Reared Southern Baptist and falling in love with a Louisiana French-Catholic woman, she and I enjoy each of our personal integrities. My appreciation for her faith for her helped me discover that I had, for five decades, pursued self-indoctrination according to Mom and Dad’s wishes (that I save my soul by . . . ). I tried Mom and Dad's excellent leadership according to their opinions but against my way of pondering what I do not know. For five decades, I was trying to deny my commitment to the objective truth of which much is undiscovered but some is understood. That trust empowers me to admit to myself, “I do not know,” when I do not know, report that trust in public, and live my life accordingly, always expecting new discovery of the objective truth. Each time I write about this experience, I ask my wife, and she affirms that she prefers me as I am rather than as I was--a "knowing" Southern baptist.
On hearing about my commitment, the theist immediately calls me an atheist/agnostic; the atheist/agnostic responds that she/he is a person of reason, expressing disrespect for faith I do not profess; the Buddhist proudly opines that I am searching; some say I should join their institution. But none are willing to collaborate on my project: civic morality according to understood physics.
I am convinced that there is no dialog in these discussions, because people are using words in different ways. For example, the atheist insists that "faith" means "revelation" or "scriptural" or other, such as Bible interpretation, and will no consider my definition: "faith" means trust and commitment to something you cannot prove, like the objective truth or undiscovered physics or something concrete, unknown as it may be. For public affairs, physics seems the reliable pursuit--the bedrock of public morality.
I work to inspire 70 % of American citizens to establish private pursuit of happiness as they see it while committing to the civic collaboration that is available to people who volunteer to be of “We the People of the United States” as defined in the preamble to the constitution for the USA. The preamble states nine civic goals. (See how many you perceive.) Perhaps I have met Online someone, Jim, who is that generous, and this essay is about the dialog so far. It invites continuation in a public forum, as it started. Historically, collaboration in this country has never surpassed 70%, so it seems appropriate to have a separate designation for collaborative people and we chose "A Civic People of the United States," on July 15, 2015. Later, December 29, 2015 I considered preference for "A Collaborative People of the United States," and starting March 18, 2016 describe "a connected people." I might continue the corporation as "civic," to reflect the preamble and switch to "connected" to describe the practice for people who want it.
The Online Dialog with Jim
I want to understand Jim’s comment. We enjoyed a sub-thread that opened many rich subjects, yet because of my weakness in not asking direct questions, I still do not understand. I record my understanding, expanding the thread, hoping to learn more through dialog. The most important feature of the thread is that Jim and I have differing religious faiths and yet seem to find richness in each other’s civic values. Such civic association is claimed in the 1787 draft constitution for the USA but so far has not been forthcoming in a people—the people of the USA—in 227 years of opportunity.
Fortunately, the USA is specified as a republic, the first characteristic being the written rule of law rather than the will of a monarch. This particular republic is representative: citizens nominate political candidates, ostensibly with demonstrated integrity, wisdom, and patriotism. Then, by either popular vote, or, for the presidency by electoral vote, one of the “excellent” candidates is elected for office. Terms of office in three branches and many federal departments are varied so as to reduce regime continuity. Federal judges are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate and serve for life unless there are justified objections. However, under the rule of personal gods a people has no civic conscience, because each person’s god-opinion is unique, even respecting personal views on his/her religious doctrine and most people regard religious morality as civic morality. Let me repeat that claim: America has no civic conscience, because it relies on governance under personal gods. About 70% of the population claim they worship a god, so there are about 224 million divinities referenced in the pledge of allegiances prayer "under God."
Anarchy exists in the USA, because the people do not associate under the preamble, which has nine goals a civic people would benefit from. The majority assumes governance under personal gods will provide eventual justice, and the minority that would observe the preamble remain oppressed. I mean what I say: persons who would collaborate for connected morality are repressed in the USA. Judges are in no position to correct the peoples’ insubordination to their own civic contract, the preamble. Furthermore, most lawyers understand how governance under personal gods favors people who are godless yet incorporate "under god” in their promise to govern. How this happened is another subject, called Chapter XI Machiavellianism, but people of 2016 may ask themselves if the preamble is being ignored by most people and if so how the preamble's suppression is maintained. The mere consideration might answer the question for them.
It has not dawned on the people that just as a person must earn their living to have the potential for personal liberty, each must collaborate for connected morality in order to have the potential for personal liberty. Private, no-real-harm pursuits such as fine arts, sports, and religion must be kept private, so that each person may collaborate for connected morality. Negligence by the people has persisted for so long that Congress has unconstitutionally assigned some of its responsibilities to the president; the president has hundreds of agencies reporting to him and the agencies have powers no one can control; and the supreme Court does not review these powers with respect to maintaining the limitations specified in either the 1787 draft constitution or the 1791 negotiated and ratified document. I paraphrase ideas from Charles J. Cooper, "Confronting the Administrative State," National Affairs, Number 25, Fall 2015. Mr. Cooper concludes that only a people can restore the rule of law in the USA.
