<< Back to Pollywog [#GRZ_196] – Cycle to Bias [#GRZ_91] >>
The content of this post is for open-minded critical thinkers, and for historical, philosophical and other academic analyses. The exercise below regards the current socio-political question of zygote gestation which is “not yet resolved and it is impossible to please everyone in discussing the question, since intelligent and sincere adults in the debate hold mutually contradictory views,” as expressed in the New American Bible. [1]
Some people should not read this article. For those who read it, only some will understand it. For those who understand it, only some will be able to do what it suggests. I can almost assure you, by my own experiential statistics that, by the end of this article, you will fail in the suggested exercise, either by the evidence of you becoming offended, or you will succumb to a condemnation grounded by the exact antithesis suggested by the exercise. [2.1]
Please note that any thoughts expressed below are not presented as ultimate truth, but only as perhaps “true enough” to support the exercise in critical thinking, directed to a difficult and highly controversial subject. Numbers are provided in certain cases for your reference. [3, 4]
I will pause now to let you decide to stay or to leave…
IMPORTANT: There is a necessary condition for you to continue to read this post. I make this condition in a manner that I have made to my graduate master degree students, but for other contexts and subjects, as an exercise in critical thinking. Not everyone can do it, not even some highly trained master graduate degree students, and not even some accountants, doctors, engineers, and lawyers. Success in the exercise is not by memorized technical knowledge, but rather by a mental framework discipline, perhaps philosophical deftness.
In my own experience, about 15% of people can do it naturally, about 50% can do it with contrived effort and training, and about 35% cannot do it at all. Success is not per se by IQ, but from mental framework engineering by education [5], such as a well-engineered structure made of wood serves better than a poorly engineered structure made of brick. [6, 7]
For the statistically significant 35% who cannot satisfy my condition, it might be more accurate to say they refuse to satisfy it. This 35% tends to be same 35% who cannot or will not grasp the considerations suggested in Critical Thinking and the Conflation of Character, Integrity, Goodness and Virtue [8], and for the same reason, being the refusal to allow contradiction to an opinion, belief or faith. That is, for some, the exercise is itself inherently offensive. [*3, *4]
[This experiential statistic might be such as other things that have actually occurred throughout time, like a suggestion of interracial marriage, where, to some, it is wholly immaterial by love, to others it is wholly abhorrent by indoctrination, and to others there is an initial offensive reflex by tradition and custom that is managed by application of new training and discipline.]
HERE IT IS. Here is the condition for you to proceed:
To continue reading, you must be able to set aside god and religion from constraining or intruding into your thought-process, which also includes all of the derivative self-righteous morality. This is a critical-thought exercise in the nature of a systemic critical thought-reboot.
If you cannot or refuse to satisfy this condition, you cannot do this exercise. Please do not continue. Perhaps my ask is too great or I am being unreasonable and absurd. We’ll say it’s me, and not you. So be it. You have a right to condemn me publicly or privately. You can stop right here, and you can shut down this article. No one will ever know, unless you tell. A lot of people cannot or will not do what I require here and now, so you are indeed with the many.
I will pause now to let you decide to stay or to leave…
Kudos! If you have gotten here, it means you are willing. That is a big deal. Whether you are able yet remains to be seen. From a discipline perspective, we might call it the intention to eat right and to get into physical shape. But, alas, the cupcakes and television shows bait us away.
In any case, you have at least agreed to try to satisfy my condition for reading on—that is, to try to set aside and to separate god and religion from your thought process. [9]
Therefore, we are going to move forward with the assumption that secular moral goodness is defined only by resultant social order, civil harmony, temporal justice, and categorical equality. [10] Remember, there’s no god or religion in this exercise, which we’ve now separated out, but only social order, civil harmony, temporal justice, and categorical equality. [*10, 11]
We are applying “secular moral goodness”—not by causation of new or ancient god or gods, religion, or any morality derived from new or ancient god (or the gods) or religion, but rather because the principles of human association and the systemic integrity of the social model is the source itself that adduces and effects secular social survival, comfort, prosperity, and happiness. [12]
So we mark very carefully, the adage that says, “Boni effectus nec causam nec excusationem rogant.” (“Good effects beg neither cause nor excuse.”)
And, just to make sure it is absolutely clear, my condition to proceed is not for theists to forsake theistic faith or to forsake their respective ethereal deities for this temporary exercise, but only momentarily to “think different,” as famously said by Steve Jobs. [13a] Nothing here suggests that you forego services at church, the temple, synagogue, mosque or otherwise. This is a scientific exercise; that is, this is an exercise in critical-thinking political science.
Now, of course, atheists naturally do not apply theisms to concepts of social morality, all things being secular. And agnostics naturally tend to be intellectually curiously open-minded to complex questions, it being said, “In rebus divinis omnes rationales personae necessario sunt agnosticae.” (“As to matters of god, all rational persons are necessarily agnostic.”) [14a]
Therefore, it tends to be only theists who have cognitive difficulty, and more particularly incalcitrant theists who cannot or refuse, by theistic ruleset, to contemplate separating theistic morality and secular morality, even for socio-politico-scientific (political science) critical-thinking analysis purposes. [14b] Some theists just can’t do it, and some theists just won’t do it or consciously stubbornly just don’t care to do it, by conclusive presumptuous self-righteousness. [22a]
But, since you are still here, irrespectively, we have defined civil (not theistic or religious) moral goodness by social order, civil harmony, temporal justice, and categorical equality.
And let’s make our applied definitional standard more accurate to task; to wit:
“Civil moral goodness by social order, civil harmony, temporal justice, and categorical equality, for a diverse, free, and free-thinking people.“
Having now applied some context to the abstract framework, I will presuppose from experience that we are at the first concrete offense, the first break-point, perhaps like after doing one sit-up in the exercise program. “What?” you exclaim, “A non-theistic American society? ‘Civil morality’ without God! This is absurd! Nothing existing in nature can be good or happy without one uniform belief in causation by god, or the gods!” I understand. [14c] A non-theistic American society tends to be abhorrent to the moral indoctrination of certain theists. [15]
Yes, indeed, even the money in late America says, “In Deities We Trust.” Well, actually, money in late America says, “In God We Trust,” not only overtly endorsing theism against the DEI principles of the First Amendment, but also stated in the singular, implying endorsement of monotheism, and not uniting but rather tending divisive insult and contradiction to patriotic atheists, and patriotic polytheists, and patriotic Hindus, among others.
So, yes, it necessarily follows that, in this exercise, in order for you to continue, we’ve now effectively removed “In God We Trust” from the root of all pervasive money, just like it was (not there) when America was founded. And we’ve also removed “Under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance, yes, just like it was (not there) when the Pledge was written. [16, 16b]
“What is ubiquitous tends to be overlooked.” Overlooked, but that does not mean it is not speaking to us, or indoctrinating us, or brainwashing us, to the concept of god in government by subconscious imprint—it simply means we’re not thinking about it. [*14, 17, 28]
The one place that no one escapes is money. And, after a generation, the pervasive existence of the phrase everywhere on inescapable money is seen as normal rather than abnormal and then is used as a bootstrap self-fulfilled prophesy exponentially to justify more of the same; to wit: “God belongs in and with government; it must be true, because our money says so.”
