

This book was made available in a digital format.

Phoenix Renaissance™

Editing Copyright 2014 by C. J. Clawitter

Text Copyright 2014 by C. J. Clawitter

Copyright © 2014 by C. J. Clawitter

All rights reserved.

No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means including information storage and retrieval systems, without permission in writing from the author. The only exception is by a reviewer, who may quote short excerpts in a review. Requests to the author for permission should be addressed to the author through e-mail under the subject title "permission request: The War against Truth", _chad-clawitter-2009@alumni.calpoly.edu_.

Designed in the United States of America

Book Design by C. J. Clawitter

Copyright C. J. Clawitter

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

The War Against Truth Contents:

PART I: INVESTIGATING TRUTH

Chapter 1: The Process of Genuine Scientific Investigation

Chapter 2: The Methods of Investigation

Chapter 3: The Discovery of Knowledge

Chapter 4: The Communication of Knowledge

Chapter 5: The Classification of Knowledge

PART II: DEFENDING THE TRUTH

Chapter 6: The Battleground of Truth

Chapter 7: The Foundation of Truth

Chapter 8: The Character of Truth

Chapter 9: The Obedience to Truth

Chapter 10: The of Tactics against Truth

**PART III:** **APPLYING TRUTH**

Chapter 11: The Principles of Continuity

Chapter 12: The Naturalist State

Chapter 13: The Naturalist Process

Chapter 14: The Unsinkable Nation

Chapter 15: Degeneration vs. Evolution

References

PART I: INVESTIGATING TRUTH

Chapter 1: The Process of Genuine Scientific Investigation

Genuine science is like infants or toddlers exploring their surroundings using their mouths, hands, eyes, and ears. Genuine science is like a child who repeatedly asks "why?" until the parent finally responds with foundational truth or changes the subject. Genuine science is like a person buying a home who investigates the foundation of the property.

Genuine science is natural investigation. Genuine science is a process of prediction, experimental test, and interpretation.

(1) Genuine scientists predict the outcomes to real situations that are significant and testable. (2) Genuine scientists test their predictions using valid experiments that can be repeated and objectively verified. (3) Genuine scientists interpret the actual results of experiments using objective facts and evidence.

What do you think makes genuine science different than mathematics and philosophy? How do you think genuine science has benefited society? What do you think might prevent genuine science from being practiced by scientists or taught in schools?

Artificial science is like a magician who does not share the secrets to the illusion. Artificial science is like a philosopher or mathematician pretending to be a scientist. Artificial science is like a Ponzi scheme that may not be prosecuted until the creator has long been dead.

Artificial science is retrospective justification. Artificial science is a process of imagination, rationalization, and speculation.

(1) Artificial scientists predict the outcomes to situations that are theoretical and not testable. (2) Artificial scientists rationalize their predictions using invalid experiments that are unverifiable or subjectively calibrated. (3) Artificial scientists speculate using selective evidence and unverifiable assumptions.

Is artificial science a forward progression or a backward regression from genuine science? What are the consequences of replacing genuine science with artificial science? Why would some scientists practice artificial science and claim that it is genuine science?

Genuine science is like a group of generals debating a military strategy; artificial science is like a group of artists critiquing a poetry contest. Genuine science is like a health nutritionist; artificial science is like a fashion designer.

The fundamental principle of genuine science is that truth is objective, supreme, and firm. (1) Logic obtains its authority from reality; reality does not obtain its authority from logic. (2) Reality has supremacy over logic; logic does not generate reality but is a tool for understanding reality. (3) Our assumptions should be conformed to match reality; we should never demand that reality must conform to our assumptions.

The fundamental principle of artificial science is that the intelligence of experts is infallible, supreme, and authoritative. (1) Reality obtains its existence from the logical consistency; reality never conflicts with intelligence. (2) Intelligence has supremacy of reality; intelligence discovers and creates reality. (3) Our reality should be conformed to match the assumptions of intelligent experts; the assumptions of intelligent experts must be true if they are logically consistent.

Is the role of a scientist to investigate how reality actually is or is the role of a scientist to debate whose speculation seems most intelligent? Is it possible for an intelligent expert to say something logically consistent that is completely false?

Genuine science is like a ruler who benevolently abdicates power to leave a legacy of peaceful transition. Artificial science is like a tyrannical dictator who grabs for more power just to remain in power for selfish advantage.

The fundamental purpose of genuine science is to produce knowledge that is both honest and beneficial. (1) Knowledge resulting from genuine science should be broadcast honestly for the accessibility of objective evidence, transparent interpretations, and genuine methods. (2) Knowledge resulting from genuine science should be applied beneficially for the protection of human life and the advancement of human dignity.

The fundamental purpose of artificial science is to produce knowledge that appears to be prestigious and potentially profitable. (1) Knowledge resulting from artificial science should be broadcast for maximum complexity, abstraction, and sophisticated terminology to make it seem intelligent and important. (2) Knowledge resulting from artificial science should be applied toward advertising and fundraising to support artificial scientists.

Is the purpose of humanity to benefit science or is the purpose of science to benefit humanity? Is the purpose of mathematics and language to more easily communicate knowledge or is the purpose of knowledge to develop more complicated mathematics and language?

Dishonest scientists are like a scoundrel who commits a crime and frames the victim for it before it can be reported. Dishonest scientists are like a villain advisor who feeds a ruler misinformation for his own personal advantage. Honest scientists are like a loyal friend who cannot be bribed by any amount. Honest scientists are like objective advisors who merely inform the ruler of the consequences for each course of action and let the ruler decide. Dishonest scientists are like compromised advisors who use deception, force, and fear to coerce the ruler.

(1) Dishonest scientists decree that their unverified assumptions are scientific facts. (2) Dishonest scientists censure the rival set of assumptions that is consistent with the objective facts. (3) Dishonest scientists ignore or trivialize when their false set of assumptions logically implies inaccurate predictions. (4) Dishonest scientists defame the rival set of assumptions that does logically imply accurate predictions. (5) Dishonest scientists negligently use invalid measurements that came from devices that were inapplicable, defective, misread. (6) Dishonest scientists fabricate experimental results by replacing measurements with false information that did not come from a measurement device. (7) Dishonest scientists misinterpret the experimental results by overlooking other relevant objective facts or using a biased calibration. (8) Dishonest scientists commit partiality by disregarding the rival interpretation that is also consistent with all the objective facts.

(1) Honest scientists distinguish between unverified assumptions and scientific facts. (2) Honest scientists tolerate rival sets of assumptions that are also consistent with the objective facts. (3) Honest scientists scrutinize and replace their false set of assumptions when it logically implies inaccurate predictions. (4) Honest scientists permit rival sets of assumptions that also logically imply accurate predictions. (5) Honest scientists responsibly use valid measurements that come from devices that are applicable, functional, and carefully read. (6)Honest scientists use a variety of repeatable experiments to cross-examine their experimental results. (7) Honest scientists accurately interpret experimental results using all the available evidence and relevant objective facts. (8) Honest scientists acknowledge when there is a rival interpretation that is also consistent with all the objective facts.

Are there signs that indicate scientists are being dishonest even if you do not know the details of their work? When new reliable evidence conflicts with a theory, should scientists become more certain of that theory or less certain? Do you think that clarity and transparency are a high priority for dishonest scientists? Does it impress you when scientist use words you do not understand? Do you think that scientists lack the intelligence or honesty to translate their work for other people to understand and apply it? Do you think that scientists' work would be more valuable if more people could understand it and apply it?

A universe without fundamental conditions is like a computer with no keyboard and no mouse. A universe without free-will is like a scientist trapped in a prison cell unable to use his or her knowledge to change anything.

Fundamental conditions are conditions that are not caused by previous conditions in the universe. Fundamental conditions cannot be predicted in advance, but their effects can be measured in retrospect. There are three types of fundamental conditions, which are initial conditions, boundary conditions, and quantum conditions.

(1) Initial Conditions are the fundamental conditions that occurred at the beginning of the universe. (2) Boundary Conditions are the fundamental conditions that continue to occur at the edge of the visible universe. (3) Quantum Conditions are the fundamental conditions that continue to occur freely at the atomic level.

Theists often believe that the fundamental conditions are determined by the influence of the eternal kingdom on the natural universe. Naturalists often believe that the fundamental conditions are determined by an infinite chain of universes with ultimately no cause.

The laws of physics are like the rules of a chess game, but the fundamental conditions are like how the pieces on the board are set up and which choices the players make. Why are fundamental conditions not the same thing as the laws of physics? Why is it impossible to measure the cause of the fundamental conditions by definition? Why will the cause of the fundamental conditions of the universe forever remain a mystery to genuine science? Why would someone try to misrepresent their unmeasurable philosophy as science?

**Chapter 2** **: The Methods of Investigation**

The inductive method of investigation is like using the magnets you already have to find a missing needle in a haystack. Computer algorithms are like trying to find a needle in a haystack by removing a single piece of hay at a time. Hypothetical speculation is like trying to find a missing needle in a haystack blindfolded.

The inductive method of investigation is done through a process of discernment, diagnosis, replacement, and elimination.

(1) A theory that makes accurate predictions does not necessarily have accurate assumptions. It is common for theories to make accurate predictions for the wrong reasons. (2) A theory that makes one or more inaccurate predictions must have one or more inaccurate assumptions. A set of true facts can be paired with each assumption individually until the inaccurate assumption is diagnosed. (3) A replacement assumption can only be found by an intelligent person interpreting patterns in the known facts and testing the predictions of the candidates. Replacement assumptions can neither be found by computer algorithms nor through hypothetical speculation because there are an infinite number of possible assumptions. (4) The one right theory will not make any inaccurate predictions, but there may be other wrong theories that also make no confirmed inaccurate predictions. A theory can never scientifically be proven right, but rather other theories can be proven wrong narrowing the alternative possibilities though a process of elimination.

Can the inductive method prove which assumptions are true? Can the inductive method prove which assumptions are false? Why is a computer dependent on people to generate its replacement assumptions? Why will people fail at generating replacement assumptions if they resort to hypothetical speculation? Is the inductive method more reliable for making accurate predictions or for proving assumptions?

A proposal is like a coincidence that might be more than a coincidence. A critique is like when a car encounters a blocked road and has to take a detour if another way to the destination actually exists. A direct proof is like a truck pulling a trailer. A contradiction proof is like the removal of the bottom block in a stack of causing all the blocks to fall down.

The deductive method of investigation is done through a process of inductive proposal, inductive critique, direct proof, and contradiction proof.

An inductive proposal is showing that the premises imply a true conclusion. An inductive critique is showing that false premises were used to arrive at some conclusions. A direct proof is showing that true premises were used to arrive at some conclusions. A contradiction proof is showing that premises were used to arrive at some false conclusions.

(1) Proposal: A true conclusion cannot be used to conclusively determine whether the premises were true or false through an inductive proposal. It is common to sometimes logically still get the right answer using wrong information.

(2) Critique: A false premise cannot be used to conclusively determine whether the conclusion is true or false through an inductive critique. It is common to sometimes use the wrong information to logically still get the right answer.

(3) Direct Proof: A set of true premises can be used to conclusively determine that the conclusions are true through a direct proof. The completely right information will always logically lead to the right answer. The completely right information will never logically lead to the wrong answer.

(4) Contradiction Proof: A false conclusion can be used to conclusively determine that at least one of the premises is false through a contradiction proof. The wrong answer is never logically implied by completely right information. The wrong answer is always implied by information that is at least partially wrong.

An inductive proposal does not conclusively prove that the premises are true. An inductive critique does not conclusively prove that the conclusions are false. A direct proof does conclusively prove that conclusions are true. A contradiction proof does conclusively prove that at least one of the premises is false. One must always be very weary proofs that seem conclusive, but actually have false assumptions or fluctuating definitions disguised within the argument.

Why doesn't a true conclusion conclusively prove the premises are true? Why doesn't a false premise conclusively prove the conclusions are false for an inductive critique? Why do true premises always logically prove the conclusions are true? Why do false conclusions prove that at least one of the premises was false? Why doesn't a false conclusion prove that all the premises were false?

Chapter 3: The Discovery of Knowledge

How can I discover knowledge? I can discover knowledge through assumptions, observations, explanations, and implications.

Assumptions are like air that fills our environment but often completely escapes our notice and attention. Assumptions are like the mortar we use to fill in the gaps between the bricks of our evidence. Assumptions are like the stowaways that are initially allowed to stay aboard a ship, but are thrown overboard when they become a problem.

Assumptions are pieces of information that are taken for granted not based on evidence, but rather based on either ignorance or trust. For many of our assumptions we are not even conscious of the fact that we are making those assumptions; we are unaware that there could be an alternative to those assumptions. We choose these assumptions based on ignorance. For some of our assumptions we are conscious of the fact that we are making those assumptions; we are aware that there could be alternatives to those assumptions. We choose these assumptions based on trust.

We all choose to trust assumptions out of necessity. The assumptions that we choose to trust form part of the foundational knowledge from which we can learn more knowledge. We trust that our senses provide us information about an external reality that is actually shared with other real people. Our information is true and accurate if it is consistent with that external reality. Our information is false and inaccurate if it is inconsistent with that external reality.

What are some of the assumptions you make in a typical day from the moment you rise to the moment you go to sleep? Which of these assumptions are you usually unaware of? Which assumptions do you normally notice every day, but trust to be true?

Observations are like a bridge that allows us to cross into the external reality. Observations are like puzzle pieces that only form an image when connected. Observations are like a source of nourishment for our sanity. Observations are like a fire that can either illuminate or incinerate our imaginations.

Observations are an interpretation of sensory information. All information can be interpreted in many different ways depending on what assumptions are used to interpret the information. We generate a list of possible interpretations using the assumptions we are unaware of. We then use our trusted assumptions to narrow down the list possible interpretations to one best interpretation.

The sensory information we obtain from our senses is useless to us unless we can interpret what the information means. Our visual sensory information of brightness and colors is meaningless by itself. It is only when we use our trusted assumptions to interpret the brightness and colors that we glean knowledge of meaningful picture. Our auditory sensory information of loudness and pitch is meaningless by itself. It is only when we use our trusted assumptions to interpret the loudness and pitch that we glean knowledge of a meaningful sound. All of our sensory information is meaningless to us until we use our trusted assumptions to interpret it into knowledge of a meaningful experience.

What are some of the observations you make in a typical day from the moment your rise to the moment you to sleep? What is some of the sensory information you obtain from your senses in a typical day? What are some of the assumptions you use to interpret that sensory information?

Explanations are like the journey upstream along a river from its delta to its source. Explanations are like the tree branches above an apple on the ground. Explanations are like the tracking of a few members back to a secret headquarters to find all the members. Explanations are like the unpaved paths between knowledge.

Explanations are a process of using our assumptions to infer more knowledge by generalizing patterns in our prior knowledge. We first use many of the assumptions we are unaware of to generate a set of possible explanations for the patterns in our prior knowledge. We then filter out a set of unlikely explanations using our trusted assumptions. Finally, we use our trusted assumptions to estimate the most likely explanation.

We interpret sensory information through observations whereas we interpret prior knowledge through explanations. Explanations allow us to quickly generate large amounts of new knowledge by generalizing the knowledge we already have. The knowledge generated from explanations is not always trustworthy because there are always many possible explanations and the assumptions we use to find and filter them can be incorrect. However, it is better to discerningly judge and make decisions based on our best estimation rather than to make our decisions based on a blind ignorant guess. The new knowledge generated inductively through explanations is essential when we need to make rapid decisions in unfamiliar circumstances.

What are some of the explanations you come up with in a typical day? What pool of prior knowledge did you use for those explanations? What pool of assumptions did you use for those explanations?

Implications are like the journey downstream along a river from its source to its delta. Implications are like the fall of many dominoes from the fall of just one. Implications are like the tracking of decedents from a single ancestor. Implications are like the paved roads between knowledge.

Implications are a process of using logic to generate new knowledge from prior knowledge. The new knowledge generated from logic is as trustworthy as the prior knowledge. If the prior knowledge is inaccurate, those inaccuracies will almost always be transferred to the new knowledge.

Implications use deductive logic from a trusted explanation to a predicted result. Logic itself is not just a path from accurate information to accurate information. Logic is also a path from inaccurate information to uncertain information that could be accurate or inaccurate. If the starting point is accurate then the destination is accurate. If the starting point is inaccurate, the destination is uncertain. If the destination is inaccurate, then the starting point is inaccurate. If the destination is accurate, then the starting point is uncertain. It is often possible to still get an accurate result from an inaccurate explanation. However, it is not possible to get an inaccurate result from an accurate explanation. The knowledge generated from deductive implications essential for making careful decisions in familiar circumstances.

What are some of the implications you use to make predictions in a typical day? What explanations did you trust? What results did you predict from those explanations?

Chapter 4: The Communication of Knowledge

How can I communicate knowledge? I can communicate knowledge through analogies, descriptions, demonstrations, and assignments.

Analogies are like signposts that point in the direction of knowledge. It is difficult for us to know whether we are traveling in the proper direction unless there are signs that we recognize. If we do not see signs that we recognize, we might turn back even if we are traveling in the proper direction. We are anxious until we see the signs we recognize, but we have the confidence to continue once we see them.

Analogies are expressions that relate the unfamiliar with the familiar. Analogies allow us to learn insights about the unknown from what is already known. Some analogies are more perfect than others, but all analogies have their limitations. A perfect analogy would no longer be an analogy, but rather a description of something that is already known.

An analogy is like a picture of an animal from just one specific angle. A single picture does not capture everything about the animal. However, we can begin to imagine the form of the animal and how it moves with enough pictures from different angles. All physics is to some degree an analogy that takes the complex structures and interactions of nature and relates them to simplified models and concepts.

