MichaelEmeryArt

" Eunuch" " Two-Spirit " and Freedom of Religious Belief

I myself believe, in the Ways of Nature, this is more basic Core Religion, Nature is God the body we all are part of.

               This Belief is unchanging and Set, I am as much a part of Nature as the Tree, the stream, the Earth it's self .

                       Part of this Belief is my True-self, not some socially constructed concept of what I need to be, and my True self

                       involves me being similar  Eunuch type, Two-Spirit type belief system, thus a Part that creates My Religion.

                       My Religion is not like anyone else's, just because I live in the United States.


                       How a individual identifies self with any belief, is a individual process, and constructed by self, the rest is simply like,

                                                                                     belonging to a " Club" 

                       The " Club " my have a " book " that explains some one else's religion, is it your's and your' alone too?


                      Or if seeing in the context/content of " Alone on one's own planet",  if you have identity belief which a religion is,

                      it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks, there isn't anyone else, your belief is your's and your's alone


                                                      I believe "spirituality" is a alone thing with " Nature as the Divine "

                                                     and only a deep connection with Nature can one be truly spirirtual

                                        Collectively as a species "Human" ..Nature as the Divine is the only possible solution

                                                                          to the future of humanity.

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The powers not delegated
to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Amendment 1 Bill of Rights


                                                                                 creating of

Congress shall make no law respecting an  establishment of religion, or prohibiting the  free exercise thereof; or abridging the  freedom of speech, or of the press; or the  right of the people peaceably to assemble,  and to petition the government for a redress  of grievances. 

                         And These two simply "Ideas" very much are not being supported as a Whole, by the people

Public opinion of same-sex marriage in the United States of America by state/district/territory:

    Majority support same-sex marriage — 80 to 89%
    Majority support same-sex marriage — 70 to 79%
   Majority support same-sex marriage — 60 to 69%
    ♥Majority support same-sex marriage — 50 to 59%
    Plurality support same-sex marriage — 40 to 49%
  Plurality oppose same-sex marriage — 40 to 49%
  Majority oppose same-sex marriage — 50 to 59%
  No recent polling data


If the Above is Correct, this greatly reflects a Country with the people in direct conflict with it's many leaders in high places

                            Is Autonomy a moral right ?

According to Kant

Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) defined autonomy by three themes regarding contemporary ethics. Firstly, autonomy as the right for one to make their own decisions excluding any interference from others. Secondly, autonomy as the capacity to make such decisions through one's own independence of mind and after personal reflection. Thirdly, as an ideal way of living life autonomously. In summary, autonomy is the moral right one possesses, or the capacity we have in order to think and make decisions for oneself providing some degree of control or power over the events that unfold within one's everyday life.[12 - -Wikipedia



According to Nietzsche

Friedrich Nietzsche wrote about autonomy and the moral fight.[15] Autonomy in this sense is referred to as the free self and entails several aspects of the self, including self-respect and even self-love. This can be interpreted as influenced by Kant (self-respect) and Aristotle (self-love). For Nietzsche, valuing ethical autonomy can dissolve the conflict between love (self-love) and law (self-respect) which can then translate into reality through experiences of being self-responsible. Because Nietzsche defines having a sense of freedom with being responsible for one's own life, freedom and self-responsibility can be very much linked to autonomy.[16]


According to Piaget

The Swiss philosopher Jean Piaget (1896-1980) believed that autonomy comes from within and results from a "free decision". It is of intrinsic value and the morality of autonomy is not only accepted but obligatory. When an attempt at social interchange occurs, it is reciprocal, ideal and natural for there to be autonomy regardless of why the collaboration with others has taken place. For Piaget, the term autonomous can be used to explain the idea that rules are self-chosen. By choosing which rules to follow or not, we are in turn determining our own behaviour.[17]


According to Kohlberg

The American psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg (1927-1987) continues the studies of Piaget. His studies collected information from different latitudes to eliminate the cultural variability, and focused on the moral reasoning, and not so much in the behavior or its consequences. Through interviews with adolescent and teenage boys, who were to try and solve "moral dilemmas," Kohlberg went on to further develop the stages of moral development. The answers they provided could be one of two things. Either they choose to obey a given law, authority figure or rule of some sort or they chose to take actions that would serve a human need but in turn break this given rule or command.

