“The Only Proper Use of Aggression is to Protect One’s Rights or the Rights of Others” – The Book of Rabyd 1:7
Thoughts and Exposition:
The Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) is stated many ways but the basic gist of it is a combination of “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” and “love your neighbor as yourself”. Every major religion in the world has something like this in it, but then all of them turn around and use fraud or even force to control others.
So leaving religion behind, it is simply that people have their rights and no one should use violence or lies to take them away. If someone or group of someones does use violence to try to take rights away, the NAP simply states that the person whose rights are being threatened or people around them who see that their rights are being threatened have the right then to use violence in return in defense.
Aggression is further defined as the use of physical force, threatening the use of force or fraud. This is not pacifism as the use of force or even the threat of force is allowable in actions that involve self-defense or the defense of others. There are other types of force but the NAP is about physical force, threat of physical force or fraud.
This means a lot of other areas where things are about influence, politics and other types of force are not necessarily covered by the NAP. However, if one thinks on this that means that much of what government does is a violation of this principle. This really limits how much the government should do and puts it clear focus on the government as the force that protects the rights of its citizens and does not threaten them with force or trick people out of their rights through fraud.
On a personal level, this means that if I were to act in a violent manner, that means the one who I am acting on has made a decision to violate my rights or the rights of another person. Other than that, it is never right for me to initiate violence and it is certainly never right for me to engage in fraud. This part is actually more challenging in many ways than gripping about government. One must always be first concerned that you are following the NAP before you judge others on their following it. It is more a philosophy of personal responsibility than anything else.
Following the NAP leads to a practical morality. There is nothing more frustrating on the one hand than people who, because of their politics, religion or other beliefs, think they have the right or force their viewpoint on others through law, violence or fraud. One the flip side, it is also frustrating to watch people stand aside while violence or fraud is perpetrated and they do nothing about it. The NAP gives us a principle to guide us. It is not perfect, but it is a lot better all others I have found so far and far more practically useful.
The Rabyd Skald – Wandering Soul, Bard and Philosopher. The Grey Wayfarer.
We don’t pray here – we figure God, the gods and goddesses, or whatever powers that be either know already, don’t give a fuck, or are busy with more important matters than our petty stuff. We also kind of assume that they expect us to do stuff that we can do for ourselves, and that we will do them ourselves and not be lazy. We also believe in being good friends, so we don’t presume on our friendship with the powers that be by asking them all the time for stuff while giving them nothing in return.
We also don’t take an offering here. We figure the powers that be probably don’t need it. Let’s be honest, offerings are not giving to the divine powers, they are given to an organization to support it. Just being honest. God, the gods or whatever never see a dime, farthing or peso of that money; it all goes to the church, mosque or shrine.
Opening Song: ‘Paranoid” – Black Sabbath
Considered widely to be the first metal band and this one of the first metal songs. I start by giving Black Sabbath props for being trail blazers.
Poem: “Unknown” – The Ruined Man
The problem with being real is being hated. The problem with being fake is you’re a lying coward.
Meditation:
Song of Preparation: “Non-Aggression Principle” – Liberation Animation
I love this song, it is a fun. It also introduces today’s topic very well.
Text:
‘The Only Proper Use of Aggression is to Protect One’s Rights or the Rights of Others’ – The Book of Rabyd 1:7
Sermon:
The Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) is stated many ways but the basic gist of it is a combination of “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” and “love your neighbor as yourself”. Every major religion in the world has something like this in it, but then all of them turn around and use fraud or even force to control others.
So leaving religion behind, it is simply that people have their rights and no one should use violence or lies to take them away. If someone or group of someones does use violence to try to take rights away, the NAP simply states that the person whose rights are being threatened or people around them who see that their rights are being threatened have the right then to use violence in return in defense.
Aggression is further defined as the use of physical force, threatening the use of force or fraud. This is not pacifism as the use of force or even the threat of force is allowable in actions that involve self-defense or the defense of others. There are other types of force but the NAP is about physical force, threat of physical force or fraud.
This means a lot of other areas where things are about influence, politics and other types of force are not necessarily covered by the NAP. However, if one thinks on this that means that much of what government does is a violation of this principle. This really limits how much the government should do and puts it clear focus on the government as the force that protects the rights of its citizens and does not threaten them with force or trick people out of their rights through fraud.
On a personal level, this means that if I were to act in a violent manner, that means the one who I am acting on has made a decision to violate my rights or the rights of another person. Other than that, it is never right for me to initiate violence and it is certainly never right for me to engage in fraud. This part is actually more challenging in many ways than gripping about government. One must always be first concerned that you are following the NAP before you judge others on their following it. It is more a philosophy of personal responsibility than anything else.
