Thoughts on what is sacred

This is what my elders have told me my entire life. This is now universally accepted as the Native American definition of "Mitakuye Oyasin" which translates to "We are all Related" or "All my relations". In this simple hoop we see four colors but two more smaller colors in the interior. The four colors represent many things to different tribes, but universally it is the four colors of the race of man. Not one above the other, nor greater than. These colors also represent the four cardinal directions but the blue and green and interior indicate that only when the other directions are in harmony you can access the spirit world both above and below. (Blue and green) This wheel is prominent on my regalia and it is also a sticker on my car. I firmly believe in the sacredness of everyone and that we are truly all related. Our actions do echo an eternity so to speak.

When an elder wants to teach a lesson they will pull you aside and tell you. If they are upset with you they will turn and walk away from you. They recognize that your path is different than theirs and they are either allowed to be a teacher on that path or a observer. A perfect example of this was years ago I was at a Pow Wow and I was dancing in my regalia. A very dear freind and loved elder who is also the Head Buffalo Woman for the Sioux Nation, pulled me aside and started asking me about the belly dancing I used to do. I mentioned many things about how its empowering for women etc. She then looked at me in a very serious glare and asked if I played drums. I answered no. To which she responded "Good".

That was an elder making sure I had gotten an important lesson. The lesson being that drums are sacred and women are not allowed to touch them. Care for them yes, hold them for a male dancer singer, yes but playing them is actually taboo in traditional native circles. That ideology is changing however and again its tribe to tribe if drums are taboo to women. In her world view they are forbidden. The reason for this (very short version) is that a drum is believed to echo the heartbeat of the world. Women's bodies are capable of recreating life and therefore can also recreate that heartbeat. To touch a drum is to interfere with the magic of recreation and can cause a lot of problems on a spiritual level.

Have I ever touched a drum. Sure, when I didn't know better. However after I was taught that was a No No I have not and to this day I still have not. I am honoring a sacred tradition. Most prayers now that people can hear at a function that has a Native American element will hear these words "Mitakuye Oyasin". We are all related.

For the purposes of this post I shall understand 'sacred' as something that fits one or any of the definitions listed here .
I realize and recognize things that are held in connection with the supernatural and religious doctrines and customs. I do not share any of the theology or ritual practice associated with it, so while I recognize that some people do, I feel not obliged to respect their feelings or share their adherences. What is sacred to them can be trivial to me and if I held anything sacred I would be in no position to demand that from anyone else. By the other definitions I would say that I do not think anything is sacred. I think respect is earned and not deserved and therefore there is no such quality as 'deserving of respect' in any sense that does not necessitate earning of that respect first. I think everything should be up to debate and criticism. As we should be free to defend whatever we do, say or create, so, too, should nothing we do, say or create be protected or untouchable. In fact, there is a case to be made that sacred might just be a word [strike]people[/strike] kids use when they don't want other kids to play with their toys.
Or, to put it in Salman Rushdie's famous words:
"The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes."
Look up Bid'ah. You will find rather illuminating information on this topic.


Now, on a side note:

Json wrote: We (as mankind) don't seem to hold anything sacred and I think this could be part of the decline.

What decline are you referring to? The universal improvement ever since we started questioning the untouchableness of things? Or the permanently positive growth of the rate of universal improvement of things?

Is it time we started showing others that there are sacred things out there?

Do you feel we haven't alienated quite enough peoples yet? It wasn't love and kindness that caused them to slaughter jews and arabs around every corner. It was the devotion to those 'holy values' and the idea of sacredness. You see, when there are things that we hold as holy or untouchable, that makes it really easy then for someone else to become our enemy rather quickly. She only has to express a thought we don't like or speak a word we wish not to hear. Now why would anyone wish to build in this big red button labeled "do not press"? I think we shouldn't have it the first place.

Gisteron wrote: For the purposes of this post I shall understand 'sacred' as something that fits one or any of the definitions listed here .

Sure, I was going to go find another, but lets use yours...

I realize and recognize things that are held in connection with the supernatural and religious doctrines and customs. I do not share any of the theology or ritual practice associated with it, so while I recognize that some people do, I feel not obliged to respect their feelings or share their adherences. What is sacred to them can be trivial to me and if I held anything sacred I would be in no position to demand that from anyone else. By the other definitions I would say that I do not think anything is sacred. I think respect is earned and not deserved and therefore there is no such quality as 'deserving of respect' in any sense that does not necessitate earning of that respect first. I think everything should be up to debate and criticism. As we should be free to defend whatever we do, say or create, so, too, should nothing we do, say or create be protected or untouchable.

Is that [strike] a sacred thought? [/strike] thought "to valuable to be interferred with; sancrosanct?

