Voices

There's a big difference between protected freedom and vindicated prejudice

NEWFANE — RE: “A simple quiz” [Viewpoint, Sept. 5]:

Thank you! There is a vast difference between a “freedom” that must be protected and a prejudice that seeks legal vindication.

I am a Taoist, and our beliefs coincidentally include many of Jesus's teachings (before he was born... some things are universal, no?) but we do not worship a deity, believing instead that our souls and salvation are in our own acts and responsibility toward others.

We believe there is no spiritual being who can erase our slate or forgive our trespasses; we believe that all of our chances to be redeemed begin and end with our own actions and that willfully failing to do so is shameful in itself.

We also believe that within those parameters there is room for all manner of belief systems that call themselves by different names, including those that worship deities (one or many).

I personally believe that those who use their beliefs as a tool to exclude or condemn others do not understand the faith they claim to belong to.

So if a Christian tells me with sincerity (not judgment) that they pray for me, or tells me “God bless you,” I will thank them for that gift in the spirit in which it is given.

I am not an atheist, as people who do not pray to a god are usually described. It is senseless to describe oneself in terms of a negative. In other words, when someone asks me where I come from, I say “Vermont,” instead of “Not from Ohio.”

I am a Taoist, and anyone who is Christian, or Jew, or Muslim, or Hindu, or any other religion cannot threaten my beliefs just because their own are different.

Seriously - if all it takes to “threaten” one's faith is the mere existence of those who don't share it, if being prevented from forcing other law-abiding people to live by one's own faith is considered an “attack,” then that faith must be very weak indeed.

Subscribe to the newsletter for weekly updates