But, here we are. Right now, we are indeed consciously thinking about it, critically. And, since this is a thought-reboot exercise, it follows that we will necessarily exorcize government of god (and the gods, and three gods as one god), religion, and the claimed derivative morality, including all the evidentiary trappings and adornments endorsed in late American government, expressly or by implication, and notwithstanding all the ancient tradition and custom. [18, 19]
This concept of governmental exorcism of god (or the gods, above or below, or old or new) and religion, with morality derived therefrom, cannot be offensive to anyone at this point, since we are simply critical-thought exercising, and our exercising requires our exorcising.
In this exercise, we should take a moment to reflect upon context itself and the intrusion or entwinement of god (or the gods, or religion, with morality derived therefrom). Indeed, the government in the socio-politico body of Western Culture is essentially derived from the Abrahamic religious tradition and culture. For those who do not know it, Judaism, Christianity and Islam might be said to be “children of the same father, Abraham,” and perhaps even with a further reference to metaphorical proud sibling rivalries evidenced by all sorts of current and ancient divisive derivative pestilent war, death and destruction, with the pursuit of theistic happiness itself found in the conquering of others who have diverse or non-conformed dogma or thoughts as to life causation and meaning.
Western Culture theists tend to determine “morality” as an inseparable function of their respective Abrahamic religions, simply because, before the American Experiment to separate church and state to allow civil diversity, socio-politico government tended entwinement with religion, often one religion. But, from this god-government system, America revolted. [*16b]
By definition itself, “morality” is not necessary based upon god (or the gods) or the religion that follows [*16], which is why we can rationally secularly proffer our definition of “civil moral goodness” without god (or the gods), such as in the manner of political science genius Thomas Jefferson [*21.2, *10]; to wit: “Civil moral goodness by social order, civil harmony, temporal justice, and categorical equality, for a diverse, free, and free-thinking people.“
We open our eyes to see that the primary objective of church tends to be to convert everyone to theism, then to convert everyone to the same god or gods, then to convert everyone to the same religion, then to convert everyone to the same dogmatic thought. Until the final solution of the church, there will tend to be pestilent war, death, and destruction. It must needs be.
Of course, the tending objective of each church to convert everyone is futile and unreconciled to any greater diverse, free, and free-thinking society, and all evidence since the beginning of time proves the tendency.
A church’s objective of uniformity tends to be ostensibly secularly impossible by articles of institutional church association to the extent that the church must integrate with any greater diverse, free, and free-thinking society. Conformity of thought and diversity of thought don’t bind. In America, the church tends to bite the hand that feeds it: America graciously grants each diverse church its own existential lane, and yet each church tends to refuse to stay within it, and then ungratefully demands that there only be one lane, which, of course, is its own gifted lane. The church tends to destroy itself and takes everyone with it, and it’s too deluded to know why. Human personal self-revelation is not enough, the institution of each church itself must replicate in its host, cannibalizing its host, under guise. [20]
By the overt admission of its own definition:
Morality (from Latin moralitas ‘manner, character, proper behavior’) is the categorization of intentions, decisions and actions into those that are proper (right) and those that are improper (wrong). Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion or culture, or it can derive from a standard that is understood to be universal. Morality may also be specifically synonymous with “goodness”, “appropriateness” or “rightness”.
It has been said, “Homo non potest esse haereticus suo dogmate.” (“No man is a heretic to his own dogma.”) However, theists tend to judge civil effects within a framework of their self-righteous causation by external theistic rulesets, depending upon which of the innumerable theism dogma variations. But civil effects in America must needs be to make that same causation immaterial by Constitutional construct, or at least for this thought-reboot exercise.
Stated another way, the issue for theists tends to be not focused on concrete secular effects, but rather on abstract ethereal uniformity of a theistic causation. [*22a]
The true-enough issue regarding church is not whether human beings effect kissing or killing each other in society, but rather that they agree that they are caused to do so by the same theistic godly dogma.
Moreover, that opinion of theistic dogmatic causation tends to be neither scientific nor deductive, but rather unscientific and inductive, making it unreliable if not secularly socially inherently dangerous. [22b, 22c.] And then, indeed, such as it is, the self-fulfilling prophesy caused by the church tends the effect of hate, war, death and destruction for a disagreement on abstract theistic causation of the fact which is by then forgotten, being subsumed into horrific social effects as its own new causation. A meta-war evolved from hate of competitive differences of opinion regarding abstract theistic causation into hate for the real effects of the war itself; that is, the hate is no longer directed to differences of opinion regarding theistic causation, but rather hate because the combatants have, in fact, killed each other’s friends and family. [35b]
But “good effects beg neither cause nor excuse.” Thusly, where abstract dogmatic theisms tend to focus only upon causation, secular society measures standing by effects; that is, social impact. Causation and intention are legally relevant for injurious social effects. [*8, 36]
For example: “civil goodness” defines when killing is righteous for the good of the civil society. [23] American civil society is certainly not pacifistic, and, at any point America became wholly theistically pacifistic, America and its principles would tend cease to be, being overrun by non-pacifists, as the theist Vikings and many other real-world life examples conclusively evidence currently and throughout time. Therefore, America, to sustain, does not systemically adhere to pacifistic principles of Jesus, or Gandhi, or Martin Luther King, Jr. It is beyond dispute that Americans are killers, often brutal killers, for a lot of reasons, by ruleset. The Second Amendment of the U.S Constitution conclusively evidences the fact, including to prevent trespass from government intrusion into private affairs. Thusly, it has been said, “Homines pacifici sperent, sed fortes eos in spe vivant.” (“Peaceful people may hope, but warriors keep them alive so they can hope.”) So let us not cast stones. [*2.2, *2.3]
Let us behold it. Killing a person is “always” wrong, except in self-defense, or expanding national territories, or defending national territories, or to keep slavery, or to end slavery, or for the death penalty, or for eating, with all sorts of self-justifying nuances of when civil society says killing is required, or encouraged, or acceptable, or more or less culpable. [24] Shall we inject ourselves with the opioid of self-delusion to avoid the pain of our own overt hypocrisy? [*2.3]
Decisions to kill are justified by perspective. [*8, *36] Abraham Lincoln expressed this in his Second Inaugural Address, “Both (North and South) read the same Bible, and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other….The Almighty has His own purposes.” [25, *8, *36]
And, this is even with the same People,…and the same Bible,…and the same God.