A thought you hold in most highest of regards?

Possibly?

At least for yourself... A personal doctrine, or system of belief?

In fact, there is a case to be made that sacred might just be a word [strike]people[/strike] kids use when they don't want other kids to play with their toys.

Similar to the thoughts and ideas of disregarding other folks sacred ideas because proof of reasons cannot be provided to the satisfaction of the one questioning?

"Im not listening, la-la-la-la..."

"I reject your reality, and insert my own..."



Really, its not that you are not listening, but rather just can't understand....

Jestor wrote:

I think everything should be up to debate and criticism.

Is that [strike] a sacred thought? [/strike] thought "to valuable to be interferred with; sancrosanct?

A thought you hold in most highest of regards?

Possibly?

At least for yourself... A personal doctrine, or system of belief?

No.

It isn't.

You know it isn't.

But feel free to ask another three dozen times because using Geisler's road runner tactic makes you feel like you accomplished something and your childish mind so super-smart. News flash: It is a reductio ad absurdum strategy, and the least sophisticated and cheapest one of them all. I don't want to have to deal with it. Come back when you have an actual argument, an actual point rather than some pathetic feeble word-games that neither undermine anything I said nor express or contribute anything of your own.

In fact, there is a case to be made that sacred might just be a word [strike]people[/strike] kids use when they don't want other kids to play with their toys.

Similar to the thoughts and ideas of disregarding other folks sacred ideas because proof of reasons cannot be provided to the satisfaction of the one questioning?

I have no idea what the [censored] "proof of reasons" means, but seeing that you are starting another miserable attempt at this worthless and frankly idiotic road runner tactic, I'm kind of left with addressing the content for I have said all I can about this teratism of modern day apologetics sophistication extravaganza. So here we are: I have, within the framework of this discussion, neither the intent nor the objective to disregard any one particular idea or any set of them. I am however criticizing the holding things as sacred per se. If people hold love, beauty and kindness sacred, I'm not against what they hold sacred, but rather against the holding sacred of anything. And if you had [censored]ing read my post you would have [censored]ing known that, you dishonest [censored]!

"Im not listening, la-la-la-la..."

"I reject your reality, and insert my own..."



Really, its not that you are not listening, but rather just can't understand....

Well thanks for at least acknowledgeing that I am, in fact, listening to the wretched hogwash you keep producing. This is more than I can say about you, given the massive projection. Indeed, chances are you aren't even listening to yourself, because I have way too much respect for you to think that you would be anything less than embarassed at the [censored] you sometimes write nowadays...

[/epic angry ban-triggery rant]
Also, feel free to delete this post if you find it inappropriate in any regard. I will ask for an explanation, but this is a rant I've thought of writing a number of times in the past and it wouldn't bother me if it wasn't here as I stopped it from being anywhere else.

Gisteron, I am not sure if I am misreading your post or not but you seem to be very straight forward at calling all my thoughts and questions wrong. I understand that you don't agree and I am quite saddened with the fact that you consider nothing sacred. But I think it is disrespectful to down talk or disapprove of what others onside sacred.
I do believe things should be sacred and I respect things even though They have not out right "earned" my respect. I have respect for all until it is shown undeserving.
You seem to (and this is just from a few posts I have seen) have a resentment against religion. I am not sure why and hope that either I am incorrect or you can get past it.
None the less, I have a respect for all and I hold the connecting I feel with nature sacred. Whether you wish to deny it or question it makes no difference to me.

Peace.

I don't feel that attaching the traditional idea of "religiously special" to something when using the word sacred is what I see in the word - not actually. There are a lot of things that we learn in our life that we look at in awe. You, Gisteron, love Science, and you have communicated yourself that you hold a lot about the things we learn about scientifically in awe. You hold a great deal of respect for the Scientism you very very rigorously follow in almost every single reply you post on these forums. However, I personally prefer to put an idea through the "can it hold up without the traditional spirituality approach". If it can, then if somebody chooses to criticize it while it is put in that light, it might not be because it is invalid, but because something about the light itself seems to offend them (maybe you feel it insults your "intelligence"). But I digress...

In my eyes, Sacred, taken out of the "holy religious spiritual supernatural" lighting, is simply appreciating it's existence for what it provides the whole. If I say the Earth is sacred, I say it in the same way I say "The Earth is my home where I live. It has provided me food, shelter, a steady ground, water, etc, and so it has all the reason to be respected". There is no factor to me where the Earth must "earn my respect"... In fact, I'd rather insist that if anything, you'd have to earn the Earth's respect for all it provides you...

However, having that example put out there, you've probably already predicted where I might end up going with this, and yes, you are right... I'm going to refer to my last reply to this thread for some further explanation of how I see the term "sacred" and why we tend to say "everything is sacred"...