Can you think of some ways of communicating knowledge through analogies? Can you think of some of the benefits and limitations of communicating knowledge through analogies?

Descriptions are like maps that chart paved roads between knowledge. It is difficult for us to know how to get back to the proper path when we are lost unless we have a map. If we do not have a map, then we may misinterpret the road signs and risk becoming lost. We are anxious about getting lost unless we have a map, but we have confidence in our eventual arrival when we have a map.

Descriptions are expressions that outline how to build new knowledge in our mind using blocks of prior knowledge we already have. We cannot build the new knowledge in our mind if we do not already have those blocks of prior knowledge. If we do not have the blocks of prior to build the new knowledge, we must first build those blocks of prior knowledge using smaller foundational blocks from our experience.

Before we describe a new type of food to a person, we might first start with an analogy. We might compare the new type of food to a similar food that the person already knows. The analogy gives the person a context from which to interpret the description that is to follow. The description of the new type of food might consist of the necessary ingredients and the process of preparing the food. If the person does not know some of the ingredients, then we must describe those ingredients or show the person those ingredients.

Can you think of some ways of communicating knowledge through descriptions? Can you think of some of the benefits and limitations of communicating knowledge through descriptions?

Demonstrations are like guides that lead us along paths toward knowledge. It is difficult for us to navigate when there is not a paved road linking where we are to where we need to go. A guide makes it possible to navigate on unpaved roads quickly, but a guide may become an excessive crutch when navigating on familiar paved roads.

A demonstration allows a knowledgeable, skilled, and equip person to lead us along re-tracing the path of discovery. Demonstrations allow us to venture into new uncharted territory without the fear of becoming lost. We should appreciate the aid of demonstrations, but we must not become dependent on them.

We are not dependent on demonstrations if we anticipate predictions about the demonstrations before they are performed. We are not dependent on demonstrations if we are eager to explore and complete assignments even without them. We are dependent on demonstrations if we cannot remember what was demonstrated shortly after completing assignments. We are dependent on demonstrations if we are afraid to explore and complete assignments without them.

Can you think of some ways of communicating knowledge through demonstrations? Can you think of some of the benefits and limitations of communicating knowledge through demonstrations?

Assignments are like missions that lead to the discovery of new paths toward knowledge. It is difficult for us to become familiar with our surroundings unless we explore them on our own. If we never explore our surroundings out of curiosity, then we many never have the luxury of finding new useful destinations at ease; out of ignorance we may be deprived of those useful destinations, and out necessity we may face the frustration of finding those new useful destinations in a panic.

Assignments can be a series of prompts or questions that guide us through our own process of exploration, discovery, and application. Assignments communicate the process of discovering the knowledge rather than communicating the knowledge itself. Assignments communicate trust and confidence in our own ability to discover and apply knowledge. Assignments are a way of communicating knowledge that is not already known.

Our assignment from now on is to always be continuing in a process of exploration, discovery, and application. Even when someone does not communicate an analogy to us, we are to create our own analogies and learn from them. Even when someone does not describe something to us, we are to create our own descriptions and learn from them. Even when someone does not demonstrate something to us, we are to simulate demonstrations visually in our minds and learn from them. Even when someone does not give us assignments, we are to create our own assignments and learn from them.

Can you think of some ways of creating mixtures of analogies, descriptions, demonstrations, and assignments? Can you think of some of the benefits and limitations of communicating knowledge through mixtures? Can you think of some other new ways of communicating knowledge? What would be the benefits and limitations of those other new ways?

**Chapter 5** **: The Classification of Knowledge**

How can I classify my knowledge? I can classify my knowledge as being either applied knowledge, established knowledge, investigative knowledge, or speculative knowledge.

Applied knowledge is like a double-agent who is employed in service not because he or she is trustworthy, but rather because he or she is still useful.

Applied knowledge is a set of explanations that yield accurate results in useful situations. It is often possible to still get an accurate result from an inaccurate explanation. Even when we know that an explanation is inaccurate, we will still use it because it provides accurate results in useful situations. Applied knowledge is explanations that could still be inaccurate, inconsistent, incomplete, or imprecise, but they provide accurate results in useful situations.

Applied knowledge must be used cautiously because of its duplicitousness nature in that it is useful but not trustworthy. We are wise if we acknowledge the limitations of applied knowledge and use it only as a tool to accomplish our objectives. We are foolish when we overgeneralize applied knowledge and allow it to motivate our principles and objectives. Applied knowledge should inform how we can accomplish our objectives, but not what objectives we should strive to accomplish.

Can you think of situations when inaccurate explanations were used to predict accurate results? Can you think of situations when applied knowledge is used to justify esoteric beliefs?

Established knowledge is like the trustworthy advisor whose council is sought in the most important matters. Established knowledge is the diamond that is used to shape all the other stones.

Established knowledge is a set of facts, evidence, and principles that we completely trust to be accurate. We retain information that is consistent with our established knowledge. We reject information that is inconsistent with our established knowledge. We have integrity if our set of established knowledge is logically consistent and has passed the test of time. We have duplicity if our set of established knowledge is not logically consistent and is a contemporary fad.

Established knowledge is the knowledge that we choose to lean on as the foundation of our beliefs. We choose which principles to trust and which principles to reject. We are wise if we choose principles that are beneficial and we are foolish if we choose principles that are detrimental. We are wise if we form our principles from a timeless beneficial purpose to guide our objectives. We are foolish if we form our principles from obsolete objectives to guide our new vain purpose.

Healthy politics involves retiring obsolete objectives when they conflict with the timeless mutually beneficial purpose. New mutually beneficial objectives must be cooperatively invented to replace the obsolete objectives in the new situation. Healthy politics involves defending the timeless mutually beneficial purpose and objectives that are not obsolete.

Diseased politics involves abandoning the timeless mutually beneficial purpose when the obsolete objectives begin to conflict with it. Detrimental outcomes result from competitive compromises between competing obsolete objectives, which can also lead to new corrupted objectives. Detrimental outcomes also result from the side effects of revoking still beneficial objectives to appease obsolete or new corrupted objectives. Diseased politics involves rejecting the timeless mutually beneficial purpose in order to defend obsolete and corrupted objectives.

We individually choose which information we will accept as facts and evidence. We are wise if accept accurate information as facts and evidence and reject inaccurate information. We are foolish if we accept inaccurate information as facts and evidence and reject accurate information.

What are some principles that you trust to be beneficial? How are those principles beneficial? Can those principles lead to any detrimental side-effects as observed in history? What are some facts and evidence you trust to be accurate? Where did those facts and evidence come from? Is it possible for someone to have integrity but still be foolish?

Investigative knowledge is like a criminal investigator whose council is sought to interpret evidence about a murder. Investigative knowledge is like a person straddling a fence who must decide which side to choose.

Investigative knowledge is the knowledge that is discovered through a mixture of explanations and implications. Investigative knowledge is our set of the most likely explanations for the facts and evidence and the implications of those explanations.

The most likely explanations are not completely trusted to be accurate. The most likely explanations will have different degrees of likelihood based on the available evidence and the available explanations. The most likely explanation is trusted to be accurate if it is likely to be accurate beyond a reasonable doubt. The likelihood of the implications of the explanations is then directly determined by the likelihood of those explanations.

How likely should an explanation have to be for you to trust it as being accurate? Can the importance of an explanation and its implications affect whether you will trust it to be accurate? Can a deception seem important to mislead you by fear or by greed? If something seems important, how can you objectively determine whether it is a deception or not? If there are a large amount of imposters, does that mean the authentic does not exist? Does your established knowledge always veto explanations that conflict with it?

Speculative knowledge is like an incarcerated lunatic whose council is sought only as a last resort in dire circumstances. Speculative knowledge is like a mathematician who creates and solves logic puzzles for a world with no engineers. Speculative knowledge is like a farmer who grows crops that no one can digest but calls it food. Speculative knowledge is like a blind man trying to find a needle in a mountainous haystack. Speculative knowledge is like a person who builds the top of a building and assumes that someone else will build the bottom.

Speculative knowledge is knowledge generated through logic without any evidence or concrete application. Speculative knowledge is abstract circular reasoning. Speculative knowledge starts and ends in the imagination. Speculative knowledge hopes to find its way to reality, but is lost in the infinite possibilities of the imagination. Speculative knowledge is a form of entertainment.

Speculative knowledge starts with assumptions that are generated from the imagination rather than evidence. Speculative knowledge does not strive toward achieving any real or useful application. The application that speculative knowledge strives toward is justified by the imagination rather than evidence. Speculative knowledge does not have clear objectives or to ways to measure its progress. Speculative knowledge claims it is getting closer to results with no evidence of getting closer to results. Speculative knowledge is a parasite that feeds off investigative knowledge. Speculative knowledge pretends to be investigative knowledge and uses the fruits of investigative knowledge to justify its endeavors.

What is the difference between investigative knowledge and speculative knowledge? In what professions are there people who pretend to generating investigative knowledge but are actually generating speculative knowledge?

PART II: DEFENDING THE TRUTH

Chapter 6: The Battleground of Truth

The battle against truth is like a court case rather than a mathematical derivation. A defendant is rarely convicted on conclusive proof but rather on a variety of inductive evidence that proves the verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.

(1) Our minds are capable of fully understanding many finite truths. (2) Our minds are not capable of fully understanding all immeasurable truths and foundational truths. (3) Our minds are capable of partially understanding immeasurable truth through analogies and models. (4) Our minds are capable of partially understanding foundational truth and trusting it by refuting many of the alternatives that conflict with other foundational truth.

(1) All truth is logically consistent with other truth. Two propositions that logically conflict with each other cannot both be truth. (2) Propositions that are true cannot always be conclusively proven to be true. Propositions that are false cannot always be conclusively proven to be false. (3) Propositions that are false can never be conclusively proven to be true. Propositions that are true can never be conclusively proven to be false. (4) Propositions that claim to establish falsehood can always be refuted. Propositions that claim to disprove truth can always be refuted.

Do you think that if you were to examine all the evidence that is available that it would point towards the truth or a falsehood? Do you think that your most important decisions in life are informed by your own investigation of the evidence or by trusting other peoples' investigation?

Falsehood is like a myriad of different types of vermin that cause disease. Truth is like the predators that subdues all the different types of vermin. Censorship is like a foolish plan to kill only one type of the vermin at the cost of also killing all the predators. When the predator is gone the other types of vermin will multiply.

Truth is not attacked by allowing falsehood to be accessible, but rather by making truth inaccessible. Accessible falsehood can be always be refuted as long as truth is accessible. Accessible falsehood cannot be refuted if truth is inaccessible. Falsehood will always be accessible. Anyone and everyone can find or produce falsehood. If one form of falsehood is quarantined, then another form will be produced to fill the void. Truth is more difficult to find than falsehood is to produce. If truth is quarantined from being shared, then there is no defense against the spawning falsehood.

The opponents of truth spread fear that a falsehood may arise that truth cannot refute. The opponents of truth use this fear to quarantine controversial information and arguments from the public forum of debate and instruction. The quarantine of controversial information makes controversial truth inaccessible. When controversial truth is censured from the public forum of debate, falsehood is able to spawn unchallenged on controversial topics. If debatable topics are not open to uncensored debate, then falsehood fills the void on those topics.

Are you afraid that falsehood will defeat truth in an open honest public debate? Are you afraid that falsehood will defeat truth if you did an open honest investigation of the evidence? How do you know that you have not been deceived by falsehood if information and arguments are allowed to be censured? What prevents truth from refuting falsehood in the public forums of debate and instruction?

Inaccessible truth is like a rigged court case where the defendant is not allowed to provide neither witnesses nor any evidence. Inaccessible truth is like a rigged court case where the defendant not is not allowed to be present and cannot respond to the prosecution's arguments; a person pretending to be the defendant may be present to make the rigged trial imitate a legitimate trial. The person who trusts only contemporary knowledge and is ignorant of traditional knowledge is like a foolish investor who invests everything in a single risky insecure investment.

Truth remains accessible when all types of information and arguments have the opportunity to be presented, the opportunity to be refuted, and the opportunity to be defended in all public forums of debate and instruction. Truth remains accessible when objective evidence is distinguished from subjective speculation. Truth remains accessible when there is careful examination of the source, background, and context of the evidence. Truth can become inaccessible by being quarantined by censorship. Truth can become inaccessible by being diluted by unrefuted speculation. Truth can become inaccessible by being compromised by misinterpretation.

The opponents of truth seek to legitimize only contemporary knowledge and censure traditional knowledge. Falsehoods that have long been refuted can only become re-established if traditional knowledge is censured. The re-established falsehoods are easily refuted by the truth contained in vast store of traditional knowledge. The only way for the opponents of truth to prevent a re-awakening of truth is by censoring traditional knowledge. The opponents of truth censure traditional knowledge by deterring an impartial investigation of it through speculative slander. The authenticity of historical documents that have long verified by scientific, historical, and archeological evidence is attacked by the fabrication of alternative theories founded on speculation rather than evidence. The validity of traditional knowledge is attacked by criticizing its linguistic style rather evaluating its content. The practicality of traditional knowledge is attacked by misrepresenting traditional scholars as having less human intelligence than contemporary scholars. The censorship of traditional knowledge is rationalized by asserting that its evidence and arguments are too dangerous to be allowed in public forums of debate and instruction.

Do you rely solely on contemporary authors to investigate and interpret traditional knowledge for you? Do you think that traditional knowledge is too dangerous to be freely expressed freely in public forums of debate and instruction?

Speculation is like a voice that whispers in the ear of a mentally ill person. Speculation is like slander from an anonymous source. Speculation is like a diversion that a thief uses to steal your most valuable possessions. Decontextualizing content is like a child who invents a story rather than actually reading what is in the book. Decontextualizing content is like a baker who ignores the recipe and ruins the cake. Decontextualizing content is like imposter that kills patients while pretending to be a doctor.

The opponents of truth subvert traditional knowledge by distracting students with speculation. Students are required to read sources that contain speculation, but are deterred from reading sources that cite scientific and historical evidence; the primary sources of traditional philosophers and novelists are required since they are "classics", but the primary sources of traditional scientists, theologians, and historic leaders are disparaged as being "antiquated". Thomas Jefferson wrote the following in a letter to John Banister:

A great obstacle to good education is the inordinate passion prevalent for novels, and the time lost in that reading which should be instructively employed. When this poison infects the mind, it destroys its tone and revolts it against wholesome reading. Reason and fact, plain and unadorned, are rejected. Nothing can engage attention unless dressed in all the figments of fancy, and nothing so bedecked comes amiss. The result is a bloated imagination, sickly judgment, and disgust towards all the real businesses of life. This mass of trash, however, is not without some distinction; some few modelling their narratives, although fictitious, on the incidents of real life, have been able to make them interesting and useful vehicles of sound morality. Such, I think, are Marmontel's new moral tales, but not his old ones, which are really immoral. Such are the writings of Miss Edgeworth, and some of those of Madame Genlis. For a like reason, too, much poetry should not be indulged. Some is useful for forming style and taste. Pope, Dryden, Thompson, Shakspeare, and of the French, Moliere, Racine, the Corneilles, may be read with pleasure and improvement.

The opponents of truth censure traditional knowledge by decontextualizing its content so that it will be misinterpreted. Traditional knowledge is often purposefully or negligently misinterpreted to justify the readers' motives rather than as a legitimate quotation that explains and analyzes the intended meaning of the author. Students are encouraged to read only prescreened excerpts from primary sources rather than entire chapters. Students are encouraged to speculate an interpretation for the passages rather than investigating the author's actual meaning based on the context.

Why is it important to read entire chapters rather than just prescreened excerpts? Why is it important to read primary sources that contain evidence rather than just primary sources that contain speculation? Have you impartially investigated the words of the most influential people in history? What objective evidence is there to support or challenge their claims?

Intelligence is like a motor, but truth is like a compass. Many intelligent people have gone off in the wrong direction by ignoring the compass. Many ordinary people have paddled their way to the correct destination using just the compass.

An intelligent quotient (IQ) measures the ability to solve puzzles that were fabricated by a human authority. In order to solve the puzzles a person needs to understand the information and assumptions accepted by the human authority. In order to solve the puzzles a person needs to use logic to make rational inferences from the given information and implicit assumptions. Intelligence therefore measures the amount of information, accepted assumptions, and logical reasoning skills acquired by a person.

An intelligent person can be indoctrinated with false information and false assumptions by a human authority. An intelligent person can neglect to use reasoning skills when they conflict with his or her desires. An intelligent person can selectively censure rational implications that conflict with his or her desires. A bubble of dishonest intelligent scholars are not going to admit when they are speculating, censuring, or are in denial of the objective evidence.

What does an intelligence quotient (IQ) actually measure? Why are very intelligent people still prone to making huge mistakes? If two different intelligent people have logically conflicting beliefs, do you think the two sets of beliefs can both be true? Do you think that people should make their most important decisions in life based on diligence and evidence or based on complacency and ignorance? Do you think you are the one judging truth or do you think that it is truth that will judge you? Will truth judge you to be a faithful hero, a selfish mercenary, an insecure coward, or a stubborn traitor?
Chapter 7: The Foundation of Truth

What is the basis of my understanding? I cannot lean on my own understanding as the basis of my understanding. I must lean on foundational truth as the basis for my understanding.

Truth is like a river of water that flows between the banks of logic. Logic without truth is a river with no source of water. Foundational truth is the power source. Truth is an outlet connected to a power source through wires of logic. Circular logic is a power strip plugged into one of its own outlets, and thus is receiving no power.

Foundational truth proves our understanding. Our understanding does not prove foundational truth. Logic cannot prove itself. Circular logic cannot prove foundational truth. Foundational truth declares itself self-evident. We trust foundational truth before we trust logic. Foundational truth proves logic.

