You really have to experience the feeling of being with the president in the oval office. If he hears the lark singing and notes its joy, he hears also the captured prey of hawk and owl and notes their screams. If he admires the beauty of the Himalaya, he remembers the large number of living creatures buried at its upheaval. When it comes to equal liberty, one might say that those who hold this belief regard themselves as having moral or religious obligations which they must keep themselves free to honour. Of course, from the standpoint of justice as fairness (a society of free citizens holding equal basic rights and cooperating within an egalitarian economic system), these obligations are self-imposed; they are not bonds laid down by this conception of justice. The point is rather that the persons in the original position (which focuses on the concept of what is fair in terms of social cooperation for free and equal citizens) are not to view themselves as single isolated individuals. To the contrary, they assume that they have interests which they must protect as best they can and that they have ties with certain members of the next generation who will also make similar claims. #RandolphHarris 1 of 23

Once the parties consider these matters, the case for the principles of justice (reconciliation of liberty and equality that is meant to apply to the basic structure of a well-ordered society) is very much strengthened. The question of equal liberty of conscience is settled. It is one of the fixed points of our considered judgments of justice. However, precisely because of this fact it illustrates the nature of the argument for the principle of equal liberty. The reasoning in this case can be generalized to apply to other freedoms, although not always with the same force. Turning then to liberty of conscience, it seems evident that the parties must choose principles that secure the integrity of their religious and moral freedom. They do not know, of course, what their religious or moral convictions are, or what is the particular content of their moral or religious obligations as they interpret them. Indeed, they do not know that they think of themselves as having such obligations. The possibility that they do suffices for the argument, although I shall make the stronger assumption. #RandolphHarris 2 of 23

Further, the parties do not know how their religious or moral views fares in their society, whether, for example, it is in the majority or the minority. All they know is that they have obligations which they interpret in this way. The question they are to decide is which principle they should adopt to regulate the liberties of citizens in regard to their fundamental religious, moral, and philosophical interests. Now it seems that equal liberty of conscience is the only principle that the persons on the original position can acknowledge. If wishes be, they cannot take chances with their liberty by permitting the dominant religious or moral doctrine to persecute or to suppress others. Even granting (what may be questioned) that it is more probable than not that one will turn out to belong to the majority (if a majority exists), to gamble in this way would show that one did not take one’s religious or moral convictions seriously, or highly value the liberty to examine one’s beliefs. Nor on the other hand, could the parties consent to the principle of utility. If, in this case, it would lead to a greater net balance of satisfaction, their freedom would be subject to the calculus of social interests and they would be authorizing its retraction. #RandolphHarris 3 of 23

Of course, as we have seen, a utilitarian (a view that the morally right action is the action that produces the most good) may try to argue from the general facts of social life that when properly carried out the computation of advantages never justifies such limitations, at least under reasonably favourable conditions of culture. However, even if the parties were persuaded of this, they might as well guarantee their freedom straightway by adopting the principle of equal liberty. There is nothing gained by not doing so, and to the extent that the outcome of the actuarial calculation is unclear a great deal may be lost. Indeed, if we give a realistic interpretation to the general knowledge available to the parties, they are forced to reject the utilitarian principle. These considerations have all the more force in view of the complexity and vagueness of these calculations (if we can so describe them) as they are bound to be made in practice. Moreover, the initial agreement on the principle of equal liberty is final. An individual recognizing religious and more obligations regards them as binding absolutely in the sense that one cannot qualify one’s fulfillment of them for the sake of greater means for promoting one’s other interests. #RandolphHarris 4 of 23

Greater economic and social benefits are not a sufficient reason for accepting less than equal liberty. Only if there is a threat of coercion which it is unwise to resist from the standpoint of liberty itself, then it seems possible to consent to an unequal liberty. For example, the situation may be one in which a person’s religion or one’s moral view will be tolerated provided that one does not protest, whereas claiming an equal liberty will bring greater repression that cannot be effectively opposed. However, from the perspective of the original position there is no way of ascertaining the relative strength of various doctrines and so these considerations do not arise. The veil of ignorance leads to an agreement on the principle of equal liberty; and the strength of religious and moral obligations as humans interpret them seems to require that the two principles be put in serial order, at least when applied to freedom of conscience. It may be said against the principle of equal liberty that religious sects, say, cannot acknowledge any principle at all for limiting their claims on one another. #RandolphHarris 5 of 23