Following the NAP leads to a practical morality. There is nothing more frustrating on the one hand than people who, because of their politics, religion or other beliefs, think they have the right or force their viewpoint on others through law, violence or fraud. One the flip side, it is also frustrating to watch people stand aside while violence or fraud is perpetrated and they do nothing about it. The NAP gives us a principle to guide us. It is not perfect, but it is a lot better all others I have found so far and far more practically useful.
Closing Song: ‘Dizzy’ – Tommy Roe
I include this song this week because it was the popular song on the radio the day I was born. My 50th birthday was this last week so this is more nostalgia than anything else. I like the video of a 1960s girl in a short skirt doing the 1960s dancing. Couldn’t fit that era more if you tried.
Parting Thought:
Be yourself. If people can’t handle it, that is their problem, not yours.
I remain,
The Rabyd Skald – Wandering Soul, Bard and Philosopher. The Grey Wayfarer.
I still very much embrace Deism as the most rational way to approach the subject of the divine. I think the notion that there is no god is just as irrational as the theist or religion who thinks he/she has god locked down. The great challenge for me as a deist is to deal with the subject of the divine using only reason and natural revelation as a guide. Heavy emphasis on the reason part because natural revelation is still subject to human interpretation.
Epicurus’ argument against God is pretty well-known and I still have some of the same problems with it as I had as a Christian. In fact much of my arguments against it have not changed because even back then the defense against philosophy is not theology, it is more philosophy. Most notably Epicurus assumes his definition of all-powerful, etc. are locked down and cannot be challenged. He seeks basically to win the argument about god through definition which is an argument from authority based on the authority of the definition. What his argument does do is present the rational contentions about the divine that need to be addressed very concisely and in a logically sound manner.
This is actually one time where the Eye lines up pretty good with each part of Epicurus’ argument. So….
Time to Look Through the Eye:
Faith:
If he is able but not willing? He is malevolent
I find it interesting that Epicurus engages in faith at this point. He has faith that there is such a thing as malevolence or beneficence and assumes that god must be one or the other. Such definition really lose their meaning if you dismiss notions of good and evil and realize there might be a rational reason why a supreme being might create and then move on. As George Carlin points out – God may simply not give a shit. He may be a creator, but it does not imply that he is malevolent simply because he refuses to do something about ‘evil’. He may simply also look at humanity and say – “you did this shit to yourselves and you have the capability to get yourself out, take responsibility for the ‘evil’ and suffering you have caused and fix it yourselves.”
I actually think this is the strongest argument for polytheism. That the reason we see so many problems in the world, is it was created by a committee. Just saying.
My faith is that if there is a god or gods or whatever, that they are creators but not necessarily cosmic babysitters. Like good parents he/she or they want us to grow up and tackle our own problems and we can’t learn how to do that effectively without struggle.
Religion:
If God is neither able or willing, then why call him God?
Actually because the definition of ‘god’ is much broader than “Omni” classifications. We also use the term ‘god’ to describe beings of great power and use a small ‘g’. It is religion that paint god as all-powerful in the sense that he can do anything, but there may be laws to the universe that prevent the divine from acting and they may as pointed out above, not give a shit. It doesn’t stop them from being more powerful than anything else and thus deserving the title of ‘god’.
Theology:
If God is wiling to prevent, but not able. Then he is not omnipotent.
I like to point out at this point that Epicurus does not eliminate god with this statement as some atheists claim. It just shows that perhaps human conception of the ideas of omnipotent, omniscient, etc. might not be properly defined. So such a god could exist with all the power that actually exists, knowing everything in the way it is knowable and be present in all places that actually exist. Yes, these ideas create a powerful being worthy of being called god, but there are limits here. Such limits make the normal understanding of omnipotence in need of adjustment, but it doesn’t make such a god not possible or lacking in existence. All this statement really does is point out that our definitions might be in need of change.
Spirituality:
If he is both able and willing? Where does evil come from?
Moral evil is easy to justify if you use freewill as a defense and a god who does not interfere because he wants humanity as a whole to learn and grow. It may not be logically possible to have freewill without suffering. Natural evil is a little harder to justify. Other than if god is still bound to the laws of the universe, then the laws of physics make natural ‘evil’ simple existent and God may very much be a powerful being who fights these forces but cannot do everything. Rationally, the god that actually exists might have limits – both because the laws of the universe place those limits or those limits might be self-imposed because it is not always wise to interfere.