The most popular moral dilemma asked involved the wife of a man approaching death due to a special type of cancer. Because the drug was too expensive to obtain on his own, and because the pharmacist who discovered and sold the drug had no compassion for him and only wanted profits, he stole it. Kohlberg asks these adolescent and teenage boys (10-, 13- and 16-year-olds) if they think that is what the husband should have done or not. Therefore, depending on their decisions, they provided answers to Kohlberg about deeper rationales and thoughts and determined what they value as important. This value then determined the "structure" of their moral reasoning.[18]

Kohlberg established three stages of morality, each of which is subdivided into two levels. They are read in progressive sense, that is, higher levels indicate greater autonomy.

  • Level 1: Premoral/Preconventional Morality: Standards are met (or not met) depending on the hedonistic or physical consequences.
    • [Stage 0: Egocentric Judgment: There is no moral concept independent of individual wishes, including a lack of concept of rules or obligations.]
    • Stage 1: Punishment-Obedience Orientation: The rule is obeyed only to avoid punishment. Physical consequences determine goodness or badness and power is deferred to unquestioningly with no respect for the human or moral value, or the meaning of these consequences. Concern is for the self.
    • Stage 2: Instrumental-Relativist Orientation: Morals are individualistic and egocentric. There is an exchange of interests but always under the point of view of satisfying personal needs. Elements of fairness and reciprocity are present but these are interpreted in a pragmatic way, instead of an experience of gratitude or justice. Egocentric in nature but beginning to incorporate the ability to see things from the perspective of others.
  • Level 2: Conventional Morality/Role Conformity: Rules are obeyed according to the established conventions of a society.
    • Stage 3: Good Boy-Nice Girl Orientation: Morals are conceived in accordance with the stereotypical social role. Rules are obeyed to obtain the approval of the immediate group and the right actions are judged based on what would please others or give the impression that one is a good person. Actions are evaluated according to intentions.
    • Stage 4: Law and Order Orientation: Morals are judged in accordance with the authority of the system, or the needs of the social order. Laws and order are prioritized.
  • Level 3: Postconventional Morality/Self-Accepted Moral Principles: Standards of moral behavior are internalized. Morals are governed by rational judgment, derived from a conscious reflection on the recognition of the value of the individual inside a conventionally established society.
    • Stage 5: Social Contract Orientation: There are individual rights and standards that have been lawfully established as basic universal values. Rules are agreed upon by through procedure and society comes to consensus through critical examination in order to benefit the greater good.
    • Stage 6: Universal Principle Orientation: Abstract ethical principles are obeyed on a personal level in addition to societal rules and conventions. Universal principles of justice, reciprocity, equality and human dignity are internalized and if one fails to live up to these ideals, guilt or self-condemnation results.

I thought a good talk, as relating to " Ones doesn't select your gender identity, it selects you " , and the video touchs on the " Alone ", aspect of being Transfeminine.

