TEXAS FAITH: Should the word sin be part of our political vocabulary?

Two generations from now, the word sin would simply mean anything that man does to mess with the cohesiveness of the society. Any conflict that does not mess with the three critical elements like one's space, nourishment and nurtarance will not be considered a sin by a majority of the people regardless of their religious affiliation.

Here is one of the 10 responses at Dallas Morning News;
 http://religionblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2011/10/texas-faith-should-the-word-si.html

MIKE GHOUSE, President, Foundation for Pluralism, Dallas

The word Sin should not be a part of our political vocabulary as understood in its historical context; it is divisive and becomes a tool to pit one against the other. Indeed, it is a medium to shut the other out when frightened with a loss of power and control.

Let the word sin remain confined to the domain of religion and not creep into the political parlance, other wise men like Pastor Jeffress, Pastor Robertson, Imam Al-Awlaki,  Rabbi Shapiro and others will have no qualms in declaring others who disagree with them as sinners who deserve to be stripped off the basic human rights.

God has endowed humanity with the ability to communicate and find solutions to the conflicts as opposed to resorting to condemnations and judgments in the garb of sin.

Broadly, conflicts are caused by messing with three critical elements; one’s space, nourishment and nurturance. The civil societies determine the punishment for such violations to sustain trust and maintain equilibrium in a given society.

As far as one’s faith is concerned, it is between the believer and the creator. Whether one believes in Jesus, Muhammad, Krishna, Moses or Confucius is God’s business and no man should have the right to declare it as a sin.

Future of sin

The future definition of sin will cut a lot of fat out of the traditional understanding of sin, which is anything that goes against the norms established by religious men as God’s words.  

Yoffie’s statement gives good grounding in defining sin, “Absent sin, we are not responsible. Absent sin, there is no moral precision. Absent sin, there is no moral judgment. Absent sin, there can be no forgiveness.” 

Once upon a time secular behavior was considered a sin, interacting with people of other faiths was a sin, validating science was a sin, dating was considered illicit; marriage outside your faith was a sin and so many others things have now fallen out of the purview of sin.

Chief Seattle (1854), a Native American said this perfectly, “All things are connected. Whatever befalls the earth befalls the sons of the earth. Man did not weave the web of life; he is merely a strand in it. Whatever he does to the webs, he does it to himself."

Two generations from now, the word sin would simply mean anything that man does to mess with that web and cohesiveness of the society. Any conflict that does not mess with the three critical elements mentioned above will not be considered a sin by a majority of the people regardless of their religious affiliation.

Mike Ghouse is committed to building cohesive societies and offers pluralistic solutions on issues of the day to the media and the public. He is a speaker thinker and a writer on the topics of pluralism, cohesive societies, Islam, interfaith, India and Peace. He is available to speak at your place of worship, work, school, college, seminars and conferences. . Mike's work is reflected in 4 website's and 27 Blogs indexed at http://www.mikeghouse.net/ and you can find this article at www.TheGhousediary.com