Monday, July 14, 2014

Privately private, civically collaborative ed 03/19/16



So far--in my lifetime--my experience has been that as soon as an acquaintance learns what I trust and am committed to, the possibility of friendship with cooperative autonomy turns to either dust or cautious reserve. The opportunity for collaboration ends. It feels like vain judgment--neither fair no unfair; merely useless. I want to change that by being a collaborator for better possibilities for the future.

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
 
Describing the subject dialog with several key diversions follows. About the news report, “La. judge wants to decide on state issue of gay marriage,” by Andrew Vanacore, The Advocate, June 24, 2014, Mr. Jim Robertson, a neighbor I have not met in person, commented, “Anarchy, in a free system, is a Federal Judge believing and ruling that an unalienable right is a legal right.”

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.
  
Jim’s concern is anarchy within a fee system. I think “anarchy” refers to political disorder and lawlessness. In this country, by design, the people are responsible for the anarchy. Presently, misled by political regimes and unrelenting governance under personal gods as well as preoccupation with “living” yet indolent to their constant loss of liberty, most Americans think the USA is a democracy. Democracy does not brook the rule of law, because the majority can do whatever it wills. But the current opinion is that democracy means equal rights. Therefore, popular democracy is by definition anarchy--do whatever you want to do.

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.
  
Knowing that the same-sex agenda is based on equality as same-sex proponents interpret it, I asked Jim if that was the unalienable right he referenced. He responded:
       The Judge ruled that marriage (an unalienable right) between homosexuals as
       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.
I assumed Jim’s objection is “marriage between homosexuals,” but do not think “the judge” did what Jim perceives he did, and now realize I should have asked a few  questions. The judge said that the federal government must recognize the definition of marriage each state employs.  Furthermore, at issue is the right of same-sex partners to establish civil recognition of their partnership versus the people's right to characterize the partnership: marriage or civil union. The choice "marriage" compromises children's rights to dignity and equality. Laws should not diminish rights of affected parties, in this case the children.
  
             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.
  
The Congress, either unintentionally or by ruse, changed laws in response to some states granting civil union or marriage licenses to same-sex couples, complicating the administration of federal statutes regarding spousal benefits such as inheritance, medical spokesperson, insurance, and such.  The Congress created the defense of marriage act (DOMA) which, in Paragraph 3, stated that marriage is heterosexual, and arguing that it is long held Judeo-Christian tradition. As always, governance under personal gods is assailable, and the Judeo-Christian comments were cited in the defeat of DOMA by the Supreme Court. I think the court’s opinion, to reject Congress’s act, is correct. But the Congress should not defend heterosexual marriage based on religious opinion. It should address the same-sex agenda’s false claim to “equality” when homosexual partners cannot independently procreate, leaving them equal only to single people and heterosexual couples who do not procreate, but not equal to heterosexual couples who procreate, especially heterosexual couples who are monogamous, since monogamy may be a matter of extended heritage.
 
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.
  
I assumed by “the judge” Jim meant the majority opinion in United States v Windsor, where I found this 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.
Maybe Jim objects to a State deciding that couples who do not risk pregnancy or cannot procreate and cannot provide role models should have equality with heterosexual couples who procreate. And maybe he objects to a State granting the right to “pride in themselves and their union,” again despite the union not being capable of procreation and not being able to offer children both male and female role models. There is no objective truth in either the equality claim or the pride claim.
 
            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.
 
Jim responded:
       Many married couples . . . were not able to have biological children. That did not remove        their unalienable right to marry or reduce that right to a legal one in which they needed
       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.
To me, Jim’s argument supports the idea that same-sex people who want monogamy without children have the right to a civic union; only if legislators extend the civil license to include obligations to any children that may be conceived by a couple should same-sex partners be excluded. I am very happy for Jim's argument, because it helped me understand why the same-sex agenda falsely claims that same-sex marriage has nothing to do with procreation. Not comprehending Jim's view, I responded, after revision, “"Where there is justice there is no sadness. When injustice is corrected, sadness often survives.”

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.
  
Jim responded:
       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
       pursue happiness.
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.
Jim responded that he admires my definition but would drop the phrase about proof, based on the faith that the Bible provides the proof. He added, “All God wants from us is our honesty.” I quote him without controversy to express both appreciation to Jim and that for all I know he is correct to use the capital G: that may be the objective truth.