These questions of whether it is “theistically or religiously morally wrong” to kill for temporal comfort, or to enslave for temporal comfort, or to expand national territory for temporal comfort, or to protect fuel sources for temporal comfort, or to enslave or to burn or to rack someone, or to do all sorts of secular cruel and unusual atrocities, is so historically replete with overt hypocrisy that any rational basis for god (or gods) or religion as a justification for temporal action is only by the comfortable delusion of self-interested interpretation that clearly fails to earn any secular right of governance of others. Some people call it “land” and some people call it simply a concrete embodiment of abstract “comfort”; at least we should own it or own up to it. Abrahamic religions tend to rationalize everything and every secular horror imposed onto our brethren by cause of god, which is not secular in America. [21.1]
Let us face truth. Since the beginning of time, if there ever were an association that fails to qualify anyone to govern anyone else in socio-politico harmony, with equality, and with justice for all in diversity, it is an association using an attribute grounded in god, being the most divisive construct of secular sociality ever devised by man. [*2, *21, 26, *22, 27]
As Jefferson pointed out: “[I]n every country and in every age the priest has been hostile to liberty.“ [*6, *14, *15, *16] Thus, the adage, “Conformitas cogitationis et diversitas cogitationis non obligant.” (“Conformity of thought and diversity of thought don’t bind.”)
For the 35% that I mentioned above who cannot or refuse to separate church and state in America no matter what the political science, or the social science, or any other science suggests, we can channel Jefferson’s Notes on Virginia. [*21, *23] History proves the burnings, choppings, castrations, hangings and rackings of the Inquisition, no different in principle in America’s own Scopes Monkey Trial, 800 years later. [*14] Antiquity just won’t leave us alone. Thusly, we have the collision of the facts of life and the opinions of “after-life“ bled together by cruel thoughtless circumcisions of infants without exigent medical necessity [*28], and the strange practice of drinking the claimed actual blood of a god each week and eating his actual flesh (transubstantiation) (except during COVID) [27b], water made “holy” by incantations, ancient costuming [2.5], waving incenses with ancient chants, rites and rituals, with a variety of “miracles” or “priestcraft” or “witchcraft” (depending upon perspective) [*14], and these same people trying to govern others by imposing these or their tending overtly hypocritical derived personal morals and customs, and rites, and rituals, upon others who would be free of such presumed self-righteous morality and concepts of after-life(s).
Certainly, by relative perspective, theists may argue for the most unhappy crusades of “god made me do it, I kill for god” [*6, *14, *15, *16], but we cannot do that in our exercise, because god (or the gods) we exorcise by the exercise, without theistic unhappy religious crusades.
An act effects a common civil secular interest to our definitional end or it does not. Causation is made immaterial. The act furthers social order, civil harmony, temporal justice, and categorical equality, for a diverse, free, and free-thinking people or not. [29a, *23]
And, to be clear, once again and finally, this exercise does not suggest an atheist society, but rather whether we can framework a reconciled social structure of things staying in lanes and true to respective different objectives, one for life, one for after-life (such as it may be). The lowest tier government (not higher tier society), being neither theistic nor atheistic, such as justice itself [*17, 29b] using a ruleset that serves the pursuit of happiness of a diverse, free, and free-thinking people. A social structure that allows god to exist, but, as a social structure, does not need god to exist.
Everything has a cost, and DEI diversity, freedom, and free-thinking must concede the destination or pay the toll. “Libera cogitans societas dimittit conformitatem socialem ad servandam systemicam singularem libertatem.” (“A free-thinking society waives social conformity to preserve systemic individual freedom.”) [*10]
Thusly, by discipline of thinking and philosophical deftness, behold it: “Civil moral goodness by social order, civil harmony, temporal justice, and categorical equality, for a diverse, free, and free-thinking people.“
Now, finally, it may seem strange—it may even seem absurd—but it’s not, at least for those who can do it: For this exercise only, we can further presume that life has no meaning. Why? Because that meaning, or any such meaning, is an opinion, belief, faith or principle that is perfect in individual self-revelation, but diversity of thought refuses to allow any such meaning to be made uniform, or to be conformed, or socialized into larger society for a diverse, free, and free-thinking people, and trying to do so will accordingly prevent civil harmony, in the same manner as god (or the gods) and religion (any such meaning oft a derivation therefrom). [13b, 13c, 14a] The meaning of life is personal.
The meaning of life is not systemic, at least not for a diverse, free, and free-thinking people.
Thusly, for theists, to hold god (or the gods) in one hand, and to hold civil order, harmony, justice and equality, in the other hand. Thomas Jefferson could do it, James Madison could do it, but, then again, they were theist political science geniuses. [*26] Not everyone can do it; that is, to maintain the required human duality. [*2.4, *26, 29c] Said famously by F. Scott Fitzgerald:
“The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.“
If you cannot or refuse to satisfy my condition, you cannot continue this exercise. Please do not continue. You tried, and I don’t suggest that it is you, it might be me. I might be wrong in everything suggested here. [*14] And, again, perhaps my ask is too great or I am being unreasonable and absurd. You have a right to condemn me publicly or privately. You can stop right here, right now, and you can shut down this article. No one will ever know, unless you tell. A lot of people cannot or will not do what I require here and now, so you are indeed with the many. I never said exercising was easy or fun. Duty never is. [30, 31]
I will pause now to let you decide to stay or to leave…
You are here, and thereby, you believe that you will try neither to be offended nor to impose any god, religion, or any derivative morality, into your scientific thought process. Some of the following is anticipatory. As said above, the following is not asserted as truth, but only perhaps true enough to support the exercise of the critical thinking on the subject. There may be a tendency to apply theistic dogma to contradict something, which is invalid here. For example, “the word existed before the word,” [2.6] and such paradoxical ironic metaphors and self-serving rationalizations, which are only cognizable by faith and cannot now be applied with secular rationality; thusly, “Quod est error per fidem, non est rationalis per saecularismum.” (“What is delusion by faith, is not rational by secularity”).
1. Physical living things throughout time have effected actions upon other physical living things by the cause of different reasons. We might categorize some of these physical living things as “animals” and others as “vegetables,” by our traditional vernacular, common sense, and knowledge. Both things are alive as living things, but are necessarily categorized more specifically by the former having the ability to think, generally speaking. It is beyond the scope to address disputes among scientists about taxonomic categorizations of cellular and non-cellular domains, superdomains, empires, dominiums, kingdoms and eocytes. [32]
2. Nominative (named) categorization of things is a contrived construct by certain animals, for the purpose of communication, which is a cause that tends to effect efficient reference for purposes of contrived social order. That is, a particular thing that exists, unto itself, is not categorically defined by necessity (it is what it is), but it is categorically defined by a social contrivance of “words” for ease of communicative reference. Most animals are not concerned about their names, they are concerned (if it might be said as such) to survive. Animals tend to be attracted to what effects their survival and comfort, and what “tastes good.” [33, 34, 35]
3. One of the reasons that living things act is caused by physical necessity and one of the reasons livings things act is by abstract principle. The former is in the nature of survival, such as by instinct. [*36] The latter is in accordance with abstract belief or faith, at times contradicting nature. So far as science expresses, vegetative life does not act on abstract principles, but only on physical necessity; that is, a flower does not drink, such as it is, by philosophy. Animal life not only acts on physical necessity, but also may act by cognitive ability presenting action by reason of thinking, such as choice, principle, belief and faith.
