Worldwide Discussion:

In a spiritually evolved society, should Freedom not be the highest value? Should people not be able to do exactly and precisely what they wish?

Conversations with God says that Freedom is the highest form of Divinity. Indeed, it is one definition of Divinity Itself. Should this not mean, then, that in a spiritually alive and awake and aware community of souls, business owners ought to be able to serve — and refuse to serve — anyone they wish?

Government coercion of individual action is only necessary in an un-evolved society, and is a demonstration of the inability of that society’s members to govern themselves. The question is: Is government coercion of individual action appropriate?

Conversations with God tells us that in the highly evolved societies of sentient beings which exist in the Cosmos, there are no laws at all.

And yes, CWG tells us, there are such societies, and there are such beings, in the Universe. They simply do not exist on Earth. And so on Earth we have to pass laws that say that a person who owns a business has a perfect right to refuse to do business with anyone, for any reason whatsoever. In a free society, the sponsors of such laws assert, individuals should not have to forfeit their right to basic freedoms of choice and action simply by creating, opening, and, incidentally, funding a business. Not having to forfeit that right is what liberty means.

And entire societies — which are nothing more than bunches of individuals clumped together — have a corollary right to exercise their liberty to live as they wish, based on their mutual agreements, these folks assert. Therefore, nations that wish to make homosexuality a crime punishable by life imprisonment have a perfect right to do so, as long as the majority of the members of that society consent.

That should end all the hoo-hah over laws recently passed in Arizona (although vetoed by the governor there) and in Uganda. At least among the spiritually aware, the discussion is over.

Or is it?

What about when the majority of the members within a society consent to laws that impinge upon the freedom of individuals within that society?

That is, what about when the majority of the members within a society act in a way that is wrong? For that matter, what about when individuals choose to do things that hurt or damage the society? What about when individuals act in a way that is wrong? Does Freedom equal the “right” to be “wrong”?

What is “wrong,” anyway? Conversations with God says there is no such thing as Right and Wrong. It says there is only what works and what does not work, given what it is we are trying to do. That includes, presumably, “we” as individuals and “we” as a society. Yet what if “we” can’t agree on what it is “we” are trying to do?

It is “wrong” to drive 97 miles an hour on the way downtown? Well, that depends on whether what you are trying to do is buy a pair of new shoes at a department store, or buy some time on the way to the hospital as a woman in the passenger seat is giving birth.

Society has decided that “right” and “wrong” are contextual. That is, it all depends on the circumstances. In Florida it is perfectly okay to kill someone on the basis of your fear (real or imagined) that your life or personal safety is being threatened. You have a right to “stand your ground.” People there are soon going to be deciding whether this means you can pull out a gun and kill someone because he threw popcorn in your face during an argument in a movie theatre.

So, it is “right” or is it “wrong” if you are the owner of a business that serves the public to deny service to a member of that public simply because you choose to? Can a hotel owner refuse to rent a room to a person because of the color of his skin? Can a grocery store owner refuse to sell food to a person because she is gay? Should basic freedom allow people who own, and built up, a business the right to engage in that business with anyone they choose…and to refuse to do business with anyone they choose?

What if you are the owner of the last gas station before the desert in Arizona? Or of a diner in Alabama?

In the United States, the majority of the members of society have decided that no, you may not discriminate against customers simply because of their race or their gender. But what about their sexual orientation? What if their sexual orientation — and the behavior that proceeds from it — violates your most fundamental religious beliefs? Must you support their behavior and violate your own beliefs to protect their freedom? What about your freedom?

In Uganda, the majority of the members of society have decided that if two persons of the same gender hold hands and kiss in public, they may be sent to jail for life. People living there want the freedom to eliminate such behavior from their society, claiming that it damages the family and undermines the society itself. But what about the freedom of individuals who want to hold hands or offer a kiss to a person of the same gender?

Just what does “freedom” mean? Does it mean we have the right to act in any way we wish — as individuals or as a society — no matter who it may affect in a way with which they do not agree?

This is the great philosophical question that individuals and societies have been struggling to answer for thousands of years. The question, at its basis, comes down to this: If there is none, is it okay to shout “Fire!” in a crowded theatre? Is this not freedom of speech? Or must there be some controls on our exercise of freedom?

We have decided in human society (in most places and nations, at least) that the answer is yes. We have decided that actions are not acceptable under the banner of freedom if they are detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of other people.

