Get over America, the election, Trump and the idiot Biden, and be glad that we are Australians.

Dear Peter Sellick,

You charge: "we are all sinners".

No we are patently not. Those who wish to put themselves under the yoke of a religion sin if they transgress the rules of their God/s.

Sin "an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law."

Those who do not believe in a rule making entity therefore are incapable of sinning in this sense.

Acting in a moral fashion, divorced from the treat of sanction by a supreme being in this life or after, has far more potency and weight than not sinning.

The reason why western democracies are secular, Peter Sellick, is that Europeans learned the hard way to never again let their clergy have official control over them, lest we go right back to the Dark Ages again, like the Muslim world is at today.

You seem to be suggesting that human beings are incapable of deciding what should be considered right or wrong without the adjudication of some non existent God? That is something I reject completely. Human beings can always be relied upon to act sensibly and rationally, when all other means are exhausted.

Look mate, I know you are pushing this line because you think that this non existent God of yours s looking down at you benignly from the heavens and putting your name down on his list for those who will somehow live forever in a perfect place. So in a way, your own motivations are hardly altruistic, you expect a reward from your non existent God when you finally kark it.

It is true that secular totalitarian governments have been responsible for millions of deaths, but then again the history of every religion was written in blood. The problem is, and always has been, populations of ordinary people must never allow a minority of idealistic totalitarians from ever getting into power where they can tell the majority what to do. It does not matter if those ideologues are secular or religious. Populations must always be allowed to change governments when the majority oppose government policies that affect their well being, or their right to be decide what makes them happy.

Now people's right to be happy may unfortunately go against the teachings of your non existent God but that is just too bad. If you wish to abide by your non existent god's rules then go for it. But don't try to impose them on the rest of us. We will decide what it is we want to do and your God can get lost.

.

Dear Peter,

.

I don’t wish to hurt you, but, to be honest, I have to say that I think it is far more naïve for free men to pursue a hypothetical god than it is to pursue happiness.

Sorry about that.

.

Hi Peter,

Four points.
First,

Here are the first two paragraphs of the US 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. 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.'

Now while the pursuit of happiness, as you acknowledge, 'sits at the centre of the US Constitution', it is not the only aspect of the Declaration which sits at its centre, including much reference to a Christian God.

The US Constitution deals with the mechanics of the operation of the US Federation and its Governance. Now because of our historic acceptance of the division of Religion and State, from David Hume, and as accepted by the founders of the US, of course religion is not mentioned in the actual Constitution documents.

I think it disingenuous for you to have not acknowledged the Christian influence and the references to God throughout the Declaration of Independence, with which you agree, 'Sits at the centre of the US Constitution'.
You betrayed you own argument by ignoring the whole of the Declaration which clearly states all those things you say the Constitution omits.
cont.

cont,

Second,

It is not a fact, 'human nature is essentially broke'. That is a Religious belief and your belief.

There are other views.
You mention the 'triumphant human spirit' and assign it to the evil dictators of history ... only.
All very black and white.

I've a much more nuanced view. Not all humanity is evil or broken.
Some people are good and most people aspire to good. The triumph of the human spirit is the success of the aspiration to good.

The great advances in humanity, such as the abolition of slavery, all overcame evil and are the results of the aspiration to good. That is the triumph of the human spirit.

The evil that sometimes results from the corruption of the aspiration is a failure of the human spirit. the classic modern experience is of Communism and its infamous exponents: Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Xi.

Third

Christ was about Love, Forgiveness and the golden rule. These are all positive.
Religion has twisted this positivity into a negative narrative, and your article reflects this.
your view borders on predestination and we cannot life a good life without a religion defined and owned god.

I've a very positive view. We can choose good or evil, and while we can slip and sin, we can also recant, reform and forgive ... ourselves ... and others.

Fourth
Peter it is only you who have equated the pursuit of happiness exclusively to the pursuit of wealth.

Why?

