| Author | Message | ||
     Reepicheep |
Well, this whole thread was worth it just for that quote... | ||
| Sifo |
I would agree, this did not have to be about religion. She chose to take that path and it really blew up. Seriously? You think you can separate religion from marriage? That's funny! | ||
| 86129squids |
Thanks, Reep. Glad to share what little wisdom I've accumulated so far. (Message edited by 86129squids on September 10, 2015) | ||
| Blake |
Squids, You gotta be offended to learn? Sorry. I don't see it. Maybe if you were specifically trying to learn tolerance or patience. But what about calculus? "The indefinite integral of cxndx = cx(n+1)/(n+1), you dirty slut!" Hmm, you might be on to something after all.  (Message edited by Blake on September 10, 2015) | ||
| Redbuelljunkie |
Seriously? You think you can separate religion from marriage? That's funny! And there it is. The real basis of this entire ridiculous event. As it has been pointed out over and over again, the issue here is individuals who want to keep others from doing something they don't like. Period. Ending. To help make it more clear, especially for those who still can't seem to grasp it, marriage did not come from "religion" at all- marriage pre-dates recorded history and is a primitive human institution. Any argument attempting to limit marriage to any particular religion, sorry to say, simply falls flat. | ||
| Sifo |
RBJ, you are really stretching. I'm curious where you get your info about the origins of marriage. Not that any of it matters. Marriage has been part of religion for all of recorded history. Our government has only been involved in it for 150 or so years, and has managed to create a crisis out of doing so. More accurately, this is just the current crisis from our government being involved in marriage. The point however, is that marriage is a religious institution. There is no disputing that. Anyone thinking they should somehow be separated is living in the world of unicorns and fairy dust. You are also really stretching when you talk about some argument that limits marriage to a particular religion. That argument simply hasn't been made by anyone involved in this case. Do you even know what's going on? | ||
| Sifo |
 | ||
| Redbuelljunkie |
Sifo, if you could just admit that you support controlling others from doing things that you don't like, we would at least have an honest basis for discussion. Alas, as happens with most religious-based intolerant world views, the mere idea of objectivity is anathema. You doubt the history of marriage? Show me where its basis is in religion, and exactly which religion was that? Why does the history of everything have to conform to your chosen mythology? It just doesn't work that way... unless it's being forced into reality by zealots (which seems to be OK, as long as they're your zealots). Again, I'll choose objectivity with recognition, acceptance, and liberty for everyone (regardless of personal mythology) over subjective, autocratic intolerance based on dogma. Remember, not unlike Voodoo, one's personal mythology should only affect oneself and those who choose to be under its influence. Otherwise, we devolve into religious hegemony, which, as we see today, seems acceptable to most mythologies- as long as it's theirs and not someone else's. | ||
| Xdigitalx |
Is the issue here, individuals that want to force others into doing something (and thinking a certain way) that they don't like? Period? Ending? | ||
| Sifo |
Sifo, if you could just admit that you support controlling others from doing things that you don't like, we would at least have an honest basis for discussion. Alas, as happens with most religious-based intolerant world views, the mere idea of objectivity is anathema. Ironic that in a discussion where I'm saying someone should not be forced to perform an act, and you say they should be forced to perform that act, you accuse me of wanting to control others. Are we having the same discussion? I've argued for less government in our lives pretty consistently, and on this issue specifically, I've suggested getting government out of the marriage business. It's documented in this very thread that I was suggesting that 2 1/2 years ago, long before this case was even developing. Your accusation against me is complete BS. You doubt the history of marriage? Show me where its basis is in religion, and exactly which religion was that? Why does the history of everything have to conform to your chosen mythology? It just doesn't work that way... unless it's being forced into reality by zealots (which seems to be OK, as long as they're your zealots). Marriage is integral to pretty much every religion. To deny that is to deny that the sun rises in the morning. It's not just integral to my religion, but virtually all of them. I'll leave it to you to demonstrate your point however by providing a list of religions that don't have marriage