Foundational truth is the source of honesty. Circular logic is the source of dishonesty. When we are honest, we declare with confidence that foundational truth is self-evident. When we are dishonest, we demand a logical proof for foundational truth. When we are dishonest, we mock foundational truth when it does not provide a proof for itself using logic. When we are dishonest, we replace foundational truth with circular logic that deceptively appears to prove itself. When we are dishonest, we say that foundational truth has been proven to be false because it contradicts our assumptions justified through circular logic. Foundational truth is clear and unchanging. Circular logic is ambiguous and fluctuating.

Does it bother you that foundational truth must be accepted based on trust? How would you know whether you are trusting in foundational truth or are trusting in circular logic?

Why would I deny self-evident truth? It is self-evident that I exist. It is self-evident that truth exists. It is self-evident that I can choose to be honest or dishonest. Dishonesty tempts me to deny self-evident truths.

Existence is like children playing hide-and-seek who will sometimes cover their eyes thinking they have become invisible.

We exist. When we are honest, we trust our existence as self-evident. When we are dishonest, we given credibility to the false question, "How do we know we exist?". The false question contains the false assumption that foundational truth must be proved using logic. We know that it is foundational truth that proves logic and not circular logic that proves foundational truth. We would still exist as a slave to insanity if we embrace the false alternative that "we do not exist".

We exist. When we are honest, we acknowledge that we cannot truly deny this fundamental truth without becoming a slave to insanity. When we are dishonest, we pretend to doubt this fundamental truth to justify our deceptive desires. If we do not exist, then we are not responsible for our choices. If we are not responsible for our choices, then we can embrace and affirm our deceptive desires. If we can convince others to question their existence, then they become easier to exploit for our own deceptive desires.

What would be the consequences if a person truly doubted their own existence? What motivation could people have to cause you to doubt your existence?

Truth is like an enraged lunatic who does not see the image of a beautiful queen in a mirror and so attacks the mirror.

Truth exists. When we are honest, we trust the existence of truth as self-evident. Our external reality is manifested in objective truth and not our own subjective perspectives and preferences. When we are dishonest, we give credibility to the false question, "How do we know truth exists?". The false question contains the false assumption that foundational truth must be proved using logic. We know that it is foundational truth that proves logic and not circular logic that proves foundational truth. We would still suffer all the true penalties of insanity if we embrace the false alternative that "truth does not exist".

Truth exists. When we are honest, we acknowledge that we cannot truly deny this fundamental truth without becoming a slave to insanity. When we are dishonest, we pretend to doubt the objectivity of truth to justify our deceptive desires. If truth does not exist, or is subjective, then we cannot be dishonest. If we cannot be dishonest, then we can embrace and affirm our deceptive desires. If we can convince others to question the objectivity of truth, then they will not stop us from committing fraud and obtaining our deceptive desires.

What would be the consequences if a nation doubted the existence of objective truth? What motivation could people have to cause you to doubt the existence of objective truth?

Free-will is like a portrait-artist for a king who decides to draw a donkey instead of the king but still expects payment.

Free-will exists. When we are honest, we accept our free-will as self-evident and that we alone are responsible for choosing to be honest or dishonest. When we are dishonest, we give credibility to the question "How do we know we have free-will?" The question itself is false because it contains the false assumption that truth must be proved using logic. We know that it is foundational truth that proves logic and not circular logic that proves foundational truth. We would still be responsible for freely choosing to become a slave to insanity if we embrace the false alternative that "we have no free-will".

Free-will exists. When we are honest, we acknowledge that we cannot truly deny this fundamental truth without becoming a slave to insanity. When we are dishonest, we pretend to doubt this fundamental truth to justify our deceptive desires. If free-will does not exist, then we are not responsible for our choices. If we are not responsible for our choices, then we can embrace and affirm our deceptive desires. If we can convince others to question free will, they cannot hold us responsibility for our choices and behaviors since it was inevitable that we would yield to our deceptive desires.

What would be the consequences if the citizens of a nation were not accountable for their choices and behaviors? What motivation people have to cause you to doubt their control, responsibility, and accountability for their choices and behaviors?

**Chapter 8** **: The Character of Truth**

What do I know about truth? When I am honest, I acknowledge the fundamental truth that all complete statements about external reality are either true or false. When I am dishonest, I attempt to disprove this truth by citing false counterexamples involving meaningless statements and incomplete statements.

A complete statement about reality is like a piece of evidence that exonerations the honest person and convicts the dishonest person of perjury. A complete statement about reality is a pass or fail test that a dishonest person fears taking. A complete statement about reality is a well written contract that reality has already chosen to either sign or to rip apart.

A complete statement about our external reality is either true or false. A complete statement has all of its significant terms clearly defined, its conditions clearly specified, and its range of precision clearly delineated. A complete statement about reality must either be consistent with our external reality or conflict with our external reality. A complete statement about our external reality is true if it is consistent with the existence of reality. A complete statement about our external reality is false if it conflicts with the existence of our external reality.

A complete statement that is consistent with our external reality is true even if we have not yet verified it. (Example: "I was born in the United States in the year 1987". This statement is true even if you doubt that it is true.). A complete statement that conflicts with our external reality is false even if we have not yet verified it. (Example: "When I was born, the cells in my body did not contain any Y-chromosomes". This statement is false even if you doubt that it is false). A complete statement about reality that is true is still true even the evidence is unavailable or misleading. A complete statement about reality that is false will still be false even if the evidence is unavailable or misleading. If I changed the year I was born on my birth certificate to commit fraud, I would still be dishonest even if the evidence was unavailable or misleading.

Would a complete statement that is consistent with our external reality still be true even if no one articulated the complete statement? Would a complete statement that conflicts with our external reality still be false even if no one articulated the statement? Can you think of why people might not want to make a complete statement about our external reality? What do you think would happen if people choose not to articulate complete statement about reality?

Meaningless statements are like a child who puts random letters together and wonders why it is not a word. A meaningless statement is like a road that travels in a circle and has no intersections. Meaningless statements are like a tourist in a foreign land who commits a crime and expects diplomatic immunity but receives the full penalty.

Meaningless statements are not about external reality. Complete statements about external reality are either true or false judged against the existence of external reality. Since meaningless statements cannot be judged against external reality, it is meaningless to call them true or false.

Meaningless statements can be irrational or trivial. An irrational statement contains at least one logical contradiction. (Example: "A three-sided rectangle has four corners"). Circular logic does not prove truth, but truth is still connected by logic. A trivial statement relates to statements that do not relate back to the external reality. (Example: "This sentence is false."). Truth does not obtain its meaning from language, but language obtains its meaning from truth.

Do does your ability to construct meaningless statements invalidate the truth of our external reality? Does your ability to construct illogical statements invalidate the application of logic throughout our external reality?

An incomplete statement is like a contractor who demands full payment before the job is finished. When a person negligently misinterprets a complete statement, it is like a scoundrel who steals and burns the contract and then does not pay the contractor.

Incomplete statements contain significant details that are ambiguous. Complete statements have all the significant details clarified. Complete statements about external reality must either be true or false. Incomplete statements cannot be evaluated until all the significant details are first clarified. One set of assumptions might interpret the ambiguous details to create a complete statement that is true. Another set of assumptions might interpret the ambiguous details to create a different complete statement that is false.

A statement is complete if the significant details actually have been clarified based on the intent of the author, the context of the writing, and other relevant evidence. When we are honest, we will objectively complete the statement using the relevant evidence and evaluate it to be either true or false. When we are dishonest, we will isolate the statement from the relative evidence and purposefully misinterpret the statement based on our subjective personal preferences.

Do you think it is possible for you to write a complete statement that not even a dishonest person could not misinterpret? Do you think that it is possible to understand what you read if you ignore the intent of the author and the context of the writing?

How can my statements be incomplete? I can make incomplete statements by making them vague, conditional, or approximate.

A vague statement is like a movie whose ending can be interpreted in several different ways, so that the actual ending is not revealed until the sequel is made.

Vague statements have significant terms that have ambiguous definitions. Complete statements can be formed from vague statements by clearly defining the ambiguous definitions. A vague statement can arise from imprecision in a language. A person might also cleverly exploit these areas of imprecision as a strategic maneuver. (Example: "If you do not follow my directions, there will be consequences". By not defining what the consequences are, the person is free to choose them later).

Vague statements can used deceptively as to avoid confronting truth or committing to a choice. A politician might deliberately use a term ambiguously to make a point with a friendly audience while escaping the criticism of a hostile audience. Vague statements can also be used to create the illusion of a threat or promise without any liability to fulfill it. An artist might also deliberately make a vague statement to encourage further discussion on that topic by creating a template for the audience to complete.

Why might you purposefully make a vague statement? When is it honest to make a vague statement and when is it dishonest to make a vague statement? Why might it be frustrating for you to debate people who only make vague statements?

A conditional statement is like a novel without a setting, a play without a director, and a trial without judge or jury.

Conditional statement has conditions that are still ambiguous. Complete statements can be formed from conditional statement by clearly specifying the conditions. A conditional statement can arise when the author did not know how to address all the crucial conditions. (Example: "A carbon atom is stable". If the carbon atom has 12 neutrons it is stable, but if the carbon atom has 14 neutrons it is unstable.).

Conditional statements can also arise when the author deliberately make a statement conditional. An instructor might deliberately make a conditional statement as a template for the audience to modify and complete. It may be that the instructor wants the audience to learn something by completing the conditions. It may also be that the number of possible conditions is so vast that it is more practice for the audience to determine them for their unique situation.

Why might you purposefully make a conditional statement? How might you accidentally make a conditional statement? Can you think of some statements are complete where there were no conditions that needed to be specified?

An approximate statement is like a farm animal that is allowed to roam free. An approximate statement a parent who answers "soon" to a child who keeps asking "are we there yet?". An approximate statement is when a person is asked "where do you live?" and replies "Earth".

An approximate statement has ambiguous limits. All measurements are an approximate statement until the upper and lower limits are specified. Complete statements can be formed from approximate statements by specifying the upper and lower limits. (Example: "There are 365 days in a year". There are between 365 and 366 days in a year. There are about 365.25 days in a year which is why we have leap year every four years)

An approximate statement is usually used by an author who doesn't know the level of precision, doesn't care about the level of precision, or doesn't want the audience to know the level of precision. A complete statement is more precise if the upper and lower limits are closer together. A complete statement is less precise if the upper and lower limits are farther apart. When a measurement less precise we usually round it to fewer digits or round it a more familiar number.

Do you think that it is always more beneficial for a measurement to be more precise? What are some reasons you can think of that someone might not want to reveal the level of precision of their measurements?
Chapter 9: The Obedience to Truth

When do I choose to be honest? I choose to be honest when I allow the truth to trump my preferences in my decisions, but I am dishonest when I allow my preferences to trump the truth.

Honesty is like a group of thieves who return everything they have stolen and do not steal anymore. Dishonesty is a band of thieves who steal from others but not themselves. Insanity is a band of thieves who steal even from each other.

Honesty is not tested in the many decisions we make where the truth does not conflict with our preferences. Even when we are dishonest we will usually make the right decision. Honesty is only tested in the few decisions we make where the truth conflicts with our preferences.

Honesty is a war between truth and preference. Truth is objective information that accurately describes our shared outside reality. Preference is subjective information that describes our personal inside desires. Decisions are routine when our preferences are consistent with the truth. Decisions become challenging when our preferences conflict with the truth.

Have you known someone who knew what the right decision was but still made the wrong decision? What prompted the person to make the wrong decision? How did the person rationalize making the wrong decision?

When is my honesty being tested? The ordinary situations when I naturally make the right decisions do not test my honesty. My honesty is tested only by specific situations where the truth is in conflict with my preferences.

Honesty is like an athlete who trains and succeeds under pressure. Dishonesty is an athlete who does not train and occasionally fails under pressure. Insanity is an athlete who always fails and still doesn't train.

Honesty is only tested in the specific situations when we are tempted by deceptive desires and bothered by irritating truths. We are all tempted by deceptive desires that we wish were true, but are false. Honesty is choosing to abandon and reject our deceptive desires. Dishonesty is choosing to embrace and affirm our deceptive desires. We are all confronted with irritating truths that we wish were false, but are true. Honesty is choosing to accept and acknowledge the irritating truths. Dishonesty is choosing to deny and ignore irritating truths.

Honesty is not tested by whether we abandon and reject false information. Honesty is not tested by whether we accept and acknowledge true information. Even when we are dishonest we will naturally abandon and reject false information. Even when we are dishonest we will naturally accept and acknowledge true information. Even when we are dishonest we will naturally behave honest in front of people. Honesty is only tested when it is advantageous to behave dishonestly and disadvantageous to behave honestly.

Why should you behave honestly when it is disadvantageous to behave honestly? What are the benefits to behaving honestly when it seems disadvantageous?

Should I embrace dishonesty? If I embraced dishonesty, I would become a fool who thinks foolishness is wisdom. I would be dishonest about my own dishonesty. I choose honesty. I would choose to be slave to my long-term benefit rather than a slave to my short-term desires.

Honesty is like an armor providing peace of mind and protection against unknown dangers. Honesty is a medal that only has its true value when it is genuinely earned and not stolen. Dishonestly is fire that demands constant attention and fear as it always threatens to engulf one's most priceless possessions. Dishonesty is a wolf that ravenously licks frozen blood from a knife eventually consuming itself.

Honesty is better than dishonesty. We behave honestly in front of people even when we are dishonest. We have the desire to be perceived as honest even when we are dishonest. We value honesty in others even when we ourselves are dishonest. Honesty is manifested as character but is perceived as reputation. Honesty has benefits that seem invisible but are real. Dishonesty has advantages that seem tangible but are imaginary.

Dishonesty is shortsighted. We have the long-term motivation to choose to repent, become honest, acknowledge the truth, and live with integrity. We are dishonest because we lack discipline and choose our myopic desire over truth. Dishonesty is a choice. Insanity is a habit. Insanity is when we deny that honesty is better than dishonesty. Insanity is becoming trapped in a permanent state of dishonesty. We become a slave to insanity when we no longer desire to return to honesty.

Why would a person want to be perceived as being dishonest? How might a person choose to be dishonest while not being perceived as being dishonest? Why would a person want to perceive themselves as being dishonest? How might a person choose to be dishonest and justify their choice to be dishonest?

**Chapter 10** **: The of Tactics against Truth**

How can I undermine truth? I can undermine truth by affirming wrong choices, giving credibility to bad questions, and trusting deceptive speculation.

An artist tells his or her arts students "there is no wrong answer", and receives a blank page. A doctor tells his or her medical students "there is no wrong answer", and the patient dies. A teacher tells his or her students "there is no wrong answer", and the students become susceptible to lies. A judge says "there is no right definition", and the nation loses its fundamental principles.

Wrong choices are not beneficial. Right choices are beneficial. A choice is not right simply because the objective is beneficial. A choice is right because the overall effects of the choice are beneficial. In some situations there are adverse side-effects to choices that are tolerable. In some situations there are adverse side effects to choices that are not tolerable. A beneficial objective with intolerable side effects is still a wrong choice. One wrong choice teaches others to make wrong choices. One right choice teaches others to make right choices.

Some situations only have one right choice. Some situations have more than one right choice. In some situations, only one set of conditions can lead to a beneficial outcome. In some situations, different conditions can lead to a beneficial outcome. The existence of only one right choice does mean that all other choices wrong. However, the existence of more than one right choice does not mean that all other choices right.

Do you think that a person can be wrong even if one of their objectives was beneficial? If a person makes a choice that produces severely adverse side effects, when do you think the person be punished for negligence and when should the person be shown mercy and forgiveness?

A politician was asked "Do you think it is still possible for you to win the election even though you are incompetent and dishonest? Please respond with only a Yes or No response." The politician responded "Yes".

Bad questions cannot be answered with a beneficial answer. Good questions can be answered with a beneficial answer. Bad questions can be false and/or inappropriate. A false question contains a false assumption. To answer a false question is to unwittingly accept and acknowledge the false assumption. An inappropriate question is a question that has no beneficial answer. To answer an inappropriate question is to give authority to the disingenuous purposes behind the question.

When we are dishonest, we say "There is no such thing as a bad question." When we are honest, we acknowledge that some questions are bad because they are either false or inappropriate. A false question should be responded to with a clarification of the false assumption. An inappropriate question should be responded to with a clarification or rebuke for the disingenuous motivation behind the question.

What do you think could be consequences of answering a false question? Do you think that people are usually aware that they are asking a false question? What do you think could be the consequences of answering a misappropriate question? What do you think could some of the motivations people have for asking a misappropriate questions?

A lawyer brought a random citizen to the witness stand. The lawyer asked the random citizen, "These doctors say that the defendant is guilty, do you agree?". The random citizen asked, "What is the evidence that the defendant might be guilty?" The lawyer responded, "These doctors are only the evidence. They are excellent judges of character." The random citizen asked, "Did these doctors witness the defendant commit the crime?". The lawyer responded "No".

Deceptive speculation is when a source of authority speculates beyond its actual evidence or expertise and misrepresents the results as being credible conclusions. Deceptive speculation can occur when a source of authority subjectively misinterprets a set of objective information. Deceptive speculation can also occur when a source of authority objectively interprets a set of subjective information or misinformation. Deceptive speculation can be produced when people in authority become complacent and do review and verify each other's conclusions. Deceptive speculation can proliferate when people in authority lack the integrity to rebuke each other for misrepresenting speculation as being credible.

When we are dishonest, we say "It is true because it seems reasonable and is affirmed by people in authority". When we are honest, we investigate to determine whether a result is an actually a credible conclusion or whether it is the result of speculation. Speculation is when a when a person subjectively interprets an incomplete or isolated set of evidence. Credible conclusions are when a person objectively interprets evidence using the complete set of other applicable evidence. The ignorant and foolish make important decisions based on speculation. The discerning and wise detect and expose speculation and only make important decisions based on creditable conclusions.

