Sometimes you win in the first year under a new coach on enthusiasm and vitality and newness alone. It is a kind of high unto itself. However, then, when the romance is tailing off, you have to find a way to keep it up. That is the hard part. In football or any other marriage. A very relevant point—and one interesting for the analysis of contemporary industrial society deals with the whole question of economic scarcity among primitive hunters and the modern attitude toward the problem of what constitutes poverty. By common understanding an affluent society is one in which all the people’s wants are easily satisfied; and though we are pleased to consider this happy condition the unique achievement of industrial civilization, a better case can be made for hunters and gatherers, even many of the marginal ones spared to ethnography. For wants are “easily satisfied,” either by producing much or desiring little there are, accordingly, two possible roads to affluence. Adopting a Zen strategy a people can enjoy an unparalleled material plenty, although perhaps only a low standard of living. #RandolphHarris 1 of 21

Scarcity is the peculiar obsession of a business economy, the calculable condition of all who participate in it. The market makes freely available a dazzling array of products—all these “good things” are within a human’s reach—but never one’s grasp, for one never has enough to buy everything. To exist in a market economy is to live out a double tragedy, beginning in inadequacy and ending in deprivation. We stand sentenced to life at hard labour. It is from this anxious vantage that we look back on the hunter. However, if modern humans, with all their technical advantages, still has not got the wherewithal, what chance has this naked savage with one’s puny bow and arrow? Having equipped the hunter with bourgeois impulses and Paleolithic tools, we judge one’s hopeless situation in advance. Scarcity is not an intrinsic property of technical means. It is a relation between means and ends. We might entertain the empirical possibility that hunters are in business for their health, a finite objective, and bow and arrow are adequate to that end. A fair case can be made that hunters often work much less than we do, and rather than a grind the food quest is intermittent, leisure is abundant, and there is more sleep in the daytime per capita than in any other conditions of society. #RandolphHarris 2 of 21

Rather than anxiety, it would seem, the hunters have a confidence born of affluence, of a condition in which all the people’s wants (such as they are) are generally easily satisfied. This confidence does not desert them during hardship. Many people question the assumption that a hunter-gather life is generally a precarious one of struggle for existence: Rather data on hunter-gathers, show a radically different picture. Reputable archaeologists have sometimes failed to appreciate the fallacy inherent in rating prehistoric communicates in terms of their surviving material culture. Words such as “degenerate” are taken from their usage to denote an assumed place in a typological series of pots, for instance, and transferred with an emotive and even moral connotation to the markers of the vessels; people with poor and scanty pottery become stigmatized as “poverty-stricken,” though their poverty may well have been only in their failure to provide the archaeologist with one’s favourite product. Social scientists distort the picture of societies under their observations by judging them from what seems to be the “nature” of economics, just as they come to conclusion about the nature of humans from the data, if not modern humans, at least of humans as we know them through most of the civilized history. #RandolphHarris 3 of 21

Justice as fairness provides strong arguments for an equal liberty of conscious. Therefore the parties have good grounds for adopting this principle. It is obvious that these considerations are also important in making the case for the priority of liberty. From the perspective of the constitution convention these arguments lead to the choice of a regime guaranteeing moral liberty and freedom of thought and belief, and of religious practice, although these may be regulated as always by the state’s interest in public order and security. The state can favour no particular religion and no penalties of disabilities may be attached to any religious affiliation or lack thereof. The notion of a confessional state is rejected. Instead, particular associations may be freely organized as their members wish, and they may have their members have a real choice of whether to continue their affiliation. The law protects the right of sanctuary in the sense that apostasy is not recognized, much less penalized, as a legal offense, any more than is having no religion at all. In these ways the state upholds moral and religious liberty. #RandolphHarris 4 of 21