The duty to religious and divine law being absolute, no understanding among persons of different faiths is permissible from a religious point of view. Certainly humans have often acted as if they held this doctrine. It is unnecessary, however, to argue against it. It suffices that if any principle can be agreed to, it must be that of equal liberty. A person may indeed think that others ought to recognize the same beliefs and first principles that one does, and that by not doing so they are grievously in error and miss the way to their salvation. However, an understanding of religious obligation and of philosophical and moral first principles shows that we cannot expect others to acquiesce in an inferior liberty. Much less can we ask them to recognize us as the proper interpreter of their religious duties or moral obligations. We should now observe that these reasons for the first principle receive further support once the parties’ concern for the net generation is taken into account. Since they have a desire to obtain similar liberties for their descendants, and these liberties are also secured by the principle of equal liberty, there is no conflict of interests between generations. #RandolphHarris 6 of 23

Moreover, only if the prospects offered by some other conception, say that of utility or perfection, were so attractive that the persons in the original position must not have properly considered their descendants wen they rejected it, the next generation could object to the choice of this principle. We can express this by nothing that were a father, for example, to asset that one would accept the principle of equal liberty, a son could not object that were he (the father) to do so he would be neglecting his (the son’s) interests. The advantages of the other principles are not this great and appear in fact uncertain and conjectural. The father could reply that when the choice of principles affects the liberty of others, the decision must, if possible, seems reasonable and responsible to them once they come of age. Those who care for others must choose for the in the light of what they will want whatever else they want once they reach maturity. Therefore following the account of primary goods, the parties presume that their descendants will want their liberty protected. At this point we touch upon the principle of paternalism that is to guide decisions taken on behalf of others. #RandolphHarris 7 of 23

If they were at the age of reason and deciding rationally, we must choose for others as we have reason to believe they would choose of themselves. Trustees, guardians, and benefactors are to act in this way, but since they usually know the situation and interests of their way, but since they usually know the situation and interests of their wards and beneficiaries, they can often make accurate estimates as to what is or will be wanted. The persons in the original position, however, are prevented from knowing any more about their descendants than they do about themselves, and so in this case too they must rely upon the theory of primary goods. Thus, if he were not to guarantee the rights of his descendants by adopting the principle of equal liberty, the father can say that he would be irresponsible. From the perspective of the original position, one must assume that this is what they will come to recognize as for their good. By taking liberty of conscious as an example, this shows how justice as fairness provides strong arguments for equal liberty. The same kind of reasoning applies, I believe, in other cases, though it is not always so convincing. #RandolphHarris 8 of 23

I do not deny, however, that persuasive arguments for liberty are forthcoming on other views. As understood by Dr. Mill, the principle of utility often supports freedom. Dr. Mill defines the concept of value by reference to the interests of humans as progressive beings. By this idea he means that interest men would have and the activities they would rather pursue under conditions encouraging freedom of choice. Dr. Mill adopts, in effect, a choice criterion of value: if it is preferred by those who are capable of both and who have experience each of them under circumstances of liberty, one activity is better than another. Using this principle Dr. Mill adduces essentially thee grounds for free institutions. For one thing, they are required to develop human’s capacities and powers, to arouse strong and vigorous natures. Unless their abilities are intensely cultivated and their abilities are intensely cultivated and their natures enlivened, humans will not be able to engage in and to experience the valuable activities of which they are capable. Secondly, if human’s preferences among different activities are to be rational and informed, the institutions of liberty and the opportunity for experience which they allow are necessary, at least to some degree. #RandolphHarris 9 of 23

Human beings have no other way of knowing what things they can do and which of them are most rewarding. Thus if the pursuit of value, estimated in terms of the progressive interests of humankind, is to be rational, that is, guided by a knowledge of the human capacities and well-formed preferences, certain freedoms are indispensable. Otherwise society’s attempt to follow the principle of utility proceeds blindly. The suppression of liberty is always likely to be irrational. Even if the general capacities of humankind were known (as they are not), each person has still to find oneself, and for this freedom is a prerequisite. Finally, Dr. Mill believes that human beings prefer to live under institutions of liberty. Historical experience shows that humans desire to be free whenever they have not resigned themselves to apathy ad despair; whereas those who are free never want to abdicate their liberty. Although humans may complain of the burdens of freedom and culture, they have an overriding desire to determine how they shall live and to settle their own affairs. Thus by Dr. Mill’s choice criterion, free institutions have value in themselves as basic aspects of rationally preferred forms of life. #RandolphHarris 10 of 23