Can the same person produce both credible conclusions and speculation? Is everything that an intelligent person writes privately worthy of being published publically? What do you think can motivate someone to misrepresent speculation as being a credible conclusion? Why do you think it is important to discern which information is speculation and which information is a credible conclusion? What are some ways you might test whether something is actually a credible conclusion or whether it is just speculation?

PART III: APPLYING TRUTH

Chapter 11: The Principles of Continuity

Which came first the chicken or the egg? Did the cell create intelligence or did intelligence create the cell? The debate between theists and naturalists is like a debate about a celestial computer that runs a perfect simulation of our universe.

The theists sustain the possibility of the existence of an eternal living being. The theists sustain the possibility of the existence of an eternal intelligent being.

(1) The theists sustain the principle of the continuity of life, which is the principle that something living can only be created by something already living. The principle of living continuity is experimentally sustained; no experiment has ever demonstrated that it is possible to create a living cell from something non-living.

(2) The theists sustain the principle of the continuity of intelligence, which is the principle that something intelligent can only be designed by something that is already intelligent. The principle of intelligence continuity is experimentally sustained; no experiment has ever demonstrated that it is possible for something intelligent to be designed by something non-intelligent.

The theists assert that eternal living being created life. The theists assert that an eternal intelligent being designed intelligent life.

The naturalists deny the possibility of the existence of an eternal living being. The naturalists deny the possibility of the existence of an eternal intelligent being.

(1) The naturalists deny the principle of living continuity. The naturalists speculate that there could be an anomaly that would allow something living to be created by something non-living. The naturalists do not have any experimental evidence to validate this speculation, but they speculate that eventually they might.

(2) The naturalists deny the principle of intelligence continuity. The naturalists speculate that there could be an anomaly that would allow something intelligent to be created by something non-intelligent. The naturalists do not have any experimental evidence to validate this speculation, but they speculate that eventually they might.

The naturalists speculate that spontaneous anomalies created life. The naturalists speculate that a series of spontaneous anomalies produced intelligent life as one of the maintained variations.

What is the objective evidence for the difference between a live animal and a dead animal? What is the objective evidence is for the difference between a living cell and a dead cell? If there was a complex computer virus that copied itself with many different variations how would you conclude it came to be? Would you conclude than an intelligent person originally programed it and then compiled it, or would you conclude that it formed accidentally from an error in another program, compiled itself, and then evolved after numerous iterative copies?

If a person claims to have discovered a theory for a matter-producing machine that violates the principle of energy conservation and wants it taught in schools, what should happen? The scientists might laugh at the person and demand conclusive evidence. If a person claims to have discovered a theory for a perpetual motion machine that violates the second law of thermodynamics and wants it taught in schools, what should happen? The scientists might laugh at the person and demand conclusive evidence. If a person claims to be getting closer to inventing a rocket that violates the principle that nothing can travel through space faster than the speed of light in empty space and wants it taught in schools, what should happen? The scientists might laugh at the person and demand conclusive evidence.

If a person claims to have invented a theory that violates the principle of the continuity of life and wants it taught in schools, what should happen? The scientists might laugh at the person and demand conclusive evidence. What did happen? The "scientists" give praise and recognition to the person, do not demand any conclusive evidence, and teach it in schools.

If a person claims to have discovered a theory that violates the principle of the continuity of intelligence, what should happen? The scientists might laugh at the person and demand conclusive evidence. What did happen? The "scientists" give praise and recognition to the person, do not demand any conclusive evidence, and teach it in schools.

The speculations of the naturalists are absurd to anyone who does not first reject the principles of living continuity and intelligence continuity. The objective evidence sustains the principles of living continuity and intelligence continuity. There is no objective evidence that disproves these continuity principles. There is experimental scientific justification for sustaining these continuity principles. There is no scientific justification for censuring these continuity principles.

The naturalists have a personal aversion to the possibility of an eternal being. This personal aversion makes it desirable for naturalists to censor the principles of living continuity and intelligence continuity. Theses continuity principles are censored as an act of faith by people who are religiously intolerant to the possibility of an eternal being. Once the principles of living continuity and intelligence continuity are censored, suddenly the speculations of the naturalists no longer seem absurd.

An impartial interpretation of the evidence is no longer possible when the principles of living continuity and intelligence continuity are censored. After these continuity principles are censored, the naturalist interpretations seem the only obvious alternative and the speculations of the naturalists go unchallenged. An unchallenged interpretation of the evidence is then used to rationalize the naturalistic assumptions.

Is it a requirement to reject all principles consistent with the existence of an eternal being in order to study nature? Can information be interpreted impartially if rival interpretations are censured?

A naturalist is like an obsessive gambler who thinks the odds are in the favor of winning even when they are not. A naturalist is like an obsessive gambler who becomes the more certain of eventually winning after each loss. A naturalist is like a naïve gambler who is betting against the way the dice have already been rigged. A naturalist is like a naïve student who out of pride accepts the challenge of trying to find the last digit of Pi, "challenge accepted!".

Although the naturalists have no evidence that a living cell can be created from something nonliving, the naturalists can easily rationalize why that evidence is not available, yet. The naturalists speculate that a cell is simple enough to occur spontaneously but too complex for scientists to assemble, yet. The naturalists also speculate that there might be an anomaly allows cells to be created easily that scientists haven't discovered, yet. As more fruitless sophisticated attempts to produce life from non-life occur, it becomes all the more implausible for life to have developed spontaneously. The more implausible it becomes for life to develop spontaneously, the more confident the naturalists become. The naturalists will always misrepresent their faith in the future discovery of evidence as a form of evidence itself. The speculation strategy of naturalists is foolproof; no amount of evidence could dissuade a naturalist.

As the evidence mounts against the naturalist, the naturalists will invent new speculations to distract from and evade the evidence. As the mounting evidence disproves that life could not develop spontaneously on earth, the naturalists invents new speculations about life being seeded from space. The naturalists will speculate that there is life on other planets that we just haven't discovered, yet. The more naturalists are proved wrong by evidence, the more they resort to speculations. The naturalists will misrepresent their faith in the future discovery of life in space a form of evidence itself. The naturalists will misrepresent their religious quest to find life in space as a form of evidence itself. The speculation strategy of the naturalists is foolproof; no amount of evidence could dissuade a naturalist.

Is there the possibility of inventing a matter producing machine that violates the conservation of energy principle? Should we trust that speculation without any evidence? Is there the possibility of inventing a perpetual motion machine that violates the second law of thermodynamics? Should we trust that speculation without any evidence? Is there the possibility of inventing a rocket that can travel through space faster than the speed of light? Should we trust that speculation without any evidence? Is it possible to get "closer" to doing something that is impossible? Is there the possibility of creating life from non-life? Should we trust that speculation over the evidence? Is there the possibility of finding life on other planets? Should we trust that speculation without any evidence?

Genetic engineering is like reprogramming an advanced celestial computer technology that would be impossible for us to build ourselves. Trying to resurrect a dead cell is like trying to start a fire in Antarctica without having a heat source. The genetic material of a cell spontaneously writing itself would be like writing an extremely complex computer program or cracking a massively long password by hitting random keystrokes. Even if a computer program is written, it is impossible for it to run without a compiler and without computer. When naturalists speculate "where there is water, there might be life" it is like saying "where there are protons, neutrons, and electrons, there might be life". When naturalists speculate "where there is water there might be life", it is like convicting an innocent person of murder simply because person had a motive to kill despite the fact that there was no evidence at all.

The naturalists ignore the uniqueness of life. The functioning hardware systems of the cell are completely unique. Scientists can only alter the genetic software to reprogram an already living cell through genetic engineering. It is impossible for the scientists to assemble the functioning hardware of a living cell from non-living material. The naturalists speculate that because living cells metabolize non-living components, that it must be possible to assemble a living cell from non-living material. Scientists neither randomly nor systematically can assemble non-living matter into a living cell. Scientists can only reprogram an already living sacrificial cell. The experimental evidence sustains that living cells contain a "spark of life" that scientists cannot replicate.

The naturalists ignore the astounding complexity of life. The length of the genetic code sequence required to program the simplest living bacterial has immeasurably more possible password combinations than the number of all the atoms in the visible universe multiplied by the age of the visible universe in nanoseconds. The naturalists are indoctrinated to censure the evidence for the uniqueness of life. The naturalists religiously believe that most basic non-living components of the cell such as water, sugars, and amino acids can spontaneously assemble themselves into a living cell. The naturalists also censure the evidence of complexity by vastly oversimplifying the complex integrated layered systems of life. It is absurd to equate the complex integrated layered systems of life with the most basic components of the cell. The mathematical probability of producing the variations necessary for complex human life is zero, to vastly immeasurable precision. The naturalist has been taught to censure complexity and be indoctrinated by ignorance. The naturalists speculation defies evidence, defies logic, and rest solely on blind faith. The speculation strategy of the naturalists is foolproof; no amount of evidence could dissuade a naturalist. The naturalists therefore speculate that there must be an infinite number of universes, none of which can contain an eternal being.

Is it possible for a person who doesn't have the tools to start a fire to still maintain a fire that is already burning? If a fire metabolizes wood, does that mean a fire can be assembled from just wood without using an additional heat source? Is it possible for a person to write a computer program who does not know how the computer works or how to build one from scratch? Is it possible for a person who is incapable of creating life to maintain life in a cell that is already living? If a living cell metabolizes non-living material, does that mean a living cell must be able to be assembled from non-living material without using an additional life source? Is the whole of a complex layered structure more than just the sum of its parts? Is the whole of a complex integrated system more than just the sum of its processes? Is naturalism a scientific principle or a religious principle? Does the evidence give naturalist the right to censure rival interpretations? Does the power to censure rival interpretations give naturalists the illusion of having evidence?
Chapter 12: The Naturalist State

A naturalist can act like a selfish politician who misrepresents selfish pride as compassion. A good loving person will self-sacrifice acting as a model, but an evil prideful person will force others to sacrifice acting as an expert.

The majority of public school teachers in California are expected to join at least one of the denominations of the government church. The government church can hold its church meetings in the multipurpose room of a public school on a regular basis. During the faculty meetings, all of the teachers can be encouraged to stay for the government church meetings, but they cannot be forced to attend. Every public school teacher is required to make a mandatory donation to the government church. This mandatory donation is a requirement in order for public school teachers to keep their jobs. The public school teachers automatically have a minimum donation to the government church taken out of their paycheck, which is called an agency fee. The rationale for the mandatory donation is that every public school teacher benefit from political activities of the government church, so every public school teacher must contribute to it. The public school teachers do not have their salaries automatically increase with the standard of living increase because the government church wants all public school teachers to be dependent for salary increase so that it can take credit for it. In order for the public school teachers to have the opportunity to fully take advantage of the services of the government church, a larger donation is required. The government church sends public school teachers its church newsletter on a regular basis which contains propaganda promoting the government church. The government church promises that public school teachers do not have to pay for social security as long as they continue to serve the government church. The government church also promises to ensure that taxpayers will pay for elaborate retirement pensions for public school teachers as long as they contribute to government church.

Naturalism is the secular idea or belief that nothing exists beyond the natural world, and that the spiritual kingdom is not capable of influencing the world. Naturalism is currently the established state church, which has been granted monopoly on public education, public unions, and public debate. The naturalist use different diction to legally allow their religion special distinctions. The naturalists have replaced the phrase "common law" found in the constitution with the new phrase "secular law", which is not found anywhere in the Constitution. The naturalists call themselves "secular" instead of the "naturalist religion". The naturalists call their congregations "unions" instead of "churches".

The irony is that the naturalists chant their slogan "separation of church and state", but are deeply offended if anyone should even suggest the "separation of union and state".

It is important to point out that there is a major distinction between state unions and private unions. Private unions, private insurance, and private charity are essential for the equitable distribution of wealth that they themselves created and earned. State unions, state insurance, and state charity demand the inequitable theft of wealth that was created by others and stolen through compulsory taxation. These private organizations are a protection the liberty of citizens to loving self-sacrifice of their own resources. These state organizations are an infringement of liberty by forcing the prideful compulsory sacrifice of other peoples' resources. Tyrannical prideful people always are convinced they are experts and know how to use other peoples' resources better than they can, so they have a right to steal it and do so. The resources that are stolen through taxation are then misappropriated and only a remnant does anything productive. The naturalists fund their salaries and programs by leaching off of the compulsory taxation that funds "secular" state organizations.

Is naturalism a religion? Does naturalism contradict other religions? Is naturalism exempted in the common law from legal restrictions that are placed on other non-secular religions?

A naturalist can act like a tyrannical prideful gangster who assaults a person for disapproving of his behavior. The offended gangster feels that everyone should either affirm his behavior or else remain silent. The gangster feels that any opposing opinion is intolerant and justifies retaliatory action. The gangster uses opinions perceived to be detrimental to justify retaliatory action.

The freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion. The Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution to ensure that the common law protected the freedom of religion, which is the right to for people to practice their religion both publically and privately despite the fact that other intolerant people may claim to feel offended by it. The naturalists have coined a term called the "freedom of worship", which expresses the idea that the exercise of religion should be limited and should only be allowed to be practiced privately but not publically. The Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to protect the free exercise of religion and ensure that the freedom of religion would be enshrined in common law.

The bigotry of "freedom of worship" that is being spread in contemporary culture attempts to censure religious beliefs from being practiced and voiced publically in business, education, politics, and public life. The bigotry of "freedom of worship" that is being spread attempts to not only censure religious beliefs, but also to persecute citizens for simply voicing and endorsing their beliefs, values, and principles.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Religious freedom is the right to the free exercise of religion, which includes free speech for religious opinions in all public forums of debate and instruction. The government has the authority to right reach illegal actions only. The government does not have the right to reach illegal opinions nor does the government even have the right to designate opinions as being illegal. An action is illegal because it is inherently detrimental. An action cannot be made illegal based on the perceived detriment from an opinion expressed through free speech. The freedom of speech includes the right for a person to refuse participate in coerced speech, which is to use his or her own property, monetary resources, artistic talents, or speech to promote a product or event that is perceived to be detrimental. The lack of action cannot be made illegal if it is solely a refusal to participate in coerced speech. The freedom of speech is abridged when opinions are censured from free speech or when involuntary opinions are forced in coerced speech. The government has no authority to designate the free speech of a religious opinion in any public forum of debate and instruction an illegal action, or cause to threaten a legal penalty.

The first amendment was written specifically to protect religious freedom. One of the fundamental ways that the first amendment helps protect religious freedom is by enshrining into common law the United States cannot establish an official state religion comparable to The Church of England. We have never had the overt establishment of an official state religion comparable to the Church of England, but we do now have a legal bias given to the naturalist religion through "secular government unions".

The first amendment was written specifically to protect the right to practice religion both publically and privately, the free exercise of religion. The so called "separation of church and state" is not found anywhere in the Constitution, but rather is distortion used by naturalists to validate their intolerance of other religions by purposely misreading a letter written by Thomas Jefferson:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature would "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.

President Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter "building a wall of separation between Church and State", as a reply to the Danbury Baptists who were encountering legal persecution via the government because of their religion, Jefferson was not to referring to shielding the government from the free exercise of religion, but rather he was referring to protecting the free exercise religion from being prohibited by government interference and censorship prompted by other intolerant factions. The wall of separation was built to protect religious beliefs, values, and principles from being censured and persecuted by the government by intolerant factions. The irony is that the naturalists who chant their slogan "separation of church and state" are one of these intolerant factions. Anyone who actual reads the writings of Thomas Jefferson for themselves would realize the hypocrisy. The following is letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to Dr. Thomas Cooper Monticello that illustrates that:

We might as well say that the Newtonian system of philosophy is a part of the common law, as that the Christian religion is. The truth is that Christianity and Newtonianism being reason and verity itself, in the opinion of all but infidels and Cartesians, they are protected under the wings of the common law from the dominion of other sects, but not erected into dominion over them.

The intolerant naturalists who are offended by a government that acknowledges a God and a Creator are offended by the very principles our nation was founded on. The hypocrisy of these intolerant naturalists is apparent simply by reading the Declaration of Independence.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The bigotry of "freedom of worship" spread in contemporary culture misquotes the first amendment, misrepresents the purpose of the first amendment, and perverts the purposeful intentions of the Founding Fathers. If the government only has the right to reach actions only and not opinions, then why should religious opinions be censured from public education and public debate? Only non-secular religions have its opinions (such as the existence of a Creator) censured from public education and public debate. The naturalist religion does not have its opinions (such as the lack of a Creator) censured from public education and public debate, and therefore it has a government established monopoly. The bigotry of "freedom of worship" spread in contemporary culture demands that religious beliefs, values, and principles can only be practiced privately and must be censured from public business, public education, public politics, and public life. There are bigots who feel that the "freedom of speech" is annoying and should be abolished and replaced with only the "freedom of thought". There are bigots who feel that the "freedom of religion" is annoying and should be abolished and replaced with only the "freedom of worship". A free society cannot continue to exist if people are censured and persecuted for practicing and voicing their beliefs, values, and principles simply because other intolerant people feel it is offensive to them.

Would you be acting intolerant for taking the action of legally censuring other people when you are offended by what they say and feel their opinion is intolerant? Would you be acting intolerant by causing someone to lose their employment simply because you are offended by an opinion they have expressed through their right to free speech. Does the government have the right to threaten action in order to deter opinions from being freely expressed in public education and other public forums?

**Chapter 13** **: The Naturalist Process**

A naturalist can act like a parent who lies about the child's age in order to get the children's discount. A naturalist can act like an undercover agent who commits sabotage and frames someone else for the crimes. A naturalist can act like a gangster who slanders and threatens the witnesses to prevent them from testifying.

