What is Sacred?
Dale Netherton
February 03, 2006
The Europeans are being bombarded with criticism and threats because they, through their cartoonists, have offended many Muslims. The Muslims are upset because the portrayal of their prophet Mohammed was offensive to them and they are venting their outrage through threats, violence and demands for changes in some European countries to accommodate their beliefs. This in the name of what they consider sacred.
There are other values that other people consider sacred. There is the freedom of speech and expression. There are individual rights , such as the right to life, the right to liberty and the right to the pursuit of happiness. These two views of what is sacred are clashing because they represent two opposite spectrums. One is based on reason and one is based on faith. One is required for people to live on this earth in harmony and the other isn’t. And because these two views are diametrically opposed they lead to a wish for annihilation of the “infidel” ( he who does not believe as the Muslims would want ) and a response of self defense by the valuers of life on this earth. Reason dictates that to survive one necessarily must retaliate if attacked. There is no reason to expect others to believe as you want them to. Only the claim that yours is the true belief. This claim has been worn out over the ages and has accomplished nothing but aggression and the subsequent wars that have convinced no one and slaughtered many. This is the fundamental conflict among men. Many times in the past there were two factions with each believing theirs was the revealed truth. Sometimes the believers were aggressive and demanded others believe the same as they did and sometimes the believers were content to simply proselytize and hope for conversion. And sometimes there was just a hope that there would be a divine intervention to resolve the conflict. And then came the mind of man and the voice of reason. From reason came the concept of individual rights and the sacred notion of the right to life. When this concept was recognized in law man was free to act but not free to compel. With the separation of church and state came the edict that one could worship but could not compel others to believe. This was the beginning of a civilization that considered an individual’s life more sacred than ancient writings and beliefs that could not be questioned.
The recognition of the sacredness of human life is not evident in countries that deprive their women of basic human rights and dignity. It is not recognized by countries that call for the extermination of whole races of people and build stockpiles of weaponry for aggressive purposes. It is not evident where suicidal bombing of innocents is encouraged , rewarded and admired. To claim a title of chosen by one’s deity is an arrogant delusion. It is the seed of racism and must culminate in war. For there can be no peace if there exists a group bent on conquest. The naive notion that these people will accommodate the existence of opposite viewpoints has led many “diplomats” to bribery and cajolery and eventually the realization that their careers were an exercise in futility. There can be no roadmap for peace when there is a faction that doesn’t recognize individual rights. This must be the precondition of any negotiations. If the opposition doesn’t want to acknowledge the rights of man then what is there to negotiate? This has to be the starting point. From this agreement can proceed others based on a shared premise that life of the individual is sacred and will under no circumstances be subsumed under some theocratic dictate. This is what is fundamentally flawed in the constitution of the “new’ Iraq. Without individual rights recognition, all sorts of atrocities are possible and expected. If religious law is to be supreme then what does it matter who votes for what or whom? If there is disagreement ( as with the Hamas election) then those who believe they have been wronged can point to a scripture, formulate an accusation and violence once again emerges. Interpretation of the law becomes the provence of those in power. There are no appeals to those who have cited the dictates they ascribe to. This is why the law must not be ignorant of precedent, reason and justice. It is not enough to merely ascribe a modifier such as social, or Muslim or Jewish, etc. Justice must be blind to all such beliefs and deal with the law as created by reason which leads to the recognition and protection of individual human lives. For what else do we need governing bodies if not to protect us? Government controls the agencies that utilize force and if the initiation of force is to be excluded from human activities what better organization than one controlling the agencies having the means to do so?
As an aside, you can see the deterioration of this principle in America today. The Kelso decision abrogated individual rights. The Elias Gonzales return to Cuba was an abrogation of individual rights. The prosecution of businessmen for business failures is an abrogation of individual rights. And the list goes on and on. That which we used to call sacred is being obfuscated by arrogant politicians ,a non-reality academia, and popularity driven media , all intent on range of the moment attention crying for their voices to be heard and with nothing to say. This deterioration is why we pursue futile negotiations with obvious recalcitrant barbarians. The tiny Colonies of our beginnings were armed with a potent conviction that individual rights were paramount and they prevailed in a world where mighty navies and armies roamed and ruled the world. Now as the super power of the world we are disarmed and faltering because we have doubts about what our forefathers demonstrated ,discovered and defended. Our forefathers were convinced via reason that man had a right to live , that government was created to protect these rights and those who would challenge these premises would be rebuked. Look what we have become after such a noble beginning. A timid milquetoast willing to fight limited wars where victory may be only a series of elections for one band of thugs or another. We cannot lead the world if we cannot clearly define our objectives. And our objective has to be more than a flurry of purple fingers . If we are not going to stand for individual rights then we shouldn’t waste our soldiers lives, our taxpayer dollars or anything else on excursions into impossible conversions . We must hold these rights sacred. More sacred than the image of a prophet. More sacred than the installation of “democracy”. More sacred than any land or building or deity. For unless we do the results are the recordings of history will list us as only one of many that followed the path of destruction by abandonment of a fundamental principle eroded by a misguided view of man. We must face down our opposition with full conviction that we stand for life on this earth and the rights of man. This must be our sacred banner. And we should express outrage whenever that is challenged. For the opposite of our banner can never be accommodated or compromised. It is our freedom, our lives that are at stake. What could be more sacred than that?
