Drunkards, dope fiends, derelicts and deviants. Hobos, holocaust deniers, harlots and hedonists. White supremacists, black separatists, snake handlers, and televangelists. The list could go on for pages. Whatever you may think of individuals that have stigmas placed on them in society it is important to know that, for the sake of liberty, even these people have the right to do as they please as long as it does not trespass against anyone that isn’t equally complicit.
The point of this article is that sovereignty of self should never be compromised due to misguided protocols decided upon by the current political majority. An excellent example of this is a law that would make gay marriage illegal. Despite what you may think of the issue, it is not your right to demand that their actions be halted. When voting on this law, for example, anyone that stands up and makes their mark against it is actually, perhaps unbeknownst to them, committing a “sin” themselves. You have trespassed because you’ve placed yourself in a superior position by contributing to the subjugation of individual freedom. In other words, you’re taking away another person’s right to sin. This is a violation of their God-given free will and a refutation of that authority. You are only a peer to other humankind and Soulkind, not a judicious God with the right to assist in the creation of mandates that strangle the freedom out of your fellow adventurers. What two people, in union, do with their own lives and bodies is no one’s business but their own.
Also, what things you may deem sinful or inappropriate when observing more subjective actions and lifestyles may be perfectly suitable to an appreciable percentage of society. You must always remain on guard against personal prejudice. Societal diversity has to remain a welcome human right that isn’t confined to one person’s limited moral principles. As much as we would like everyone to commit to actions that are beneficial to society, many people just aren’t going to comply of their own free will. Yet, debilitating exploits on the part of broken humanity has always, and will remain, a part of our social landscape. We may not applaud many of the things people do to themselves, but we should always be thankful that there is the right to choose. Remember, not all people have that luxury. Many country’s mandates all but stamp out individual liberties in favor of regime empowerment: A horrific life for any person that subsists there, whether they recognize it or not.
When a law arises in a democratic environment that directly affects individual liberties, an Illuminated being does not vote in favor of these restraining codes. Many of us decide to stay out of politics entirely. Yet for those of us that do vote, it should be in favor of liberty over restraint or illusionary security. If someone wishes to drink themselves into a stupor or be a sexual miscreant they have every right to do so. This doesn’t mean there won’t be measures of intervention on the part of loved ones or procedures taken to assist them, it just means that there are no laws stopping them from choosing what to do with their own bodies. As difficult as this seems, if their actions are not impinging upon the civil liberties of other individuals, they are well within their sovereign right to continue.
It needs to be noted that self-inflicted harm and self-made decisions are entirely different than actions that intentionally damage others. Core criminal behavior should always be universally responded to because they affect others. Murder, theft, rape, pedophilia, assault, etc., all affect individuals outside the core person. Because of this, justice is still meted out accordingly. Laws for these actions are relevant and necessary because the negative deed affects the sovereignty of the innocent and those that weren’t complicit in the works of the aggressor. We only possess the right to our own bodies and when our actions affect the liberty of another, intervention is a must in civil society.
As much as we may not like the impact of those filled with un-Soulful thoughts and ideologies, it is a welcome necessity for anyone that wishes to keep their individual freedom. Noting that children are excluded for obvious reasons until adulthood, civil liberty is an equal opportunity provider. If we keep that in mind, it can be easier to see why we should never inhibit another person’s entitlement to sin. They have every right to invoke it and it is their free will to do so. If you are part of a religious organization, you must deny their religious powers that tell you otherwise, coercing you into advocating for laws that restrain individual freedoms. Be wary of any suggestion that you vote or campaign for removing the rights of others within the realm of law. It is, as said earlier, a trespass in itself and many places, especially the Christian church, should to be informed of their ungodly practices.
For SoulKind, if anyone tries to force us into subservience to their own version of what’s lawful or correct, we just tell them: “I am a sovereign individual and I invoke my right to sin.” The statement works as a suitable initiation that may elucidate this truth to others. If not, it at least provides a verbal front to anyone that would dare seek to confine us.
Whether through real laws or de facto ones, the suppression of freedom cannot be allowed. Even if we don’t agree with what people do with their own personal rights, denying them affects us all.