In conclusion.
Of course the New Testament doesn't use the word happy.
Yet Christ's message is a happy message. Odd, don't you think?
Joe Biden is a sinner and hasn't kept his promises, sold out the US worker, ignores his family corruption and intends, like you hope, to change the US Constitution without consulting the people of the US.
None of that is good and it will lead to another failure of the human spirit.

“How lonely and unnatural man is and how deep and well-concealed are his confusions.”
John Cheever

Peter wrote: “In making the pursuit of happiness the human quest, the American constitution directs us to a chimera, an emotional state that is fragile as the day passes. It is too easily filled with material aims and becomes the engine that drives Capitalism. How do we know when to stop? How do we measure it? We will be happy when we have enough. We think that we will be happy with the next step up in lifestyle. Does that ever happen?”

This is a strawman. One sets up a concept that is neither said nor intended and then argue against it. Locke used the phrase “life, liberty and property”. By substituting the “pursuit of happiness” for property Jefferson clearly meant the pursuit of happiness is not the same as the acquisition of material goods. With the lugubrious phrase “We are all sinners” Peter resides in the vale of darkness which is Christianity. The fact that the word, happiness, is not found in the New Testament indicates a limitation of the New Testament. Jefferson with his wisdom used the phrase, pursuit of happiness, rather than happiness. This embodies the idea that the joy of the journey exceeds the joy of arrival. In your limited view you reduce the pursuit of happiness which can embody love, service, intellectual achievement and a host of other things to the squalid acquisition of material goods. It is much more than that.

Steele,
>Sin "an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law."
>Those who do not believe in a rule making entity therefore are incapable of sinning in this sense.

That is a non sequiter because the one committing the immoral act is not the only one capable of considering it to be a transgression against divine law.

Now if you'd said, as many Christians believe, that sin is anything which further separates Man and God, then you may have a point. But in the sense you mentioned, we are definitely all sinners.

I see nothing wrong with the pursuit of happiness!

As for dark souls? Some are darker than others, with plenty of the darkest ones, massively overrepresented at the paganised pulpit and in politics?

Straighten out the guy in the mirror, before you start deciding what is good for the rest? Remember, there is not enough darkness in the entire world, to extinguish the light of a single candle!
Alan B.

Dear Peter,

The American constitution supports the freedom to pursue happiness (and so happens do I).
Nowhere does it claim that people have a right to happiness itself, only to pursue it!

In pursuing happiness, each in their own way, some will take a correct path while others will take a false path, some will take a more direct path while others will take more of an indirect path.

Yes, you and I realise that true lasting joy can only be found in God, but since God gifted us the freedom to choose our path, including even the freedom to be a fool, then who is government and who are you to try to deny God's gift?!

---

Dear SteelRedux,

«No we are patently not [sinners]. Those who wish to put themselves under the yoke of a religion sin if they transgress the rules of their God/s.»

Today I have a headache, so 2+2=3.
Today I am so happy, so 2+2=5.

Whether or not we are sinners is open for further discussion, but to claim that where I put myself (in relation to religion or whatever) can change the facts, is like the above claim as if my mood can change the laws of arithmetic.

Dear Yuyutsu,

The pursuit of happiness is not in the American Constitution. It is a phrase in the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution is the basic law of the United States. The Declaration of Independence does not have the force of law.

"The Pursuit of Happiness" by Darrin McMahon is a philosophical history of the concept, and "Inventing America: Jefferson's Declaration of Independence" by Garry Wills examines the concepts in the Declaration of Independence. I enjoyed both books.

Dear Aiden,

Well not really. Firstly in the case of Christianity at least, another person does not have the power to judge you in that regard.

Matthew 7 1-3  Judge not, that ye be not judged.
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

So let me attempt to defend my position. I think you will find the issue of sin a non-sequitur. It is only the transgressed who can truly determined whether they have been transgressed upon in a sinful manner.

A human can not declare they or others have been sinned against in the proper usage of the word. This lies completely within the prerogative of the supreme entity if they exist. So if we are to apply the rules of logic then sin only follows if the existence of God can be logically argued.

So I submit if it can't, we are left with a charge with no basis in said logic, and thus baseless.

Therefore proper assessment of sin must always be personal.