as an integral part of them. I have no clue how you take this to somehow mean that it has to be my religion. That's coming from your small mind. Again, I'll choose objectivity with recognition, acceptance, and liberty for everyone (regardless of personal mythology) over subjective, autocratic intolerance based on dogma. Do yourself a favor and click here and then explain to me how I'm advocating any sort of intolerance to anyone. Your problem, as long as we are getting this personal, is that you refuse to accept the issue for what it is. The issue at hand is someone who has been jailed as a political prisoner for refusing to do as told by a judge because compliance would mean being forced to violate her personal religious convictions. Your insistence that this is about anything else, is I admit, a little bit humorous. Humor at your expense BTW. It's sad that you express such intolerance to those who's religious views you disagree with. You are the very thing that you claim to reject. You are the tyranny of tolerance. | ||
| Redbuelljunkie |
No where have I argued that someone should be forced to perform an act. I have said that someone should be expected to perform the duties required by their job. If they cannot properly carry out their job due to legal inconsistencies, then a third-party solution should be sought. If, however, someone chooses to refuse to do their job based on their own "beliefs" with the intention of stopping someone else from doing something that they don't believe in- they still have choices: 1) Do their job (they cannot be made to do this- it's just an option), 2) Resign (since their "beliefs" are inconsistent with doing their job, why would they want to hold a position that necessitates them going against their chosen beliefs?) 3) Refuse to do anything (the "Bartleby Effect"), where they are unwilling to do their job and are unwilling to have the job done by anyone else. This discussion is based on the fact that option 3 was chosen- I have never said this woman should be forced to do anything. She has chosen to attempt to force the world to adapt to her own mythological predilections- which is obviously inequitable except to those who share her jaundiced view. Of course marriage is integral to religions- I never said it wasn't. What I said is that religion did not "invent" marriage. Mythology has adopted marriage from its progenitor- humans. We are, again, back at the central issue being faced here- an individual attempting to keep others from doing something that they personally don't like. Right or wrong, Sifo? There's no need to bring the history of marriage into it, or states vs federal rights, constitutional law, taxes, or anything else at the periphery of what's really happening here. The only important fact is that an individual in a position of power has declared that they will not allow others to do something that they personally don't like. It's that simple. I am not suggesting that she should be forced to do anything other than stop forcing others to be restricted by her own personal beliefs. If she's against same-sex marriage, fine- just don't expect to be able to "stop them" through the misuse of her elected position. She's no one's "prisoner" but her own- she can either do her job or let someone else do it. She chose neither. "Tyranny of tolerance" you say? Can you point out exactly where along the spectrum of "tolerance" it's acceptable to be? You seem tolerant of anyone up to the point of intruding on your own personal mythology. I support tolerating everyone, as long as they aren't impeding someone else. This is really simple, straight-forward stuff. | ||
| Sifo |
We are, again, back at the central issue being faced here- an individual attempting to keep others from doing something that they personally don't like. Right or wrong, Sifo? And this is simply where you are wrong on the facts of the case. She has suggested a number of alternatives for those who want to be wed. She has suggested that they may simply go to a different county. But she has also asked for help from her Governor and state legislature. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/kim-davis-kentucky-cle rk-supreme-court-same-sex-marriage-ruling-jail/
Perhaps the Governor should be tossed in jail for not providing a solution. That's sarcasm for those who don't get it BTW. The bottom line though, is that the facts simply do not support what you are claiming, that Davis is attempting to prevent gays from being married. She simply doesn't want to have a part in that event, based on her faith. Simply put, in your 3 options, she chose option 4) look for alternative solutions that will allow gays to be married without her consent, because she has a religious objection to providing consent for gay marriages. This is a situation that was thrust upon her, not one that she sought to be in. On a separate note, the above cited article also has this...
