UN Spiritual Summit

My offer to be Merlin to Ban Ki-moon still stands, though these days I am minimizing my magickal activities at least until I come out of the low years.

Note that the United Nations already has The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (but note that I take the "other status" of Article 2 to include sexual orientation, i.e. sexual orientation is a form of "other status").

I think there should be a UN-sponsored global spiritual summit (which I once said could be linked some to a similar political summit and a Beothuk wake WOMAD festival and an environmental summit) of representatives of all spiritual paths (including small ones, though many of very small paths could have an umbrella council with representatives from each which would choose a representative [not leader, representative] who would represent them at the main summit, and that would ensure that even very small paths would have representation) and atheism and agnosticism and humanism. This spiritual summit would advise the political summit somewhat, but the political summit would set out minimum global law standards that individuals and groups including religious organizations worldwide would have to meet. I guess penalties for not meeting them could be loss of tax free status for the religious organization in some or most or all jurisdictions, and of course if they are breaking the law the leader(s) could be charged. Such standards would incorporate updated international human (including women) rights and environmental standards and animal rights standards and would require tolerance of other paths also meeting the standards. But beyond such minimum standards (which many paths exceed in theory at least) there would be lots of loving diversity, many petals on the rose. My suggestions so far (and you can think of your own) for agenda items for such a political summit are below, and are largely derived by me from the messages on essential messages, which also could be considered by the political summit somewhat and the spiritual summit some more, I hope, but I cannot enforce that.

The messages below are also among my essential messages (i.e. the ones I am pushing). There is some duplication within this page and between this and the main messages page.

