Naturalism vs Supernaturalism

For me, Clark's essay raised issues of tolerance and intolerance. Where do we draw the line between Freedom of Speech, an essential element of a free, democratic, liberal society and the injury caused to certain members of society by this free and public expression.
Reading Clark's essay Imus' infamous misuse of the public air ways came to mind. Could/should his action/speech be interpreted as a hate crime - racist and gender based? I am conflicted about levels of tolerance of others' intolerance. What level of tolerance can a free society support before it ceases to exist as a free society? What is the maximum cost society can afford to pay for its ideological neutral public space. How does society create a balance between general tolerance of content of public expression for the good of society; versus the real and/or potential injury of some members of society by the content expressed by others. Clark illustrates areas where our current political system has failed to maintain the balance between the faith-based and science-based ideologies.
Clark's peaceful coexistence between naturalism and supernaturalism - can it exist successfully outside of all humans being of equally sound psychological and emotional states; with approximately equal I.Q.s, - with equal access and exposure to shared knowledge; and sharing common environmentally, biologically, racially, and culturally compatible worldviews?
Is Clark professing the possibility of perfection existing in an unperfect world? Do we dare hope to believe in its possible existence - or am I just stuck in a supernaturalistic rut?

The more I learn, the more I can conceptualize how indeterminately vast my ignorance is. Infinitely so, one could say, were it possible for one to conceptualize infinity.

Article - Concepts re:mysteries

“..Puzzles can be solved; they have answers. But a mystery offers no such comfort. It poses a question that has no definitive answer because the answer is contingent; it depends upon a future interaction of many factors, known and unknown. A mystery cannot be answered; it can only be framed, by identifying the critical factors and applying some sense of how they have interacted in the past and might interact in the future. A mystery is an attempt to define ambiguities.” (p98)

Gregory F. Treverton, “Presence of Mind: Risks and Riddles,” Smithsonian Magazine, pp 98-102.

Treverton's article concerns methodologies he feels are relevant for successfully addressing the complexities of current global issues. I believe his theory that understanding the differences between puzzles - as methods we have been using unsuccessfully, and mysteries - as methods we need to employ for survival, as well as some of his concepts and definitions of puzzles and mysteries could be applicable to many of our class topics.

Gregory F. Treverton is the director of the RAND Corporation’s Center for Global Risk and Security.

Freedon to Reject Free Will

Is he only referring to humanity or Earth expressors?
Stepping outside of determinism - how do we know that could not be a possibility from an entity/entities so radically different as to be beyond our capacity to even initiate conceptualizing about their abilities?

Continuing the “Free Will” versus “Determinism” discussion.

While I dislike admitting it, the reasons I listed to support my claim that I chose to read the essay assigned for Q & A #2 of my own free will, instead appear to support Determinism. I enjoy believing that I, and everything, everywhere, exist in a multiverse paradigm. That time is not linear, and in fact, like space does not exist outside of our desire/need for its existence to experience our/The Existence. My preference would be for everything, everywhere to be co-experiencing simultaneous existence.
Would this paradigm exempt us from The Purpose, and therefore from either/both Free Will and/or Determinism? Would it exempt us from “otherness” and classifications?
While driving, when I look into my rear view mirror, it appears that the car and I are continuing our forward movement. By choosing to glance behind me, did I lose my present? Did I lose a slice of my future? Did that alter my past? Did I lose my past, present and future? Or any combination of those three?
If past lives are an aspect of The Reality, and we choose to recycle ourselves into another embodiment (in lieu of experiencing existence in some other form), would this not support a Deterministic view? Some societies that embrace this philosophy believe that we choose our parents, siblings, friends, potential circumstances, and destinies. I like this paradigm; and I want it to be an aspect of my multiverse paradigm. This attachment extends the time it is taking me to evolve into a perfect expression of divinity; and, it appears to support the theory of Determinism!
Does Determinism explain certain paranormal phenomena like pre-cognition? Alternatively, like the paranormal ability to see “The Past,” are they better explained by a multiverse reality operating outside of the accepted time/space continuum? Are telepathy and telekinesis best explained by a multiverse reality? Can the Findhorn Gardens be successfully conceptualized as both deterministic and multiversal. Perhaps, logically, Determinism is compatible with the multiverse reality. There is a circuitousness to these posits.
Do philosophical pursuits exist simply to be the premier play station for the human brain? Or, as one of the best opportunities to make up new words? Or both?
How does Determinism or Free Will relate to nonhuman beings?

Input, need input!