Conclusion:
I am not saying Epicurus is wrong. He may very well be right and God is a figment of human imagination. I respect the atheist position but I find it personally a little extreme because of human ignorance of the universe. His argument actually forms a lot of rational response for deism as it must address these issues to have a rational reason for belief in the divine’s existence. His argument guides the search for the rational god because the questions are valid. That said, I do, as a theologian, see the irony of accepting certain theological definitions in order to make your argument against the existence of god, when those definitions themselves can be challenged.
For me the search for the rational God is part of the journey that I walk. But as a pagan, it is not my only criteria.
Continuing to Walk the Path,
The Rabyd Skald – Wandering Soul, Bard and Philosopher. The Grey Wayfarer.
We don’t pray here – we figure God, the gods and goddesses, or whatever powers that be either know already, don’t give a fuck, or are busy with more important matters than our petty stuff. We also kind of assume that they expect us to do stuff that we can do for ourselves, and that we will do them ourselves and not be lazy. We also believe in being good friends, so we don’t presume on our friendship with the powers that be by asking them all the time for stuff while giving them nothing in return.
We also don’t take an offering here. We figure the powers that be probably don’t need it. Let’s be honest, offerings are not giving to the divine powers, they are given to an organization to support it. Just being honest. God, the gods or whatever never see a dime, farthing or peso of that money; it all goes to the church, mosque or shrine.
Opening Song:“Mr. Roboto” – Styx
I was joking this week with my daughter about using this song as a song about my grandson Otto. All I would have to do is change the words a little to make this song about him. That said, this actually is a pretty cool song made for a rock opera that dealt with dystopian future where rock and roll as well as other forms of free expression are outlawed. Styx always was very good and their vocalist has a ton of range in this one.
Poem: “The Storm” by Edward W. Raby, Sr.:
Wind, grey skies and pouring rain.
The Storm rages in my soul.
Fed by my inner pain.
Will I ever be whole?
Lightning flashes
Thunder rolls
I tighten my grip on the staff of my reality
Knowing only the treading of my feet
Boots grinding through grey mud
Soaked in sorrow, but my heart closed
Numb to the cold of The Grey
I struggle onward, not daring to feel
Lest my tears join the flood
And drown me in the rising tide.
I walk with the hope of seeing sunlight
I walk with the hope of feeling love
But right now, I feel nothing
So I will survive.
Soon, the wolf within will rise
The ravens will caw again
when the light breaks through.
Then I will laugh,
Once again I have become the storm
And I have become stronger
Note: This is still in rough draft form, but it is good enough I think to at least post it. It needs refining but I like how it captures my struggles with depression at times. I will probably present this poem in it own post when it is more refined.
Meditation:
Song of Preparation: “It’s My Life” – Bon Jovi
Text:
Everyone has the Right to Property – The Book of Rabyd 1:5
Sermon:
This is a new verse for the Book of Rabyd. Most people don’t realize that the original Declaration of Independence had originally ‘life. liberty and property’. Later editing changed it to the pursuit of happiness. But the idea of the inherent right to property to anyone who owns it is something that has not always been recognized in history. That changed with the Founding fathers as the notion of people having a right to translate their right to pursue their happiness. As Ayn Rand wisely pointed out this means the right to property.
I would argue that this right is what defends the others as well. Your Life. liberty and Pursuit of Happiness are yours and now one should be allowed to take them away from you. This means you also have the right to defend what is yours. But ownership of property being a right extends to all things that are yours. The most important of which is ownership of self. Self-ownership means to take responsibility for yourself and your own destiny instead of leaving in the hands of others. You need to exercise your right to own private property to do this.
I often wonder if those who try to attack this right realize that what they are doing allows people to basically take away all the others. If my life is not mine, if my liberty is only granted and can be taken away, if my pursuit of happiness requires that someone else give it to me, then they are not rights but privileges. The right to property is what brings in this concept of ownership of not only my stuff but my rights.
To think otherwise is to have the mentality of the thief and the societal leach. I make no apologies for saying this. I people have the notion that other people don’t have a right to property, then they are perfectly OK with the notion that such property can be taken away. They also have no problem when people have their property taken from hem through taxation so they can be supported. In short they envision people can think and work but the results in part belong to them even though they have done nothing to earn them. This justifies their stealing it or letting others do it for them.
So we turn again to abortion. The seeming conflict is that the woman has her right to liberty and pursuit what will make her happy. The notion being that the fetus is her body and she owns it so she can dispose of it as she sees fit. The opposite side of the coin is that the child has he right to live and pursuit its happiness by living. The real issue is it possible for one person to really own another and I would say that there is some inherent ownership of ones’ self in such a right to property.