1. no form of blood sacrifice including of humans and of non-humans and that includes sacrifice not involving blood-letting. (By sacrifice not involving blood-letting I mean by means such as strangling, drowning, burning, poisoning, perhaps other, not involving spilling of blood and I mention that since some may think the term blood sacrifice means just when there is spilling of blood.) This is partly because those who indulge in sacrifice of non-humans may be tempted on the slippery slope to human sacrifice. But also (I think, I divined this point but not the rest of this message or any other of my messages) the magickal effectiveness of blood sacrifice has been turned off. This message against blood sacrifice extends to any, if any, forms of food offerings that do constitute a thinly-veiled form of time-delayed (no magickal/spiritual intent at time of slaughter but added later, but effectively time-delayed blood sacrifice) blood sacrifice and perhaps not all forms of food offerings do (maybe none do). Similarly, if ritual slaughter, e.g. Jewish ritual slaughter, is a thinly-veiled form of blood sacrifice I am against that, but I do not know all the details of that so do not know if it is a thinly veiled form of blood sacrifice or not. It also should be discussed whether Christian communion is a time-delayed veiled form of blood sacrifice.
2. no clitorectomy (or clitoridectomy, however it is spelled)
3. no discrimination against women, children, or men (but e.g. it should be acceptable to have same sex sweat lodges, if there are ones for the other gender too and the majority in the path agree with such practice; or even acceptable to have a same sex religious organization such as Dianic Wicca, as long as there is an allied parallel group for the other gender, and the majority of those in the two dual male and female groups agree with the practice); and ordination of both genders must be possible at all levels (that does not mean that in a religion with one leader that there must be suddenly both a male and female leader, though that could be considered, but that the leader spot would become open to both genders if it is not already) in paths that include both genders. Even if you believe your Deity to be male that does not mean human males have to be supreme over human females.
4. related to the above, there should be choice of dress for people including women though I think given that choice many would still choose traditional garb but should not be forced to.
5. no use of religious symbols as symbols of violence (so effectively as if large gang symbols). The exception is if you are being attacked and may draw on them for strength and courage in resistance, but resistance does not mean terrorism against innocent civilians. If they are religious symbols they should be symbols of peace and dialogue, else they are not religious symbols that should be respected by governments. The military must not be worshipped/glorified but viewed as a necessary (for now) evil though those who have served honourably and necessarily should be respected. Ideally nations would cease to have their own military infrastructure (swords into plowshares, and personnel and equipment could move ino environmental and humanitarian and space program work, for example) and would instead contribute to a decentralized, in how it is controlled (by strings from representatives from all over the world to the weak world government responsible for global policing, international space program, global standards negotiation, and maybe a few other things but with most duties left to the still existing national, provincial/state and municipal governments), and in its deployment, world government global policing force which when not needed for policing could do environmental and humanitarian work. This would save all the countries trillions of US dollars, collectively and over time. Some of that could go to an international space program, other to environmental and humanitarian work. Also arms dealing to anyone other than official police forces should be banned.
6. some sex related notes:
   1. (Here I define nature as all/everything, but also see the notes on being part of nature in my main messages.) no discrimination against born-with (natural [both in the sense of part of nature and that it is loving and compatible] divinely-given/created [for any of you who believe in a Creator]) loving compatible consensual same sex or other loving compatible consensual sexuality. Exceptions are rape and sex by adults with children (though near age consensual compatible teen safe sex or near age consensual compatible adult with pre-adult near-adult teen, e.g. adult 19 and pre-adult 17, safe sex is OK) and incest and sex with animals, which (the acts) as part of nature are natural too, like major earthquakes that kill many, but are not natural in the sense of loving including non-abusive and not abusing a position of authority and not genetically dangerous. The Christian use of the word natural to mean good is one meaning of the word, but in the meaning of natural as part of nature, nature is not always nice. But on the other hand loving compatible consensual adult gay--gay or lesbian--lesbian sex is natural in the Christian sense of the word (good, loving, compatible, and if you follow their theory of Creator, divinely created). If you are straight be straight but let gays be gay, and they will let you be straight, of course.
   2. no discrimination against those who choose a celibate lifestyle as long as that sexual repression does not lead to child abuse. But I believe e.g. if the Catholic church allowed marriage of priests they would quickly solve their priest shortage, but I am not pushing said marriage point, but just suggest that, and also see my note on masturbation.
   3. allowance of committed polyamoric relationships (that is vastly different from bigamy, which involves cheating) such as those described over the years on newsgroup alt.polyamory (as I said in the four orientation theory section I think I am compatible only with bisexual by nature women and might live longer in a threesome with two than in a twosome with one but that remains to be researched but should not be discounted without such research ). Threesome sex is already fairly common in North America and is not illegal but legal government polyamoric marriages are not yet available but must become so globally in my opinion, and also polyamoric marriage must become available in all religions globally, and for now private marriage contracts between three people are not illegal in some jurisdictions but do not grant certain inheritance and tax and health benefit and other benefits accorded to legal (i.e. registered with government, but that does not make private marriage contracts illegal [criminal] even though they are not "legal marriages", which could even be retitled "government marriages" though I am not pushing that point).
   4. I tend to lean to some sort of commitment/connection before sex but not necessarily marriage before sex or immediately after first sex but perhaps the prospect (thought/possibility) of marriage especially if the sexual fire does turn out to be strong both ways and you are compatible in other ways as well. In that four orientation theory I also say that strongly compatibles quite often stick together for life, but I guess that is one definition of strong compatibility, and that theory still needs some more research.
   5. and use of birth control before marriage (and for family planning after marriage; and condoms for protection against HIV and other STDs).
   6. It is time we globally dropped (and made illegal where they are not) old military and/or religious pronouncements which I think were designed to increase population for military purposes or religious path strength; we now have a population of over 6 billion. (But note that I would push for dropping of such pronouncements even if global population was much lower and they should be dropped in sparsely populated rural areas as well as cities.) Such pronouncements include those against
      1. loving compatible adult same sex relationships, including same sex marriage and all governments with gays and lesbians among their citizens and religions that have gays and lesbians among their members would be criminally (and I hope legally soon where they are not) negligent in not conducting marriages for them, since such marriages reduce infidelity and promiscuity and sexually transmitted disease and death. If you are straight be straight, but let gays be gay, don't bully them
      2. against masturbation . Masturbation is important in that it can help teens delay sexual activity (and result in fewer teen pregnancies and fewer needed abortions) and can help prospective rapists including pedophiles, including some ordained ones, release their tension without committing a crime. Also in masturbating while thinking of prospective partners the maximum orgasms should occur when there is strong compatibility, and said strong compatability is a key to lifelong relationships. Hence masturbation is a tool for determining who you should court. (Aside: Onan's fault was in not impregnating his dead brother's wife, and hence failing his then family duty, not because of the masturbation, i.e., not any masturbation would have been the crime, but just that one of avoiding his then family duty.)