4. Physical existential life and the termination of that life (death) may be one concept on a philosophical basis (all living things die, and thereby the concepts of life and death are philosophically inseparable), but, on a secular temporal basis, any termination of life in conjunction with an “after-life” (soul) is by opinions, beliefs, faiths or principles.
As science suggests, no vegetables, and no animal life lacking cognitive ability, is capable to contemplate opinions, beliefs, faiths or principles. That is, only living things that have cognitive ability are capable to formulate and to contemplate opinions, beliefs, faiths or principles. As a corollary, therefore, only living things that have cognitive ability have the potential to act by the cause of contemplated opinions, beliefs, faiths or principles. As a further corollary, only living things that actually implement their cognitive ability, by thinking (contemplating), act by the cause of contemplated opinions, beliefs, faiths or principles.
5. The seat of human thought is in the brain, all other components of a human physical structure are sensors and tools, or mechanics that exist to self-support the being. [37]
6. The concept of sensation (pain) is conjoined with time; that is, the anticipation of it by memory of reference, the endurance of it in real-time, and the remembrance of it in reflection. Without frame of reference and cognition, there is no anticipation or related anxiety of pain, and without existential memory, there is no remembrance of it. So far as science suggests, a thing does not remember pain, pleasure, or anything else post-existential life.
On a secular basis, “Cum aliquid moritur non sciet quod vixerit.” (“When a thing dies, it will not know that it had lived.”)
Concepts of existential sensation (pleasure or pain) by reference to sentience after death are not by science, but rather by application of opinions, beliefs, and principles, oft derived or grounded by theisms, not supported by science, but perhaps writings, words, customs and traditions.
7. To the extent that a written form of communication using words (book) is the originating source of some truth or fact (the words themselves being the originating fact), then the book’s absence will thereby omit what it originated by self. To the extent that a book merely reflects or testifies to (does not originate) an extrinsic fact, principle or existential truth, then the book’s absence does not thereby omit what it did not originate; that is, the book is in a manner of hearsay (testifying to something the receiver of the communication is not receiving directly from the originating source).
8. A book using words cannot reflect any fact, principle or truth which cannot be expressed by words, and words are existential constructs of language, definition, and usage by judgment in the transmission, and judgment interpretation in the reception. On a secular basis, the selection of words is by cognitive judgment; that is, the judgment of selection of a word to match the judgment of the thing to which the word is associated. [38] The transmission of words, even if and no matter how perfect unto themselves by transmission, by ruleset of match in communication, must be received in exactly the same manner of thought in the reception, otherwise, the transmission of the words is imperfect as a form of communication. Each word must be perfectly selected, each transmission perfectly transmitted, each transmission perfectly received, each definition perfectly equal by transmitter and receiver, and each judgment by interpretation of context perfectly equal in the transmitter and the receiver.
9. Any book that is not the originating source of the fact or truth asserted is immaterial to change the truth that it merely reflected by hearsay. The truth exists independently, as a matter of time, before, during and after the existence of the book. The book is a mirror of hearsay, but not the existential thing it tries to reflect by words. The purpose of words is for communicative reference, and referential integrity cannot exist where there is no common frame of reference; that is, even perfect words judged to match from transmission through reception, cannot encapsulate what cannot be extrinsically referenced perfectly in receipt. [*4]
10. Mother Nature and Father Time, and temporal existential constructs, make no accommodation for animals categorized as human beings; that is, human beings are subject to the same existential framework as other animals and are not special in the natural existential framework. Human beings are not superior from a scientific existential framework. On a natural existential basis, the lowly roach is oft generally thought superior to humans. Humans are only differentiated on an existential basis, by capability derived by cognition. Nature does not distinguish human beings from other animals, all of which live and die and decompose by the similar rules. [39]
11. The existence of an otherwise human body that is lacking in cognitive ability is generally the scientific equal of a vegetable; that is, a “human vegetable,” and, from this, there is a defined term of a human in a “vegetative state.” Keeping a living thing in a vegetative state, albeit human, and albeit alive, requires the work of others, as it cannot be existentially self-sufficient, which work is purchased or donated by the worker, except by slavery. [40, 41]
12. So far as scientific empirical rational understanding suggests, concepts of “after-life,” the soul, deities, gods, devils, transubstantiations, warlocks, priestcraft, witches, holy water, shrines, religions, and similar opinions, beliefs, faiths or the abstract principles derived therefrom, are only by animals that actually think and contemplate, which does not include animals in a vegetative state. In a diverse, free and free-thinking secular society of human beings, theism cannot be imposed but must be elected by thoughtful contemplation and choice.
13. Theisms are necessarily based upon the “existence” of god (or the gods), which attempt to rationalize by defining a “thing” with words that require judgment, beyond rational contemplation by lack of frame of reference, and then require judging to place the thing that cannot be defined, by its own definition, into the existential space and time that is admittedly not applicable, and then suggest that there is or could be, “by fact,” temporal evidence (proof) of what cannot be defined or placed into a framework of existential consideration. [*4]
14. Some religions are monotheistic (Judaism, Islam), some are polytheistic (Buddhism, Shitoism) and some are not precisely either (Hinduism). Christianity claims monotheism, but it is a more complex issue as the articles of faith have abstractly unified three separate gods or persons as one god (plus saints), avoiding what it would otherwise assert as the paganism of polytheistics. The United States Constitution, for a diverse, free and free-thinking people, prevents theistic preferences, and implements the equal rights and privileges and immunities, of all diverse religions, theisms, and atheisms, with equal justice for all.
History conclusively suggests the overt absolute tendency that endorsement of god (or the gods) also implicates, perhaps necessarily, a concomitant endorsement of a religion or religion, as no god will agree to exist without the establishment of religious principles to be temporally secularly implemented, with resultant devisive tribes derived therefrom. Thus the maxims, “Religio deum ut canem sequitur, et saepe rabidum.” (“Religion follows god like a dog, and oft a rabid one.”) [*16], and “Coniungere est dividere.” (“To unite is to divide.”)
15. The primary objective of churches tends to be uniformity of thought. The primary objective of the United States of America is harmonious diversity of thought [*21.4] Therefore, the primary objective of the church is incompatible with the United States, although the primary objective of America is compatible with the church. But the two only reconcile if America has the constitutional integrity to keep the church in its lane, or the church will concede to apply the discipline to stay in its lane. However, the former is probable, if possible by systemic objective; the latter is not probable, if impossible by systemic objective.