So it seems to be confirmed that someone actually went far out of their way to create this entire fiasco. Yes, it's the tyranny of tolerance. | ||
| Redbuelljunkie |
To use your own words, because I grow weary of repeating the obvious: "...that the facts simply do not support... that Davis is attempting to prevent gays from being married... she chose... solutions that will allow gays to be married without her consent, because she has a religious objection to providing consent for gay marriages." Let's dissect this: her job is to issue marriage licenses, she does not "consent" to same-sex marriage, she wants to keep her job but will not issue licenses to same sex couples, if she refuses to do her job (and refuses to let her office to her job) there will be no licenses issued, she claims to not be against same-sex marriage but will not allow it to happen under her authority, and, one more time- it is only under her authority that marriage licenses will be issued. So, she's not against same-sex marriage but will not allow it to happen. And someone else created this fiasco, huh? Where, exactly are you confused about this, Sifo? | ||
| Aesquire |
Just so we are clear. An official who is sworn to uphold the Constitution, and local law, is told to break that law by edict of a Court. If said official refused to return escaped slaves, because local law does not allow slavery, but the Court orders those slaves returned to their owners..... she should quit? Or break local law and her religious beliefs? Or fight and go to jail? Of course the two cases are nowhere the same, except the legal part. That analogy is darn close. Bad law is bad law. Honorable men and women must fight bad laws or knuckle under. Remember "don't ask don't tell"? Typical Clinton dishonesty on display. It's like Bill figured "Wouldn't it be great if Hillary couldn't ask me when I'm cheating?" Then began a truly bizarre chapter in military law where a forbidden act was fine as long as you didn't admit it, get caught, or get informed on... THEN you were persecuted & prosecuted. Real heroes stripped of rank and pensions because a fundamentally dishonest man was Commander and institutionalized dishonest behavior. Bad law. Dred-Scott was bad law. Even if I'm for freedom of marriage from recent Euro-centric restrictions, this Court decision may be bad law. How much individual freedom must be lost to please a tiny minority? Of course that goes both ways. Both gays and evangelicals are a minority. Should the minority in power be allowed to destroy the one not? | ||
| Crusty |
Well; I see there's still no shortage of self righteous hatred on political threads here. The Land Of the Free should only be free to people who are exactly like me. Right? | ||
| Aesquire |
To be perfectly clear. If this Clerk was issuing marriage licenses to black people who want to marry white people in defiance of Court and local law........ I'd be comfortable supporting her. Or to "same sex couples" or po lyandry trios. ( darn autocorrect ) I'm supporting the struggle against bad law. Not the clerk. You want to get Into the religious aspects, go for it. I'm not a good enough Biblical scholar to do more than point out group marriage is in the Bible. Mostly old testament, where we have many rules for living together that are good. Some obsolete, some horrible. | ||
| Sifo |
Let's dissect this: her job is to issue marriage licenses No. Her job is county clerk. One very small part of that job is issuing marriage licenses. County clerk has many other duties. As is typical in a situation where a person has a very small part of a job that they, for any variety of reasons, can not perform, she has asked for a reasonable accommodation for this one very small part of her job. In cases with private companies, the court has quite consistently sided on the side of the worker when the "reasonable accommodation" involves a religious issue. There's not much unusual about all of this up to this point. What is unusual, and unfortunate, is the Governor has decided to not provide any reasonable accommodation in this case. This is the stuff that lawsuits are made of. The Governor could have done a simple fix with an executive order, until it is addressed by the legislative branch. All of this BTW, is due to a change in her job requirements, not a change in her willingness to do her job. All of this is out of her control. It matters not if you, me, or anyone else is in agreement with her religious beliefs. it is only under her authority that marriage licenses will be issued. Again, you go to what is factually untrue. In KY alone, there are 119 other county clerks that have the authority to issue marriage licenses. I haven't looked up the number in Ohio, where the complainant chose to drive from to be "victimized" in this case. Seriously, can you deny that this is someone looking to be a victim? Yet you blame the clerk for turning this into a circus. Quite rich! So, she's not against same-sex marriage but will not allow it to happen. How do you manage to be so wrong on the basic facts? To the best of my understanding, and at the crux of the entire issue, she is against same sex marriage. You also manage to be completely wrong on the second part. She will allow it to happen, she just is unwilling to be a participant. Honestly, you are sounding like Hillary when she said "wipe the server? You mean like with a cloth?". You can't really be this obtuse in real life, can you? She has actually asked her government, who happens to be her employer, to provide a solution that will allow gay marriages to happen without her participation. I really don't know what more anyone could expect her to do in this case. | ||