These are certainly forceful arguments and under some circumstances anyway they might justify many if not most of the equal liberties. They clearly guarantee that in favourable conditions a considerable degree of liberty is a precondition of the rational pursuit of value. However, even Dr. Mill’s contentions, as cogent as they are, will not, it seems, justify an equal liberty for all. We still need analogues of the standard utilitarian assumptions. One must suppose a certain similarity among individuals, say their equal capacity for the activities and interests of humans as progressive beings, and in addition a principle of the diminishing marginal value of basic rights when assigned to individuals. In the absence of these presumptions the advancement of human ends may be compatible with some persons’ being oppressed, or at least granted but a restricted liberty. Whenever a society sets out to maximize the sum of intrinsic value or the net balance of satisfaction of interests, it is liable to find that the denial of liberty for some is justified in the name of this single end. When founded upon teleological principles, the liberties of equal citizenship are insecure. The argument for them relies upon precarious calculations as well as controversial and uncertain premises. #RandolphHarris 11 of 23

Moreover, as if they were part of utility, nothing is gained by saying that persons are of equal intrinsic value unless this is simply a way of using the standard assumptions. That is, as if these assumptions were true, one applies this principle. Doing this certainly has the merit of recognizing that we have more confidence in the principle of equal liberty than in the truth of the premises from which a perfectionist or utilitarian view would derive it. The grounds for this confidence, according to the contract view, is that the equal liberties have a different basis altogether. They are not a way of maximizing them sum of intrinsic value or of maximizing the sum of intrinsic value or of achieving the greatest net balance of satisfaction. The notion of maximizing a sum of value by adjusting the rights of individuals does not arise. Rather, when each is fairly represented as a moral person, these rights are assigned to fulfill the principles of cooperation that citizens would acknowledge. The conception defined by these principles is not that of maximizing anything, except in the vacuous sense of best meeting the requirement of justice, all things considered. #RandolphHarris 12 of 23

Now, here in America we pledge our allegiance to a flag that represents “one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” However, who has any idea of what this would mean for real life on the street and how it applies to them? And the biblical vision of human unity under God is even more so one that few people today can even imagine, much less regard as realistically possible for themselves or others. Only the message and people of Jesus Chris can give it substance. Perhaps someone with no real knowledge of Christ could imagine that kind of “communal solidarity” for a few people, carefully selected—people of “the right kind.” However, certainly not for people generally, and especially not for those imposed upon us by “accidents” of birth, and thereby of history and society. Sin structures embedded deeply in our souls and bodies have almost totally disabled us for those relationships to others that our hearts desire and that were meant by God to be—relationships that our public discourse in American idealizes without understanding what they are. #RandolphHarris 13 of 23

When two people connect, when their beings intersect as closely as the clouds and the sky on a rainy day, something is poured out of one and into the other that has power to heal the soul of its deepest wounds and restore it to health. The one who receives the experiences the joy of being healed. The one who gives knows the even greater joy of being used to heal. Something good is in the heart of each of God’s children that is more powerful than everything bad. It is there, waiting to be released, to work its magic, but it rarely happens. For people who claim the name of Christ, there are two distinct courses of life available. One is to cultivate a small heart. This by far seems the safest way to go because it minimizes the sorrows of life. If our ambition is to dodge the troubles of human existence, the formula is simple: avoid entangling relationships, do not give yourself to others, and be sure not to seriously embrace elevated and noble ideals. If we do this, we will escape a host of afflictions. This life principle bears out in other logics of life as well. Cultivated deafness and we will be spared hearing the discords of life. Cultivate blindness and we will be shielded from seeing ugliness. #RandolphHarris 14 of 23

If we want to get through life with a minimum of trouble, all we have to do is wear blinders. This is how many people, even those who profess to be Christians, get through life with such ease—they have successfully nurtured smallness of heart. The other path is to cultivate a ministering heart. Open yourself to others, and you will become susceptible to an index of sorrows scarcely imaginable to a shriveled heart. Enlarge and ennoble your ideals, and your vulnerability will increase proportionately. In the shape of converts I have seen no result. “I have not, as far as I am aware, seen anyone who even wanted to be a Christian.” Painful words. However, the depth of this pain can only be seen dimly until one turns to the opening words of his diary, written when I first arrived in Sacramento: “Several beautiful, expansive, custom homes, with green laws and three slots for a garage, maybe one is the laundry room, even a mail box for the Sacramento Bee Newspaper on the lawn. I wonder what these people in this peaceful community do for a living? O Lord, suggest by the Spirit how I should come among them, and in preparing myself to teach the life and love of Christ Jesus.” #RandolphHarris 15 of 23