Proteus wrote:

Jestor wrote: Children and child-like only consider themselves...

We must teach that everything is connected...

So to take care, be considerate, and slow to impatience...

Can we teach not only that everything is connected, but even more, that their real body extends far beyond their skin? If they were able to realize (not intellectually, but spiritually) that their body is their whole world, would they make the parallel between caring about their ego self and their universal self?

If I asked you, "Is your body sacred?" and you say "no, I don't believe in the idea of something being sacred"... then one day, somebody kidnaps you, ties you to a chair, tapes your mouth shut so you cannot scream, and begins to make a motion with a large very sharp knife to cut you open, how would you feel about your body? Would you want him to hurt you? No? Why not? You need your body to be in functioning order don't you? How about if somebody came up to you and began pee'ing on your leg? Or maybe on your face while you slept? That wouldn't make you happy would it? Why is it that you would find having your body cut open, or pee'd on, wrong? Is it because your body is special to you and you don't want it damaged or degraded?

In terms of Jediism and the Force, if one sees the entire world as an extension of their "whole" body, it might be somewhat pointless to differentiate the value of their physical body from the value of the universal body.... why? Because 1. The universal body is still your body, and 2. Because your universal body is what supports your physical body right now. We don't bite the hand that feeds... especially if its our own hand that is feeding us. If you had to choose between cutting your own hand off, or washing it when it has filthy bacteria on it, which would you rather do? Why? Because you care about your hand, you need it, and you respect it. It is a part of you - a functioning part of you.

In the traditional light of the term "sacred", I first apply the above rationale, and then afterward lay over that, the "awe" factor of all existence - whether it is simply spiritual awe, or scientific awe - both apply. It further colors the justification for anything being sacred and in fact, everything being sacred. If you went up to Mount Everest, and Mount Everest could somehow verbally communicate with you, and you said "You're nothing special... and you don't deserve my respect until you've earned it", the mountain would laugh at you. It would probably laugh hysterically until the ground shook and then opened up under your feet. Even never minding that speculative fallacy I just used there, the point is apparent, with or without it.

How about if somebody came up to you and began pee'ing on your leg? Or maybe on your face while you slept? That wouldn't make you happy would it?

Proteus, that was brilliant. Yes I chose to quote that part because it's the funniest, but it still proves your point wonderfully.

@Json:
You asked for our thoughts. I presented and explained my position on the idea of sacredness, why i have it and why I think we are better off if everybody would. The only thing I have asked about is what kind of "decline" you were talking about.
I didn't say that anything was wrong, I didn't criticize what others hold sacred, but rather that they do hold it sacred to begin with. I was not disrespectful, I was just saying that I don't feel obliged in any way to honour any arbitrary markings of territory, be that with dog urin or magical words. I do honour life, liberty, love, kindness, happiness, honesty and a number of other values I'm sure the two of us share. However, I'm not all bumhurt if anyone doesn't. They aren't sacred values to me. Neither is the prophet Muhammad or Voldemort's unspeakable name. Now, everyone is free to hold any of these sacred, if they so wish. But their sensitivities alone should only matter to them in their privacy.
My position on religion is not subject of this thread. Feel free to message me privately about it or open a new one, if you wish my comment on it.
Again, I don't care if or what you hold sacred or why. That's your business. I asked what you mean by the decline that may or may not have been caused by people overall losing the sacredness of their values. I don't see a decline. I don't think we should get back to holding things sacred and I explained why. Feel free to adress my question and the point I made in conjunction with it. I'm genuinely curious what decline you are talking about and why you think it might be better if we came back to holding more things sacred.

@Proteus:
I would rather say that I value science as the tool that it is. Alex may say what he might (and I'm sure he will) about scientism (as if that was a thing), but by his own definition of the label in a private conversation we made it clear that I don't fit. I believe in scientism the same way a dentist believes in dentism.
Anyway, I don't hold it sacred. I acknowledge a number of flaws with the tool and I'm not offended by anyone pointing out more or suggesting a more effective approach to the same problems. I also recognize the limitations of the tool and that other approaches may be necessary altogether for certain problems. If I did hold it sacred it would be beyond criticism in my view. It isn't. Nothing is.

I think the trick is not to judge someone or somethings degree of sacred value, but rather the term is used to define what level we ourselves attribute the view of it being sacred to something/someone. So to me everything is sacred, but I'm not measuring anything about them, but being mindful about a part of myself.

for me i Consider friendships sacred as well as my meditation/prayer altar. I also tend to look at nature as sacred as it is living, much as we are.

I think you are correct when you say man kind has lost that however i do not think we will lose it completely ( at least I hope not).