 The " Risks "
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

excerpt from above pdf ; The correct approach to such an overview in this region is to proceed chronologically, turning our attention to begin with to those sections where explorers first drew our attention to berdaches. The Eastern part of this vast area furnishes us precious little evidence. While there are indications that berdache-like figures did once inhabit the Woodlands, very little by way of primary sources remains. However, the picture changes when we move into the Prairie. Almost at once, we encounter an important agglomeration of berdaches among the Illinois tribes in the reports of French explorers and settlers toward the end of the seventeenth century--often before, it should be added, the great tribes of the Western Plains appeared, tribes whose berdaches are often taken to be representative of this social type tout court. Not only that. These Illinois reports clearly address the question of the origins of these berdaches, and leave us in no doubt that, at one with the pictures that we have developed to this point, ad ults constrained very young children to assume the status of berdache. Once again, the figures under question are males become girls, as appears usually to have been the case in the areas of the hemisphere to the south of the Inuit.
The earliest reference to the berdaches of these parts is in Marquette, who, referring in 1673 to the Illinois and the Nadouessi, pleaded ignorance in trying to explain why their berdaches had assumed that status while they were still young, for the rest of their lives. (49) This meant they abased themselves like women, went to war with clubs rather than the man's bow and arrow, etc. For the Frenchman Marquette the fact that these berdaches were consulted as augurs before military action seemed small enough recompense for the life of degradation they otherwise suffered. However, just a few years later, at the turn of the century, other sources shed important light on what for Marquette had been a mystery. In fact, the diarist de Liette explained, these berdaches had their origins not in choice, but in constraints forced on them at a very young age. The author describes the situation as follows. Illinois men were not satisfied by their women, who were not sufficiently forthcoming sexually. To correct this sit uation, so says de Liette, groups of boys were trained from childhood as passives to satisfy the needs of these braves. Clearly, the threat of the rape of Illinois girls was here just as present as it had been among the Yumas d'Alarcon encountered a century and a half earlier. 


These berdaches played a significant social role. Dressed as women, they tended to spend their time in the company of women's work teams, performing domestic labor, weaving, beading, or whatever pertained to women in that particular social world. Because they were taller and stronger than women, they seem at times to have led these women's associations and, for the same reasons of physical strength, they were regularly sought out by men to be their wives. Indeed there is some evidence here and in other venues to be described later that boys who were especially pretty were raised as berdaches because that beauty attracted future "husbands." (15) Perhaps equally important is the evidence that in certain Latin American venues, berdaches served a communal purpose, for instance, as sex servants for young braves who would otherwise violate the marriageable girls of the community. All in all, the berdaches in these early settings served demographic, prostitutional, and economic functions that maintained hierarchy.

I personally was First attracted to Idea of having sex with males - Roled as Female , naturally at such a early age, thus once a male close to my age, seen this in me, seduced / enticed me into being his girly-boyfriend, then myself taking the female role, and routinely performing fellatio on him, and allowing / wanting , very much for him to anally penetrate me and ejaculate up inside me. 

                                                         Thus for myself - it was choice by Natures design ,one might say

Even if One stands back and looks a the " Indigo club concept" it can be seen as a organized way of bringing people together, as a group in a safe/ peaceful way, a place to learn. " Is that not what a religion should be "

Here are two points of view about "two beliefs', how powerful they can be, why separation of church and state is so important, .

 Myself I believe as Sam Harris, in religion needs always transparent,clearly defined, as all people can't be so educated. if a religion

if not clear. it becomes dangerous.And no Religion is even close to be Universal or The Word of some actual supernatural deity.

                                                          The bible or quran are simple written Ideologies

      Why the Two major  Abrahamic, monotheistic religions, thinks their way is the Only way, is very much not understanding,

       "Freedom of belief ", that is law in United States!

        a good comment on the video;

          

"Now I remember what my problem with Jordan Peterson's position on religion was. Just because a valid psychological principle exists in a book doesn't endow the book with supernatural powers since there are clearly valid principles by which to guide our lives in other fiction that isn't written by God himself. I just can't get over this point whatsoever. And I noticed that Sam tries to bring this up again and again and Jordan is simply obfuscating his answer by providing valid ideas in the religious context which Sam isn't trying to dispute. But that doesn't make them the written word of God. Iliad and the Odyssey obviously have valuable portrayal of heroes and heroic mythology principles that can be translated in our day to day life and help us to move forward in a more positive way. But they're bedtime stories, not The Word." 
 

If these Two religions could simply state to each other and to all; " There are many roads that lead to heaven ", the world would be a better place!