Would the law passed by the legislature in Arizona, which would have permitted business owners to discriminate against anyone they wished by not serving anyone they chose, based on religious beliefs, have been detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of other people had it not been vetoed by Gov. Jan Brewer, but been allowed to stand?

Is the law passed by the parliament in Uganda allowing the government to send homosexuals to prison for life detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of other people?

What spiritual “rule of thumb” applies here? Let’s have a discussion. Your views are invited below.

Please Note: The mission of The Global Conversation website is to generate an ongoing sharing of thoughts, ideas, and opinions at this internet location in an interchange that we hope will produce an ongoing and expanding conversation ultimately generating wider benefit for our world. For this reason, links that draw people away from this site will be removed from our Comments Section, a process which may delay publication of your post. If you wish to include in your Comment the point of view of someone other than yourself, please feel free to report those views in full (and even reprint them) here.
Click here to acknowledge and remove this note:
  • Sean McCrory

    I believe that a law that discriminates because of your sexual orientation would be just fine in a highly evolved society as CWG describes. But we are not living in a highly evolved society. Discrimination breeds hate, and hate breeds violence. I believe that our government should protect us from laws that discriminate. Look at what discrimination turned into in Nazi Germany. If you’re going to run a business that serves the public, it should serve all the public. Otherwise make your business private. My guess is that if these businesses that discriminate against gay people all of a sudden found out that 90% of their customers were gay, the majority of them would suddenly be ok with serving gay people. Because then serving gay people works for them, their business is successful, they can feed their family, buy a new home and have security. I think CWG says that our morals, and the model of the world we see are dictated by what works, and what doesn’t work for us. I don’t remember the exact words, but something like that. 🙂

    • Awareness

      Sean McCrory said: “I believe that a law that discriminates because of your sexual orientation would be just fine in a highly evolved society as CWG describes.”

      Sean McCrory, are you sure about your statement above? I suggest you read the article by Neale Donald Walsch carefully 🙂

      Neale Donald Walsch states CLEARLY in the article the following regarding laws:

      “Conversations with God tells us that in the highly evolved societies of sentient beings which exist in the Cosmos, there are NO LAWS at all.” 🙂

      Bless ALL 🙂

      • Sean McCrory

        Yes that’s what I meant. Discrimination may work fine in a HEB society (not that I think HEB’s would bother to discriminate) but we are not a highly evolved society. So I think we need some laws…

        • geoffthekiwi

          Think therefore you have….. mmm. The law as imposed in Uganda is a political ploy, nothing more. It easily distracts the citizens from corruption, poor health services, poor infrastructure, poor education and a lack of democracy. Western Govt’s are playing into the oppressors hands by closing doors, conversations, communication and in doing so empowering the oppressors. I have lived in Uganda and have some insight.

          • Gina

            Hi, Geoff (or is this not yourname….? -_-)
            That’s some insight! It IS a political ploy that are attempting to alleviate and diffuse the pressure posed on the rich & powerful more and more by the masses on the raw and ragged edge. People all over the world are becoming more and more impatient and impervious, and political ploys are getting more and more specious and vicious.
            Recently in S. Korea one student from Korea University ruffled some feathers by putting a hand-written bulletin on his school board that was titled, ‘How are you all doing?’ It was mainly about the situation he finds himself in which he and his generation of young people were coerced to turn a blind eye to the blatant social ills such as the scandalous illegal manipualtion of and intervention in the presidential election by the party of the current president Park Keunhye, and how the voices seeking justice are ruthlessly being silenced, and the decision to privatize the rail system coming virtually overnight from the very person (the President) who as her public campaign promised that she would never allow it to happen without mutual civil agreement and 4,213 people being fired for going on strike. He concludes his 2-paragraph bulletin by writing;
            “They say we ‘880000 won generation’ are spoiled by affluence and ignorant about the ways of the world, politics and economy.
            Wasn’t it also our generation that was coerced to be ignorant and pretend not to know about the situation in which since the 1997~8 IMF crises us kids were left alone in the empty house because both parents were busy double-earning and before and after the college entrance test a number of students commit suicide? We are neither ignorant nor indifferent about politics. Only, we thought it was okay to live this way because we were never encouraged to either think for ourselves or allowed to voice our thoughts. Now, we can’t even do that, because the aformentioned situations are the world in which we live. I just want to ask one question. How are you all doing? Is everything alright and well with you? Is it no problem for you to dismiss it as none of your business? Are you not standing by with the justification of political indifference? If you are not okay, then you cannot not scream it out loud, whatever the issue ‘it’ is! So I want to ask for the last time, how are you all doing? Is everything alright and well with you?”
            This bulletin got photographed and posted on facebook and got retweets and in no time stirred up public opinion and support and began attracting political oppression. The press criticized it in their usual ways as being rethorical and a leap of logic.
            This is a good sign that people are spontaneously standing up all over the world. They-we- are really tired of the atiquated old ways of the world and deciding to do something about it.

