Perhaps the form of prejudice/discrimination that is most accepted in modern society is ageism. This is making assumptions about individuals and treating them differently purely because of age.

The assumption that an 18-year-old is automatically more mature than a 16-year-old is very common and, in many places, legally defined. And a 35-year-old is defined as more mature than the 18-year-old. And yet, many of us know a teen-ager who behaves more maturely and shows more responsibility than someone else we know who is much older. But the law ignores this.

In much of the United States, for example, you can drive a car, one of the most dangerous machines available to the average person, at age 14 to 16. At 18, you can become a trained professional killer (in the military). But you can't buy a can of beer until age 21. Which would you rather have coming straight toward you--an 18-year-old driving a car, one grasping a .357 Magnum, or one holding a can of beer?

Note too that this arbitrary age division is not some "ancient, universal tradition." The modern definition of adolescence is 400 years old; the modern concept of childhood was defined about 500 years ago. The age of consent for various activities varies tremendously even today, and even within a single nation such as the United States. Until the 1990s, for example, the age of consent for sexual intercourse in California was 18 for females, and 14 for males.

In many societies, adulthood was defined one of two ways: at puberty, or after passing certain tests and training. Puberty is the time of biological adulthood: when an individual reaches the stage of development where e can mate and produce young, that individual is biologically an adult. In other societies, adulthood in terms of social status was reached when the individual proved emself ready to handle those responsibilities. Both of these recognize the development and maturity of the individual, and not an arbitrary age.

Assuming that someone was totally incapable of adult responsibilities yesterday, but then is completely capable today because of a birth anniversary, seems ridiculous.

2) We believe in the responsibility of the individual to society.

It's a truism that along with freedom comes responsibility. An individual that totally isolates emself from society may be an exception, but such individuals are extremely rare. Even monks and hermits tend to form communities. And as a social species, we have responsibilities to each other.

This is sometimes called "The Golden Rule," and has many forms. Love your neighbor as yourself; do unto others as you would have others do unto you; walk a mile in another's shoes; etc. Every major religion and philosophy has some form of this.

In some societies, including the United States, there is a great focus on individual rights, but not on individual responsibilities to others. This is unbalanced, and by it's very nature doesn't work--if everyone is concerned about es own rights and not those of others, then no one's rights are respected. Thus, the statements that apply to the rights of an individual also apply to an individual’s responsibilities to others.

3) We believe in the rights of a child to be raised in a loving, supportive and nurturing environment, and in the responsibility of caregivers to provide that environment.

This belief seems obvious in theory, but in practice it is one of the most controversial of these statements. Who would argue that parents and caregivers should abuse and neglect their children? And yet, how is this avoided?

The only thing you need to know to raise children in much of the world is how to have sex. (If you want to raise children without producing them through sex, i.e., adoption, you are often heavily screened. By this practice, it would seem that fertility = good parenting. Does anyone really believe this?)

We seem to assume that people who can't take care of themselves can take care of others, especially helpless children. In nations throughout the world, it is often the poor and poorly educated who have the largest families.

It's true that abuse and neglect can occur in any socioeconomic status. And some of the best parents have been poor--we are certainly not saying that wealth makes you a good parent, or poverty a bad one. But it is also true that those most in need of love and nurturing themselves, the abused and neglected, often seek love and support through having children. And then they aren't prepared for the demands children place on them. And then the abused often become the abusers. Without help with child-rearing, emotional support and education, what other methods do they know but the ones they grew up with?

And many believe that only until actual and severe harm is done to a child should anything be done to assure someone is a good parent. By this same logic, we should assume anyone is a good pilot and let them fly a plane with passengers. Only if they crash should we question their skill.

"But," one may argue, "lives are at stake in a plane. The lives of the passengers are in the pilot's hands." Isn't that true of children in the hands of their parents? For a less extreme example, consider that you probably don't feel nervous and worried every single time a stranger drives a car near you. But wouldn't you feel nervous and worried if your children were put in the care of a total stranger? And yet many countries require a license to drive.

Some may say "anyone should be allowed to be a parent because that's the way it is in nature." True, in nature any fertile individual can earn the right to mate. (Note that in some species, only the dominant individuals earn this right).

Many species require no raising when they're born or hatched. Some come out immediately able to function, with their responses to the world pre-programmed.

But what of those species that do require raising? There is a balance in nature for those species. What happens to the offspring of poor parents who fail to protect their young from danger or to train them for survival? They die! It's a simple and effective system. Poorly raised offspring seldom live long enough to reproduce and raise offspring of their own. Bad parenting is not passed down.

In most modern human societies, the society itself protects these poor children to the point they can be bad parents for their kids. It's not a "natural" situation. So to be truly "natural," we should let poorly raised children die. Does anyone really think that's the best solution? Round up all our troubled and troublesome children and kill them? I hope not! (Unfortunately, some do promote this solution. Let them live long enough under horrible conditions to where they commit a horribly violent crime, then declare them adults, try them as adults, and either execute them or lock them away. In the U.S., the only way you can be considered an adult at age 15 is to commit a horrible crime. Living responsibly and maturely won't prove your adulthood; raping, torturing and murdering will.)

No, good parenting won't cure every one of the world's problems. But if all children were raised with demonstrated love, mutual affection, and effective discipline, within two or three generations most co-dependency and drug abuse counselors would be finding other work, many prisons would be without prisoners, and peace officers would spend more time helping people and less time arresting them.

4) We believe in the absurdity of victimless crimes in a free society, in the principle “if it harms none, do what you will.”

