Heresy :: NaP Edition

The silhouette cast by the tall and thin Doctor Xavier Gale seemed to dance with the light from the warm flames surrounded by three walls of red brick and a thin gate of iron. The cracks from the burning wood echoed through the vast library of his Victorian estate. Behind him, covered in his shadow, was a round, wooden table exactly seven feet in diameter with books of all types literature littered on top. The huge table acted as a court yard, snuggled in the middle of several people sitting quietly in their brown leather arm chairs. Some had their legs crossed, others were resting their warm cup of tea on their lap.

When Xavier turned around from facing the mantel above the fireplace, he spoke. "Where did we leave off?" He glanced around the circle of his companions for the answer. The silence was gravely heavy and the sense of disturbia hung in their atmosphere. Xavier had invited them all to his grand estate to discuss what they always discuss; politics, religion, economy, history, and literature. They were like a society in and of themselves. A guild of sorts, that discussed rather than worked. They argued, they shook hands, they raised their fists, they applauded, they smiled, and they grimaced. They were both friends and enemies at the same time. This was the beauty of their 'society'. They had formed an unbreakable bond with each other. They could stretch this bond to the limits, tug on it, pull it, and even try to burn it; but they weren't going anywhere.

If Xavier wanted to, he would form his own country and elect them all as his board of advisors. But that's not what they were there for. They were there to discuss; not make decisions. None of them acted out; none of them made examples. They only proposed action, instead of taking it.

Tonight's discussion concerned the establishment of a new discipline. They each to voice their opinion on how a new 'discipline', or religion, would be established. Would they worship a deity? Would they have services? Would they speak in tongues? Would they wear certain clothes? If they were to chose the functions of a new system of beliefs, how would they construct said functions?

Heresy, he called it. What's the harm?

"I believe," Carl Baxtor began, "that we were about to recognize that a new order of discipline is needed in society." Carl had been following along closely with every conversation that Xavier's order had hosted. He was, after all, the chairman of the board of directors for the Oversight Committee, a political group that rallied at congressional chambers to voice their opinions on just about any matter relating to a change in the status quo of religious affair amongst the State. He had grown up listening his entire life. So, paying attention and keeping a train-of-thought was a learned talent for him.

"If I may be the first to express an opinion," he started, "I don't think that just jumping to a conclusion about what kind of practices we should have is the best route right now. After all, we all come from different ethnic and religous backgrounds in the room at some point in our ancestoral history. I see no reason to begin a querril by stepping on each other's toes so soon. I think that it is more appropriate for us to first establish a reason why a new discipline is needed. That may help ease any tensions that could be brought up right away if we were to dive head-first into a debate about what is needed."

"I conquer," said Elizabeth Drowry, sitting directly left of Mr. Baxtor. "It would most certainly be the best approach to starting such a discussion. And if I may have a go at this; I think the first reason that we can all agree on for starting a new discipline is that we need an order that is more than willing to cooperate with the foundations of a governing society wishing to operate outside of religious affairs. Today, we see the term "separation of Church and State" and think the words oppression, discrimination, injustice, and hatred. However, if we were to look at the American constitution, we'd find that there is no exact clause stating that the Church and State are to be separated. We have come up with these petty excuses for keeping them apart when, in fact, the excuses rarely even hold up in a court of law. We are a corrupt society that instantly thinks one thing, because of mistakes in history." She paused for a second to collect her thoughts. "My friends, I think that it is foolish to linger in the past. Learn from it, yes. But to fear it...that's ridiculous. I think we are mature enough to establish a religous order that can cooperate with the will of the government, without a power gap coming into play."

"Well put, Ms. Drowry," Carl said.

Xavier listened very carefully to the arguments already reaching the table. He was quite please that the conversation managed to start without a hitch. This is why he chose these people as his closest friends, because when they bickered, they bickered with intellect, not ignorance.

"I think another reason," said a lawyer by the name of Tyson Learner, "is that there are far too many religious denominations that have broken away from their original body. And I'm not just speaking of the Christian Church, but almost every religion. I believe that this country needs a set religious doctrine, but make it as flexible as the Constitution. For instance, everyone is obsviously not going to agree with the "rules" or "terms" set forth by the original make-up of the doctrine, but not every agrees with what the Constitution brings forth either. So, I propose that a doctrine with flexibility, one that is able to be amended, is layed down. I believe it should neutralize the other religous doctrines existing in the United States."

"It seems as you are proposing a idealistic genocide, there, Tyson," Nelson McDeavor, a professor of threatrical arts at Harvard. "From what I hear, you are proposing the annihilation of the very idea that makes the United States and "melting pot" of culture. I can see the sense in your proposal for a flexible doctrine, but I see insanity in the idea that it should be the only doctrine. Would you care to reason further?"

Tyson grimmaced and shifted in his chair, "I'm not calling for the 'genocide' of other doctrines, I'm merely proposing that one should be made the 'official' doctrine. As far as further reasoning goes, let me tell you a story my father told me. There was once a man on island who lived all alone. He had constructed three buildings on the island on his own and lived in peace. One day, another man came to the island to visit. The man who lived there gave his guest a tour. The guest asked the man what the first building was for. 'That is my house,' he replied. 'I see,' the guest said, 'and what is the second one for?' 'That is my church,' said the first. 'And the third one?' 'That is my church, also.' Now the guest looked at the man who lived on the island in confusion and asked, 'You have two churches?' 'Yes,' said the man who lived there, 'I got tired of the first church, so I built a new one.'"

"The point of that story," Tyson continued, "is that we live in a society where religous folk decide that they are bored with their first doctrine of discipline so they create a new one off the bat. We have so many denominations of several religions floating around America, that its absolutely preposertous. Only one is needed. I doubt that God, if He exists, would want his followers segregated like this."

"So why does it have to be about God then?" Nelson poked further. "There are several religions in the United States alone that deny the existance of God. For instance, Taoists don't believe in any deity; they believe in harmonizing with Yin and Yang. Nature is the key to healthy living for them. So tell me, Tyson, why should their be one set doctrine involving a god, yet the point of the doctrine be the unification of the people? Some kind of force must be put forth to enact this as the 'official', in your terms, doctrine."