“Most of the people have changed so much, I have not, as far as I am aware, seen anyone who even wanted to be a Christian.” His throbbing words ooze his life’s blood. We naturally think “poor Dallas.” However, in truth the case lay in Dallas himself, for he had a “problem”—an enlarged heart. If he had not cared, Dallas would never have penned those pathos filled lines. If he had not cultivated a ministering heart, if he had not cared. If he had listened to the counsel of his friends, he would have remained in comfortable England instead of going to that hostile land. Enlarge your heart, cultivate your heart, discipline yourself for ministry, and you will enlarge your experience of pain. This is an irrefragable spiritual axiom. No one has ever cultivated a ministering heart and lived to tell of a life of ease. Of course, the effects of these two kinds of hearts are drastically different. Little hearts, though safe and protected, never contribute anything. No one benefits from their restricted sympathies and vision. On the other hand, hearts that have embraced the disciplines of ministry—though they are vulnerable—are also the hearts which possess the most joy and leave their heart print on the World. #RandolphHarris 16 of 23

Cultivate deafness and we will never hear discord, but neither will we hear the glorious strains of a great symphony. Cultivate blindness as we will never see ugliness, but we also will never hit a home run in the bottom of the nineth with bases loaded to win the game! Never climb a mountain and you will never get banged up on the mountain’s side, but you will also never stand on an alpine peak exulting in abundant natural beauty. Years ago I experience the grand reality of this principle. My wife, Bianca, informed me that she had received a call from our local youth soccer league, with which my boys were signed up to play, notifying her there were a shortage of coaches and that some boys would have to be left out—unless some fathers (like me!) would take a team. Bianca indicated I might be interested. My response was that I was too busy and that she would have to tell them so. She replied that I could do it myself, and that a call was coming that evening. I said, “Fine, no problem.” The fateful call came during dinner with all my family as witnesses. As the caller explained the league’s plight, I found myself nodding assent and committing myself to be coach of the Las Plumas Thunderbirds Varsity Soccer. #RandolphHarris 17 of 23

The Scriptures wisely say, “If the trumpet does not sound a clear call, who will get ready for battle?” reports 1 Corinthians 14.8—and that was the initial experience of my poor Thunderbirds. I did not even know what a fullback was, the offside rule remained inscrutable for most of the season, and we got clobbered in our first few games. Humbled and desperate, I checked out soccer films and spent some evenings late in frantic reading. I also recruited a retired Scotsman who has once played professionally and persuaded another father to assist me. We discovered we had some good athletes, and we began to win. We did so well that we went to the play-offs. And it was here that I had one of the great experience in my life when I played Nick Oliver’s team in the opening round. Mr. Oliver was the founder of the league, at the time, and a perennial winner. However, miracles of miracles, we were ahead 1.0 at halftime. In the third quarter Mr. Oliver’s team tied it up, and the 1-1 tie held deep into the fourth quarter. Five minutes were left—then three—then one—thirty seconds—ten—two—and we scored just before time ran out! There is no describing the thrill of that moment. #RandolphHarris 18 of 23

Never coach soccer and you will never know the ignominy of being the league doormat, but you will never know the thrill of beating Mr. Oliver either! Cultivate a small heart and life may be smooth sailing, but you will never know the heady wind of the Holy Spirit in your sails and the exhilaration of being used by God. Cultivate a small heart and you will never be the heroic likes of Dallas Brunton, and you will certainly never have the heart God desires for you. We only have to glance at a newspaper to be reminded that we live in a time when there is an urgent need for enlarged, caring hearts which are disciplined for ministry. Some of you are experiencing the elevating, frightening stirrings which accompany the enlarging of the heart, and you need to be encouraged to cultivate your expanding sympathies and broadening horizons. If so, the Biblical account we are about to consider—the story of Jesus’ encounter with the woman at the well—is for you because it brilliantly showcases Jesus’ own discipline of ministry, one we are to imitate as His followers. #RandolphHarris 19 of 23