The naturalists are convicted by objective truth. The agenda of the naturalist requires the subversion of objective truth. A logical person might think that naturalists only are those that claim to be atheists or agnostics, but in actuality many naturalists prefer to identify themselves with other theistic religions. Naturalism logically contradicts the other religions, but this contradiction would only discourage someone who was interested in truth. Naturalists are not primarily interested in truth, but rather personal advantage. To many naturalists truth is viewed as merely a tool to protect personal advantage, and any truth that does not serve this function is not worth defending. Many naturalists often find it personally advantageous to claim they are a member of another religion. These naturalists identify with other religions while denying the power of the eternal kingdom, and thus are naturalists who deceive others and even themselves. A few of these naturalists even misrepresent themselves as religious leaders simply for the prestige and authority. A naturalist may academically parrot the doctrine of another religion when it is advantageous, but live in a manner that is a contradiction with it. The irony is that a naturalist who claims to be another religion is the one most easily discovered to be duplicitous and labeled a hypocrite; the reputation of the other religion is slandered while the reputation of naturalism evades being tarnished. The other religion can also be maligned when naturalists target accusations at former naturalists who are in the process of a genuine conversion.

One of the areas that some naturalists are attempting to subvert objective truth is through gender. Theses naturalists often attempt to misrepresent gender as being equivalent to race. If the naturalists can misrepresent gender as being equivalent to race, then they can misrepresent the advocates of homosexual behavior as being equivalent to the advocates of the civil rights movement. This allows these naturalists to slander other religions and classical thinkers for making gender distinctions. These naturalists want to indoctrinate everyone to think that thousands of years of classical thinkers are all bigoted for discouraging homosexual behavior. These naturalists' strategy is to censure classical thinking by slandering it and then indoctrinate the masses in their contemporary ideas. These naturalists are doing everything they can to discourage people from reading and learning from classical thinkers who had already extensively refuted the arguments of these naturalists. These naturalists pretend that their arguments are progressive, and try to hide the fact that they are extremely regressive. Gender is not equivalent to race. Gender is an objective fact whereas race is subjective human interpretation. Some but not all gender distinctions serve an objective and beneficial purpose. Lawmakers in California have been indoctrinated by naturalist ideas and have passed laws in California that legally subvert the objectivity of gender. Because of these laws, public schools in California have been faced with potential legal and safety crises when male students enter the female restrooms and locker rooms.

The race of child who is an orphan is not objective. Race is not objective. The sex of a child who is orphan is objective. The sex of a person is objective. In the case when a person has no Y-chromosomes and two X-Chromosomes, she is absolutely a female. In the case when a person has one Y-Chromosome and one X-Chromosome, he is absolutely a male. There is no ambiguity; the gender of the people in these two cases is an objective biological fact. The majority of people who legally change or amend the sex on their birth certificates fall under these two absolute cases. A society is in trouble when it legally validates this legalized fraud over the objective facts. Bringing up other rare genetic conditions is simply a propaganda strategy naturalists used to confuse and distract people from their blatant rejection of objective facts. The myopic details of those other rare genetic conditions are covered with a very simple scientific definition: If a person has at least one Y chromosome, he is a male. If a person has no Y chromosomes, she is a female.

The sex of every human is an objective biological fact that is permanent. It is impossible to change the Chromosomes in all the trillions of cells of a person. What about if a person has "ambiguous genitalia"? What if a person is blind? Do you try to make the eye look like an ear or a nose? If a person is blind, you do your best to fix the eye, which is not an "ambiguous sensory organ". If a person has "ambiguous genitalia" you do the best to fix the genitalia according to their gender, which is an objective biological fact. When people want to blatantly deny objective facts, the only way they can get away with it is by clouding it in complexity, persuasive language, and fluctuating circular definitions. Intolerance is often spread in the name of tolerance and freedom. Fraud is often attempted to be legalized in the name of rights. The rights of children are often infringed because children have no political voice to defend their rights. If a people prefer to commit fraud, no jury can stop them if objective facts are not legally acknowledged and defended.

Is age an objective truth? If a person has surgery to look younger or surgery to look older, should that person be able to legally change their age on their birth certificate to the age they look or feel? Would that be fraud? Is gender an objective truth? If a person has surgery to look like the opposite gender, should that person be able to legally change their gender on their birth certificate to the gender they look or feel? Would that be fraud? If there was a male gymnast who has surgery to look like a female gymnast, should that gymnast be allowed to compete in the Olympics as a female? Would that be fraud? If denying objective facts gives a person gratification, should that person be able to legally deny objective facts? Would that be fraud? If giving false testimony in court give a person gratification, should that person be able to lie in court? Would that be perjury? If there are no objective facts, could anyone ever be convicted of perjury? Why is it that children are often indirectly the victims when people claim that their irresponsible behavior doesn't hurt anyone?

A naturalist can act like a criminal who pleads insanity to escape the punishment, and then tries to escape the treatment. A naturalist can act like an unrepentant drug addict who is still blaming everyone else for the harmful effects of his or her own poor choices. A naturalist can act like an unrepentant alcoholic who tries to escape liability by arguing that because the desire to over-consume alcohol was predetermined, the choice to drink and drive must have also been predetermined.

The naturalists are convicted by free will and responsibility. The agenda of the naturalists requires the subversion of free will and responsibility. The naturalists undermine free-will through persuasive language that implies that all their choices are already predetermined. It is true that their feelings are already predetermined. It is not true that their choices and actions are already predetermined. The naturalists claim that their choices and actions are predetermined by their feelings, which is false. All people are accountable for their choices and actions. People choose to be responsible when they choose to oppose their feelings when their feelings are dishonest or detrimental. People choose to be irresponsible when they choose to still affirm their feelings when their feelings are dishonest or detrimental. The naturalists do not want to be held accountable for choosing to be irresponsible.

When a man is afflicted with a desire for fornication or adultery, he can choose to be responsible and oppose those feelings. When a man is afflicted with a desire for fornication or adultery, he can choose to be irresponsible and affirm those feelings. A man is not evil for having evil desires. A man chooses to become a slave to evil by affirming those evil desires. A man who has evil desires and chooses to oppose them thereby chooses to remain a servant of good. Is it fair that some men have to struggle with more evil desires than other men in order to remain a servant of good? No it is not, but life is not "fair". Just because a man has more opportunities to choose evil does not by any means make him not accountable should he choose evil. Is it fair that some men have to struggle against more opportunities to choose evil than other men? No it is not, but life is not "fair".

Just because a person's current feelings are predetermined does not mean that a person's future feelings cannot be influenced. A person's current feelings are influenced by choices, actions, and events in the past. Free-will does not allow a person to change their current feelings because free-will does not allow a person to change the past. Free-will does not allow a person to change the past, only the present, which can influence the future. Therefore, if a person currently chooses to be responsible and oppose their dishonest and detrimental feelings in the present, then this can sometimes reduce the recurrence of dishonest and detrimental feelings in the future. For some people the recurrence of these dishonest and detrimental feelings will not be reduced. All people are still accountable for choosing to be responsible even if their dishonest and detrimental feelings are never reduced. Is it "fair" that dishonest and detrimental feelings can be reduced in some people and not others? No it is not, but life is not "fair". "Fair" is often a word that is irresponsibly used by naturalists to rationalize affirming the dishonest and detrimental feeling of envy or covetousness. Affirming envy or covetousness promotes theft and wrongdoing, which does not make the world any more "fair". In this world it cannot always be "fair", if by "fair" you mean "perfect". However in this world it can be "just", if by "just" you mean promoting benefit, affirming responsibility, and not stealing from or infringing on the rights of others.

If a person suffers from a chronic detrimental desire, is the person still accountable if they choose to act on that desire? Is a person accountable for their choices and actions even if they feel that life is not fair? If it is unfair to have something stolen from you, does that mean it is fair to steal from someone else to get something you personally never actually had before but always felt you deserved? Do people have the right to earn, own, and bequeath their wealth and property? Should envious and covetousness voters have the right democratically steal wealth and property via the government as long as they claim it is for good cause that people deserve? If a person is successful by honest means, should his or her wealth be disproportionally targeted for compulsory legal theft via taxation by prideful unsuccessful people to fund their pet government projects?

A naturalist can act like an unsuccessful dishonest businessman who can never keep his business afloat honestly, so he decides to always steal from others to make up the difference plus a little extra for himself for his troubles. A naturalist can act like pretentious city that enacts ordinances that prevent its residents from working and then evicts the residents when they cannot pay their bills. A naturalist can act like a corrupt firefighter with a hero complex who sets many fires in order to receive honors for putting them out. A naturalist can act like a tyrant who builds walls claiming they are for the people's protection, but they are actually to prevent the people from escaping.

The naturalists are convicted by the human dignity endowed to us by our creator. A naturalist can claim to have his purpose in life motivated by natural selection, which dictates that success would manifest itself in reproducing abundantly. This claim is merely a deceptive ploy to rationalize and justify the naturalist's irresponsibility in seeking to gratify his or her own selfish sexual desires. The naturalist admires the sexual prowess of a man who has many children through sexual escapades of fornication or adultery. The naturalist is repulsed by a man who has ten children with his one wife and lovingly raises them responsibly together on their own earned income. Both would be successful according to what the naturalist claims is his definition of success. The naturalist is disgusted by the loving responsible man not out of envy, but out of self-conviction. This self-conviction of the naturalist spawns disgust which is rationalized by the new contradictory claim that children are a burden not a blessing. To the naturalist, the loving responsible man is now being irresponsible for bringing so many burdens into the world.

The naturalist then claims to have his new purpose in life motivated by increasing the standard of living for everyone. The naturalist can then arbitrarily claim the loving responsible man with ten children is now being irresponsible for choosing not to maintain this new standard of living. The naturalist does not lovingly self-sacrifice his own resources to the increase the standard of living others. The naturalist demands the compulsory sacrifice of other people's resources. Tyrannical prideful people are always convinced that they are experts and know how to use other peoples' resources better than they can and therefore have a right to steal it by force or by law. The naturalist then compels laws and arbitrary regulations that prevent young adults from working even part time to acquire skills, responsibility, and resources. The new taxes and regulations stole away surplus earnings and made it impractical for people to start new businesses leading to fewer and poorer quality jobs. The naturalists coin a new term for young adults who are prevented from working, which is adolescents. It is acceptable if children and young adults work and do not get paid because it is called community service. It is unacceptable if children and young adults work and do not paid because it is called exploitation. The hypocrisy in how our society tramples on the rights of children and young adults is often ignored because they do not have a political voice. In 1938 the Fair Labor Standards Act was finally passed after two previously failed attempts by the naturalists to pass a Constitutional Amendment. By preventing the young adults from working even part time, the naturalists were successfully able to turn the blessing of young adults into the burden of adolescents.

The creation of adolescents nearly doubled the duration of childhood, preventing young adults from acquiring the skills, responsibility, and resources they would need to begin their adult lives. The burden of adolescence then turned all children from a blessing into a burden. The naturalists claimed they were protecting the youth, but they were actually depriving the youth of the skills, responsibility, and resources they needed to start their adult lives successfully. The nation eventually grew to look in contempt upon the youth as being unskilled, inexperienced, and burdensome. This ultimately lead to the invention of internships where the youth work but don't get paid, which also did not help the standard of living.

By preventing the young adults from working even part time, the naturalists nearly doubled the duration of childhood thereby causing children to no longer be viewed a blessing but rather to being viewed as a burden. Once children were viewed as a burden, people started to have fewer children. The naturalists redefined marriage to be solely about adult gratification and ignored the rights of children. What are the rights of children? If monogamy protects the healthy development of children, should the government promote monogamy over polygamy in order to secure the rights of children? If the original definition of marriage protects the healthy development of children, should the original definition of marriage be promoted over other unions in order to secure the rights of children? Why should the original definition of marriage be abolished simply because people are envious of its esteem it has earned over thousands of years? The following is from a letter by Thomas Jefferson to John Banister:

The following circumstances are common to education in that, and the other countries of Europe. He acquires a fondness for European luxury and dissipation, and a contempt for the simplicity of his own country; he is fascinated with the privileges of the European aristocrats, and sees, with abhorrence, the lovely equality which the poor enjoy with the rich, in his own country; he contracts a partiality for aristocracy or monarchy; he forms foreign friendships which will never be useful to him, and loses the season of life for forming in his own country, those friendships, which, of all others, are the most faithful and permanent; he is led by the strongest of all the human passions, into a spirit for female intrigue, destructive of his own and others' happiness, or a passion for whores, destructive of his health, and, in both cases, learns to consider fidelity to the marriage bed as an ungentlemanly practice, and inconsistent with happiness; he recollects the voluptuary dress and arts of the European women, and pities and despises the chaste affections and simplicity of those of his own country; he retains, through life, a fond recollection, and a hankering after those places, which were the scenes of his first pleasures and of his first connections; he returns to his own country, a foreigner, unacquainted with the practices of domestic economy, necessary to preserve him from ruin, speaking and writing his native tongue as a foreigner, and therefore unqualified to obtain those distinctions, which eloquence of the pen and tongue ensures in a free country; for I would observe to you, that what is called style in writing or speaking, is formed very early in life, while the imagination is warm, and impressions are permament. I am of opinion, that there never was an instance of a man's writing or speaking his native tongue with elegance, who passed from fifteen to twenty years of age, out of the country where it was spoken. Thus, no instance exists of a person's writing two languages perfectly. That will always appear to be his native language, which was most familiar to him in his youth. It appears to me then, that an American coming to Europe for education, loses in his knowledge, in his morals, in his health, in his habits, and in his happiness. I had entertained only doubts on this head, before I came to Europe: what I see and hear, since I came here, proves more than I had even suspected. Cast your eye over America: who are the men of most learning, of most eloquence, most beloved by their countrymen, and most trusted and promoted by them? They are those who have been educated among them, and whose manners, morals and habits, are perfectly homogeneous with those of the country.

If the naturalists want to have other types of unions, they are well within their legal rights to enter into any type of legal union. We all have the legal right to enter into a contract and all have the legal right of assembly. However, the naturalists were intolerant of the original definition of marriage and therefore sought to abolish it. The following was the original definition of "marriage" according to the American Dictionary of the English Language by Noah Webster in 1828:

MAR'RIAGE, noun [Latin mas, maris.] The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity, and for securing the maintenance and education of children.

Marriage is honorable in all and the bed undefiled. Hebrews 13:4

1. A feast made on the occasion of a marriage

The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king, who made a marriage for his son. Matthew 22:2.

2. In a scriptural sense, the union between Christ and his church by the covenant of grace. Revelation 19:7.

The naturalists were envious of the esteem of marriage, unwilling to fulfil the covenant of marriage, and unable to provide the societal benefits of marriage. Out of the hardness of their hearts they spawned strife and deception to pressure for new laws that made divorce routine, which abolished the original definition of marriage. The attack on marriage was an attack on the stability of society and investment in children. The attack on marriage led to deteriorating education for children, the rise of disorders, and a rise in sexually transmitted diseases. Once the naturalists redefined marriage to be solely about adult gratification and ignored the rights of children, the naturalists invented new ways of eliminating children. The naturalists invented ways to kill the children after they were conceived through sexual intercourse and before they could leave the womb. The naturalist then used persuasive language and arguments to dehumanize the children in the womb. The naturalists do not want to be identified as radically regressive, so they use different diction like "abortion" instead of "child sacrifices". The following was the original definition of "abortion" according to the American Dictionary of the English Language by Noah Webster in 1828:

ABOR'TION, noun [Latin abortio, a miscarriage; usually deduced from ab and orior.]

1. The act of miscarrying, or producing young before the natural time, or before the fetus is perfectly formed.

2. In a figurative sense, any fruit or produce that does not come to maturity, or any thing which fails in its progress, before it is matured or perfect, as a design or project.

3. The fetus brought forth before it is perfectly formed.

At what age do you think young adults started work at before the invention of adolescence? If a young adult is legally prevented from working or prevented from being paid for their work, will that increase or decrease living conditions for the poor? If children and young adults cannot vote yet, whose responsibility is it to defend their rights? Do children and young adults only receive their unalienable rights when they reach voting age?

A naturalist can act like a tyrant who executes the wives of eastern nations before they are even born and hopes no one notices they are missing. A tyrant will often not use the military to directly execute captives, but rather will use the military to forcibly coerce the captives' own people to do the actual execution themselves. A naturalist can act like a tyrant that attacks a small defenseless country anticipating that the country's allies will not defend it. A naturalist can act like a tyrant that floods the media with propaganda to dehumanize the targeted victims. A naturalist can act like a tyrant who has the men work in labor camps while executing the people who are deemed less useful such as woman, children, and those who are disabled.

The fact that a child is a person is an objective fact, which does not change simply because one bigoted society feels the child is unwanted or might become a burden. If a child is a person, it can only be killed for legitimate reasons. What is a legitimate reason for killing a person? The first is legitimate reason is self-defense. The second legitimate reason is if the death was unintentional. When there is evidence that the mother's life is in danger, the mother can choose to defend herself by killing her child. A loving mother will naturally try to find an alternative to save both herself and her child if feasible. In the rare cases when there is no other alternative a mother may need legally to seek the appropriate medical response to keep herself safe. When a mother chooses to kill her own child out of self-defense, this is very emotionally painful for the mother. Once her child is dead, the mother must be allowed to grieve and move on as she would for a miscarriage. It is always traumatic for a mother when her child dies in her womb through a miscarriage. When a child is killed accidentally through a miscarriage, it would be cruel to blame the mother or even hint that it was intentional. However, if the mother is assaulted by another person and the child within her womb dies, she has the right to press either manslaughter or murder charges depending on the situation.