For me the question of abortion has long been a sticky one. As a Christian I had pretty clear guidelines, but it was still troubling at times. Mostly because reality is that natural abortion happens all the time and with far more frequency than people think. Most are never known to even exist.
Post-Christian, the issues now falls to whether the fetus is a person. If not, the nit has no right to ownership of self and all the other rights that go with that. If yes, then he/she does and they have those rights. I am not sure I can answer the question definitively at this point but I still maintain that liberty and life are important in equal measure. I hope the choice is life, because I consider abortion a waste of human potential, if nothing else.
The real question for me is should the state be allowed to interfere? Once again we are still left to determining when a person becomes a person and the answer seems clear. Given all our rights and the notion of self-ownership, if the fetus can be proven to be a person then the answer is yes, but if not we still find ourselves in a controversy. It seems with all the advances in science, we should be able to determine this. Then the right to property with its concept of self-ownership kicks in. This still doesn’t give us a clear answer but we have two more principles left so we shall see.
Closing Song: Amen – Halestorm:
Parting Thought:
I remain,
The Rabyd Skald – Wandering Soul, Bard and Philosopher. The Grey Wayfarer.
We don’t pray here – we figure God, the gods and goddesses, or whatever powers that be either know already, don’t give a fuck, or are busy with more important matters than our petty stuff. We also kind of assume that they expect us to do stuff that we can do for ourselves, and that we will do them ourselves and not be lazy. We also believe in being good friends, so we don’t presume on our friendship with the powers that be by asking them all the time for stuff while giving them nothing in return.
We also don’t take an offering here. We figure the powers that be probably don’t need it. Let’s be honest, offerings are not giving to the divine powers, they are given to an organization to support it. Just being honest. God, the gods or whatever never see a dime, farthing or peso of that money; it all goes to the church, mosque or shrine.
Opening Song: Never Give Up – Motivational Video
I don’t normally post motivational videos but I do listen to them from time to time. I think I might consider creating a morning playlist as I write. This might be the one to kick it off.
Poem: ‘Go Get it’ – Will Smith – From the movie The Pursuit of Happiness.
Meditation:
Song of Preparation: “Happy” – Pharrell Williams
Text:
“Everyone has the Right to Pursuit Happiness” – The Book of Rabyd 1:4
Sermon:
Will Smith has a great line in the movie “The Pursuit of Happiness”. He centers on the idea of how the founding fathers has enough wisdom to put in the word ‘pursuit’. This is what is often forgotten in this right. You do not have the right to be happy. You do have the right to pursue what will make you happy or what you think will make you happy. It does not include a safety net where the government bails you out if you fail.
I suppose it should be argued at this point that this right is equal to the other two already stated of life and liberty. The issue here is that some people will be champion of people’s life and liberty, but then involve themselves in the affairs of others in such a way as to either meddle or try to restrict other’s pursuit of happiness by law or ordinance. They think they know what would make others happy and try to use force or influence to make it so.
Truthfully, the respect for this right in others is the biggest litmus test of whether you genuinely treat people as human beings or objects. The person who can see what would be better for someone else but does not act because he or she respects that person’s right to pursue their own happiness is a person who also is seeing them as a human being, not as something to manipulate.
I have been using the abortion debate throughout this discussion so I will use it again here. The conflict is simple I think because a woman might argue that having a child would not be in line with her pursuit of happiness. The counter argument then comes that you are violating the child or fetus’ right to live. On the front of pursuit of happiness both have this right and so we are still at draw.
If we are truly seeing the two rights as equals then we are pretty much left in a stalemate and so the issue falls to other things. In abortion, we have a conflict of rights but the question is which right has superiority over others. If we give certain rights superiority over others then how can we say we are treating them all equally? Some other factor, must come into play to settle this quandary, and it may be Rabyd 1:5 which we will talk about in the next week.
For me personally this is why I try to conduct myself (and I hope my family conducts themselves with the idea as well) of not meddling in other people’s affairs. If we do feel we have a better way for people to live that might aid them in their pursuit of happiness; we do not force the issue, but attempt to persuade people to that end. Our goal is not to meddle, but we will certainly act in compassion if we see a need and react if asked to help. Part of respecting the pursuit of happiness is respecting the need for people to struggle through that issue on their own. To impose my view of what I think would make them happy on them would be wrong. It is wrong because it does not recognize the other person’s humanity or their right to pursuit what they believe will make them happy.