Dear Yuyutsu,

You put: “Whether or not we are sinners is open for further discussion, but to claim that where I put myself (in relation to religion or whatever) can change the facts, is like the above claim as if my mood can change the laws of arithmetic.”

As above, you must prove the existence of God before you can assert those 'facts'. That you you believe you have to your own satisfaction makes it a 'fact' only to yourself and not to be applied outside of your personal relationship to your God.

In that there is no scientific basis for believing in God it is not in any way comparable to 2+2.

Dear Steele Redux,

2+2=11 if we are operating in a numerical system of base 3 rather than a decimal system. 3=1 if we accept the concept of the trinity. The trinity is a sad aftermath. Omnia Gallia tres divisa est. All Gaul is divided into three parts yet it is one. The trinity is a lot of Gaul or gall. The French might call the Rock of Gibraltar de Gaulle stone.

David F
I am indebted to you for pointing out my mistake. You are right, the "Pursuit of Happiness" appears in the Declaration of Independence and not the Constitution.
Thanks

Dear davidf,

And Gibraltar is derived from Jabal-ı Tārıq or Mountain of Tariq, the man who led the taking of the 'Rock' for the Moors. They held it for the next 750 years until the Christians took it and expelled the Muslim and Jewish populations.

I have seen opinion from Jewish scholars that the period of Moorish Spain allowed for the great flowering of Jewish culture and intellect within its borders.

You say: "2+2=11 if we are operating in a numerical system of base 3 rather than a decimal system. 3=1 if we accept the concept of the trinity."

The first has a factual basis, the second doesn't.

Happiness is the now-and-forever Mystery that IS the Real Heart and the Only Real God of every one.

ALWAYS remember that your inherent heart-disposition wants and needs Infinite, Absolute, True, Eternal Happiness.

Every living being has the instincts and the Destiny of Infinite Life.

Eternal and total freedom, wisdom, and happiness are the primary needs and ideas of Man (male and female).

When "I" Realize the Transcendental Identity, then fear leaves the body-mind, and Humor is restored.

When "I" Realize the Transcendental Identity of every one that is loved and every thing that is desired, then sorrow leaves the body-mind, and Happiness is restored.

When "I" Realize the Transcendental Condition of all phenomena, all experiences, and all dimensions or worlds in the Realm of Nature and the Cosmos, then anger leaves the body-mind, and Love is restored.

Dear David,

Thank you for correcting me. I made this mistake of accepting the article's words at face value without checking: "The pursuit of happiness sits at the centre of the Constitution and is the worm in the apple of American democracy".

---

Dear SteeleRedux,

I see that you are interested in discussing the topic of our sinfulness or otherwise. This is fine, but first note the following:

1. Whether or not we are sinful, does not depend on our ideas. Would you claim that only children who believe in Santa receive Christmas gifts from him? Wouldn't you agree that either all Christmas-morning presents come from Santa, or all do not?

2. Our sinfulness or the lack thereof does not depend on God's existence. As an example, one could think of God as an asymptotic ideal, then ask oneself: "am I or am I not short of this ideal?".

You wrote:
«So if we are to apply the rules of logic then sin only follows if the existence of God can be logically argued.»

My friends and I have discussed the existence of God in primary school and arrived at the obvious logical conclusion that He does not exist. Why should anyone insist that He does is beyond me, in fact such statements belittle and misrepresent God. To present God as existing is not a religious statement, but rather a caricature. Suppose even that you belong to an Abrahamic faith, where in the Bible does it say "God exists"? That is only an unfortunate late misinterpretation!

To Rephrase the question before us, "Are we sinful", is to ask whether we already reached and are now united with God, or have we so far missed Him. What to speak of God, are we perfect even by our own standards? are we not even short of our own petty ideals? If so, then what to speak of asking ourselves: "Am I omniscient?", "Am I omnipotent?", "Am I omnipresent?", "Am I immortal?", "Am I always benevolent?", etc?

Dear Yuyutsu,

I wouldn't say I was interested in discussing it rather that is where the conversation has led us.

