Trauma is any event that disconnects you from the world. Trauma is the undermining or abrupt break in your sense of being connected to the world and how the world operates.
Trauma is when your expectations of the world, how to behave and how others are supposed to behave is abruptly shown to not be the case – and post traumatic stress disorder is your withdraw into yourself, and retreat to where you can feel safe, where the world makes some sense still, while you try to absorb this new contradictory evidence that everything you believed was wrong.
I was born in Canada, and as a Canadian, I have certain expectations about what I am entitled to or not and what my responsibilities are. The laws of the land are really what forms the social contract – the law sets out the guidelines for how we can expect to interact with each other.
So while you technically can play music in your home at any hour, the local bylaws will curtail noise volume permissible after a certain time – the law is there to balance the entitlement of everyone with everyone else.
Which is difficult to balance with an American attitude of the individual being the supreme unit of social consequence and why people chafe at what they deem to be government infringement – people (Americans, Canadians, anyone anywhere) who chafes at government telling them what they can and cannot do is chafing because they are basically sociopaths who do not want to have to consider other people.
Because that’s the essence of the government’s telling them what to do – which is that they can’t infringe on other people’s having the same rights and entitlements.
People who are unwilling to allow others the same rights and entitlements, if not sociopaths of some magnitude, are also more likely to be religious and bigoted against other people for the very grounds of what human rights legislation says are prohibited – ethnicity, gender, sexuality, ability and yes, even religious belief.
If we all have the same rights and entitlement, then no one is any better than anyone else – and this is not the message that Abrahamic religions say – these religions – Christian, Judaism, Islamic and all the variations and sects within the major three umbrellas – all depend on their members being chosen or especially beloved by their deity.
Religions were there’s reincarnation do not provide a message that any one person is any better, since we’re all at different places on a range of paths, at different stages, all of which are needed for enlightenment, so we can all be differently places, but we are all relatively equal, maybe better than those but worse than some others – and that’s all part of the experience and the journey that we must bear, endure or even benefit from as one of many experiences.
The Abrahamic religions are merely one path of many, and in the grandest scheme of things that it is possible to humanly understand, it is a childish and violent path – and sadly, it may well be the best that many can accomplish at this juncture in their existence and stage of enlightenment and being.
Religion relates to trauma recovery, but more often is the cause of trauma, because religion is one way that most people use to understand how the world works, how to behave in it and it provides comfort and explanation.
This is why religionists do not understand atheists, because atheists simply do not share the worldview of religion – so religionists, who understand behaviour and morality from within religion, then simply do not comprehend that atheists understand behaviour and morality directly, on their own, and not within a religious framework.
It is not understandable by non-religionists why religionists stick to their religious framework, given all the sex, abuse and financial scandals that so many religious leaders have been exposed in engaging in – the systemic molesting of children within the Catholic Church for one extreme example – how anyone could believe that religion is a framework for moral behavior, when the leadership of religions are clearly not acting in a manner that anyone could claim to be moral.
And in the case of religion being an argument for moral behaviour, yes, it does only take a few bad apples to spoil the barrel, because the particular bad apples are the head apples, the template for all other apples.
So, the secular law of the land in western democratic nations purports to make all members of the society equally entitled and of consequence and to codify behaviour in a manner that people are not disadvantaged by others, while religion is about inequity and inequality, me/my group if at least not better, at worst at the expense of everyone else.
Being subjected to the rules of religion is entirely voluntary and these rules cannot be forced upon other people – this is the purpose of the separation of church and state – it is not to protect either from the other, but rather to ensure that people who have not voluntarily submitted to the rules of any given religion are not subjected to the rules of said religion.
So while there should be no religious test for any person to run for any office of the land, there is a growing need for a test of the person’s ability to keep their religion to their personal life and separate that from their occupational life of being a representative of all people – regardless of ethnicity, belief, ability, gender, sexual orientation or any ground of difference between people. A test to determine that any person seeking and holding office understands that it is the law of the land that they are upholding, and not their personal religious or other beliefs above the secular law of the land.
A politician may be elected by only a narrow segment of the population, but once elected, they are the representative of everyone – and anyone who cannot put aside their personal beliefs – especially beliefs that are bigoted, discriminatory, overly entitled or any belief that places them above the law or other people – should prevented from being able to stand for office.