There are other values that other people consider sacred. There is the freedom of speech and expression. There are individual rights , such as the right to life, the right to liberty and the right to the pursuit of happiness. These two views of what is sacred are clashing because they represent two opposite spectrums. One is based on reason and one is based on faith. One is required for people to live on this earth in harmony and the other isn’t. And because these two views are diametrically opposed they lead to a wish for annihilation of the “infidel” ( he who does not believe as the Muslims would want ) and a response of self defense by the valuers of life on this earth. Reason dictates that to survive one necessarily must retaliate if attacked. There is no reason to expect others to believe as you want them to. Only the claim that yours is the true belief. This claim has been worn out over the ages and has accomplished nothing but aggression and the subsequent wars that have convinced no one and slaughtered many. This is the fundamental conflict among men. Many times in the past there were two factions with each believing theirs was the revealed truth. Sometimes the believers were aggressive and demanded others believe the same as they did and sometimes the believers were content to simply proselytize and hope for conversion. And sometimes there was just a hope that there would be a divine intervention to resolve the conflict. And then came the mind of man and the voice of reason. From reason came the concept of individual rights and the sacred notion of the right to life. When this concept was recognized in law man was free to act but not free to compel. With the separation of church and state came the edict that one could worship but could not compel others to believe. This was the beginning of a civilization that considered an individual’s life more sacred than ancient writings and beliefs that could not be questioned.
The recognition of the sacredness of human life is not evident in countries that deprive their women of basic human rights and dignity. It is not recognized by countries that call for the extermination of whole races of people and build stockpiles of weaponry for aggressive purposes. It is not evident where suicidal bombing of innocents is encouraged , rewarded and admired. To claim a title of chosen by one’s deity is an arrogant delusion. It is the seed of racism and must culminate in war. For there can be no peace if there exists a group bent on conquest. The naive notion that these people will accommodate the existence of opposite viewpoints has led many “diplomats” to bribery and cajolery and eventually the realization that their careers were an exercise in futility. There can be no roadmap for peace when there is a faction that doesn’t recognize individual rights. This must be the precondition of any negotiations. If the opposition doesn’t want to acknowledge the rights of man then what is there to negotiate? This has to be the starting point. From this agreement can proceed others based on a shared premise that life of the individual is sacred and will under no circumstances be subsumed under some theocratic dictate. This is what is fundamentally flawed in the constitution of the “new’ Iraq. Without individual rights recognition, all sorts of atrocities are possible and expected. If religious law is to be supreme then what does it matter who votes for what or whom? If there is disagreement ( as with the Hamas election) then those who believe they have been wronged can point to a scripture, formulate an accusation and violence once again emerges. Interpretation of the law becomes the provence of those in power. There are no appeals to those who have cited the dictates they ascribe to. This is why the law must not be ignorant of precedent, reason and justice. It is not enough to merely ascribe a modifier such as social, or Muslim or Jewish, etc. Justice must be blind to all such beliefs and deal with the law as created by reason which leads to the recognition and protection of individual human lives. For what else do we need governing bodies if not to protect us? Government controls the agencies that utilize force and if the initiation of force is to be excluded from human activities what better organization than one controlling the agencies having the means to do so?
As an aside, you can see the deterioration of this principle in America today. The Kelso decision abrogated individual rights. The Elias Gonzales return to Cuba was an abrogation of individual rights. The prosecution of businessmen for business failures is an abrogation of individual rights. And the list goes on and on. That which we used to call sacred is being obfuscated by arrogant politicians ,a non-reality academia, and popularity driven media , all intent on range of the moment attention crying for their voices to be heard and with nothing to say. This deterioration is why we pursue futile negotiations with obvious recalcitrant barbarians. The tiny Colonies of our beginnings were armed with a potent conviction that individual rights were paramount and they prevailed in a world where mighty navies and armies roamed and ruled the world. Now as the super power of the world we are disarmed and faltering because we have doubts about what our forefathers demonstrated ,discovered and defended. Our forefathers were convinced via reason that man had a right to live , that government was created to protect these rights and those who would challenge these premises would be rebuked. Look what we have become after such a noble beginning. A timid milquetoast willing to fight limited wars where victory may be only a series of elections for one band of thugs or another. We cannot lead the world if we cannot clearly define our objectives. And our objective has to be more than a flurry of purple fingers . If we are not going to stand for individual rights then we shouldn’t waste our soldiers lives, our taxpayer dollars or anything else on excursions into impossible conversions . We must hold these rights sacred. More sacred than the image of a prophet. More sacred than the installation of “democracy”. More sacred than any land or building or deity. For unless we do the results are the recordings of history will list us as only one of many that followed the path of destruction by abandonment of a fundamental principle eroded by a misguided view of man. We must face down our opposition with full conviction that we stand for life on this earth and the rights of man. This must be our sacred banner. And we should express outrage whenever that is challenged. For the opposite of our banner can never be accommodated or compromised. It is our freedom, our lives that are at stake. What could be more sacred than that?
Print
Email