Closing Song: “Tacky” – Weird Al Yankovic
Having a little fun to end it. Weird Al in a classic. Have a laugh and pursuit what you feel will make you happy. It is your right.
Parting Thought:
A crude statement I suppose, but true. In your pursuit of happiness – be careful to not be drawn into things that will get you off the path. For instance, by giving a fuck about certain people who you suspect don’t give as much a fuck about you as you do them. Just keep walking toward your happiness.
I remain,
The Rabyd Skald – Wandering Soul, Bard and Philosopher. The Grey Wayfarer.
The Wayfarer’s Spiritual Side. This post and those titled like it to follow in the future are largely just me looking through the Eye, so to speak at my own spirituality. To gaze into my own spiritual journey and come up with some observations I hope will be helpful to me as I continue to walk my life.
I would say that the two great struggles I have had since leaving my religion and my ministry have firstly been to adapt to the change and secondly try to find some way to achieve balance spiritually speaking.
I suppose part of the problem is defining my spirituality:
I want my spirituality to be my own journey of discovery. That is why religion and I have a problem. That is, I see all of them as being someone else’s journey of discovery that other people follow.
I want my spirituality to embrace all that I am in balance. Reason, Emotion, Relationships, Health (Both mental and physical) and that aspect we call Spirit must all be involved equally. Most of my spirituality is about achieving balance between all these things.
Back to the two struggles, adaptation is a struggle because I am very conscious of the fact that I was engaged in a lot of spiritual activities as a Christian that I would consider irrational now.
I went to church, but I now understand what that was. It was the reinforcement of belief by repetition, not necessarily by coming to understanding the truth, but group think and emotional experience are powerful ways to teach you how to deny what is true.
I prayed, but I have realized that I was probably talking to myself most of the time. Even if there is a god, the way I was conceiving him as I prayed him took on the aspects of my earthly father. it was my concept of god I was praying to, not necessarily the divine power that actually exists.
I worshiped, but that conception of god was my own creation, so I was worshiping my own ability to conceive god. I don’t do a lot of this anymore. I honestly can’t say I miss it much.
I studied the Bible. But this was about repeating something over and over again and when you do that you are just training your mind to think a certain way. Doesn’t mean that way is true or right.
In my adaptation, I don’t want spiritual practices that don’t also leave me open to see possibilities I may not have considered or get me to be dogmatically telling others what “The Truth” is at the expense of their own freedom to figure it out themselves. it leaves very little other than practicing meditation on the virtues I want evident in my life and living life with a spiritual eye.
The other struggle is balance. Keeping one thing from dominating so much that the others are neglected.
Time to Look Through the Eye:
Faith:
I have faith in myself. Like it or not it is all I really have. People say that might be a poor thing to have faith in and they may be right. However, my self is all I really know I must have faith in, because it is the best thing I have to place my faith in that I know is real. Other things I will list that I have faith in I know based on my experience and reason that this is so, but I still must say I have a little less faith in these things than myself for obvious reasons. My wife, my small circle of friends, humanity all are worthy of various measures of my faith because they are real and proven through their actions. That said at the end of the day the only one who can keep my spiritual life in balance is me. The only one I can ultimately trust is me.
Religion:
I really try to avoid being religious, the problem is religion is very prevalent in spirituality, and eliminating it can be quite a challenge. The issue religion brings to the table is how much of other people’s spiritual experiences can be used to help my own and which ones are just controlling or fear mongering. I find that if a spiritual notion leads me to being afraid or is trying to ‘force’ me to certain activities then it is a religious element to be rejected. I just have time for notions that basically without proof try to tell me what ‘the truth’ is. I think there may be many truths, but one single monolithic truth? No. I don’t think the universe is that small. If there is any force that can take me off my notion of balance it is religion.
Theology:
The most elementary shift in my thinking theologically speaking it is realizing that sin is a made up concept. The writers of the Bible or any other holy book that talk about sin, just straight up called what behaviors they didn’t like ‘sin’. Therefore, they took it upon themselves to speak for the divine as to what offends the divine. They offer no direct proof for this. They claim it, but never prove it
Theologically speaking then, is humanity then inherently evil because they have picked up a sinful nature then? No. I have not proof one way or the other about that either. It is just asserted. So when it comes to my spirituality it is not so much avoiding or overcoming sin anymore. My spirituality has shifted more to the notion of making myself better by strengthening what is positive or turning something negative into a positive. I don’t believe that part of my humanity needs to be destroyed or redeemed anymore. I just think all elements of my humanity (needs, wants, reasoning, wisdom, etc.) need to be focused and work together to help me grow with balance.