      3. against birth control,
      4. against committed marriage groups of more than two. Now some may say that polyamorists often have a lot of children but this is more true in sparsely populated rural areas than in cities, and also there would be in time just as many groups with one woman and two men as with one man and two women. Overall it would result in fewer children per parent and one could be at home while two work. But of course many would still choose marriage groups of two.
      5. against education of girls and women and employment, in all fields including political office, of women
      6. for forced marriage especially forced early marriage.
   7. But I am against sex where there is not love and lust BOTH ways since that is like a form of cold rape, and I am against sex as a commodity or leverage tool though I know some individuals are forced into that by poverty and I hope that that will become no longer necessary. But don't have sex unless there is love and true lust both ways else I think it can cause negative effects, and I include lustless sex for procreation only in that (but two gays having sex and passing semen spiritually/reverentially to two lesbians who have sex and then have children would e.g. be OK, and lusty masturbation by a semen sample provider followed later by lusty use of that sample by woman or women would be OK, and as for test tube stuff well the semen again would be provided lustily and ideally the woman would have an orgasm before implantation or something but maybe there are other solutions to infertility). Again a gay and a woman (except for the rare transgendered woman [who would have to be spiritually bim or gay male in female form and genetically female] case noted in four orientation theory if that part of the four orientation theory is correct and no transgendereds have yet come forward to me to say it is correct) or a lesbian and a man (except for the rare transgendered man [who would have to be spiritually bif or lesbian in male form and genetically male] case noted in four orientation theory if that part of the four orientation theory is correct and no transgendereds have yet come forward to me to say it is correct) should not have sex since it would be lustless at least one way, and thinking of someone who is not there while supposedly having sex with someone else is not good, masturbate instead and transfer the fluid in friendship.
   8. Also, though it may have no effect on population, there should be allowance of divorce of unloving marriages, including e.g. divorce by priest of an abusive and/or incompatible marriage.
7. no environmental abuse (or at least strive towards that)
8. no abuse of other species (ideally be at least above neutral to other species as a whole species and strive to be so to individual members of other species, though we would still give some edge to our own species)
9. strive to love (be at least above neutral) to all members of our own species, but loving non-loving individuals may include curing them rather than just turning the other cheek in all cases, but ideally methods other than war can be used for persuasion/healing/transformation/mediation/negotiation
10. no intolerance of other paths that meet this minimum standard, and that there are many paths up the moral mountain and that someone else in another loving path won't suffer for eternity for not being in your path. In this message I include atheism as a path, i.e. the term path includes spiritual paths (including individual belief systems) and atheism.
11. again acceptance of birth control,
12. no enforced enrolment in a path but only enrolment after an educated choice (feeling of resonance with the path/individual connection with the divine or if atheist, maybe within the environment, or society, or with intellectualism, or hopefully something, at least with the decision to be an atheist). The advantage of that to religion is that those who are not forced but awaken to a religion are more likely to stick with it. Of course the Catholic church already has a rite of acceptance in its confirmation but that is largely a formality that peer and community and some family pressure whisks you through and you are not encouraged to take it seriously or think hard about it. I went through it but was probably atheist at the time and then a few years ago renounced my Catholicism officially out loud to my deities, to the Christian God if not the same as any of my deities at the time, in a letter to the priest responsible for my home parish at the time, and in a letter to the pope in the Vatican. (But I am still Catholic influenced and I suspect ALL is the same as the Christian God.)
13. individual responsibility to be a seed of good (this differs from what I now call loveagents) and just means you have to grow the love inside you and spread it around (instigate others to be loving but without cult conditioning, they must think for themselves and in many cases the student will then surpass the teacher), as many already do. This should not involve proselytising of theories without evidence, though they can be shared without pressure. I think there is evidence for and need for these essential messages.
14. I would lobby for recognition of similarities in my life and the lives of SOME past major pagan and major non-pagan religious figures and probably in their messages though I haven't delved quite as much into that yet but intend to gradually, part time, over the rest of my life. Of course such figures are not carbon copies and there are also differences.
15. I am against the Hindu caste system and similar systems if any.
16. The rights of those with a long (and continuous during that length, though note the stuff on displacement below) ancestral connection to the land must be respected particularly if they are good stewards of that land, and this perhaps applies most to native people who as a people have been living on the land (not necessarily with dwellings in always exactly the same spot, sometimes they were and maybe still are nomadic to some extent within that territory) for 1000 years or more though I would also like e.g. the Mi'kmaq in Newfoundland to have such respect even though they have not been here in permanent settlement for that long, though as is well known they have been conducting hunting, trapping and fishing expeditions here that long and have been in permanent settlement here (again possibly nomadic within the territory, as above) about 500 years. Any cases similar to that should also get such respect; also any who have been or who are in the future (hopefully none in the future) displaced from their territory after holding it in permanent settlement within the region [not necessarily houses or other dwellings in the exact same place] for 1000 years, or after the case of at least 500 years of permanent settlement combined with at least enough years to make up 1000 years (when added to that at least 500 years) of years of regular expeditions to and drawing on the territory, or more should get such respect with regard to management of the land and return of the land to their control if feasible and if not some form of compensation if none has already been given to them. But immigrants who are respectful of the land and can be in harmony with the native peoples also have some rights but I hope native peoples will be consulted a bit more regarding immigration and however that immigration will not always be just to the megacities, in Canada (and that may apply elsewhere as well). Also of course some native nations are technically sovereign and in partnership with Canada though they may be on the geographic area most in the world still know as Canada, but eventually should have their own representation at the UN or in world government should the UN evolve to a weak world government [one more level on top of municipal, state/province, national (including native nations) with division of duties], which I am not making an essential message but just suggestion for discussion. I suggest there could be one native umbrella council (so in North America that could be a combination meeting of the US region Council of Grand Chiefs and the Canadian region Assembly of First Nations) for each continent that has aboriginals (which generally implies displaced individuals so I don't think blacks in Africa are considered aboriginals) that would send a representative to world government and report bck to all the native nations on that continent, but that may depend a bit on population and the number of representatives globally to the world government. There should also be a Romany representative to such a world government.