In the church, man serves the law. In America, the law serves man. Thus the maxims, “Homo est dominus legis, lex non est domini hominis.” (“Man is master of law, the law is not master of man.”); “Lex homini servit, homo legi non servit.” (“The law serves man, man does not serve the law.”) [41b]
What America does is a function of its people, and what the church does is a function of its people. By application of a diverse, free, and free-thinking people, the phrase “God and Country” is perhaps a misnomer, more properly stated as “God or Country.” History proves that one tends to enslave the other. The American Experiment tests the question.
16. Some living things that are classified as “human beings” are further classified by genetics, known as a “XX” genetics (“woman” or “women” (female[s]), and others have “XY” genetics (know as “man” or “men” (male[s]). By statistically rare exception and not the overt general rule, some human beings do not have chromosomes that fit into binary XX or XY dichotomic categories. For purposes of proceeding, we will apply the general definition that only XX-women are capable to gestate something capable to become a birthed child.
17. For purposes of proceeding further regarding questions of “zygote gestation,” revision to terminology is necessary and appropriate. The reason is that certain historical words have become ambiguous and unfair with hidden premises. For example, to describe an “impregnated mother” inherently connotes a “mother of” something, the something being, “a child,” which begs exactly the socio-political question at issue, and is objectional and prejudicial, and thereby presumes a conclusion by hidden premise. No less for the term “abortion,” which is a highly objectionable and prejudicial term by hidden premise. The terms themselves stack the deck. No court or jury should permit or acknowledge such terms in the consideration of the question exactly for that reason. Objections must be preserved.
Therefore, we will proceed with the following terms. “Zygote gestation” is used here as the process of the zygote’s existence by fertilization of egg by sperm through “gestational term” to “birth.” For our scientific purpose here, and not applying any special connotation in the “wonderful special beauty of humans from god (or the gods)” or similar self-serving hubristic if not arrogant characterizations, our zygote gestation is no more scientifically special than the gestation of a dog or existential consideration of a roach. Termination of a zygote gestation from the point of formation to the point of a child having been birthed is simply that, “a termination of zygote gestation.” The term “birth” means the result of a child (then admittedly made and nominated as such) being born or expelled from the gestational host in a manner that it can be physically counted as such, can be accessed without a trespass upon the gestational host, and is no longer contained within the bodily container of its gestational host. The term “gestational host” means the XX-female that hosts the zygote through and until any birth. The characterization of the zygote as it evolves in stages through the gestational term, from zygote to any birth of a child will be called the “potentiate.”
To critically think about the condition, it would not properly recognize the condition of the potentiate being within the container of the gestational host unless we have a word that connotes exactly that difference. In effect, everyone tends to agree that a human “child,” by definition, exists post-birth. The question at issue is pre-birth, so the language structure and words used must accommodate the question without the objectionable and prejudicial hidden premise. Otherwise, confusion will occur by use of words, upon which legal precedent lies, and which contradicts the goal of any worthy wordsmith, or honorable lawyer. That is, it is foolishly absurd to use the same word for the two different contexts at issue in the discussion. [*11]
Therefore, we summarize that the gestational host is the container for, or otherwise hosts, the potentiate through gestational term through to any birth. What was birthed? A child. What was the child before it was birthed? A potentiate with the potential to be birthed.
18. Having made the above “scientific” definitions, which might appear harsh or “cold” by custom and tradition, but not by our thought-reboot, I will nevertheless anticipate some presupposed weak invalid hyperbolic rhetorical arguments; to wit:
- I have personally attended countless weekly religious sermons of various denominations for 62 years, 35 of which as an attorney. I can envision a defensive priest or a defensive pastor taking our definition (with words like “potentiate” instead of “god’s little baby“) and reading it to the religious congregation to overt laughs, and boos, and jeers, to try to prove, by invalid logic and irrationality [*28], absurdity by mass appeal [42, 43], and to adduce ad hominin shame and ridicule for my having done so, perhaps thereby increasing donations. But, alas, for the astute, doing so would prove only exactly the failure of the exercise by that proponent, rather than to dispute it, taking it out of context and breaching the agreement by a form of hypocritical lie or fraud upon the congregation. The pastor would first need to get the congregation to do the exercise of successfully exorcising god from its consideration while at church.
- I can envision someone saying, “This is absurd! This suggests moral relativism, like the argument for Adolf Hitler justifying to kill Jews for the ‘good’ of German society!” Let us begin by putting aside America’s overt moral relativistic hypocrisy of which America’s history is replete, as well as the true fact that termination of zygote gestation actually prevents social intrusion from us rather than forces it upon us [42], such as might please the relativistic self-serving patriotic principles of legal genius Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. [*41, 44] For the astute, it will be generally recognized that Hitler’s Jews were birthed and that argument is non-responsive to the question at issue. A birthed member of society, or the social World if that the relevant scope, is entitled to those social appurtenant existential privileges and immunities. On the one hand, if a Jew is birthed, it is immaterial to our exercise; on the other hand, if a potentiate (potential Jew) is not birthed, it is subsumed by our exercise without contradiction. Therefore, it is immaterial.
- I can further envision arguments by the conundrum that an external actor trespassing upon a woman as gestating host would not thereby provide redress for “killing her baby” (noting the use of words that contain hidden premises that beg the question). But the astute will recognize that this is error because the trespass upon a women gestationally hosting a potentiate can be injured in exactly that defined manner that the civil society grants to her in that condition for redress. To call a “potentiate” a “child” will, by legally reckless foolishness, mix up the legal assessment, particularly with the application of rhetoric and anticipated precedent, by using the same word for very different conditions. The point of having birthed a child is the quintessential material fact in question; thusly, the different conditions require two different terms with different social conditions, even if both tracks lead to the same destination. [45]
Indeed, the term “unborn child” is overtly objectionable and prejudicial by hidden premise, but the term is not required for legal relief. To call an unbirthed living thing a “potentiate” still allows the law, which is complete and replete with social and linguistic contrivances, to set the law of redress as an equivalent. That is, it is not required to say that a “zygote” or a “potentiate” is a “child” to grant exactly the same equivalent legal relief. However, to call a “zygote” or a “potentiate” a “child” will immediately violate proper objective review, and will insidiously create opportunities for rhetoric, misuse, and wonton precedent of legal confusion for other contexts. [*45] Stated another way, a gestating host can be entitled to an injury causing loss of a potentiate in exactly the same manner as if the law used theistic creationist theories, because the injury is thrust upon the gestating host by trespass. But it does not follow to injure a gestating host regarding a potentiate would thereby prevent the unfettered decision of the gestating host to terminate a gestation of a potentiate by her choice.
