[wind_magic]

Originally Posted by craigimass

BUT, we cannot dismiss a vast number of Americans who think that there is a Big Boss and that orders emanate from there.

I think that there are a lot of people out there who like to put religion into a box of their own making and then dismiss it - example would be Bill Mayer who does everything he can to make religious people seem as absurd and trivial as he possibly can, and the way he does that is by carefully choosing who he wants to represent "religion", and then using lots of editing to get the product he wants. It is a lot like Republicans trying to say that Barney Frank is typical of Democrats and their views - yes, Barney Frank does represent a certain segment of the Democratic party, but I wouldn't say he speaks for most of the Democrats I have met, there are plenty of Democrats who think the man is just plain silly.

But you are correct in that sense.....contemplative religious factions such as Buddhism, Quakers and many more assume the innate intelligence of the individual. God is therefore defined as this well that you can tap into - and the FREE WILL which allows you to do so.

Personally, I don't use the word "Obedient" to describe that....or would not use it if I wanted my views to spread. I would use something like "true to my inner nature".

I don't mind the word obedient, or as the Muslim's say "Islam" (meaning "surrender"), to me those words are just trying to communicate to the listener that you have to open your heart and listen to what enters into it, and then act on it. I don't see people as being separated from the world in the same way that many individualists do, to me the idea of separation is like an ant pretending it is in control of its own actions because it pulls a grasshopper back to the anthill, as if no other ant had ever thought of it before. People are like that to, they often think they are unique because they build an unusual house, or invent a new device, or carve tattoo's in their arm, when really those speak to the most mundane of human intentions. Increasing one's attractiveness, having shelter, and using your brain to create something new, that's pretty basic human being stuff, and most human beings do those things, yet individualists point to things like that as undeniable proof that human beings have free will.

And back to the Buckley Quote - once again it is divisive in another way. Sure, we don't always run our lives by what was voted on at the ballot box today or yesterday. BUT the laws and principles of the USA, Britain and many other enlightened civil societies DO provide a framework in an attempt to get it right. Now that law may have been passed yesterday or it may have been put into force 100 years ago in a constitutional amendment. Either way, we SHOULD live our lives in part by the results of the ballot box.

For Buckley to say he NEVER lives by laws other than God and his Ancestors would put us back in tribal days......quickly, if people listened.

I'll have to come up with a sig that more accurately reflects the world as it is.

I don't think it would put us back in tribal days, as I said in the post I referenced earlier, I think natural law has its place. There is a law that is greater than human law, and it arises out of the human condition in predictable ways, that's why it has been rediscovered over and over through history by people from different cultures and geographic locations. Somehow when it gets right down to it, people know what is right and wrong, and societies and cultures may invent some interesting twists on the basic theme, but in the end there is a basic law that is profound and important enough to be discovered, and not simply invented. That law and justice has things like not stealing from other people, not killing other people, not messing with another man's woman, not causing other people to starve to death, etc, at its core, again, basic human being stuff. People might pass laws that affirm or deny those basic rights, but it is the people's wisdom in passing the law that becomes a matter of debate, not the natural laws they attempt to support or diminish.

Said another way - there is right and wrong in the world and I don't think most people need Congress to tell them what it is.