I saw a captioned picture the other day which started a thought process which resulted in my deciding that, while I would hope the picture's original intention was only to raise awareness of sociological issues, it needed to be considered inflammatory.
- To state that a gender is sacred implies that other genders are profane by exclusion.
Extrapolating further:
- To believe that only(excluding) Your(first person) gender/ethnicity/archetype/etc. is sacred implies that all others are profane.
Looking at the definitions, quoted from dictionary.reference.com:
- Sacred: 1) devoted or dedicated to a deity or to some religious purpose; consecrated. 2) entitled to veneration or religious respect by association with divinity or divine things; holy. 3) pertaining to or connected with religion (opposed to secular or profane): sacred music; sacred books. 4) reverently dedicated to some person, purpose, or object: a morning hour sacred to study. 5) regarded with reverence: the sacred memory of a dead hero.
- Profane: 1) characterized by irreverence or contempt for
God(Deity) or sacred principles or things; irreligious. 2) not devoted to holy or religious purposes; unconsecrated; secular (opposed to sacred).3) unholy; heathen; pagan: profane rites.4) not initiated into religious rites or mysteries, as persons. 5) common or vulgar. -Personal edits are strikethroughs and possible better word choice in parenthesis
On reflection of every religious work I have read, one of the common threads running through them all is the concept of "breath of life." That is deity has caused an influence upon the inert matter which imparted life. Another common thread is that every deity touched object retains some of that virtue and becomes sacred. I state therefore: How then if every thing which contains life, granted by the will of deity, and sacred by virtue of this gift, is it not sacred and due the respect given to the sacred?
I am reminded of the time I was in Quaker Sunday School, of the response I gave when asked if I knew where God was. There was this immense sycamore tree in the courtyard outside the meeting house which always fascinated me, and being the age I was replied that I had found God, and that he was in the tree. I was told I was wrong. Some years later I had a revelation, and wanted to speak it at the next meeting. My parents said that it was not right that I should pre-plan such a thing, that meeting was meant for spontaneity. Nevertheless that Sunday I stood up and spoke: "God is in every tree, blade of grass, animal, rock, the wind and all the waters. We must see and respect him in whatever form he shows to us." I heard some sharp intakes of breath as I sat down. Later many of the elders came to me, not with condemnation, but to shake my hand. They said it did not matter if I had rehearsed it, but that I was brave enough to stand and give words that were true. If memory serves I was perhaps ten at the time, and shortly afterward lost all interest in attending, which upset my mother greatly. I know now that my concept of deity was too broad to be restricted in this fashion.
Where did the concept of Us-sacred, Them-profane come from? The Bible is full of this judgement, but it is also full of forgiveness, caring and compassion for everyone. In heathen circles nothing is profane except for perhaps negativity, but even it is acknowledged to be a tool for learning, originating from Deity and sacred for what it represents. Do we as sacred individuals have the right to treat other individuals, also sacred, with the disrespect that would be shown to what could be perceived as profane? I would say certainly not! Yet it is perpetrated uncountable times, frequently in the name of Deity, but most often in the name of Ignorance!
Thinking on the Animal vs. Human vein (Frank Herbert), brings up the process of evolution wherein the strong get stronger and the weaker wither. An alpha wolf runs and breeds the pack and beta wolves follow, are slain or leave to create a new pack. Thus it is with many animal species on one level or another, the stronger survive more often than the weaker and the genes carry forward. Humanity is no different, and is an animal as well.
Think on this short list of common actions:
- Traffic violations such as speeding, passing on the shoulder, tailgating, or otherwise driving aggressively for any reason
- Engaging in neo-alpha grandstanding: acting in such manners to cause undue attention getting
- Participating in gross consumerism
- Deliberate conspicuous consumption
- Involvement in bias, prejudice, or discrimination against any social group
Each one of these has a clear parallel in the mating rituals in the rest of the animal kingdom. But must we continue to be a slave to genetic urges that press on every individual the need to prove their status as prime breeding material by such acts? Do these acts perpetuate respect of the sacred in everyone, or are they attempts to keep the profane in their place? I posit that as Humans we can make the choice to move beyond the urges of genetics and find the ability to see and honor the sacred.
We can have a near Utopia today if we really want it. The technology is there for free, clean power, emissionless transportation, completely biodegradable building materials, compostable plastics, low energy lighting and electronics, earth conserving farming and more. It would take nothing more than cooperation! We as a species thrive on strife, there is plenty of it . . .
In closing, those that seek equality or issue awareness also must acknowledge what it means to be equal. That is not more than and not less than; bias cannot exist. We as a species are not predisposed to the concept of simple equality; instead some must be greater and some must be lesser. If we bend our knee to this limitation we perpetuate our animal nature rather than grow as Humans making intelligent, gainful choices to honor the sacred and elevate ourselves collectively. "A human would remain in the trap, endure the pain, feigning death that he might kill the trapper and remove a threat to his kind." (Frank Herbert) We are in the trap, but who sees the trapper?