- Let us also address the elephant in the room: so-called “partial birth abortion” (a prejudicial and objectionable term with a hidden premise in all three categories) which occurs in 0.017 of the cases of zygote gestation termination. But, in fairness, while that statistic may denote quantitative immateriality for policy decisions, there remains a qualitative issue. I will conjecture to say that, qualitatively, termination of a zygote gestated by the gestating host to a full term is some horror for almost everyone to consider, if not such as the horror of war itself, and if not only because the resultant optics and visuals themselves that are inflaming, such as war itself, irrespective of god (or the gods), religion, or the morality derived therefrom. But this is a thought-exercise, perhaps by philosophical deftness and an applied philosophical discipline, as stated, so it is for us to continue our exercising by exorcising, and to stay disciplined, thoughtful and not emotional by inflaming visuals no less than regarding war.
So let us first put aside any conjecture that this condition, by choice or necessity, is probably the most of all abhorrent to the gestating host herself, but chosen, if it is such, by all overt pressure to do the contrary, particularly after her gestating the potentiate for so long up to that point. We will put that aside, as we are third-party onlookers and we do not know her conscience, or whether her conscience is “good” to us by our own perspectives; god (or the gods) will judge in due course, such as it may be, far better than mere man’s poor power to add or detract. The gestating host’s natural right of conscience was never submitted to man, but she answers solely as such to any god (or the gods) alone. [*25, *8, *21.3] The issue is not what onlookers would do themselves by conscience, but what legal interest they have in a zygote that is completely encapsulated within another body by the unique circumstance of gender and gestation.
Thusly, in this circumstance, we need a philosophical framework that can be applied in a manner by practical common social interest in the essential issue and question: that is, “What ‘really’ is our social interest in a gestating host, as such; that is, what is our interest in her personal decision to prevent society from a citizen-to-be? [46] How must we defend ourselves, if at all, and our own freedoms from that gestating host’s decision?”
The gestating host is not forcing emigration onto society, but preventing emigration. [*46] Therefore, on a secular basis, and without application of theism, the secular immigration of a Mexican into American society is inversely philosophically correlated to the secular emigration of a potentiate into American society. Not necessarily the same, but correlated.
The defense is caused by the intrusion into society that must be defended, not the inverse.
During the term of gestation, we have a period from the formation of the zygote to the imminent point of birth. One hundred percent of potentiates are zygotes, but only 0.017 form the highly exceptional statistic. But, as to any choice of philosophical politico-socio framework, here is what we know, by common sense, experience, and by science:
The first unique distinction of the potentiate is that it cannot be touched until birth without the consent of the gestating host, except by a trespass or violation upon her body, or slavery of her body, directly or indirectly, one way or the other. The second unique distinction of the potentiate is, while the potentiate is contained within the gestating host, it neither risks nor inflicts social harm into society, as such; that is, the potentiate neither risks nor can perform the injurious acts of picking anyone’s pocket or breaking anyone’s leg.
[47, *13, 48, *11] Until that potentiate leaves the gestating host’s bodily container by being birthed, it has no social or independent existence. It cannot anticipate or reflect, it has no frame of reference. It cannot be counted and it is not counted by census. Without begging the question at issue, the potentiate may have human DNA, it may be alive, but it is not yet birthed into society. It is not a citizen.
As long as that potentiate is physically contained within the gestating host, it cannot pick anyone’s pocket or break anyone’s leg, or challenge anyone’s freedom, as Jefferson might argue, to require a defense. The zygote is not a threat. [*21.2] The world is safe and it “can just leave her alone,” as Lincoln said regarding slavery. [*46, *27] Indeed, a gestating host’s choice to terminate gestation creates no injury upon existing social society, but, if at all, only by abstract principle, opinion, belief or faith, which is why the question is a matter of consciences, in the same manner of religion. [*26, *41] Moreover, Jefferson even goes so far to assert that a government that creates any law that governs a context that is not a risk unto others is overextending and “illegitimate,” thereby suggesting that it must be overthrown; to wit: “The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others.“
The potentiate presents no such risk to those persons who would assert standing on a claim, except only perhaps to the gestating host herself. [*21.2]
That is, the potentiate does not risk interference with anyone’s pursuit of secular happiness, but, if at all, only because the third party onlooker becomes unhappy, not by interference of the contained potentiate within the gestating host, but by a clash of opinion, faith, belief or abstract principle, between the third party onlooker and the gestating host, claimed within a diverse, free, and free-thinking society.
Therefore, society’s interest in the potentiate is not by necessary secular socio-politico construct of defense, where freedom by one ends at the point of freedom of others, but rather the offense by others by suggested morals tending to be introduced by theisms and clash of consciences, as Justice Harlan said, “as all will admit, is the real meaning of such legislation.” [*26, *41]
Whether society is the better or worse for an expectancy, only god (or the gods) knows. Trying to enslave the woman to some moral standard that is non-injurious to others to assert a claim suggests the maxim “Lex non est cogere optimum, sed pessimum prohibere.” (“The law is not to compel the best, but to prevent the worst.”)
Since we have forgone claiming human life is or is not sacred, there cannot be speculation that the potentiate as a birthed citizen will be the next George Washington or the next Charles Manson, and all of American history proves the self-interested relativistic hypocrisy that contradicts any argument that life is sacred. The crusades evidence the point, if not, again, the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. [*14]
The real meaning [*26, *41] is that the third party onlooker simply desires to control the mind and decision of the gestating host as to matters conscience as to what is her own best interest, by her conscience, by uniformity. [21.4]
While the potentiate is encapsulated, the question is not per se social.
Without the application of theistic principles, the gestating host chooses or otherwise releases the potentiate, by choice where choice exists.
However, at the point that society can physically attach (that is, to grab or to take) the potentiate, without trespass upon the gestating host, then to be counted and as a citizen, it is only then by birth of a child, but not before. [*46] The rule is not by personal preference of the onlooker, but by social necessity of the natural secular construct. All secular matters of freedom are compromises, with priority to constitutional rights, and balancing among equals. Without a clear disciplined philosophy reconciled to secular practicality, social issues become hypocritical, ungrounded, inconsistent, and breed misery and unwitted confusion.
19. Irrespective of which court should hear a claim, perhaps by principles of federalism, the ultimate determination, being the “real meaning,” is a matter of competing consciences. Thus the maxims, “Mulier praegnans est religio sua.” (“A pregnant woman is her own religion.”) and “Corpus mulieris est religio ipsius.” (“A woman’s body is her religion.”) Therefore, statistics of “majority legislative decisions” are or should be inapplicable by Bill of Rights, which must ultimately comport with the United States Constitution, and no state can ultimately violate that constraint, irrespective of its own constitutional amendment. [*15]
20. Regarding the United States of America, there were no women participants who signed the Declaration of Independence. There were no women represented in the Constitutional Convention. History suggests that the reason was that women were oppressed by less contrived cultures by lack of the physical power which controlled ancient cultures, as well as had oppressed women and made her less than equal, applying antiquated theistic dogma still used today derived from the same causation.