If a mother wants to kill the child in her womb, the first thing is to lovingly remind her that the child is a person and it is her child. A loving mother would naturally want her children in the womb to live and would only kill it unless it truly was self-defense. A fearful mother can sometimes be pressured by men and society to unnaturally kill the child in her womb for reasons other than self-defense. Society should therefor focus its efforts on providing safe havens that support new mothers and alleviate their fears of giving birth to their children. However, if the mother chooses to kill the child in her womb out of self-defense, doctor-patient confidentially may dictate that only the mother and the doctor would know extent of the risk on the mother's life, unless the mother is a minor. If the mother is a minor, the mother's guardians must also be included. Any doctor or hospital must have the legal right to abstain from providing any product or procedure that may kill a child in a womb, if it is against the doctor's conscious or the hospital's conscious. The creed of the medical profession is "first do no harm". Any product or procedure that may kill a child in the womb must be paid for by either the mother or by private charity. No public money, tax dollars, or any other form of compulsory funding should be used to pay for any product or procedure designed to kill a child in the womb. No business owner should be forced to include products or services that kill children in the womb in any benefits they provide their employers if it is against their conscious. No minor should have access to products or services intended to kill children in the womb without their guardians' consent. The goal of society should be to uphold human dignity and personhood status, which is endowed to all by our creator. We are all made distinctly human at conception. The goal of society should be to give every child in the womb his or her right to fullest opportunity for a complete life. The goal of society should be to lovingly deter children in the womb from being killed through the mother's natural loving affection for her own child. The goal of society should not be to punish mothers when the children in their wombs are killed and their lives are artificially cut short.

The naturalists have used false rhetoric and persuasive language to confuse society and dehumanize children in the womb. The naturalists do not want to be identified as radically regressive, so they use different diction like "pro-choice" instead of "pro-child sacrifice". The last thing a naturalist wants is to define between what stages the healthcare industry should stop targeting human children in the womb and start caring for their health. The naturalist is not content to use their own resources to voluntarily fund products and procedures that kill children in the womb through private charities. The prideful naturalists are using state mandates to steal resources from members of other religions against their conscious and use those stolen resources to kill children in the womb. The naturalists want to use state mandates to steal from members of other religions in ways that violate their conscious, and then slander and legally prosecute the members of other religions for resisting. Naturalism is the established state religion, and it is using its power to legally prohibit the free exercise of other non-secular religions. The naturalists dehumanizes children in the womb not because they genuinely think that children in the womb are not people, but rather for them it is practical to scapegoat this defenseless minority in order to gratify their selfish desires. Because the naturalist is motivated by desires and not truth, it is impossible to persuade naturalists by truth. All the rhetoric used by naturalists to dehumanize children in the womb is false and therefore can always be logically refuted.

The naturalist says that a child in the womb is not a person because it is not a citizen of the United States. As if human immigrants are not people. The naturalist says that a child in the womb is not a person because it has not crossed the border of the womb. As if a person could be moved to a new location in international waters and no longer be a person. The naturalist says the mother is the master of the child in her womb. As if a human slave is not a full person. The naturalist says a woman should be able to harm anything inside her body. As if we should not try to prevent people from committing suicide. The naturalist says a child in the womb might not be able to live temporarily without life support. As if a family member who becomes temporarily incapacitated is no longer a person. The naturalist says that the child in the womb might develop a physical disability or mental impairment. As if a family member with a physical disability or mental impairment is no longer a person. The naturalist says that the child in the womb might become an orphan. As if all children in foster homes are no longer people. The naturalist says the mother has the right to choose. As if the right to killing has always trumped every person's right to living. The naturalist says the human child in the womb has not reach the standard of being a human being and therefore is not a person. As if we are all under the scrutiny of their man-made standard of eugenics. The naturalist says if the mother kills her child it will increase her prosperity, as if child sacrifices is something new and progressive. The naturalists says over 50 million children have already been killed in the womb in the United States. As if a large number of children being killed changes the objective fact that each individual child is still a person.

What do you think is causing the skewed sex ratios of male to female in China? How much do you think it costs to kill a child in the womb in the United States? How much profit do you think a doctor makes from killing a child in the womb in the United States? Do you think that naturalists are unwilling to donate their own money to causes they claim they are deeply passionate about? Do you think that the media exaggerates the support for products and procedures that kill children in the womb? Do you think over 50 million children killed in the womb within the United States is "safe, legal, and rare"?
Chapter 14: The Unsinkable Nation

Health and disease are like a strong fire burning. If you remove the fuel or you remove the oxygen, the fire can diminish and it can even go out. While the fire is still burning you can return the fuel and return the oxygen, the diminished fire can be restored and become strong once again. But if the fire goes out, returning the fuel and returning the oxygen will do nothing to restore the fire.

Societies that are truly healthy will have their principles and laws founded on purposeful established truth. Societies that are diseased will have their principles and laws founded on fluctuating contemporary circular logic. A healthy society is guided by purposeful established truth. A diseased society is guided by fluctuating contemporary circular logic. What is disease? Disease is the lack of health. What is health? Health is the lack of disease. We cannot genuinely define disease and health using these circular definitions. In order to genuinely define what disease and health are, we need to actually think about what the foundational truth is instead of mindlessly hiding our ignorance using circular logic. Are you satisfied with the circular definitions of disease and health? If you satisfied, then you will go on the rest of your life being ignorantly manipulated by newspeak and doublespeak similar to the classic novel 1984. A society that seeks to maintain principles and laws founded on purposeful established truth will remain healthy and enjoy the fruits of prosperity. A society that seeks to abandon its principles and laws in favor of fluctuating contemporary circular logic will become diseased and suffer the maladies of poverty and tyranny.

The purposeful established truth is that human society is comprised of people who are of two biologically distinct genders, who are created to be male or female at conception. The purposeful established truth is that the two biologically and psychologically distinct genders were created to be equal in value with intrinsically different specialties, provisions, motivations, and fulfillments. The purposeful established truth is that people of each biologically and psychologically unique gender tend to have the highest level of overall long term fulfillment when they have their specialties fully utilized, have their necessary provisions satisfied, and are encouraged through their unique motivations. The purposeful established truth is that people of each biologically and psychologically unique gender have a higher risk of anxiety and depression when they abandon their specialties, disregard their necessary provisions, are pressured through unnatural motivations. The purposeful established truth is that the two biologically and psychological different genders were uniquely designed to complement each other for the long term benefit of society. The purposeful established truth is that the conditions children in each generation face will significantly impact the condition of society for all future generations. The purposeful established truth is the personhood, preciousness, priority, protection, and investment in children are all essential to the long term health, stability, and prosperity of a society. The purposeful established truth is that each biologically and psychologically unique gender provides different specialties, provisions, motivations, and fulfillments that are all essential to the beneficial development of each child. The purposeful established truth is that the life-long unconditional committed marriage between a man and a woman is the essential foundation for the long term health, stability, and prosperity of human society. A society that is truly healthy will have their principles and laws founded on purposeful established truth affirming that all of its children as infinitely precious, persons of the highest priority, and worthy of loving sacrificial protection and investment.

The fluctuating contemporary circular logic is that human society is comprised of people who arbitrarily identify themselves as being male or female, which can fluctuate depending on their momentary preferences. The fluctuating contemporary circular logic is that when a person who identifies themselves with a specific gender must comply with all the stereotypes of that gender, and the decision for which set of stereotypes to comply with determines which gender that a person should momentarily identify with. The fluctuating contemporary circular logic is that the arbitrary genders are each just a set of subjective stereotypes that do not necessarily complement each other to provide any additional objective benefit to society. The fluctuating contemporary circular logic is that the legacy and priority of each generation should be the world it leaves to its children instead of being the children it leaves to the world. The fluctuating contemporary circular logic is that next generation must be sacrificed in order to create a more convenient world to leave to the next generation. The fluctuating contemporary circular logic is that more sacrifice and investment has already been made in the people of the current generation, so the people of the current generation are a higher priority and do not need to self-sacrifice nor invest in the children of the next generation. The fluctuating contemporary circular logic is that the personhood, preciousness, priority, protection, and investment in the people of the current generation was inherited, but the personhood, preciousness, priority, protection, and investment in the children of the next generation must be earned or forfeited. The fluctuating contemporary circular logic is that the short-term selfish conveniences and desires of the current generation are a higher priority than the personhood, preciousness, priority, protection, and investment in the children of the next generation. A society that is diseased will have its principles and laws founded on fluctuating contemporary circular logic in order to pursue harmful selfish desires while neglecting the preciousness, priority, sacrifice, protection, and investment that is necessary to breathe life into the next generation of children, who will impact the condition of society for all future generations.

The disease in a society cannot be treated until it is first diagnosed. The disease in a society cannot be diagnosed until the society regains knowledge about what it means to be healthy. A society cannot regain knowledge about what it means to be healthy if is mired in ignorance by selfish desires and contemporary isolation. A society can only regain knowledge about what it means to be healthy by learning from the wisdom of past generations of classical thinkers who were all equally human and equally endowed with human intelligence.

If we define disease as a lack of health, why can we not define health as a lack of disease? Is there an objective reality from which we can use to define health? Why is a healthy parasite or a healthy cancer a contradiction?

The United States is like the Titanic, which was thought to be unsinkable until it did not maneuver around an iceberg. The United States is like man who promises never to become like an abusive father but somehow repeats the pattern.

Technologically our nation is still progressing based on the inertia of the momentum imparted on us by the wisdom of our Founding Fathers. However, there are strong forces at work to suddenly change the direction of this momentum. As happened with the collapse of the Roman Empire, political, economic, military, and social forces can quickly turn technological progression into unthinkable technological regression, especially when a prideful and arrogant leader leaves its nation and its allies vulnerable to attack. However, it is the attack from within that can mutilate a nation's principles until the nation is unrecognizable. Is not an overbearing central government the very thing our Founding Fathers risked a treasonous death to lead a revolution against? Is not a large federal government, the very thing our Founding Fathers designed the Constitution to prevent? Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution explicitly stated that the Senators should be chosen by the State Legislatures.

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State,

chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall

be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first

Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the

Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so

that one third may be chosen every second Year; and if Vacancies happen by

Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the

Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the

Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.

The 17th amendment was passed in 1913 during presidency of Woodrow Wilson rewrote the fabric of the Constitution.

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State,

elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The

electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most

numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive

authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That

the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary

appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator

chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

The Constitution was designed with checks and balances to prevent the federal government from becoming too large. The power of the states to choose the Senators would prevent the federal government from amassing power. The incentive of the Senators was to defend the interests of the States whereas the incentive of the House of Representatives was to defend the interests of the people. The House of Representatives would naturally have the dishonest inclination to increase federal taxes and use a faction of it to bribe their constituents with pork legislation, benefits, and other amenities to steal reelection. The purpose of the Senators was to block this dishonest inclination and prevent the Federal government from stealing money from the states via federal taxation without representation. The seventeenth amendment made it so the Senators had the same dishonest inclination as the House of Representatives to bribe their constituents, so there was no longer a check to prevent the federal government from amassing unchecked power. The federal government now could steal money from the states via federal taxation and then only return some of the stolen money as bribes for reelection or as directives with strings attached. The federal government could then steal money and use for its pet projects fueled by pride, envy, and covetousness. This is the reason why when Founding Fathers designed the Constitution, they explicitly designed our nation with checks and balances to be a republic and not a democracy. It has been over a 100 years since the 17th amendment was passed, which was a regression, not a progression. The following words are attributed to Alex de Tocqueville.

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.

Do you think a large federal government is a progression or a regression? Do you think that pride, envy, and covetousness cause all democracies to fail? Do you think technology has changed human nature? Do you think contemporary politicians are more intelligent that the Founding Fathers? Do you think that the 17th amendment has made our republic susceptible to the same fate as past democracies? Were the Founding Fathers treasonous traitors? Do you think the Founding Fathers only used contemporary ideas to draft the Constitution or did they learn from classic thinkers and history itself? Do you think the Founding Fathers planned how to rebuild civilization before they declared revolution? Can a revolution make things worse if there is no plan on what to do after? Do you think that the declaration of independence is obsolete and no has relevance to today?

True knowledge is like a tree that has its roots deeply entrenched in rich beneficial soil. The true knowledge in everyone cannot be fabricated but takes time to grow requiring the necessarily ingredients, water, nutrients, and sunlight.

People who are truly knowledgeable have their knowledge and definitions established on foundational truth. People who are ignorant have their information and definitions established on circular logic, which is the illusion of knowledge. True knowledge is established on foundational truth. The illusion of knowledge is established on circular definitions. What is ignorance? Ignorance is the lack of knowledge. What is knowledge? Knowledge is the lack of ignorance. Are you satisfied with the circular definitions of knowledge and ignorance? If you satisfied, then you will go on the rest of your life being ignorantly manipulated by newspeak and doublespeak similar to that in the classic novel 1984. A person who seeks out facts and beneficial experiences will increase in true knowledge. A person who rejects facts and beneficial experiences will not increase in knowledge.

True knowledge is facts, information, and skills that are learned and acquired by a person through experience and reflective thought. Genuine education is a catalyst that allows a person to learn and acquire accurate facts, reliable information, and practical skills at an accelerated rate. Genuine education provides the resources and opportunity for a person to encounter facts and information. Genuine education provides the tools and opportunity for a person to practice practical skills and learn from reading the works of classic thinkers. Genuine education allows a person the environment and opportunity to engage in reflective thought. Genuine education cannot directly transfer knowledge and skills from one person to another. Genuine education can only indirectly provide the tools and opportunity for a person to learn and acquire the knowledge and skills at a faster rate.

Ignorance is a lack of experience and reflective thought manifesting itself in a deficiency of knowledge, which is inherently caused by the pursuit harmful desires and isolation. Artificial education is a parasite that obstructs and diverts a person away from learning and acquiring accurate facts, reliable information, and practical skills. Artificial education encourages a complete dependence on contemporary authority for validation, which obstructs the transparency of facts and information. Artificial education imbeds and preserves impractical skills that have been abstracted to the point they have no application outside of the academic environment that self-promotes those skills. Artificial education conceals and protects itself by discouraging reflective thought and classical ideas through personal insults, public humiliation, and implicit threats of exclusion. Artificial education floods society with contemporary self-promoting propaganda claiming its supporters are the most intelligent people who have ever lived, their work is essential to the survival of society, and one day in the far future some less intelligent engineers will use it to invent an amazing application; anyone who disputes their impractical skills and circular definitions is slandered as being unintelligent or ignorant. Artificial education is a parasite that hides within genuine education and feeds of the fruits of genuine education to conceal its own damaging effects.

A parasite that immediately kills its host will go extinct. A parasite that does subtle damage can spread from host to host and do far more damage. Eventually, if a parasite does enough damage, it can be detected and removed. Why is the cost of education increasing? Why is the national debt increasing? Why does a host with a parasite need more food to survive? We have diagnosed the fact that our society is diseased and suffers from the parasite of Artificial Education, so now we need to remove the parasite. Many times you cannot forcibly remove a parasite, but rather you need to stimulate it to leave. Artificial education will defend itself because it is the livelihood for many people who have no practical skills. Artificial education cannot be forcibly removed because it protects itself using personal insults, public humiliation, and implicit threats of exclusion.

Artificial education can be removed by stimulating colleges and universities to end the contemporary "academic bubble of isolation" and stop diverting students away from reading the works of classical thinkers and indoctrinating them to affirm the pursuit of harmful desires. Once the parasite of artificial education is removed, genuine education can fully flourish once again. The parasite of artificial education will never be removed if we choose to remain in denial of its existence.

If we define ignorance as a lack of knowledge, why can we not define knowledge as a lack of ignorance? Is there an objective reality from which we can use to define true knowledge? Why do you think education is often the frontline in the war against truth?

**Chapter 15** **: Degeneration vs. Evolution**

Degeneration is like the leaning tower of Pisa. It would naturally collapse on its own, but there are forces the slow down its collapse. Degeneration is like a military defense where the line is moved back several times and reinforcements are brought in from an ally.

The naturalists have censured the Theory of Degeneration from public debate and instruction. Once the Theory of Degeneration has been censored, the Theory of Evolution seems like the only logical alternative. The naturalists assert that the aspects that both theories have in common must still be called Evolution, or microscopic evolution, even though those aspects do not support Evolution at all. When there is evidence that clearly indicates Degeneration and disproves Evolution, the naturalists deceptively misinterpret the evidence according to the framework and vocabulary of Evolution.

The stability of ecosystems is delicate but resilient. The introduction of a single invasive species can wipe out many of the native species. In order for the diversity of species to be maintained within an ecosystem, an ecosystem must remain close to its designated stable equilibrium. Major changes to ecosystems naturally cause a decrease in the diversity of species within their population. Ecosystems naturally collapse before reaching a new point of stability that has less diversity. The diversity of species is in a chronic process of degeneration through a series of intermittent ecosystems collapses. This process of degeneration can be slowed, but it cannot be reversed. The overall diversity of species will naturally decrease and will never naturally increase. There is a remnant of diversity of species after each ecosystem collapse. If even the minor environmental changes caused the ecosystems to collapse, then there would not even be a remnant of diversity of species still existing today. Therefore, only the major environmental changes cause ecosystems to collapse. The minor environmental changes can be counteracted through regulation, natural selection, and genetic amendment.

In the future do you expect that the number of species will naturally increase or decrease? Do you think that humans will design more new species than the number that will go extinct in the future? Do you think that humans will be able to design more complex stable ecosystems or only cause the existing ones to collapse to a new point of stability?

Regulation is like businesses that react to new government policies. Natural selection is like a President that vetoes some unfavorable bills. Genetic amendment is like a legislature that ratifies a new amendment to the constitution.