Constitutional. The Constitution has no authority over unalienable rights. Again,
Government has no legal authority to approve permission to unalienable rights
unless we the people allow them to do so.
While Louisiana does issue marriage licenses, requirements are few. You must be 18 and may need to furnish a certified birth certificate; if previously married, a divorce decree or death certificate; must be present at any of 63 offices; cannot marry a cousin or be same-sex or be common-law. The state license serves to codify the voluntary civic bond between heterosexual adults for the purpose of adjudicating the couple’s benefits and obligations. Since heterosexual bonding may result in procreation, obligations to progeny extend from the marriage license. Thus, the possibility of pregnancy and the resulting obligations are incorporated into the marriage license.
Is Jim’s “unalienable right” the right for heterosexual couples to procreate under their marriage license? Does he object that same-sex civil marriage might extend to a child that the same-sex couple cannot conceive? Is this his issue regarding unalienable right? That is, a person’s right to marry a heterosexual person so as to procreate cannot be granted to same sex partners by judicial fiat, because that would be anarchy? Management of the marriage license is a function the people granted to the states and is thus not a federal function. However, the federal administration is moving fast to control the states in that regard.
Also, even if they are monogamous, a same-sex couple cannot directly offer children both male and female role models needed by the child to psychologically flourish. The ultimate justice of the people is always based on the objective truth, and therein lies the strength of governance under the people instead of under personal gods. That is not to disparage believers, but to point out that believers cannot alone negotiate civic morality: theists must undergo the difficult, noble work of collaborating with non-theists, and that has been true these 227 years. Such compromise requires addressing the objective truth instead of debating religious opinion.
So far, by addressing only the views of "equality" asserted by the crafty same-sex agenda, rather than addressing the objective bases of equality including equality of persons who are of a child's age--the single person and heterosexual couples--both legislatures and the US Supreme Court are pursuing a ruinous path for a people's children.
Columbia, decided that same-sex couples should have the right to marry and so live
with pride in themselves and their union and in a status of equality with all other
Only heterosexual couples can independently procreate, whether marriage is involved or not, so same-sex couples who bond cannot claim equality with a heterosexual couple, even the non-monogamous couple formed by one of the same sex partners and a surrogate or indirect surrogacy. Furthermore, the same-sex partner takes a secondary importance to single persons, because single persons support a people’s civic dilemma: maintaining a people through procreation without encouraging abusive or neglectful parenting.
And if anything is an unalienable right, it is the right to live in pride, a personal characteristic. No other person can provide a person pride, and no judge can decide or grant pride. It's like proposing that the public provide an individual psychological maturity; they might claim they will, but it just will not transpire. The very language of these court cases is appalling with respect to the objective truth. Regardless of the Congress’s grave error with DOMA, positioning marriage as a religious issue, the Windsor opinion may become as infamous as the Dred Scott opinion in 1857, which reasoned that people of African descent could not be citizens.
permission from the Government to marry. Marriage is inseparably connected to "the
pursuit of happiness" and therefore is an unalienable right. Again, Government has no
legal authority to approve permission to unalienable rights unless we the people allow
them to do so. However, sadly that is what we see happening before our very eyes.
Jim responded, “I sorrow to see anarchy in the Judiciary and now moving into every branch of our Government.”
I have felt oppressed for two decades and think I know the primary cause: Whereas the USA was designed for governance of, by, and for the people, the people, so far, have wanted governance under personal gods, each holding their god to be the god. I use lower-case "god" in order to avoid the pretense that anyone knows what, if anything, beyond physics, controls the unfolding of reality. The intention for governance by a civic people was specified by the signers of the 1787 draft constitution for the USA. Unfortunately, the 1789 Congress restored the habit of governance under personal gods, that intellectual construct which provides politicians excuses and divides every human from his neighbors, friends, and family: everyone has his or her own god. Seated on March 4, Congress hired ministers to serve Congress in late April and early May, 1789. I hope that the gay revolution against the Bible's disparaging words about homosexuality will be the needle that tips the scales to governance according to "the justice of the people . . . no better hope in the world," borrowing words from Abraham Lincoln.
The homosexual community represents the most religious people I have ever
encountered. The homosexual belief and practice or religion is also very dogmatic. The
government is now establishing the beliefs and practices of homosexuals as law, which
is a direct violation of the First Amendment. As a result we are now also tragically seeing
our unalienable rights fall as the government is empowered to grant us permission to even
Without a doubt, religion is a matter of opinion, and a person’s notion that they are homosexual is a matter of opinion, regardless of the fact that homosexuality has been a statistical practice among placental mammals for 65 million years. I think Jim has a valid point.