| Aesquire |
The Land Of the Free should only be free to people who are exactly like me. Right? That was the original intent of both Marriage licenses, and gun control. Anti-black people laws. Segregation, "separate & equal", "saturday night special" laws, All promoted and pushed by One Party. ( hint, the party of The Confederacy ) I'm a vocal pro-alt marriage guy. Over an expanding area of the planet, polygamy is on the rise. In a world of lower pay and higher taxes, it's far more common for both parents to work, so group marriage has good points. Also "same sex" marriage fits Conservative ideals. More stability, less promiscuity, thus less disease & expense to society as a whole.... just like opposite sex marriages. Or marriages of Convenience. ( like Bill and Hill.... where the Promiscuity thing hasn't worked out that well.... ) | ||
| Sifo |
Someone earlier made the point that while these marriages signed under duress may technically not be valid contracts, a judge would likely never simply invalidate them because of the duress. I agree that it would be very unlikely for a judge to do such a thing on their own. What is far more likely is that a divorce lawyer will find it beneficial to their client to make the claim that there was never a valid marriage in the first place, bringing into evidence the contract signed under duress. At that point, a judge should be a decider of fact, and would have to concede that a contract formed under duress of one of the parties is not a valid contract. Where does this leave the other party to the "marriage"? Likely screwed. It can be worth looking forward to see where decisions like this will go. Change brought about by this sort of brute force tyranny seldom work out well in the long run. Sadly, this entire episode with the county clerk had opportunity for a resolution that would have satisfied all sides. That opportunity was disregarded. I know little of Kentucky's Governor, but I wonder how he is spinning this locally. | ||
| Torquehd |
Show me where its basis is in religion, and exactly which religion was that? The first recorded marriage. Ever. God designed it: Gen 2:21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. 23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. This really comes down to - where does your morality come from? If man is god, then we can make any law we want. If we're not god (and trust me, i'm not. neither are you), we'd better figure out who He is, and what He expects of us. And not try to live like we're God. It never works out in the end. Edit: Marriage is a very big problem with the theory of evolution. At some point, that blob (whose very existence defies the second law of thermodynamics) had to make a switch from being able to replicate itself (which... how many trillions of trillions of single celled organisms had to be "sparked" to life, without the ability to reproduce, before one was "sparked" with the correct coding that enabled self-replication???), to finding someone to marry. Someone whose plumbing was perfectly complimentary to his own. and not only was the plumbing just perfect, but the genetic coding for reproduction was already in place (in both male and female). (Accidentally). (and not only did Blob have to make the switch, but sexual reproduction had to be more efficient and productive than asexual reproduction). And that child had to survive (mortality rate?), and find other blobs who also fit their plumbing and coding perfectly. And somehow, out of all of that, morality evolved too. (reproducing with multiple women is somehow more "fittest" than reproducing with only one woman?) To quote Richard Dawkins, "Biology is the study of complex things that appear to have been designed for a purpose." (Can purpose come from accident? No. Accidents that coincide are still only accidents; purpose indicates an intention. A direction from an outside force). And the accidental purpose of marriage is? (definitely not survival of the fittest - sewing the wild seed yields way more offspring than monogamy. Does marriage make any sense without morality? (Message edited by torquehd on September 11, 2015) | ||
| Pwnzor |
Amen, brother. | ||
| Pwnzor |
I love it when people who have never read the bible pretend to know any damn thing about religion. It's not like he'd have had to read very far... that's like page 2 or 3 depending on the size of the print. | ||
| Redbuelljunkie |
Torquehd & Pwnzor, it's great that you are happy with your chosen mythology- especially since it appropriately provides all the answers for you in a neat and tidy fashion (albeit with many inconsistencies). I'm all for it. As I am with anyone who finds the answers they are looking for in whatever mythology they choose. Interesting that a similar thread in most mythologies is that, by design, each is the "real" truth- and all the others are wrong. Interesting how that works, huh? I was blessed by being born in America, was raised in the Presbyterian Church (Pre-K, Sunday school, grammar school- the whole routine), then graduated from an Episcopalian high school. My daughter was baptised in the Baptist church, and graduated from a Catholic high school. I am not unfamiliar with Christian teachings. What I'm very aware of, however, is that Christian teachings are only one of many teachings, and it would be erroneous of me to claim that one or the other of these teachings is "the truth". From my point of view, they all contain wisdom and truth, but countervail their own credibility when claiming they alone are the only "real" truth. It would have been easy to have just thoughtlessly accepted the stories I'd been indoctrinated with from my earliest