All living organisms are designed with complex systems that allow individual organisms to regulate to changing environmental conditions. All living organisms are able to regulate internal conditions in response to changing external conditions, which is often called homeostasis. For example warm blooded animals can regulate their body temperature. Living organisms need to regulate many different factors such as temperature, PH, oxygen levels, sugar levels, poison removal, etc. in order to survive changing environmental conditions. Many complex living insects and animals have also been designed with instincts and intelligences that further allow them to regulate changing environmental conditions. Many insects and animals use their instincts and intelligence to choose their mates for fitness and compatibility, which is often called mate selection. For example symmetry is often instinctually viewed as attractive because it indicates greater fitness and a lack of defect. Mate selection preserves many of the beneficial communal and cooperative traits that could not be maintained by natural selection alone.

Individual organisms with defective or inoperable systems are naturally more likely to die before reproduction. Individual organisms with more optimized systems are naturally more likely to survive and reproduce. Each species has been designed to allow diverse variations of many different characteristics. The variations that are harmful to the individuals' survival are naturally more likely to cause those individuals to become debilitated or die leaving fewer decedents. The variations that are beneficial to the individuals' survival are naturally more likely to cause those individual to thrive and survive producing greater decedents. Therefore, the variations that are beneficial to the survival of the individuals from the parent generations are more likely to be the ones passed on and maintained in the individuals of all the decedent generations, which is natural selection. Natural selection does not determine which variations will be created, but rather only what variations will be maintained as the remnant. Natural selection does not design the best selections, but rather only selects from the best designs.

If the genetic material of a species strays too far from its original constitution, then it will die of a cancer, suffer other infirmities, or its natural lifespan will be shortened. Therefore, only minor genetic amendments can beneficial, but major genetic amendments are fatal. Minor genetic amendments produce minor variations which are then filtered out by mate selection and natural selection. Genetic amendments can be caused by genetic mutation, genetic infiltration, or genetic modification. Genetic mutation is when is when the genetic code sequence is slightly altered by radiation or pollution. Genetic infiltration is when an organism metabolizes an infectious food and genetic material from the food inserts itself into the genetic material of cells of the organism that metabolized it. Genetic modification is when an intelligent person reprograms a cell by inserting the new genetic material into an already living host cell. Genetic amendments usually provide more harm than benefit, but a few can provide minor variations within a species. These minor variations are then filtered through mate selection and natural selection allowing beneficial adjustments to changing environmental conditions.

Do you think that community and cooperation could still be sustained without mate selection? If a government passes amendments that alter the principles in its constitution, do you think those amendments will make the government more stable or less stable?

Degeneration is like a universe that expands at an accelerated rate and obeys the second law of thermodynamics. Natural selection is like the force of gravity, which counteracts the expansion and induces fusion in stars.

A complex system will never be designed naturally. A complex system that already exists can only naturally be adjusted, optimized, or maintained. A simple system will never naturally increase in order and complexity to become a more complex system. A complex system will naturally decrease in order and complexity to degenerate into a less complex system unless it is preserved through mate selection, natural selection, or an artificial selection. A system that is preserved through natural selection or mate selection will not increase in complexity, but rather only in compatibility with the environment and attraction principles. These are the core principles of the Theory of Degeneration.

When a species with eyes is relocated to region without light such as a dark cave, natural selection can no longer operate to preserve the function of the eye. Over generations the eye will degenerate until it no longer functions. This represents a decrease in order, not an increase in order and complexity.

When the members of a species become geographically isolated from each other, their reproductive systems will degenerate to the point where the reproductive systems become incompatible with each other. This represents a decrease in order, not an increase in order and complexity.

When bacteria are introduced to a seemingly new food source, some are able to adjust to metabolize a new food source. The bacteria were designed with the ability to adjust and metabolize a variety of diverse food sources. The bacterial utilize genetic amendments to adjust their pre-existing systems to metabolize the new food source. This represents the adjustment of a pre-existing system, not the creation of a new system.

When bacteria are introduced to a new toxin, some are able to adjust to survive the new toxin. The bacteria were designed with the ability to adjust and survive a variety of harsh conditions. The bacteria were designed to utilize genetic amendments to adjust their pre-existing systems to neutralize the new toxin. This represents the adjustment of a pre-existing system, not the creation of a new system.

When animals are introduced to a disease, some of the animals will be able to survive the disease. Animals are designed with the ability adjust and survive a variety of diseases. The immune system is a complex integrated design that allows an animal to adjust and regulate itself. When the immune system of an animal fights off a disease, this is the adjustment of a pre-existing system, not the creation of a new system.

The overall diversity of species is naturally decreasing in time, not naturally increasing in time. The natural extinction of species has always occurred chronically. The reintroduction of new species with complex integrated systems at a faster rate than the extinction of species can only be accomplished through artificial means.

If our universe obeys degeneration, what physical property of life would make it an exception? Is it easier to adjust and optimize an existing system or to design a new system?

Evolution is the religious doctrine of the naturalists. Evolution is the established official state religious doctrine. Evolution is using its state respected power to impede the progress of science through censorship of the Theory of Degeneration.

The Theory of Degeneration is superior to The Theory of Evolution in describing the evidence and making predictions. The Theory of Degeneration is superior to the Theory of Evolution in all areas of practical applications. The naturalist can give no legitimate reason why the Theory of Evolution should have a monopoly over public debate and instruction while the Theory of Degeneration should be censured. The only excuse that naturalists can give for exclusively teaching the Theory of Evolution is that "it is tradition".

The Theory of Evolution is a theory of spontaneous progression. It asserts that a complex system can be designed itself naturally through a sequence of spontaneous events. It asserts that a simple system that already exists can naturally progress by itself to increase in order and complexity to become a more complex system. It asserts that the process of natural selection, mutation, and genetic drift are primarily responsible for designing all the complex integrated systems of life. These are the core principles of the Theory of Evolution that are distinct from the Theory of Degeneration.

The Theory of Evolution is false. Like all false propositions, its claims for justification can be refuted. Before the Theory of Evolution, the naturalists did not have any way to hide the fact that it is impossible for something to spontaneously increase in complexity until it naturally becomes something extremely complex. The probability for something extremely complex to be designed spontaneously is effectively zero. The probability for a million complex systems to be designed spontaneously is effectively zero.

Is there an inaccurate testable prediction that the "Theory of Degeneration" logically leads to? Is there an accurate testable prediction that the "Theory of Evolution" logically leads to that the "Theory of Degeneration" does not logically lead to?

Evolution is like trying to build a skyscraper without an architect and without any scaffolding. Evolution is like stealing a million pennies one at a time instead of stealing ten thousand dollars all at once.

The Theory of Evolution did not even solve the problem, but rather it only masks and hides the problem. The naturalists have used censorship to hide the fact that the Theory of Evolution does not even solve the problem it claims to have solved; it didn't give an alternative to systems being design spontaneously. According to the Theory of Evolution, every new system would still have to be designed spontaneously, one at a time instead of all at once. Natural selection would only maintain the best designs after they had already been designed, but they would still have to each be designed spontaneously. The probability for something extremely complex to be designed spontaneously is effectively zero. The probability for a million complex systems to be designed spontaneously one at a time is still effectively zero. Flip a million coins and have them all land on heads. What is the probability? Flip one coin a million times and have it land on heads every time. What is the probability? The Theory of Evolution allows the naturalist to confuse the people who do not understand it, and censure the people who understand it to be a lie.

In order for natural selection to sustain beneficial variations, a variation must give the life form a reproductive advantage. Natural selection only explains why designs that provide an immediate survival benefit would be sustained. Natural selection does not explain why system designs that do not provide any immediate survival benefits would be sustained. For example, a blind organism does not receive any survival benefit from an eye that does not function. Only once the eye was functional could natural selection sustain the most beneficial variations of the eye. Natural selection cannot explain how the organs and other complex system were sustained before they were fully functional. Before they were fully functional, these systems provide no survival benefit to the organism. Natural selection can only sustain an organ or complex system once it is already functional. Natural Selection cannot sustain an intermediary design a new system that is not yet functional.

Without the aid of natural selection, intermediary designs of systems that are not yet functional will naturally degenerate. All systems naturally tend to degenerate if they are not sustained by natural selection. For example, the eyes of animals in dark caves will degenerate until their descendants no longer have functional eyes. If even unused eyes will degenerate without natural selection, then the intermediary designs of eyes would also have degenerated before they even became functional in the first place. Natural selection is not responsible for sustaining the intermediary designs of systems that are not yet functional. Natural selection is not responsible designing intermediary designs of systems that are not yet functional. The Theory of Evolution implies that the intermediary designs would have to have been designed through spontaneous mutations. The probability of complex systems being designed through spontaneous mutations is essentially zero. The Theory of Evolution does not explain the origin of the different complex system designs of species. The Theory of Evolution merely hides the fact that naturalists are still saying that origin of the complex system designs of species is that they arose spontaneously, which has always been a mathematical impossibility even before the Theory of Evolution was fabricated.

Is it unlikely that a million complex systems would spontaneously design themselves all at once? Is it unlikely that a million complex systems would design themselves one at a time? Natural selection will allow optimized systems to be sustained once they have already been designed, does Evolution change the fact that the complex integrated systems still have the problem of designing themselves spontaneously?

A naturalist is like a child who looks on the faces of Mount Rushmore and marvels at how nature could carve something so intricate.

All of the complex integrated multilayered systems of life are evidence of an intelligent creator. No one sees a grand cathedral and genuinely doubts that there was an architect. The naturalists do not zealously censure the Theory of Degeneration because they genuinely believe there is a lack of evidence for it, but rather the naturalists censure the Theory of Degeneration because they zealously dislike the implications of the fact that there is an intelligent creator.

The reintroduction of new species at a faster rate than the extinction of species can only be accomplished through artificial means. The Theory of Degeneration requires that an intelligent creator is responsible for designing and catalyzing the development of new species. The intelligent creator designed life in a multi-phase process leading to the appearance of an organized nested hierarchical classification structure. During each phase, the intelligent creator may have designed new species models in a similar way that car designers might come out with new car models. During each phase, the intelligent creator may have created, copied, and modified templates leading to redundancies and similarities across different species. All of the evidence is consistent with a multi-phase design process that includes artificial selection and genetic modification.

The naturalists censure the fact that all of the evidence can be interrupted according to a Degeneration framework. Once the Degeneration framework is censured, the naturalist will misinterpret the evidence according to an Evolution Framework. The naturalists will then claim their misinterpretation of the evidence is evidence itself exclusively for Evolution. When new discoveries baffling the naturalist scientist, they fabricate new speculative assumptions and continue to misinterpret the evidence according to the Evolution Framework. The naturalists become more confident of Evolution even as the new evidence often conflicts with their predictions. The naturalists then speculate new assumptions to rationalize these conflicts according to the framework of Evolution. No amount of evidence could persuade a naturalist that Evolution is false. No amount of evidence could persuade a naturalist that the Theory of Degeneration should not be censured from public debate and instruction.

Can you learn about an author by reading his or her books even without seeing the authors? Can you learn about intelligent creator by studying the creation even without seeing the creator? Why do you think anyone would want to censure the Theory of Degeneration from public debate and instruction? Through what means do you think the knowledge can be censured?
REFERENCES:

(1) The Declaration of Independence: IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the

Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

(2) Letter from the Danbury Baptists to Thomas Jefferson:

The address of the Danbury Baptist Association in the State of Connecticut, assembled October 7, 1801.  
To Thomas Jefferson, Esq., President of the United States of America

Sir,  
Among the many millions in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office, we embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoyed in our collective capacity, since your inauguration , to express our great satisfaction in your appointment to the Chief Magistracy in the United States. And though the mode of expression may be less courtly and pompous than what many others clothe their addresses with, we beg you, sir, to believe, that none is more sincere.

Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty: that Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals, that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions, [and] that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor. But sir, our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter, together with the laws made coincident therewith, were adapted as the basis of our government at the time of our revolution. And such has been our laws and usages, and such still are, [so] that Religion is considered as the first object of Legislation, and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights. And these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgments, as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore, if those who seek after power and gain, under the pretense of government and Religion, should reproach their fellow men, [or] should reproach their Chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dares not, assume the prerogative of Jehovah and make laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ.

Sir, we are sensible that the President of the United States is not the National Legislator and also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the laws of each State, but our hopes are strong that the sentiment of our beloved President, which have had such genial effect already, like the radiant beams of the sun, will shine and prevail through all these States--and all the world--until hierarchy and tyranny be destroyed from the earth. Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow of philanthropy and goodwill shining forth in a course of more than thirty years, we have reason to believe that America's God has raised you up to fill the Chair of State out of that goodwill which he bears to the millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for the arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you--to sustain and support you and your Administration against all the predetermined opposition of those who wish to rise to wealth and importance on the poverty and subjection of the people.

And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his Heavenly Kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.

Signed in behalf of the Association,

Neh,h Dodge }  
Eph'm Robbins } The Committee  
Stephen S. Nelson }

Letter of Oct. 7, 1801 from Danbury (CT) Baptist Assoc. to Thomas Jefferson,  
Thomas Jefferson Papers, Manuscript Division,  
Library of Congress, Wash. D.C.

(3) Letter of President Jefferson's Reply to the Danbury Baptists:

Messrs. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, and Stephen s. Nelson  
A Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association, in the State of Connecticut.

Washington, January 1, 1802

Gentlemen,--The affectionate sentiment of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature would "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.

Thomas Jefferson  
Jan. 1. 1802

Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert E. Bergh, ed. (Washington, D. C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association of the United States, 1904), Vol. XVI, pp. 281-282.

(4) Letter of Thomas Jefferson to John Banister, Jr. Paris, October 15, 1785

DEAR SIR,

\-- I should sooner have answered the paragraph in your letter, of September the 19th, respecting the best seminary for the education of youth, in Europe, but that it was necessary for me to make inquiries on the subject. The result of these has been, to consider the competition as resting between Geneva and Rome. They are equally cheap, and probably are equal in the course of education pursued. The advantage of Geneva, is, that students acquire there the habit of speaking French. The advantages of Rome, are, the acquiring a local knowledge of a spot so classical and so celebrated; the acquiring the true pronunciation of the Latin language; a just taste in the fine arts, more particularly those of painting, sculpture, architecture, and music; a familiarity with those objects and processes of agriculture, which experience has shewn best adapted to a climate like ours; and lastly, the advantage of a fine climate for health. It is probable, too, that by being boarded in a French family, the habit of speaking that language may be obtained. I do not count on any advantage to be derived in Geneva, from a familiar acquaintance with the principles of that government. The late revolution has rendered it a tyrannical aristocracy, more likely to give ill, than good ideas to an American. I think the balance in favor of Rome. Pisa is sometimes spoken of, as a place of education. But it does not offer the first and third of the advantages of Rome. But why send an American youth to Europe for education? What are the objects of an useful American education? Classical knowledge, modern languages, chiefly French, Spanish and Italian; Mathematics, Natural philosophy, Natural history, Civil history, and Ethics. In Natural philosophy, I mean to include Chemistry and Agriculture, and in Natural history, to include Botany, as well as the other branches of those departments. It is true that the habit of speaking the modern languages, cannot be so well acquired in America; but every other article can be as well acquired at William and Mary college, as at any place in Europe. When college education is done with, and a young man is to prepare himself for public life, he must cast his eyes (for America) either on Law or Physic. For the former, where can he apply so advantageously as to Mr. Wythe? For the latter, he must come to Europe: the medical class of students, therefore, is the only one which need come to Europe. Let us view the disadvantages of sending a youth to Europe. To enumerate them all, would require a volume. I will select a few. If he goes to England, he learns drinking, horse racing and boxing. These are the peculiarities of English education. The following circumstances are common to education in that, and the other countries of Europe. He acquires a fondness for European luxury and dissipation, and a contempt for the simplicity of his own country; he is fascinated with the privileges of the European aristocrats, and sees, with abhorrence, the lovely equality which the poor enjoy with the rich, in his own country; he contracts a partiality for aristocracy or monarchy; he forms foreign friendships which will never be useful to him, and loses the season of life for forming in his own country, those friendships, which, of all others, are the most faithful and permanent; he is led by the strongest of all the human passions, into a spirit for female intrigue, destructive of his own and others' happiness, or a passion for whores, destructive of his health, and, in both cases, learns to consider fidelity to the marriage bed as an ungentlemanly practice, and inconsistent with happiness; he recollects the voluptuary dress and arts of the European women, and pities and despises the chaste affections and simplicity of those of his own country; he retains, through life, a fond recollection, and a hankering after those places, which were the scenes of his first pleasures and of his first connections; he returns to his own country, a foreigner, unacquainted with the practices of domestic economy, necessary to preserve him from ruin, speaking and writing his native tongue as a foreigner, and therefore unqualified to obtain those distinctions, which eloquence of the pen and tongue ensures in a free country; for I would observe to you, that what is called style in writing or speaking, is formed very early in life, while the imagination is warm, and impressions are permament. I am of opinion, that there never was an instance of a man's writing or speaking his native tongue with elegance, who passed from fifteen to twenty years of age, out of the country where it was spoken. Thus, no instance exists of a person's writing two languages perfectly. That will always appear to be his native language, which was most familiar to him in his youth. It appears to me then, that an American coming to Europe for education, loses in his knowledge, in his morals, in his health, in his habits, and in his happiness. I had entertained only doubts on this head, before I came to Europe: what I see and hear, since I came here, proves more than I had even suspected. Cast your eye over America: who are the men of most learning, of most eloquence, most beloved by their countrymen, and most trusted and promoted by them? They are those who have been educated among them, and whose manners, morals and habits, are perfectly homogeneous with those of the country.

