Political regimes pretend that the civic preamble to the USA constitution is areligious/secular. Yet regimes use religion to cultivate conflicting, opinion-based laws rather than civic morality.
Both directly and indirectly connected citizens, perhaps 2/3, may iteratively collaborate for comprehensive safety and security by discovering the-objective-truth,* keeping religion private.
*What-is is evident in physics: energy, mass and space-time.
Below, by “physics-based ethics” I
mean, for example, it is unethical to continuously strive to fit a rigid square
peg into a rigid round hole of conflicting diameter. On the soft side, love can
overcome everything but religion. Humankind deliberately pursues the
ethics of physics, but many people do not participate--do not benefit during their lifetime.
The Bible seems to posit a snake is
responsible for presupposing the knowledge of life, which only a god should
know. The snake informs a couple about having sex, causing the fall of humankind. The
false assumptions are that both making love and understanding reality are bad and invoke
punishments from a god. The civic punishments are female pains of childbirth and enslavement to care, male enslavement
to a family, and the snake’s suffrage of hate. But there's also a supernatural punishment: Humankind is doomed to death, but each person may receive a glorious afterdeath through atonement for the error. But personal atonement is not necessary, because Jesus bore the punishment, and each human can receive restoration to a glorious afterdeath by accepting Jesus's' sacrifice. This construct is not disproved by discovered physics.
Right or wrong, I opine that I was conceived in an act of love: There was no error.
The human physics of procreation was
used to construct a false ethic in literature that was chosen to construct the Bible. However, human monogamists at any time in history
had the potential (awareness and ability to think) to understand that they must
preserve the autonomy of their partner and cultivate mutual cooperation. Once cooperative
autonomy is established, a couple may share with progeny. Psychologically mature
motives can be attained merely by considering the other persons in the
interrelationship called family.
The first step toward partnering is
mutual consideration followed by mutual attraction, which, if fulfilling, is
followed by psychological bonding. Successful bonding leads to both mutual preservation
of personal autonomy then two independent wills to make love, or to partner. Heterosexual
partners who are fertile and make love might procreate. When procreation
occurs, the partners become a couple with respect to the child and share their
love with their progeny. Also, the couple appreciates their progeny’s autonomy,
and the progeny may learn cooperative autonomy from the couple’s example.
If either member of the couple
detaches from the child, the ethics of physics was breached, probably
before the detachment occurred. Children who never experienced heterosexual
cooperative autonomy are likely to become egocentric, subject to detachment
disorder. Cooperative autonomy, like all character traits cannot be taught by exhortation: it comes from thoughtful experience and example. People who procreate without respect for the autonomy of the child have
breached physics-based ethics. Successful cultivation of physics-based ethics
leads to a successful civic culture or a people who accommodate
each other’s pursuits of the liberty each person perceives in domestic goodwill. In other words, a civic people relieve the tension between personal liberty and domestic goodwill.
When humans are influenced by an
erroneous culture, they must rely on their own goodness--cooperative autonomy--to guide them through the unknowns to the knowable. In this case, the human
bond that fulfills physics-based ethics is monogamy for life in cooperative
autonomy. When the bond is between heterosexuals who procreate, cooperative
autonomy is shared with the progeny. Appreciation of personal autonomy extends
to the children to be born. A civic people do all they can to provide
a culture that defends the child’s autonomy until the child is on its path toward
psychological maturity. People who take on a brave new path, such as same-sex parenting--are risking physics-based ethics.
Make no mistake, I write what I
think, not claiming it is the objective truth. I am in my eighth decade of living in continuing earnest study: my fifth
decade of monogamy; with progeny beginning their fifth decades of living. My motive is
to help reduce actual misery by candidly confronting cultural error I perceive and wish to discuss, perhaps to facilitate mutual accommodation through compromise.
I do not wish to discourage anyone from their personal path toward psychological maturity.
If I knew the objective truth, I would
not be constrained to write opinion.
These thoughts came to me while responding
to a post by Mr. Alexander Light, HumansAreFree.com, regarding a perhaps coded idea
by Isaac Newton: “Grind the stones so
there is no beginning nor end and it will give you the snakes that will show
you the steps that you must climb.” I commented on October 2, 2014 after
posting this more studied essay. I hope Mr. Light responds to my explanation, because I have a concept from Ralph Waldo Emerson that seems
parallel to Newton’s thoughts, which I wish to share for Mr. Light’s
consideration and comments.
With no more than his website title, my thought is:
humans are free to appreciate each other’s personal autonomy or not. In other words, to enjoy domestic goodwill, a civic person grants each civic person civic liberty.