Spirituality:
All of life then becomes just as much spiritual as it is anything else. From taking a shower, to going to work, to making love to even me sitting right now and writing on this blog. All of it has the potential to strengthen me spiritually. I simply have to find the element of each activity that helps me become a better person. What is it that leads to long life, prosperity and balance.
Conclusion:
The issue I find is still the issue of balance and adapting to being an X=Christian. Sometimes I find myself thinking about an issue and asking “Is that the former Christian talking or is it the real me?” It is the current state of my Spirituality as I walk the path of life. It is a question that comes up often.
Continuing to Walk the Path,
The Rabyd Skald – Wandering Soul, Bard and Philosopher. The Grey Wayfarer.
“Everyone has the Right to Liberty” – The Book of Rabyd 1:3
Thoughts and Exposition:
Liberty. It is an easy word to say and it is easy to demand it for yourself. It becomes quite another matter to give liberty to others. The great problem with humans is that we objectify others and nearly all methods of objectification involve this notion that people should live a certain way, or do certain things, and if they don’t then they just are wrong and we should make them.
I would submit the moment you are trying to use force, threat of force or fraud to make another person or group of people conform to your vision of morality, behavior or ethics; you demonstrate you do not understand the word liberty. Liberty isn’t just about you being able to live the way you desire, it is about letting others do so too.
This is the thing about calling certain things ‘inalienable rights’. This means that if you want your right to something inalienable, you have to respect it in others. The other thing is there is more than one inalienable right – you also have life and the pursuit of happiness. No use of your liberty can deter then from another person’s rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
This has some pretty astounding implication which I will get into later in The Book of Rabyd, but for now note that liberty allows you to do what you want to do as long as it does not interfere in the rights of others. That means you have to think a little bit about things before you act. There is no just ‘do what you want and damn the consequences’ with genuine liberty. Liberty demands the notion of ‘love your neighbor as yourself’.
On the flip side though, if a person is going to tell me I am interfering with their rights, they better bring proof or show me based on reason how I am dong so. If they can’t do so, then they are simply attempting to diminish my right to choosing my own path, which should be considered as just as evil a crime as trying to take my life. People use all kinds of forces from philosophy, to religion to a straight up desire to control others to justify interfering with people’s liberty. Any such use of these things should not be allowed.
If there is any legacy I want to leave to my children, grandchildren and all the generations to follow at this point; it is I hope they truly consider the blessings of liberty. Not just for themselves but there is also a blessing in letting others be free. From freeing oneself from the terrible desire to control the behavior of others. If I were ever get around to creating a family motto, it will certainly have the Latin word: ‘Libertas‘ in it. It is that important; just as much the inalienable right as life.
Liberty often requires that you don’t do things to please others, you do what is right for you, and recognizing that sometimes others are just being self-righteous, sanctimonious pricks. The message is about respect of others’ right to liberty as much as respecting your own. But sometimes it isn’t about that – it’s about trying to maintain your own liberty in the face of those who would take it away though cultural and political rules that they want to impose on you. Sometimes the fight for liberty is simply a matter of telling such rules and those who impose the to ‘go to hell’. You have the right also to pursuit what makes you happy.
The Rabyd Skald – Wandering Soul, Bard and Philosopher. The Grey Wayfarer.
We don’t pray here – we figure God, the gods and goddesses, or whatever powers that be either know already, don’t give a fuck, or are busy with more important matters than our petty stuff. We also kind of assume that they expect us to do stuff that we can do for ourselves, and that we will do them ourselves and not be lazy. We also believe in being good friends, so we don’t presume on our friendship with the powers that be by asking them all the time for stuff while giving them nothing in return.
We also don’t take an offering here. We figure the powers that be probably don’t need it. Let’s be honest, offerings are not giving to the divine powers, they are given to an organization to support it. Just being honest. God, the gods or whatever never see a dime, farthing or peso of that money; it all goes to the church, mosque or shrine.
Opening Song: ‘Bad Reputation’ – Joan Jett (Uncensored)
Is there an opening message here about liberty. Yeah. Liberty often requires that you don’t do things to please others, you do what is right for you and sometimes others are just being self-righteous, sanctimonious pricks. The message today is about respect of others right to liberty, but sometimes it isn’t about that – it’s about trying to maintain your own liberty in the face of those who would take it away though cultural and political rules that they want to impose on you. Sometimes the fight for liberty is simply a matter of telling such rules and those who impose the to ‘go to hell’.
Poem: “Untitled Meme” by Unknown.