Did you expect by so short a question, to draw such a sermon on yourself? I dare say you did not. But the consequences of foreign education are alarming to me, as an American. I sin, therefore, through zeal, whenever I enter on the subject. You are sufficiently American to pardon me for it. Let me hear of your health, and be assured of the esteem with which I am, Dear Sir,

your friend and servant,

Thomas Jefferson

**(5)** **Letter of Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Thomas Cooper Monticello, February 10, 1814**

DEAR SIR,

\-- In my letter of January 16, I promised you a sample from my common-place book, of the pious disposition of the English judges, to connive at the frauds of the clergy, a disposition which has even rendered them faithful allies in practice. When I was a student of the law, now half a century ago, after getting through Coke Littleton, whose matter cannot be abridged, I was in the habit of abridging and common-placing what I read meriting it, and of sometimes mixing my own reflections on the subject. I now enclose you the extract from these entries which I promised. They were written at a time of life when I was bold in the pursuit of knowledge, never fearing to follow truth and reason to whatever results they led, and bearding every authority which stood in their way. This must be the apology, if you find the conclusions bolder than historical facts and principles will warrant. Accept with them the assurances of my great esteem and respect. Common-place Book. 873. In Quare imp. in C. B. 34, H. 6, fo. 38, the def. Br. of Lincoln pleads that the church of the pl. became void by the death of the incumbent, that the pl. and J. S. each pretending a right, presented two several clerks; that the church being thus rendered litigious, he was not obliged, by the Ecclesiastical law to admit either, until an inquisition de jure patronatus, in the ecclesiastical court: that, by the same law, this inquisition was to be at the suit of either claimant, and was not ex-officio to be instituted by the bishop, and at his proper costs; that neither party had desired such an inquisition; that six months passed whereon it belonged to him of right to present as on a lapse, which he had done. The pl. demurred. A question was, How far the Ecclesiastical law was to be respected in this matter by the common law court? and Prisot C. 3, in the course of his argument uses this expression, "A tiels leis que ils de seint eglise ont en ancien scripture, covient a nous a donner credence, car ces common ley sur quel touts manners leis sont fondes: et auxy, sin, nous sumus obliges de conustre nostre ley; et, sin, si poit apperer or a nous que lievesque ad fait comme un ordinary fera en tiel cas, adong nous devons ces adjuger bon autrement nemy," &c. It does not appear that judgment was given. Y. B. ubi supra. S. C. Fitzh. abr. Qu. imp. 89. Bro. abr. Qu. imp. 12. Finch mistakes this in the following manner: "To such laws of the church as have warrant in Holy Scripture, our law giveth credence," and cites the above case, and the words of Prisot on the margin. Finch's law. B. 1, ch. 3, published 1613. Here we find "ancien scripture" converted into "Holy Scripture," whereas it can only mean the ancient written laws of the church. It cannot mean the Scriptures, 1, because the "ancien scripture" must then be understood to mean the "Old Testament" or Bible, in opposition to the "New Testament," and to the exclusion of that, which would be absurd and contrary to the wish of those |P1323|p1 who cite this passage to prove that the Scriptures, or Christianity, is a part of the common law. 2. Because Prisot says, "Ceo [est] common ley, sur quel touts manners leis sont fondes." Now, it is true that the ecclesiastical law, so far as admitted in England, derives its authority from the common law. But it would not be true that the Scriptures so derive their authority. 3. The whole case and arguments show that the question was how far the Ecclesiastical law in general should be respected in a common law court. And in Bro. abr. of this case, Littleton says, "Les juges del common ley prendra conusans quid est lax ecclesiae, vel admiralitatis, et trujus modi." 4. Because the particular part of the Ecclesiastical law then in question, to wit, the right of the patron to present to his advowson, was not founded on the law of God, but subject to the modification of the lawgiver, and so could not introduce any such general position as Finch pretends. Yet Wingate [in 1658] thinks proper to erect this false quotation into a maxim of the common law, expressing it in the very words of Finch, but citing Prisot, wing. max. 3. Next comes Sheppard, [in 1675,] who states it in the same words of Finch, and quotes the Year-Book, Finch and Wingate. 3. Shepp. abr. tit. Religion. In the case of the King v. Taylor, Sir Matthew Hale lays it down in these words, "Christianity is parcel of the laws of England." 1 Ventr. 293, 3 Keb. 607. But he quotes no authority, resting it on his own, which was good in all cases in which his mind received no bias from his bigotry, his superstitions, his visions above sorceries, demons, &c. The power of these over him is exemplified in his hanging of the witches. So strong was this doctrine become in 1728, by additions and repetitions from one another, that in the case of the King v. Woolston, the court would not suffer it to be debated, whether to write against Christianity was punishable in the temporal courts at common law, saying it had been so settled in Taylor's case, ante 2, stra. 834; therefore, Wood, in his Institute, lays it down that all blasphemy and profaneness are offences by the common law, and cites Strange ubi supra. Wood 409. And Blackstone [about 1763] repeats, in the words of Sir Matthew Hale, that "Christianity is part of the laws of England," citing Ventris and Strange ubi supra. 4. Blackst. 59. Lord Mansfield qualifies it a little by saying that "The essential |P1324|p1 principles of revealed religion are part of the common law." In the case of the Chamberlain of London v. Evans, 1767. But he cities no authority, and leaves us at our peril to find out what, in the opinion of the judge, and according to the measure of his foot or his faith, are those essential principles of revealed religion obligatory on us as a part of the common law.

Thus we find this string of authorities, when examined to the beginning, all hanging on the same hook, a perverted expression of Prisot's, or on one another, or nobody. Thus Finch quotes Prisot; Wingate also; Sheppard quotes Prisot, Finch and Wingate; Hale cites nobody; the court in Woolston's case cite Hale; Wood cites Woolston's case; Blackstone that and Hale; and Lord Mansfield, like Hale, ventures it on his own authority. In the earlier ages of the law, as in the year-books, for instance, we do not expect much recurrence to authorities by the judges, because in those days there were few or none such made public. But in latter times we take no judge's word for what the law is, further than he is warranted by the authorities he appeals to. His decision may bind the unfortunate individual who happens to be the particular subject of it; but it cannot alter the law. Though the common law may be termed "Lex non Scripta," yet the same Hale tells us "when I call those parts of our laws Leges non Scriptae, I do not mean as if those laws were only oral, or communicated from the former ages to the latter merely by word. For all those laws have their several monuments in writing, whereby they are transferred from one age to another, and without which they would soon lose all kind of certainty. They are for the most part extant in records of pleas, proceedings, and judgments, in books of reports and judicial decisions, in tractates of learned men's arguments and opinions, preserved from ancient times and still extant in writing." Hale's H. c. d. 22. Authorities for what is common law may therefore be as well cited, as for any part of the Lex Scripta, and there is no better instance of the necessity of holding the judges and writers to a declaration of their authorities than the present; where we detect them endeavoring to make law where they found none, and to submit us at one stroke to a whole system, no particle of which has its foundation in the common law. For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law, or lex non scripta, and commences that of the statute law, or Lex Scripta. This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here, then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it. If it ever was adopted, therefore, into the common law, it must have been between the introduction of Christianity and the date of the Magna Charta. But of the laws of this period we have a tolerable collection by Lambard and Wilkins, probably not perfect, but neither very defective; and if any one chooses to build a doctrine on any law of that period, supposed to have been lost, it is incumbent on him to prove it to have existed, and what were its contents. These were so far alterations of the common law, and became themselves a part of it. But none of these adopt Christianity as a part of the common law. If, therefore, from the settlement of the Saxons to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians, and if, having their laws from that period to the close of the common law, we are all able to find among them no such act of adoption, we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law. Another cogent proof of this truth is drawn from the silence of certain writers on the common law. Bracton gives us a very complete and scientific treatise of the whole body of the common law. He wrote this about the close of the reign of Henry III., a very few years after the date of the Magna Charta. We consider this book as the more valuable, as it was written about fore gives us the former in its ultimate state. Bracton, too, was an ecclesiastic, and would certainly not have failed to inform us of the adoption of Christianity as a part of the common law, had any such adoption ever taken place. But no word of his, which intimates anything like it, has ever been cited. Fleta and Britton, who wrote in the succeeding reign (of Edward I.), are equally silent. So also is Glanvil, an earlier writer than any of them, (viz.: temp. H. 2,) but his subject perhaps might not have led him to mention it. Justice Fortescue Aland, who possessed more Saxon learning than all the judges and writers before mentioned put together, places this subject on more limited ground. Speaking of the laws of the Saxon kings, he says, "the ten commandments were made part of their laws, and consequently were once part of the law of England; so that to break any of the ten commandments was then esteemed a breach of the common law, of England; and why it is not so now, perhaps it may be difficult to give a good reason." Preface to Fortescue Aland's reports, xvii. Had he proposed to state with more minuteness how much of the scriptures had been made a part of the common law, he might have added that in the laws of Alfred, where he found the ten commandments, two or three other chapters of Exodus are copied almost verbatim. But the adoption of a part proves rather a rejection of the rest, as municipal law. We might as well say that the Newtonian system of philosophy is a part of the common law, as that the Christian religion is. The truth is that Christianity and Newtonianism being reason and verity itself, in the opinion of all but infidels and Cartesians, they are protected under the wings of the common law from the dominion of other sects, but not erected into dominion over them. An eminent Spanish physician affirmed that the lancet had slain more men than the sword. Doctor Sangrado, on the contrary, affirmed that with plentiful bleedings, and draughts of warm water, every disease was to be cured. The common law protects both opinions, but enacts neither into law. See post. 879.

879. Howard, in his Contumes Anglo-Normandes, 1.87, notices the falsification of the laws of Alfred, by prefixing to them four chapters of the Jewish law, to wit: the 20th, 21st, 22d and 23d chapters of Exodus, to which he might have added the 15th chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, v. 23, and precepts from other parts of the scripture. These he calls a hors d'oeuvre of some pious copyist. This awkward monkish fabrication makes the preface to Alfred's genuine laws stand in the body of the work, and the very words of Alfred himself prove the fraud; for he declares, in that preface, that he has collected these laws from those of Ina, of Offa, Aethelbert and his ancestors, saying nothing of any of them being taken from the Scriptures. It is still more certainly proved by the inconsistencies it occasions. For example, the Jewish legislator Exodus xxi. 12, 13, 14, (copied by the Pseudo Alfred [symbol omitted] 13,) makes murder, with the Jews, death. But Alfred himself, Le. xxvi., punishes it by a fine only, called a Weregild, proportioned to the condition of the person killed. It is remarkable that Hume (append. 1 to his History) examining this article of the laws of Alfred, without perceiving the fraud, puzzles himself with accounting for the inconsistency it had introduced. To strike a pregnant woman so that she die is death by Exodus, xxi. 22, 23, and Pseud. Alfr. 18; but by the laws of Alfred ix., pays a Weregild for both woman and child. To smite out an eye, or a tooth, Exod. xxi. 24-27. Pseud. Alfr. 19, 20, if of a servant by his master, is freedom to the servant; in every other case retaliation. But by Alfr. Le. xl. a fixed indemnification is paid. Theft of an ox, or a sheep, by the Jewish law, Exod. xxii. 1, was repaid five-fold for the ox and four-fold for the sheep; by the Pseudograph 24, the ox double, the sheep four-fold; but by Alfred Le. xvi., he who stole a cow and a calf was to repay the worth of the cow and 401 for the calf. Goring by an ox was the death of the ox, and the flesh not to be eaten. Exod. xxi. 28. Pseud. Alfr. 21 by Alfred Le. xxiv., the wounded person had the ox. The Pseudograph makes municipal laws of the ten commandments, 1-10, regulates concubinage, 12, makes it death to strike or to curse father or mother, 14, 15, gives an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, strife for strife, 19; sells the thief to repay his theft, 24; obliges the fornicator to marry the woman he has lain with, 29; forbids interest on money, 35; makes the laws of bailment, 28, very different from what Lord Holt delivers in Coggs v. Bernard, ante 92, and what Sir William Jones tells us they were; and punishes witchcraft with death, 30, which Sir Matthew Hale, 1 H. P. C. B. 1, ch. 33, declares was not a felony before the Stat. 1, Jac. 12. It was under that statute, and not this forgery, that he hung Rose Cullendar and Amy Duny, 16 Car. 2, (1662,) on whose trial he declared "that there were such creatures as witches he made no doubt at all; for first the Scripture had affirmed so much, secondly the wisdom of all nations had provided laws against such persons, and such hath been the judgment of this kingdom, as appears by that act of Parliament which hath provided punishment proportionable to the quality of the offence." And we must certainly allow greater weight to this position that "it was no felony till James' Statute," laid down deliberately in his H. P. C., a work which he wrote to be printed, finished, and transcribed for the press in his life time, than to the hasty scripture that "at common law witchcraft was punished with death as heresy, by writ de Heretico Comburendo" in his Methodical Summary of the P. C. p. 6, a work "not intended for the press, not fitted for it, and which he declared himself he had never read over since it was written;" Pref. Unless we understand his meaning in that to be that witchcraft could not be punished at common law as witchcraft, but as heresy. In either sense, however, it is a denial of this pretended law of Alfred. Now, all men of reading know that these pretended laws of homicide, concubinage, theft, retaliation, compulsory marriage, usury, bailment, and others which might have been cited, from the Pseudograph, were never the laws of England, not even in Alfred's time; and of course that it is a forgery. Yet palpable as it must be to every lawyer, the English judges have piously avoided lifting the veil under which it was shrouded. In truth, the alliance between Church and State in England has ever made their judges accomplices in the frauds of the clergy; and even bolder than they are. For instead of being contented with these four surreptitious chapters of Exodus, they have taken the whole leap, and declared at once that the whole Bible and Testament in a lump, make a part of the common law; ante 873: the first judicial declaration of which was by this same Sir Matthew Hale. And thus they incorporate into the English code laws made for the Jews alone, and the precepts of the gospel, intended by their benevolent author as obligatory only in foro concientiae; and they arm the whole with the coercions of municipal law. In doing this, too, they have not even used the Connecticut caution of declaring, as is done in their blue laws, that the laws of God shall be the laws of their land, except where their own contradict them; but they swallow the yea and nay together. Finally, in answer to Fortescue Aland's question why the ten commandments should not now be a part of the common law of England? we may say they are not because they never were made so by legislative authority, the document which has imposed that doubt on him being a manifest forgery.

Thomas Jefferson

**(6)** **Letter of Thomas Jefferson to Nathaniel Burwell Monticello, March 14, 1818**

DEAR SIR,

\-- Your letter of February 17th found me suffering under an attack of rheumatism, which has but now left me at sufficient ease to attend to the letters I have received. A plan of female education has never been a subject of systematic contemplation with me. It has occupied my attention so far only as the education of my own daughters occasionally required. Considering that they would be placed in a country situation, where little aid could be obtained from abroad, I thought it essential to give them a solid education, which might enable them, when become mothers, to educate their own daughters, and even to direct the course for sons, should their fathers be lost, or incapable, or inattentive. My surviving daughter accordingly, the mother of many daughters as well as sons, has made their education the object of her life, and being a better judge of the practical part than myself, it is with her aid and that of one of her eleves that I shall subjoin a catalogue of the books for such a course of reading as we have practiced.

A great obstacle to good education is the inordinate passion prevalent for novels, and the time lost in that reading which should be instructively employed. When this poison infects the mind, it destroys its tone and revolts it against wholesome reading. Reason and fact, plain and unadorned, are rejected. Nothing can engage attention unless dressed in all the figments of fancy, and nothing so bedecked comes amiss. The result is a bloated imagination, sickly judgment, and disgust towards all the real businesses of life. This mass of trash, however, is not without some distinction; some few modelling their narratives, although fictitious, on the incidents of real life, have been able to make them interesting and useful vehicles of sound morality. Such, I think, are Marmontel's new moral tales, but not his old ones, which are really immoral. Such are the writings of Miss Edgeworth, and some of those of Madame Genlis. For a like reason, too, much poetry should not be indulged. Some is useful for forming style and taste. Pope, Dryden, Thompson, Shakspeare, and of the French, Moliere, Racine, the Corneilles, may be read with pleasure and improvement.

The French language, become that of the general intercourse of nations, and from their extraordinary advances, now the depository of all science, is an indispensable part of education for both sexes. In the subjoined catalogue, therefore, I have placed the books of both languages indifferently, according as the one or the other offers what is best.

The ornaments too, and the amusements of life, are entitled to their portion of attention. These, for a female, are dancing, drawing, and music. The first is a healthy exercise, elegant and very attractive for young people. Every affectionate parent would be pleased to see his daughter qualified to participate with her companions, and without awkwardness at least, in the circles of festivity, of which she occasionally becomes a part. It is a necessary accomplishment, therefore, although of short use, for the French rule is wise, that no lady dances after marriage. This is founded in solid physical reasons, gestation and nursing leaving little time to a married lady when this exercise can be either safe or innocent. Drawing is thought less of in this country than in Europe. It is an innocent and engaging amusement, often useful, and a qualification not to be neglected in one who is to become a mother and an instructor. Music is invaluable where a person has an ear. Where they have not, it should not be attempted. It furnishes a delightful recreation for the hours of respite from the cares of the day, and lasts us through life. The taste of this country, too, calls for this accomplishment more strongly than for either of the others.

I need say nothing of household economy, in which the mothers of our country are generally skilled, and generally careful to instruct their daughters. We all know its value, and that diligence and dexterity in all its processes are inestimable treasures. The order and economy of a house are as honorable to the mistress as those of the farm to the master, and if either be neglected, ruin follows, and children destitute of the means of living.

This, Sir, is offered as a summary sketch on a subject on which I have not thought much.

It probably contains nothing but what has already occurred to yourself, and claims your acceptance on no other ground than as a testimony of my respect for your wishes, and of my great esteem and respect.

Thomas Jefferson