Be that as it may nothing in your post negates nor challenges anything I have put. Particularly if, as I understand it, you are using the term 'we' and 'us' as referring to the personal, the royal 'we' so to speak, rather than universally.

I have absolutely no objection to you imposing the concept of sin within your personal relationship to your God. That is where it belongs. The stories about a sinful world deserving of destruction are yours to hold and inform your faith if that is what you desire.

Indeed I really don't have a problem either with people saying they are against gay marriage because that is the position of the God they follow. What they don't get to do is say it is unethical, or immoral or even unnatural because it is demonstrably not.

The problems only really start when they escape into the wider world and result in people being burnt at the stake or the modern equivalent.

The term "pursuit of happiness" is in the Declaration of Independence 1776, not the Constitution 1789.

Get it right!

When I read articles like this, I am always struck by the fact that it is symptoms which are talked about.
Symptoms discussed by themselves lack something.
So, let's drill right down to bedrock and causes.
The brain is a computer.
The body is its support system.
Like all computers, the brain has an operating system.
This runs the applications we call instincts.
We, the person, are the operating system which runs these 'apps'.
Our awareness is an internal 'colour monitor' attached to our computer.
What we see with our eyes is also displayed on this monitor.
Should the brain stop, the computer program which is us ceases to run.
After a very short time, the brain changes physically, and the system cannot be restarted.
We have ceased to exist.
Only the support system remains.
Its processes can continue for a short time, but soon they too will stop.
Everything which was the physical living person ceases to be.
Genetic code can live on in children.
Otherwise, a person exists only in the memory of others, and in what may be recorded about him?
There will never again be a physical person EXACTLY the same.
This response might seem to be a bit abstract, but we do need to relate what we read to basic truths?
For this is how we build accurate mental pictures?
I do this automatically when I am considering what others write.
I find the way I read an article is not always the way the writer intended.
But, in this case I do thank the writer for his interesting and thought provoking words.
I see 'the pursuit of happiness' as putting the cart before the horse.
When we live in a meaningful way, contentment usually results.
Especially when we stay 'in step' with those around us?
Happiness is a fortuitous and almost accidental result of these things?
The constitution of the US of A does deserve tribute for remaining neutral about religion though.
It will serve them well if they are able to apply it, and be guided by it?

In my younger days I enjoyed the happiness of pursuit. I have found happiness since at 95 I contemplate my beloved wife and wonderful descendants and no longer need to pursue it.

Dear Daffy,

I understand what you wrote, but without some preparation and explanation of the terminology, I doubt anyone else here would.

To step back, the article spoke (negatively) about the freedom to PURSUE happiness. I however, hold that each person should pursue happiness in their own way according to their best understanding at the time. Many baby steps and much trial and error are needed before one can even begin to fathom the Love you were speaking about.

This PURSUIT of happiness, everyone can understand, so this is where to start. Later as time goes by, as people search for happiness in all the wrong places, including material things and become disappointed, then they undergo the process of Neti-Neti.

The freedom to pursue one's happiness is even more important because it is the only way to guarantee the religious freedom of those of us who know better where to seek. Imagine yourself, God forbid, trying to write your last comment in China or North-Korea, where they equate happiness with the total surrender to and worship of their Leader. We must be thankful for and cherish the relative freedom we now have to pursue happiness, then trust in God's patience that everyone too will arrive Home eventually.

---

Dear SteeleRedux,

Please do not confuse me with the author and try to read what I wrote with a fresh mind - I said nothing about "a sinful world deserving of destruction", nor about gay marriage. I support the freedom to pursue one's happiness even when it does not lead to happiness, even when in the immediate term it leads to misery (for oneself).

You were speaking of "your [=my] God" and "the position of the God they follow": there cannot be more than one God, thus it is not possible for different people to follow different Gods, even if they are so deluded that they think they do.

Concepts of sin can be different, certainly, but the fact/reality of either sinfulness or its absence, applies irrespective of one's concepts.

.

Dear david f,

.

You wrote :

« In my younger days I enjoyed the happiness of pursuit. I have found happiness since at 95 I contemplate my beloved wife and wonderful descendants and no longer need to pursue it. »
.