An oppressive secular state declares victimless acts to be crimes in the interest of the state and it's control over the individual. A religiously oppressive society makes such declarations in the interest of it's own religious and moral system and it's control over the individual. But why would a free society do this?

And what is a "victimless crime?" A victimless crime is an act considered illegal in which there is no victim nor reasonable likelihood of a victim. Admittedly, the distinction of victim is not always easy to pin down--if a person ingests drugs (including alcohol) to the point where e is no longer aware of es actions and then drives a car down a busy street, that is an action where there is a reasonable chance of a victim. But what if e drinks one beer and es motor coordination is 98% of full? Or 95%?

However, many of the “victimless crimes” involve illegal acts in which the violation lies in breaking a moral standard that is not universally recognized. Forbidding all religions but one narrowly defined sect, or not allowing members of the public to peacefully share their opinions, for example. So in these cases, one may ask, is anyone truly being victimized or harmed? “If it harms none, do what you will.” This idea combines the concepts of personal freedom “do who you will” with the concept of individual responsibility to others “if it harms none.”

Some crimes, of course, are clearly not victimless. For an obvious example of a non-victimless act, consider homicide. Virtually every society and religion considers killing another human being without just cause to be wrong. Even though the definition of "just cause" varies, there is clearly a victim. Even if the killing was in self-defense, was morally and legally justified in that society, someone's life was still taken. Therefore homicide would not be considered a victimless crime--either it is a crime or it's not, but someone was still killed.

But what about a well-educated and informed woman in good standing voting in public affairs? Or a loving, responsible and honorable black man caring for his own family? Or a married couple making love with each other in the privacy of their home in more than one physical position? All of these have been crimes at some time or in some place. In fact, they’ve all been illegal in some or all of the United States of America. Many people in the modern world would consider these victimless crimes. In fact, they might believe those punished for breaking the law to be the victims.

Admittedly, the definition of a victimless crime can vary. Most societies would not see a crime being committed every time someone spoke a person's real name. But in a society where it is believed that demons are hanging around waiting to hear your real name in order to have power over you and torment you, speaking your true name would not be considered victimless. And driving on the right side of the road is the legally accepted method in some countries, but recklessly dangerous in countries where people always drive on the left side of the road. Again, this may well not be victimless, and could quite possibly harm or even kill someone.

But in general, we believe that acts which do not cause harm should not be illegal.

5) We believe in the principle of harmony, that accepting differences to achieve harmony is greater than excluding differences to achieve unity.

In other words, everyone in the world doesn’t have to be just like me. Life is rich and diverse, and excluding those who are “different” leads to separation and weakening.

It is a common military practice to “divide and conquer.” Say, for example, that you are outnumbered and “outgunned” by an opponent that is a coalition of different groups. Attack them when they are working together in harmony, and you may well be defeated. But if you can get them to split up, either by forcefully separating them by various strategies and tactics, or by getting them to fight amongst themselves, your chances of winning are tremendously greater. Just look at military history and you can see how effectively this works.

But working together in harmony is more than just a military strategy. It applies to a tremendous variety of endeavors, and is in fact a fundamental part of the nature of a social species.

In music, the sound of a single instrument can be very beautiful indeed, yet most music is written to include harmony. Plays and movies are rarely created and performed entirely by one person. And how many paintings use only one color?

In science, combining and overlapping disciplines (you use math in biochemistry, and geology in archaeology) is commonplace. One of the greatest scientific discoveries of the 20th century was of the DNA double helix, a fundamental aspect of inheritance. It was postulated by Watson and Crick. Interestingly, Watson had a Ph.D. in zoology, but Crick had switched from physics to biochemistry. It is often believed that their mixture of knowledge from these varied fields was essential for their discovery.

And the need for an effective “mixture,” variety working in harmony, is touched on by many of the world’s religions. Christianity, in I Corinthians 12:14-15, says in the King James version “For the body is not one member, but many. If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?” It continues in verse 20 “And now are they many members, yet but one body.” Hinduism has the story of the blind men and the elephant. Each touched a different portion of the elephant’s body such as the ear or trunk, and thought that part constituted the whole of the elephant. Because they couldn’t accept their different perspectives, they fought against each other. (For more on this story, click HERE.) And the philosophy of Erisianism tells us that reality exists, but different people are looking at it through different windows on which have been painted different grids. What lines up on one person’s grid is outside the lines on another’s. And people often refuse to accept someone with a different point or view or way of seeing the world, excluding them and their viewpoint for the sake of unity. Click HERE for more. (I don’t include a direct link to the biblical chapter simply because the Bible is incredibly easy to find in the English-speaking world.)

And yet many, to achieve unity, will exclude those who are different. They may be rejected because of different ideology, sex, race, sexual preference, age--in other words, rejecting those things that are different to achieve unity can become prejudice and discrimination.

Again, we are a social species. We need each other. And our differences enrich us.

This was revised on Dec. 23, 1998 from the previous "Philosophy for a New Age"

Note: in this paper, we use terms such as "e, em, emself, etc." These are genderless pronouns. Instead of "he" or "she," we use "e." Instead of "him" or "her," we use "em." Instead of himself or herself, we use "emself." These terms are easy to say, and much less awkward than the alternative "h/she or "(s)he" forms sometimes used. Check back in 1999 for an article on the use of "e."

For more writings by Reverend Loveshade and by others, go to BloodStar: Principia Discordia and Other Weird Philosophy

You can contact A. D. Lea at adlea@yahoo.com

You can contact Reverend Loveshade at reverend_loveshade@excite.com

Copyright © 1999 by Reverend Loveshade