Forcing your viewpoint on others is the issue. Not sure if this is a poem, but it definitely gets the point across.
Meditation:
Song of Preparation: “Imagine” – John Lennon
“They say I am a dreamer, but I am not the only one.”
Text:
“Everyone has the Right to Liberty” – The Book of Rabyd 1:3
Sermon:
Liberty. It is an easy word to say and it is easy to demand it for yourself. It becomes quite another matter to give liberty to others. The great problem with humans is that we objectify others and nearly all methods of objectification involve this notion that people should live a certain way, or do certain things and if they don’t then they just are wrong and we should make them.
I would submit the moment you are trying to use force, threat of force or fraud to make another person or group of people conform to your vision of morality, behavior or ethics you demonstrate you do not understand the word liberty. Liberty isn’t just about you being able to live the way you desire, it is about letting others do it too.
This is the thing about calling thing inalienable rights. This means that if you want your right to something inalienable you have to respect it in others. The other thing is there is more than one inalienable right – you also have life and the pursuit of happiness. No use of your liberty can deter then from another person’s rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
This has some pretty astounding implication which I will get into later in The book of Rabyd, but for now note that liberty allows you to do what you want to do as long as it does not interfere in the rights of others. That means you have to think a little bit about things before you act. There is no just do what you want and damn the consequences. Liberty demands the notion of ‘love your neighbor as yourself’.
On the flip side though, if a person is going to tell me I am interfering with their rights, they better bring proof. If they can’t do so, then they are simply attempting to diminish my right to choosing my own path which should be considered as just as evil a crime as trying to take my life. People use all kinds of forces from philosophy, to religion to a straight up desire to control others to justify interfering with people’s liberty. That notion cannot be allowed.
If there is any legacy I want to leave to my children and grandchildren at this point it is I hope they truly consider the blessings of liberty. Not just for themselves but there is also a blessing in letting others be free. From freeing oneself from the terrible desire to control the behavior of others. If I were ever get around to creating a family motto, it will certainly have the Latin word: ‘Libertas‘ in it. It is that important; just as much the inalienable right as life.
Closing Song: ‘Whiskey in the Jar’ – Metallica
One final Skaal!!!
Parting Thought:
Amen, Mr. Hoppe, Amen
I remain,
The Rabyd Skald – Wandering Soul, Bard and Philosopher. The Grey Wayfarer.
“So when it comes to faith, religion, theology or spirituality Mr. Grey Wayfarer, what exactly do you believe?”
“I am a Deist and a Humanist with Pagan Tendencies.”
Raised Eyebrow
I don’t actually answer this question very often, and I think it is because people who care read this blog and know where I stand. The pagan side of it is more about how in interact spiritually with the world. I no longer believe in following after other people’s spiritual experience, including the collective experience known as religion. I follow after my own and find the spiritual in sometimes the most mundane of places. I believe if there is a spiritual side to the universe; the only real way to interact with it, is to engage it myself.
This doesn’t mean I don’t interact spiritually with other people, it is just I now recognize the truth that spirituality is based in self, no matter what people say, that is the truth of it. Even when people follow so-called religions of faith, the origin of faith is internal and that is the simple truth of it. You choose to believe what you want and engage the spiritual in the way your engage it. This is your creation, even if you use other people’s thoughts and experiences to do it. Or if you uses a religion to form your frameworks, you chose that too.
Time to Look Through the Eye:
Faith:
For me I have faith in myself, my family, my friends and the creator (if he or she or they exist). I have faith in my relationships that have shown themselves to be faithful and true. Fidelity and Faith are closely related to me. I also have faith in humanity as a humanist, although often joke I do not. I truly believe that things over time are getting better for humans, even though sometimes I wonder. I also believe that there are a number of humans who use a number of reasons to tell us otherwise. They try to get us to believe things are getting worse and that humanity is inherently bad. Unfortunately, the most common means of this conveying this philosophy to us is religion.
Religion:
I have no real problem with people who have a religion. That said I do recognize that one of the driving forces behind every religion I can thinking of, with the exception of paganism, is that were are not good enough, evil or sinners and we need to follow X to overcome that problem. Regardless of the form, religion follows the pattern of:
You are no good, evil, bad or a sinner. Take your pick.
You need to follow our religion so you stop being no good, evil, bad or a sinner.
We will tell you from now on what to believe, think, and feel so you don’t go back to being no good, evil, bad or a sinner.
Please make sure you attend regularly to our meetings so we can keep telling you what to believe, think and feel so you don’t go back to being no good, evil, bad or a sinner.
Make sure you leave an offering to support us.