I too can attest there can be happiness in the pursuit of happiness and that its pursuit can be fruitful. Like you, having found it, I no longer pursue it.

Like you, I cherish every minute of it, conscious that it is just a fleeting instant in my mortal existence, fragile, vulnerable, and irreplaceable.
.

Whereas Peter Sellick (Sells) wrote, quoting John Cheever :

« How lonely and unnatural man is and how deep and well-concealed are his confusions »
.

How sad.

.

Hey, I'm 67 and still in pursuit. I've not yet found happiness but am thoroughly enjoying being waylaid occasionally in the pursuit.

Dear Yuyutsu,

God is a creation of the human imagination. The God one human’s imagination creates need not be the same as the God another human’s imagination creates. It is possible to imagine one god, and it is possible to imagine many gods. Humans have done both. One cannot prove that unicorns exist. One cannot prove that unicorns do not exist. However, there is no evidence for the existence of unicorns or God. Because you think there is a god is no reason anyone else should.

You may believe what you will. However, a belief may not be a fact.

Dear Ipso Fatso,

The brain is not a computer. A computer cannot feel emotions, cannot act in other ways than it is programmed to act and can process numerical information much faster and more accurately than any brain can. Our bodily functions to a large extent are not even controlled by the brain. The autonomic nervous system which controls bodily functions is mainly not in the brain.

The autonomic nervous system (ANS), formerly the vegetative nervous system, is a division of the peripheral nervous system that supplies smooth muscle and glands, and thus influences the function of internal organs. The autonomic nervous system is a control system that acts largely unconsciously and regulates bodily functions, such as the heart rate, digestion, respiratory rate, pupillary response, urination, and sexual arousal. This system is the primary mechanism in control of the fight-or-flight response.

The autonomic nervous system is regulated by integrated reflexes through the brainstem to the spinal cord and organs. Autonomic functions include control of respiration, cardiac regulation (the cardiac control center), vasomotor activity (the vasomotor center), and certain reflex actions such as coughing, sneezing, swallowing and vomiting. Those are then subdivided into other areas and are also linked to autonomic subsystems and the peripheral nervous system. The hypothalamus, just above the brain stem, acts as an integrator for autonomic functions, receiving autonomic regulatory input from the limbic system

Dear Ipso Fatso,

Speak for yourself if you like - I am not an operating system.
My brain has an operating system as well as a "colour monitor" if this is how you like to describe it.
I am, among so much more and as an inaccurate manner of speech, the "owner" of my brain, the "author" of its operating system and the "viewer" of its monitor.

That brain of mine will one day stop, its operating system will no longer run and its screen will go blank. None of that will affect me.

---

Dear David,

I am very happy for you that you found happiness in your family.
But have you found permanent everlasting happiness, or only a temporary one?
For any happiness that depends on finite things, must itself be finite.

Anyway, you claimed that "God is a creation of the human imagination".
As I noted earlier, we proved in primary school even that God does not exist (and since you agree, I believe that there is no need to elabourate). The creations of human imagination do exist, hence your premise fails.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Firstly you will find I was pretty careful with my language.

Secondly when you say:

"You were speaking of "your [=my] God" and "the position of the God they follow": there cannot be more than one God, thus it is not possible for different people to follow different Gods, even if they are so deluded that they think they do."

It follows that you also can't discount there could be less than one God. If that is the case then the 'concept of sin' has no validity in reality.

Your personal rather than a physical reality is different to mine. You have few means besides indoctrination to impart your reality to me therefore your concept of sin stays bound to you.

You are welcome to it and I hope it brings you happiness. But that is all.

Dear SteeleRedux,

There is of course no such thing as God, for God is not a thing, nor is He a person.

I was not speaking of personal realities - the Latin word 'Persona' means "theatrical mask" and as such we undoubtedly each wear a different mask in this play of life. God is not a mask, but what we are behind all masks. So long as we fall short of knowing what we truly are, which is God, and instead identify as a 'person' with this or that personality-mask of ours, that being the case we live in sin, we miss our true identity.