21. While the potentiate is gestating within the body of the gestating host, it is not counted by society, failing in such a political existence, and it not a citizen. It is, if any contrived definitional fiction of absurd delusion is applied, at most, perhaps “many persons as one person,” but only one person being the woman, the gestating host, the citizen, counted by census. The potentiate, while gestating within the container of the gestating host cannot act in any manner by its own volition within society, or by any manner to injury others, and is constrained within the container of the gestating host until having been birthed.
22. As to the XY-male’s claim to any rights during the gestation of the zygote, the maxim, “Homo concedit semen suum.” (“The man concedes his seed.”) Unless and until the birth of a child, or some manner of consent or waiver, any male’s expectancy is without merit, and the gestating host makes her unfettered determination.
23. The issue addressed above only regards the legal rights and not the economic implications. That is, such as whether termination of gestation costs are “healthcare.” But first things first. The question of economics is beyond the scope of this post, understanding that the cost of terminating a gestation without medical necessity may have precedence by insurable costs of circumcision. [*28] But it does not follow that one wrong makes another right.
Moreover, unlike past male-centric economics, XX-women now contribute significant funds into the public economic weal such that the gender constituency can make concomitant politico-economic decisions by influence. To the extent that medical necessity does not exist, by the choice to terminate gestation, a right to choose to terminate gestation does not make it a right to have it paid for by society, any more than the right to own guns means that the public it should fund the purchases.
24. Nothing herein addresses the issue of zygote gestation that is outside of the gestating host’s bodily container, because such elections are unnatural contrivances and thereby rest upon consent of alternative gestating structures with social appurtenances.
25. The objective of the American Founding Fathers was to give the opportunity for the secular temporal happiness of a diverse, free, and free-thinking people.
IN CONCLUSION:
Since you’ve come this far, thank you for exercising with me, and the stamina to engage.
We all agree that, if we were in church, the thought-process might be different. And, we all agree, that, if we were in a country such as one from which America revolted, where church and state were entwined, the result might be different. In church, we might continue to burn the woman, ridicule her, scorn her, scar her, make her wear scarlet letters, block her into a room, lock onto her belts of chastity, put her onto the rack, and continue all the ancient customs and rites and incantations, and we might continue all the enslavements where might makes right, if not by the physical power of complicit males before or in the fact, or by the social power of the ancient church also controlled by males.
But this ancient issue tends no longer oppression of women by men through subsumption, but rather, the issue is now more precisely women oppression by the church, irrespective of gender; that is, the per se attribute that now separates is not per se the attribute of gender, but rather the per se attribute of church.
But, alas, once again, we’re not in church. [*15]
In the United States of America, by the Constitution, the ancient church is constrained from government, not its people. The church hates constraint upon it every bit as much as the woman, and the church will therefore tend to fight to the death not to be superseded by civil temporal secularity. Church tends incalcitrant and will tend never to accept diversity, freedom, and free-thinking, except perhaps for theistic pacifists who only exist and subsist by broader secular systemic protections.
The Founding Fathers knew, from all history and experience, that it will never change, until the church is constrained to its private lane, by force of a republican constitution of laws, and not rule by gods, or priests, or pastors, or popes. “In diuersitate secularem libertatem habere, ecclesia seruus debet esse, non populus.” (“To have secular freedom in diversity, the church must be enslaved, not the people.”) The church must stay in its lane.
In the United States of America, in the Great Year of 2024, time is up. The antiquated church, with all its ancient clothing, and all its ancient incantations and transubstantiations, must concede to acknowledge diverse civil temporal secular equality and justice for all, differences in opinions, dogmas, beliefs, faiths and principles. The right of conscience, which is personal.
The woman is, by American secular constitution, no less categorically equal to the complicit man. In the matter of gender and gestation, it must needs be that she is finally recognized in all her strength and unique complex frailty. Church rites must concede to civil rights. The woman wins, as she is. The pursuit of happiness by citizens of the United States demands it. Secular civility commands it.
The kingdom of god (or the gods) is within the woman, if at all, and no less for the zygote. [2.7]
<< Back to Pollywog [#GRZ_196] – Cycle to Bias [#GRZ_91] >>
[T]heists tend to judge civil effects within a framework of their self-righteous causation by external theistic rulesets…But civil effects in America must needs be to make that same causation immaterial by Constitutional construct…
[T]he issue for theists tends to be not focused on concrete secular effects, but rather on abstract ethereal uniformity of a theistic causation…[N]ot whether human beings effect kissing or killing each other in society, but rather that they agree that they are caused to do so by the same theistic godly dogma.
[1] Preface to New Testament of New American Bible
[2] ONE®: The LinkedIn Reference Set [#GRZ_183] 2.1 ONE: 621 [T7:13] (“Narrow Gate“); 2.2 ONE: 2211 [T23:25, L11:39] (“Hypocrisy“); ONE: 1407 [J8:1]… (“Cast First Stone“); 2.4 ONE: 2201 [T23:5] (“Practice What Is Preached”); 2.5 ONE: 963 [T10:16] (“Duality, Serpents and Doves“); 2.6 ONE: 1 [J1:1; L1:1] (“The Word“); 2.7 ONE 1747 [L17:20] (“Kingdom Within“)
[3] Whom the Gods Would Destroy, They First Tease with Political Incorrectness [#GRZ_74]
[5] The History of the Decline and Fall of the American Hegemony—Chapter 4 Excerpt—Education [#GRZ_182]
[8] Critical Thinking and the Conflation of Character, Integrity, Goodness and Virtue [#GRZ_148]
[9] My Experiment with Atheism; Or, Wilson Revisited [#GRZ_125]
[12] John Adams, Thoughts on Government – Abridgment Series [#GRZ_75]
[13b] Mind Control, Protests and the Goal – Stand for America® [#GRZ_64]
[13c] Kicking Around Big Ideas; Or, NFL Lessons in Human Nature and Political Philosophy [#GRZ_192]
[14a] SQL Nulls, Socrates, and Black Holes. Or, the Great Lawn Chair Debate [#GRZ_72]
[14b] I Am Not Brainwashed, And Neither Are You. Maybe. But I Might be Wrong. [#GRZ_165]
[14c] The Proseuché (The Prayer of Socrates) Ch. V Abridgment [Chosen] [#GRZ_154]
[15] The Orderly Administration Of A Diverse People. America Is Not A Church. [#GRZ_170]
[16] The History of the Decline and Fall of the American Hegemony—Chapter 5 Excerpt—God [#GRZ_187] “Religio deum ut canem sequitur, et saepe rabidum.” (“Religion follows god like a dog, and oft a rabid one.”)