In the final response (see addendum below), Jim indicated opinion that differs from mine. He used the capital “G”, Jesus, and capital “H”. I responded
Being a person of faith in the objective truth much of which is unknown, I have a novel
definition of religion: Perception of a heartfelt concern; consideration of possible
explanations; adoption of a favored explanation; development of doctrine that supports
the explanation; and attempting to live according to the explanation, never having
proven the heartfelt concern was valid.
Since then, Jim and I have become friends on facebook, even though I do not use it much. Also, he agreed for me to share this story on my blog. I think our dialog demonstrates the possibility that a person can establish cooperative civic association with a person whose religious opinions are opposite. My hope is that eventually at least 70% of citizens will participate in civic collaboration with the preamble as civic mediator, and that Jim and I will be part of it.
Searching on "right to marry," I found the sentence: "New York, in common with, as of this writing, 11 other States and the District of Columbia, decided that same-sex couples should have the right to marry and so live with pride in themselves and their union and in a status of equality with all other married persons." The court cannot, with an opinion, dictate either pride where there is misunderstanding or equality where there is incapacity. The fact that same-sex couples cannot procreate on their own cannot be negated by opinion, especially Supreme Court opinion, which inevitably must yield to the objective truth and the justice of the people. Same-sex couples must look inside themselves for pride, just as the rest of us do (neighbors dusting me off because of my opinions mean nothing to me), but first they must admit that from a procreation viewpoint, their union is disadvantaged. Their options, if they want to procreate, involve both biological and psychological risks to the intended children. Based on the objective truth, it could be called a secondary union, opposite-sex unions being preferred in defense of children. Thank you, Jim.
Procreation is not a requirement of marriage and is not relevant to whether two people can marry. Same sex couples, just like opposite sex couples, know the venues for procreation if they wish to pursue it. Regardless, they can get married. Based on the objective truth, marriage is marriage, and is not dependent upon or related to or have requirements of procreation.
Objectively, there is no method in which unions of a particular gender combination are preferred in the defense of children.
Where there is justice there is no sadness.
The homosexual belief and practice or religion is also very dogmatic., therefore we have progressed to the point where the Government is now establishing the beliefs and practices of homosexuals as law, which is a direct violation of the 1st Amendment. As a result we are now also tragically seeing our unalienable rights fall as the government is empowered to grant us permission to even pursue happiness.
Jim, You used the capital “G”, then cited Jesus, and then used capital “H,” perhaps to express either that you are Christian or that you are humble or you tell me. I use “god?” to express that I will not claim to know anything about whatever, if anything, may control the progress of the universe or whatever the universe may be part of, which is my expression of humility—not nobler humility, but mine. Yet, you do not dust me off, as so many Christians seem to. I celebrate two citizens who demonstrate cooperative autonomy and mutual accommodation for each other in their pursuits of happiness as they perceive it. I wish 70 % of US citizens would join.>>>I agree that the same-sex agenda is a religion, but do not think its moment in the candle of public opinion will persist. Very soon, the justice of the people will kick in and overcome legislation based on public sympathy--pure opinion.>>>We heard today that Hobby Lobby’s right to not supply contraceptives survived the Supreme Court—another reason to celebrate.>>>BTW. Being a person of faith in the objective truth much of which is unknown, I have a novel definition of religion: Perception of a heartfelt concern; consideration of possible explanations; adoption of a favored explanation; development of doctrine that supports the explanation; and attempting to live according to the explanation, never having proven the heartfelt concern was valid.
I was reared Southern Baptist and for five decades tried to fulfill Mom and Dad's hopes for me, even though in my third decade I fell in love with a Louisiana French-Catholic woman and to the extent I agreed worshiped with her and later our three children in addition to contributing my talents--open, creative thought--to my church. Those qualifiers about her mean that she follows the mind and heart she acquired by interpreting her wonderful parents provisions and extended families' provisions; but if a pope crosses her, she does not respond. During our third decade, I discovered her doctrines were more important to me for her than mine for me and so dropped out. Through that experience and a couple others I won't get into, I discovered that, from my youth, I had acquired faith in the objective truth much of which is unknown yet had taken up self-indoctrination and needed to end it. I cannot and will not deny my faith but do not think I deny it by treasuring my wife's faith for her. I feel the same way about your faith for you: I can stand in public or fight a war for your faith. Thus, you are rare to me: a person I have not met yet feel civic association with: Jim Robertson. I think, consciously or not, our association is mediated by the seven civic goals in the preamble to the United States Constitution. I think a lot of citizens share this association but could not express it because of other influences, both religious and political. I am writing an essay for my blog, to celebrate our discussion and hope you will not object. If you do object, I will represent you as an anonymous person. I wanted the thread that our discussion is in to die, because the same-sex agenda and debaters seem uncivil--unprincipled. But I discovered a couple of sentences that could reform the harmful path we are on and posted it just a few minutes ago.