              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.
Copyright©2014 by Phillip R. Beaver. All rights reserved. Permission is hereby granted for the publication of all or portions of this paper as long as this complete copyright notice is included. See the note that follows, regarding the original dialog. Revised December 29, 2015, including the title, formerly, "Religiously Differing, Civically Cooperative," changed then to "Privately private, civically collaborative," and now changed to the affixed title on March 19, 2016.

At this time, the details of the dialogue between Jim and me may be read at theadvocate.com/news/neworleans/neworleansnews/9558049-123/judge-shakes-up-louisiana-gay .

The thread, copied from the above URL follows, for further interest:
Jim Robertson · Top Commenter
“Anarchy, in a free system, is a Federal Judge believing and ruling that an unalienable right is a legal right.”
Hmmm. In this case, since the right to equality is unalienable, the judge rules you have the right to equality?
Jim Robertson · Top Commenter
Hi Phil: Actually the Judge ruled that marriage (an unalienable right) between homosexuals as Constitutional. The Constitution has no authority over unalienable rights. That was my point
Jim Robertson
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.
Phil Beaver The court is not dictating pride where there is misunderstanding. There is no misunderstanding - everything is understood fine. The court is not dictating equality where there is incapacity. There is no incapacity to marry - they are completely capable of entering into a marriage.

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.
Jim Robertson · Top Commenter
Hi Phil: I know many married couples that were not able to have biological children. That did not remove their unalienable right to marry or reduce that right to a legal one in which they needed 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 Robertson
Where there is justice there is no sadness.
Jim, I have to modify "Where there is justice there is no sadness." When injustice is corrected, sadness often survives.
Jim Robertson · Top Commenter
Hi Phil: I love the above quotes. They are so true and powerful. To me, they explain why I sorrow to see anarchy in the Judiciary and now moving into every branch of our Government.
Hello, Jim. I am so glad you checked back. Moreover, I am glad you started this thread. Citizens who dialogue to discover the objective truth have the awareness to correct injustice, and there are many long-standing injustices being confronted in this very forum. The most important injustice, in my view is the so far neglected intent of the founders to initiate governance by "We the People of the United States" as defined by the preamble to the US Constitution, 1787. Unfortunately, the 1789 Congress restored the habit of governance under "god?" that intellectual construct which provides politicians excuses and divides every human from his neighbors, friends, and family, because no one knows what "god?" is. The seventh goal of the preamble addresses children, and in 2014, children suffer the most from governance under "god?". I'm hoping 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.
Top of Form
Bottom of Form
Jim Robertson · Top Commenter
Actually Phil, I have a different perspective. In my opinion the homosexual community represents the most religious people I have ever encountered. They have an exclusive life belief and practice and clearly defined system of hope (evolution) taught exclusively in almost every education establishment in America. Historically the sexuality of an individual has played a major role in how they worship according to their beliefs and homosexuals are no exception. I am not sure how it has been established that only religious people believe in Jesus or God. The most religious people in recorded history were those who put Him on a Cross and they certainly did not believe in Him and as Jesus directly pointed out, they did not even believe in God. They actually, as Jesus also pointed out, believed in themselves and a system of teaching developed by men.
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 Robertson
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.
Jim Robertson · Top Commenter
Hi Phil: I love your hope in how all things will eventually play out. What a comfort to live in that way. You put me to shame and here I am the one that claims I believe in a God that has all things under His control. You asked the question why “J” , “H”, and “G” are capitalized in my correspondence. The 1st commandment states, “Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.” So that is why I capitalize those nouns and pronouns. I think religion can be genuine as you incredibly defined but most often is not. Jesus, to me, by His death on the Cross and Resurrection sets us free from religion that is political and without Love. I would take one exception to your religion definition in the one statement, “never having proven the heartfelt concern was valid”. I believe the Bible provides more proof than the earth we reside on that He is real.
Jim Robertson
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.

Jim Robertson · Top Commenter
Hi Phil: I think posting our correspondence on your blog is fine. I also agree that establishing your own Faith is the most important thing. All God wants from us is our honesty. Just talk to Him and He will answer. It is really that simple. My best regards.
Reply · Like · July 2 at 10:20pm