[18] THE JUDICIAL OATH: I DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR AND AFFIRM…; Or, How Wrong Can It Get? [GRZ_131_1]
[19] “Do I Look Like a Christian?” Or, The Gift of “Happy Holidays” – Stand for America® [#GRZ_51]
[21] Freedom of Religion, by Thomas Jefferson – Abridgment Series [#GRZ_61] 21.1 (“For if a slave can have a country in this world, it must be any other [than one] in which he is born to live and labor for another….With the [slavery-centric] morals of the people, their industry also is destroyed. For in a warm climate, no man will labor for himself who can make another labor for him. This is so true, that of the proprietors of slaves a very small proportion indeed are ever seen to labor.“); 21.2 (“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.“); 21.3 (“The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God.“); 21.4 (“Subject opinion to coercion: whom will you make your inquisitors? Fallible men; men governed by bad passions, by private as well as public reasons. And why subject it to coercion? To produce uniformity. But is uniformity of opinion desirable? No more than of face and stature. Introduce the bed of molds then, and as there is danger that the large men may beat the small, make us all of a size, by lopping the former and stretching the latter.“)
[22a] ONE®, On Comparative Religions [#GRZ_163]
[22c] Surviving Prejudice, Not All Bad [#GRZ_73]
[24] Me, Too; Not, You. Or, the Exceptional Principle. – Stand for America® [#GRZ_83]
[25] Good v. Evil; Or, Thoughtlessness by Simplistic Vilification [#GRZ_126]
[26] Seven Key American Principles; Or, a Culture of Breaking Culture [#GRZ_197]
[27] Pro-Life or Pro-Choice? Chapter 1, Bias [#GRZ_91]
[27b] The Proseuché (The Prayer of Socrates) Ch. VIII [Prayer] [#GRZ_131] (Asked Socrates, “Could it be that the ailment upon Hippocrates was a cause for him to discover a cure for the misery?” “Why, certainly, that is exactly it, Socrates! Thank you!…Yes, of course, the Gods would have given us that poisoned food as a cause for Hippocrates to find the cure from it!” exclaimed Theophilus. [33e] “Might not the Gods then have simply skipped a step, Theophilus?,” replied Socrates.)
[28] Brisk Critical-Thought Exercise in the Circumcision of Circumcision [#GRZ_152]
[29b] The Three Noble Cardinal Rules of Wisdom [#GRZ_189]
[29c] A Fool and His Country are Soon Parted; Or, The Late American Lifeboat Debate [#GRZ_171]
[31] The Great Masquerade – Stand for America® [#GRZ_11]
[32] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_(biology)
[34] Me, Too; Not, You. Or, the Exceptional Principle. – Stand for America® [#GRZ_83]
[35b] Nothing to Hate, But Hate Itself – Or, Hate Best Practices [#GRZ_44]
[36] Epilogue: On the Wisdom of Aesop [#GRZ_24]
[37] The Naked Brain; Or, Deconstructing and Reconstructing the Human Being [#GRZ_132]
[38] The Proseuché (The Prayer of Socrates) Ch. I [Intro] [#GRZ_158], et. seq.
[39] Death, and Final Disposition of the Once Primary Asset [#GRZ_129]
[40] Failing to Die Is Killing Us, or Logan’s Run Revisited – Stand for America® [#GRZ_76]
[41] Oliver Wendell Holmes and His Imbeciles – Stand for America® [#GRZ_71]
[42] Considering the Source – The Business of Aesop™ No. 68 – The Lion and the Statue [#GRZ_35]
[44] The Truth. Hard to Handle, Even Harder to Swallow. [#GRZ_178]
[45] The Perennial Debate: If We Step on a Polliwog, Do We Kill a Polliwog or a Frog? [#GRZ_196]
[46] Pro-Life or Pro-Choice? Chapter 2, Cause and Effect [#GRZ_92]
[47] The Challenge of Vaccines, or Predictive Delusion [#GRZ_123]
[48] The Declaration of Independence – Abridgment Series [#GRZ_31]
[49] Freedom and Law, The Whip and the Shackles [#GRZ_200]
“Boni effectus nec causam nec excusationem rogant.” (“Good effects beg neither cause nor excuse.”); “In rebus divinis omnes rationales personae necessario sunt agnosticae.” (“As to matters of god, all rational persons are necessarily agnostic.”); “Religio deum ut canem sequitur, et saepe rabidum.” (“Religion follows god like a dog, and oft a rabid one.”); “Coniungere est dividere.” (“To unite is to divide.”); “Homo est dominus legis, lex non est domini hominis.” (“Man is master of law, the law is not master of man.”); “Lex homini servit, homo legi non servit.” (“The law serves man, man does not serve the law.”); “In ecclesia, homo servit legi; in libera societate, lex homo servit.” (“In the church, man serves the law; in a free society, the law serves man.”); “Aliquid ubiquitous tendit praetermittendum.” (“What is ubiquitous tends to be overlooked.”); “Homo non potest esse haereticus suo dogmate.” (“No man is a heretic to his own dogma.”); “Homines pacifici sperent, sed fortes eos in spe vivant.” (“Peaceful people may hope, but warriors keep them alive to hope.”); “Libera cogitans societas dimittit conformitatem socialem ad servandam systemicam singularem libertatem.” (“A free-thinking society waives social conformity to preserve systemic individual freedom.”); “Mulier praegnans est religio sua.” (“A pregnant woman is her own religion.”); “Corpus mulieris est religio ipsius.” (“A woman’s body is her religion.”); “Lex non est cogere optimum, sed pessimum prohibere.” (“The law is not to compel the best, but to prevent the worst.”); “Conformitas cogitationis et diversitas cogitationis non obligant.” (“Conformity of thought and diversity of thought don’t bind.”); “Quod est error per fidem, non est rationalis per saecularismum.” (“What is delusion by faith, is not rational by secularity.”); “In diuersitate secularem libertatem habere, ecclesia seruus debet esse, non populus.” (“To have secular freedom in diversity, the church must be enslaved, not the people.”); “Solus antiquitas nos non relinquit.” (“Antiquity won’t leave us alone.”); “Cum aliquid moritur non sciet quod vixerit.” (“When a thing dies, it will not know that it had lived.”); “Homo concedit semen suum.” (“The man concedes his seed.”) ~ grz
<< Back to Pollywog [#GRZ_196] – Cycle to Bias [#GRZ_91] >>
“Upon the suggestion of creating a new law within a free society, the first inquiry is chiefly this:
Whether the cause for the law is grounded upon stopping people from doing what people desire to do, or forcing people into doing what people do not desire to do.
Law is necessary for its context, but it is foolish error to suggest that stopping action and forcing action are legal equivalents within a free society.
They are not analytical inverses.” [49]
A Wolf was injured from a fight with a Bear concerning a meal.
Unable to move, the Wolf called to a little Lamb who was passing nearby, “Kind Lamb, you see that I am hurt. I sweetly beg you to fetch me a drink of water for my strength, so I may get a simple meal.”
“A meal?” said the Sheep. “That means me, I suppose. And, the water to wash me down your throat. No thank you very much.”
Moral of the Story: Logical conclusions from natural conditions. [50]
© 2024 Gregg Zegarelli, Esq. Gregg can be contacted through LinkedIn.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/woman-wins-now-its-time-gregg-zegarelli-esq–zx5we