          • geoffthekiwi

            Thanks Gina, I appreciate your thoughts and Ideas!! Yes, it is Geoff.

  • Gina

    If society’s purpose is to keep a homogeneous family structure intact and prevent wide spread of STD, people’s illusion that the oppression of gay people work is understandable. Ignore the fact that family is dismantled and crimes that threat public safety is bred for financial reasons more than anything else. Never mind the fact that the reason people want to purchase assault weapons is because of the other people who own them and if everyone is disarmed at once the problem is solved. Public health and safety is threatened by infringement on 2nd amendment by infringing on their freedom to own guns because of other people who own guns. Don’t think long enough to conclude that a prior value system is challenged no matter what or when. In their system this issue looms the largest. Oh, and STD are spread wide more by those people who commercially engage in sex.
    What made homosexuality appear to be the ultimate public enemy? Religious authority probably or money worship or merging of state and business that made money worship and skewed legislation possible and pervasive. In the society we live in if you don’t have money, or 30 cents short on lunch money you starve and if you spend that money on food you go without medication, and if you spend on medicine you freeze. Who has the time to analyze the total and linear order of these things and discuss the rightness or wrongness?? Your life is on the line!!

  • Blake

    God is Gay Also!

  • mewabe

    Unfortunately, in order for humanity to evolve into freedom, religious dogma and prejudices are not the only things that need to be overcome.

    All topics are politicized, and become part of an ideology. Once they are, people follow the party line, the ideology, which is at least as divisive and at times even more divisive and a source of contention than religion.

    And then the dialogue ends, and rotten eggs and rotten tomatoes start flying in all direction.

    What is humanity so afraid of? (That’s a question that applies to everything). Answer= it is afraid of itself, and has created a judging and punishing God (among other chains) in order to shackle and imprison itself.

    It has succeeded, so we may say that humanity has been highly successful at getting what it wants, which is living in fear and slavery. Some among us may be tired of this scene, but my guess is that the vast majority of humanity is still greatly addicted to its self-created suffering.

    And the more time passes, and new killings, new wars, new genocides, new terrible injustices occur, the more humanity learns to fear itself, and the more it ask for restrictions on its freedoms, both religious and legal restrictions.

    It will probably continue to do so until it is nearly completely paralyzed. By then, the use of mental straight jackets (psychotropic medications) will most likely be widespread (it already is), keeping most people in a state of perfect docility.

    I would prefer to see evolution, but is it really possible under these conditions? The less evolved and responsible people are, the more restricting laws are necessary….and the more restricting laws are passed, the more irresponsible and the less evolved people become.

    Has anyone a solution or suggestion to break this vicious cycle?

    • Awareness

      “A spiritually evolved people need no laws, as a superior law is imprinted in
      their heart and soul, this law being the law of love, the only one that is required when embraced fully, and the only one that leads to total freedom.” – mewabe 🙂

      I AGREE 🙂

      Bless ALL 🙂

      • mewabe

        Thank you Awareness!

  • geoffthekiwi

    It is only human society that has written/imposed “laws” that restrict freedom…. animals do not need them – who are the real animals then????

    • mewabe

      Many Native American nations had no written laws, no lawyers, judges, juries or jails. They had understanding instead. They were very far from being perfect and had some limitations, but they were closer than we are to actual freedom made possible through human and spiritual understanding or “evolution”. They did not live in fear, and they did not live under coercion.

      A speech made in the 18th century by an Indian, and addressed to a French colonist, underlines this point: that in the Indian’s eyes, the “white man” only did “good” because forced, under coercion by law and by his King and other authorities. The Indian went on to basically asked who was more evolved, him, who was called a “primitive” and did “good” by free choice, or the “white man”, who, he said, lived as a dog, behaving well only under threats from his God or his King?

      I can try to find this speech if you want, it is in the book “Touch the Earth”.