memories, but I had fundamental questions that were never acceptably answered- and that bothered me from an early age. When I later learned that there were other people, just like me, in other parts of the world, being told similar stories but with different names, places, and cultures, who were expected to believe that their narrative was "the truth" while mine was not, is when my eyes were truly opened. What was my realization? That I don't have the answers, and I am free to choose the mythology that best suits me. But whatever I choose it is for me and me only, I will always respect the fact that the choices others make are for them, and I will never claim that "I'm right and they're wrong"- especially considering it's just a choice out of many options. Torquehd, I understand that the mythology you've chosen, like all the others, cleverly accounts for history prior to its own existence. It makes sense for them to- it lessens the amount of convincing required. The difference between us is that you are stating your mythology to be "the truth", "the facts", and everyone who disagrees with you is "wrong". I'm saying that you're free to choose your myth, Pwnzor is free to choose his, I can choose mine- but no matter what someone chooses I will always respect and understand that they're all choices of options- not one of them is "right" and therefore all others are necessarily "wrong". Have respect for fellow human beings and their freedom of thought- accept that you may be just as wrong as you're convinced the "other" guy is. Sifo, be it a small part or big part of her job makes no difference- it's part of her job. Again, I reiterate that bringing attention to a legal impasse is a totally different situation from stating "I will not condone same-sex marriage" from someone in an elected position of power. I completely support her right to interpret her mythology to believe same-sex marriage as wrong, but again, it is not within her right to control the actions of others who are not bound by her personal beliefs. Yes, the legal solution is out of her control and must be dealt with to rectify the situation, but there's a difference between saying "I will not participate" and "It will not happen in my office- by anyone". See the difference? It is not within her authority to administer morality as she sees fit as if the citizens are under her dominion. You have to accept and respect the fact that your beliefs are for you, and others are free to live their lives free from you attempting to enforce your own mythology on them. If the time comes where you are instructed to do something against your beliefs, extricating yourself from the situation (getting out of the way) so the onus is no longer on you is the proper choice, especially so to avoid limiting others- is defensible. However, using your position of power in order to stop something from happening that you personally disagree with is a totally different action- and is not defensible. Aesquire, inter-racial marriages would be an appropriate comparison, escaped slaves or any type of physical injustice is an inappropriate comparison. BTW- the bible represents only a fraction of "religion". Only someone who is a scholar of all religions would be able to "pretend to know any damn thing about religion". Again, the despotic tendentiousness of religion rears its ugly head- as if "your" religion is the only one that encompasses "Religion", and retains "all the truth". Remind me again, which religion is it that has a lock on morality? Because morality wouldn't exist without that religion, right? | ||
| Sifo |
Yes, the legal solution is out of her control and must be dealt with to rectify the situation, but there's a difference between saying "I will not participate" and "It will not happen in my office- by anyone". See the difference? Again, you are wrong in your "facts". She is the one with the authority to authorize the licenses for her county. Her deputies only have that authority through her. It is her name that goes on the marriage license, not the name of the deputy that she has authorized. You twist and twist the facts of this case, but the facts won't change to suit your desires. Again, she had asked for a solution where someone else would have the authority over these marriage licenses. That request was ignored. Reasonable accommodations are made for employees all the time. Just yesterday I helped out a fellow driver move something on her bus because she has restrictions from a recent surgery. I guess our boss could be an idiot and demand that if she can't complete a single task that would normally fall upon her, that she must be terminated. We have another driver who claims to be allergic to diesel fumes and they always have shop personnel fuel her bus for her. I think it's all BS, but our company has worked out accommodations for her, despite her being "unable" to perform a task that drivers are "required" to perform. In this case, we are talking about an accommodation for a belief that is protected in our Constitution. What's the big deal with making such an accommodation? Is jailing her the correct response for her asking for this accommodation? Personally, I would love to see the lawsuit(s) that can come from this clusterf*ck. You claim to respect other peoples beliefs, while call them myths. I call BS on your claims of respect. You certainly have demonstrated no respect for Kim Davis's beliefs. This is the tyranny of tolerance. | ||
| Pwnzor |
