know this already, but that's the difference between an individual having a religious view and a spiritual view. The individuals that have a spiritual view don't force anyone else to accept what they think. Although they would be a good person to have an "animated" discussion with. ;)

  4. Now that's an interesting definition. Goes to my thinkum file.