By tradition, the majority takes the reality of personal gods for granted--as universal power or however the believer would explain it. It seems undeniable that 1) no individual’s inspiration or motivation or belief represents or speaks for whatever controls what-is and 2) the tacit assertion of supernatural power is arrogance against civic morality. I am writing to discourage this traditional practice by both writers for the media and journalists. Totalitarianism is ruinous to human goodwill and domestic liberty or personal liberty and domestic goodwill (PL&DG), no matter how beneficial the totalitarian cloak may seem to believers, whether writers or readers.
Robinson reports about a “cancer survivor, retired teacher, avid bowler, active Sunday school member, motivational speaker, reading volunteer in public schools and author” who attributes personal views of success to faith in a personal god. In this report, it seems to me “faith” means the object of a person’s trust and commitment for living. There is nothing wrong with personal opinions in privacy, excepting any slights to persons who delivered help, but the harm comes when Robinson endorses a personal god as the universally controlling power by dropping “personal” and capitalizing “g.” Any controlling power reigns equally over both cancer survivors and cancer victims, and I doubt the noun “god" applies to the control at all. I doubt cancer survivors controlled through prayer their god’s favor in competition with cancer victims who are motivated and inspired by other means and received the same quality cancer care. Similarly, I doubt gods control consequences of war or even football games.
The strategy of exalting personal opinion as divine thought--to gain civic power over both believers and non-believers--is not new to this country. Using the Discovery doctrine, imposition of Christianity started systematically with the Virginia Charter of 1606: “. . . propagating of Christian religion to such people as yet live in darkness and miserable ignorance of the true knowledge and worship of [g]od.” Natives were abused and slaves were imported from African slave-traders on this principle. The founders who debated behind closed doors in Philadelphia tried to introduce civic, godless governance in the US Constitution of 1787. However, James Madison’s 1785 opinion eventually prevailed: “Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe.” Please repeat Madison’s thought and consider agreement: Is belief in a god your personal prerequisite to citizenship? I adamantly oppose Madison’s tyranny. Do you agree with Madison? I'm not asking you: I am suggesting you ask yourself.
Madison studied Machiavelli and is perhaps without excuse respecting advice dated 1513: People who believe in a god can be permanently fooled when government representatives partner with the clergy. Congress, first seated in 1789, appointed chaplains for legislative, divine benefits and the Supreme Court expanded theism's dominance in legislatures since then; recently with Greece v Galloway and its "legislative prayer," which is not even the people's business. Having been born in Knoxville, Tennessee, I brook neither Madison’s opinion nor the opinion of anyone who agrees with Madison’s repressive invention: “the Governor of the Universe.” Madison also seems to rebuke Exodus 20:7. My faith is firmly in the objective truth of which much is undiscovered and some is understood. My insistence on civic governance without influence under the supernatural is steadfast. Other civic persons’ personal faiths are none of my business, but I work tirelessly for civic morality and civil order without governance under a god or other supernaturalism.
The objective truth makes itself so plain that no one has valid reason to ignore it. Humankind’s gradual acceptance of the objective truth establishes physics-based ethics. The longer what is plain is ignored the more difficult the recovery from privation. Take for example slavery: physics-based ethics makes it clear that no person should rob anyone of the benefits of their contributions or work. However, resistance to physics-based ethics apparently entered a new phase, with initial success of black Christianity, starting in the 1960s: by 1969 black church was influenced by black liberation theology (BLT). Few inhabitants know that Thomas Paine wrote against Christian support of slavery in 1775:
violence and murder for gain, is rather lamentable than strange. But that many civilized, nay,
Christianized people should approve, and be concerned in the savage practice, is surprising;
and still persist, though it has been so often proved contrary to the light of nature, to every
principle of Justice and Humanity, and even good policy.
On February 19, 2015, at Southern University, I heard Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright, Jr. say that we have black theology, black church, black bible, and black national anthem (that quartet implies black god), because white Christianity divided the people. In my opinion, Wright desecrated the death of every soldier who died for this country, starting with the revolutionary American and French causalities, but especially the Civil War casualties. No one should use personal gods and beliefs to divide a people. I attribute Wright’s attitude to divisive actions after the founding of the Congressional Black Caucus in January 1969. Since February, I learned that the Black American National Anthem is a cultural consequence of decades earlier preservation of personal pride against Jim Crow years, and I celebrate such no-harm personal liberty and will continue to contribute to domestic goodwill. But I heard Wright encourage young Baton Rogueans to risk their opportunities for PL&DG for an unjust cause: black liberation theology.
Writers for the media and journalists who further the tradition of imposing belief in gods onto the civic debate, are perpetrating an offense against PL&DG. They are promoting domestic alienation. I call for reform that the average person may not immediately support. Some may claim I can’t write, but my ideas are merely innovative--novel. However, the objective truth can be plain to everyone who wants to understand, no matter how entrenched indoctrination and conformity--sometimes obfuscated as propriety--may be. And clear, concise identification of offense against civic morality is sufficient to remove excuses against reform. The message exists herein, and the era of using gods to impose with impunity the supernatural on civic morality is over. It is time for civic collaboration of by and for a civic people.