I had fundamental questions that were never acceptably answered If you actually read the book, you'll get the answers you seek. Read the ancillary texts of the period as well. They explain everything in great detail. You can't just read it once. You can't possibly absorb it all by skimming through it. I don't think you understand what respect is, because you surely are not displaying it here. Accept Christ, and you are saved. Forgive, and be forgiven. Love, and be loved. | ||
| Aesquire |
I can see the anger at "Christians" who are taught it's wrong for gays to marry. Can we see the same for "Muslims" who torture and murder gays in the name of their Prophet? I'd cheerfully argue the cause of alt marriage. I can even talk the talk of the atheists who ( if they were smarter ) can point out that Old Testament rules are often ignored by New Testament followers. Eating shellfish? Old and obsolete. Death penalty for wool linen blends? You're kidding, right? Where genitalia is put? Old rabbi stuff. But that cause is not the thing I see. It's that some will excuse anything or cheer anyone, no matter how craven and dishonest, who is on their side in a cause, and will condemn anyone, no matter how brave or noble, who is not. | ||
| Hootowl |
Ignored is not quite the correct word. Parts of the Old testament have been overruled by the New, based on the teachings of Christ. | ||
| Redbuelljunkie |
Sifo, are the facts that she asked to be removed from responsibility for allowing same-sex marriages to take place- as in somebody else in her office could approve of same-sex marriages, and then she'd have no issue with it? Please cite facts. Are the facts that she was then told she either had to approve them or go to jail- no one else would be allowed to do it? Please site facts. Did she ask to allow anyone, anywhere, other than herself to approve same-sex marriage licenses because she had no issue with that- she just didn't want her name attached to it? Please cite facts. Did she go to jail only because she, and only she, was authorized to approve marriage licenses? There was no other way for them to be approved- no other person, no other entity, no matter what she did the court insisted that: "You, and only you can approve these licenses, no one else will be allowed to do it, and you're not even allowed to quit over this- you will do it or else." Is that how it went down? Please cite facts. If you could clearly and precisely provide the facts of what really happened so we don't have to hear you tell us we have the wrong facts- that will save a lot of typing from here on out. Please don't spare any details, if it is truly so cut-and-dried. If these facts are so self-evident, maybe this entire thread could have been negated from the beginning. Show me how this poor woman had no reasonable recourse but to go to jail, and I'll admit I'm wrong. I have no issue admitting when I'm wrong, because I always strive for objective truth- and adjust my perspective accordingly. Did I call anyone's belief BS? Did I not say that everyone is free to choose their own belief set? Are you taking offense to the use of the terms "myth" and "mythology"? Really? myth miTH noun 1.a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events. my·thol·o·gy məˈTHäləjē noun 1.a collection of myths, especially one belonging to a particular religious or cultural tradition. There is no disrespect, especially when using the correct terminology. Please demonstrate how I have shown no respect for Kim Davis. I have only asked that she show as much respect to people she disagrees with as they show to her. What power over her are marriage license applicants exerting over her? What are they asking for other than for her office to do its job? They just want a freakin' marriage license. Who cares if it's got her name on it or not- that only seems to matter to her. And don't regurgitate the specious "go somewhere else" argument- they shouldn't have to. Were it not for one individual's obstructionism, they would have their licenses. Oh, and I see you continue to be amused with your catch phrase "tyranny of tolerance", as if it actually made sense. (Message edited by redbuelljunkie on September 11, 2015) | ||
| Reepicheep |
 | ||
| Redbuelljunkie |
Pwnzor, do you acknowledge that there are people with texts they know are as righteous as yours, that are absolutely as confident as you are they they are right and you are wrong? Let me guess that your response would be- "yes, but I am right and they are wrong". Are you capable of being intellectually honest with yourself? How do you accommodate this contradiction? Can you not see that they are exactly the same as you, only with a different myth? Are you somehow right for being raised with your mythology, and they're doomed for having theirs? Of course, it's the exact opposite for them. Oh, let me guess- it's not their fault for being wrong, they can be saved by disavowing what they know and believing in your truth. Of course, that works for them too. I guess it's just a good example of the basic human need for answers, the deeply-rooted desire to be "right", and the innate ambition of wanting to be on the winning team. I search for my own answers based on all the wisdom that's available. No one has a lock on any of it. The mere fact of the claim that knowledge or wisdom is restricted to specific mythologies and reserved for certain people exposes a predilection for that very "enlightenment" to be human-centered, not metaphysically-centered. I am sincerely happy that you have found your peace. Can you have the decency to admit that your truth is the choice you made, and that other's choices are as real for them as yours is for you? No right, no wrong- just your choice and other's choices. Think what a world this could be if people could just accept their own truths, and let others have theirs- without interference. |