God wills His own goodness necessarily, even as we will our own happiness necessarily, and as any other faculty has necessary, and as any other faculty has necessary relation to its proper and principal object, for instance the sight to colour, since it tends to it by its own nature. However, God wills things apart from Himself in so far as they are ordered to His own goodness as their end. Now in willing an end we do not necessarily will things that conduce to it, unless they are such that the end cannot be attained without them; as, we will take food to preserve life, or to take ship in order to cross the sea. However, we do not necessarily will things without which the end is attainable, such as a horse for a journey which we can take on foot, for we can make the journey without one. The same applies to other means. Hence, since the goodness of God is perfect, and can exist without other things inasmuch as no perfection can accrue to Him from them, it follows that His willing things apart from Himself is not absolutely necessary. Yet it can be necessary by supposition, for supposing that God wills a thing, then He is unable not to will it, as His will cannot change. #RandolphHarris 20 of 23

God wills from eternity whatever He wills, it does not follow that He wills it necessarily; except by supposition. God of Liberty, we pray to you today. Please grant freedom to all your children, no matter their country. We take time today to remember the examples of freedom we have seen in our time. We think of the citizens of America, who are locked in their homes and being forced out of work and out of business, and unable to pay their rents and mortgages and car notes, unable to buy food and pay the electricity bill, kids who are unable to attend school, college, and medical school and wish for them to experience a Christmas blessing and have a financial miracle. We remember how people have burned the America flag, that stands for freedom, but refuse to leave the country, as people have been deployed to fight for their freedom. And remember those who struggled and failed, such as the martyrs in America in 2020, who have demanded freedom and equality. We remember those who lost their lives on September 9, 2001 in the towers, on the planes, and on the streets or in their homes, and the first responders who lost their lives that day and due to subsequent injuries. #RandolphHarris 21 of 23

Please, Lord, give us the courage to earn our freedom and to regain it as it has been stolen. We ask this of you, Who are the source of all freedom. And may the tears from Heaven rain down on us, soaking the Earth so we have a pleasant spring and summer. American, your beacon of hope shines undimmed by the years. If our eyes have lost sight of you, it is our fault and not yours. We have turned our vision away from being “One Nation Under God with Liberty and Justice for All,” including all Americans, and we are missing the heights from which your streets paved with gold shine, and seen only that which divides us. Be our beacon, Father God of our nation, and show us the way again. Father of the Peoples, please unite your scattered children unto one tribe, one people, one country. “The words of Christ, which he spake unto his disciples, the twelve whom he had chosen, as he laid his hands upon them—and he called them by name, in mighty prayer; and after he have done this ye shall have power that to one upon whom ye shall lay your hands, ye shall give the Holy Ghost; and in my name shall ye give it, for thus do mine apostles. #RandolphHarris 22 of 23

“Now Christ spake these words unto them at the time of his first appearing; and the multitude heard it not, but the disciples heard it; and on as many as they laid their hands, fell the Holy Ghost,” reports Moroni 2.1-3. Revere the Lord, all that inhabit the Earth; the World is firmly established that it cannot be moved. Let the Heavens be glad, and the Earth rejoice; let them declare among the nations: “The Lord reigneth.” Let the sea roar and all within it give praise; let the field, and all within it exult. Then shall the trees of the forest sing before the Lord, as He cometh to judge the Earth. O give thanks unto the Lord, for He is good; for His lovingkindness endureth forever. And say: “Save us, O God of our salvation, please gather us and deliver us from among the nations, that we may give thanks unto Thy holy name, and find honour in praising Thee.” Blessed be the Lord, the God of Israel, from everlasting even to everlasting. And all the people said: “Amen,” and praised the Lord. Exalt the Lord our God, and worship at His footstool; holy is He. Exalt the Lord our God, and worship at His holy mountain; for the Lord our God is holy. #RandolphHarris 23 of 23

Cresleigh Homes

Holiday feasts don’t stand a chance in your #Riverside Residence 1 kitchen. 😎 Enjoy a center work island, large walk-in pantry, and designer selected quartz or granite countertops.

Riverside is one of the most highly anticipated communities to premier in the Sacramento region. The community has resort-style amenities with a strong connection to the beautiful natural environment. https://cresleigh.com/cresleigh-riverside-at-plumas-ranch/residence-1/

The luxury service and quality you expect from Cresleigh.

#CresleighHomes