I still marvel at how effective religion is at getting people to pay them to let them do something they could do for themselves for free. No wonder con artists are drawn to religion like a magnet. There is a fertile ground of suckers.
Even worse is when people get to the point of believing something so strongly that you force it on others. They use political and cultural power to shame, imprison, make illegal and even kill in the name of their religion. At that point we probably need to realize that religion has led people to psychosis.
I don’t have that anymore or time/money for it. None of it.
I don’t think people are no good. They are people who can grow and develop but I don’t assume they are sinners or evil or whatever.
I don’t think people need to join a group to be spiritual or have faith. You can do that if you wish, but it is not required for either of those things.
People can practice their faith and spirituality any which way they choose. There is no right or wrong here.
Spend your money and time as you wish.
Theology:
If the divine exists, I am fairly sure that all religions and thought on the divine, including my own, are fairly wrong about something. I am left to a deistic theology that basically takes me back to Marcus Aurelius idea of the divine is benevolent, the best they could judge me on would be the virtues I tried to live by because they would understand my ignorance. If the divine is malevolent, better to be destroyed by them and not serve them. If there is no divine then virtue still has its own rewards in this life. The best way then to do theology is to simply live in virtue. Live a good life.
But the other theology that has changed is my theology of humanity. I just don’t see humanity like religion does – in a hole and needing the divine’s assistance to get out. Rather I see humanity as just human. I would say we all start our just that, and it is up to us at a certain point to make ourselves who we want to be through our choices and actions. We can grow and find out our true potential or ruin ourselves. It really is left to us.
Spirituality:
I also believe, though it is not a hill I will die on, that we humans have spiritual side. There is more to love than biochemical hormonal exchange. There is something more to loving our children than just race survival. Call whatever that is ‘spiritual’, if you like. For me this has led to me seeing the spiritual side of life in many things: hugs, kisses, making love, enjoying a walk, viewing a sunset, spending time with friends, working, etc. Just living is a spiritual experience and one that I embrace – this is what my pagan side is embracing. All of my life has a truly spiritual element to it now that it never had before. That and it allows me to pretty much have some very cool holidays, and I celebrate other holidays from other faiths along side of them without guilt. A pagan is of all things truly tolerant in this regard. There is simply no one way to be spiritual to a pagan.
Conclusion:
Being a pagan in this sense has actually brought a lot of peace to my life. I know members of my former faith would argue I am deluding myself, but they only drive home the point that religion makes one arrogant and intolerant of humans other than those who share your faith. I also point to the fact that my Four Major Objections to Christianity remain for the most part unchallenged and unanswered.
Truth is, I am at peace with myself far more than I ever was as a Christian. I have no sin to be saved from, I only need to walk in virtue and grow into what potential I have as a human being. I love being a Deist and Humanist with Pagan tendencies. It’s the pagan tendencies that make life joyful.
Continuing to Walk the Path,
The Rabyd Skald – Wandering Soul, Bard and Philosopher. The Grey Wayfarer.
“Everyone has the Right to Life” – The Book of Rabyd 1:2
Thoughts and Exposition:
I am going to state it plainly that verses 2 through 4 are a rip off from Thomas Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence. But the right to life is still a very hot button topic in this world today and I am not going to skirt around it, but before I begin I would remind people who there are three of these major rights and not one is more important than the other. They have to be kept in balance because they are all ‘inalienable’, so not one of them can be more important than the other. The right to life is simply the first one.
At this point I want to point out that I am making an assumption here in the source of rights. There are actually many schools of thought about where rights come from; or if we even have them at all, but the assumption made by most of the founding fathers was that rights were natural, given by the creator. We will run with that for the purposes of the Book of Rabyd.
The main issue is that everyone has the right to live and that no one has the right to take another life. There are of course all kinds of issues here from capital punishment to abortion, but we need to remember that this right has value. That value needs to be considered when looking at those issues. If a person murders someone, then they have denied another’s right to live, and I would say also forfeited their own. Our right to live is conditional on the one factor that we respect everyone else’s right to live. Once we fail to do that, we forfeit that right.
The other issue is the very simple. When does life begin and when does it end? It is this issue along with the other issues of the other two inalienable rights that need to be considered when considering issues such as capital punishment or abortion. The main issue for me has always been to respect the lives of others and that they respect mine. Given that, I expect people to let me live that life as I wish to live in liberty and I will do the same for them. But that is a discussion reserved for the next verse.
The Rabyd Skald – Wandering Soul, Bard and Philosopher. The Grey Wayfarer.
The Grey Wayfarer 