Liberty of conscience is limited, everyone agrees, by the common interest in public order and security. This limitation itself is readily derivable from the contract point of view. First of all, acceptance of this limitation does not imply that public interests are in any sense superior to moral and religious interests; nor does it require that government view religious matters as things indifferent or claim the right to suppress philosophical beliefs whenever they conflict with affairs of state. The government has no authority to render associations either legitimate or illegitimate any more than it has the authority in regard to art and science. These matters are simply not within its competence as defined by a just constitution. Rather, given the principles of justice, the state must be understood as the association consisting of equal citizens. It does not concern itself with philosophical and religious doctrine but regulates individuals’ pursuit of their moral and spiritual interests in accordance with principles to which they themselves would agree in an initial situation of equality. #RandolphHarris 5 of 21

By exercising its powers in this way the government acts as the citizens’ agent and satisfies the demands of their public conception of justice. Therefore the notion of the omnicompetent laicist state is also denied, since from the principle of justice it follows that government has neither the right nor the duty to do what it or a majority (or whatever) wants to do in questions of morals and religion. Its duty is limited to underwriting the conditions of equal moral and religious liberty. Granting all this, it now seems evident that, in limiting liberty reference to the common interest in public order and security, the government acts on a principle that would be chosen in the original position. For in this position each recognizes that the disruption of these conditions is a danger for the liberty of all. This follows once the maintenance of public order is understood as a necessary condition for everyone’s achieving one’s ends whatever they are (provided they lie within certain limits) and for one’s fulfilling one’s interpretation of one’s moral and religious obligations. To retrain liberty of conscience at the boundary, however inexact, of the state’s interest in public order is a limit derived from the principle of the common interest, that is, the interest of the representative equal citizen. #RandolphHarris 6 of 21

If the government is to carry out its duty of impartially supposing the conditions necessary for everyone’s pursuit of their interests and living up to their obligations as they understand them, the government’s right to maintain public order and security is an enabling right, a right which the government must have. Furthermore, only when there is a reasonable expectation that not doing so will damage the public order which the government should maintain, is it acceptable for liberty of conscience to be limited. This expectation must be based on evidence and ways of reasoning acceptable to all. It must be supported by ordinary observation and modes of thought (including the methods of rational scientific inquiry where these are not controversial) which are generally recognized as correct. Now this reliance on what can be established and known by everyone is itself founded on the principles of justice. It implies no particular metaphysical doctrine or theory of knowledge. For this criterion appeals to what everyone can accept. It represents an agreement to limit liberty only by reference to a common knowledge and understanding of the World. #RandolphHarris 7 of 21

Adopting this standard does not infringe upon anyone’s equal freedom. On the other hand, a departure from generally recognized ways of reasoning would involve a privileged place for the views of some over others, and a principle which permitted this could not be agreed to in the original position. Furthermore, in holding that the consequences for the security of public order should not be merely possible or in certain cases even probable, but reasonably certain or imminent, there is again no implication of a particular philosophical theory. Rather this requirement expresses the high place which must be accorded to liberty of conscience and freedom of thought. We may note at this point an analogy with the method of making interpersonal comparisons of well-being. These are founded on the index of primary goods that one my reasonably expect, primary goods being those which everyone is presumed to want. This basis of comparison is one to which the parties can agree for the purposes of social justice. It does not require subtle estimates of human’s capacity for happiness much less of the relative worth of their plans of life. We need not question the meaningfulness of these notions; but they are inappropriate for designing just institutions. #RandolphHarris 8 of 21

Similarly, the parties consent to publicly recognized criteria to determine what counts as evidence that their equal liberty is pursued in ways injurious to the common interest in public order and to the liberty of others. These principles of evidence are adopted for the aims of justice; they are not intended to apply to all questions of meaning and truth. How far they are valid in philosophy and science is a separate matter. The characteristic feature of these arguments for liberty of conscience is that they are based solely on a conception of justice. Toleration is not derived from practical necessities or reasons of state. Moral and religious freedom follows from the principle of equal liberty; and assuming the priority of this principle, the only ground for denying the equal liberties is to avoid an even greater injustice, an even greater loss of liberty. Moreover, the argument does not rely on any special metaphysical or philosophical doctrine. It does not presuppose that all truths can be established by ways of thought recognized by common sense, a logical construction out of what can be observed or evidenced by rational scientific inquiry. #RandolphHarris 9 of 21

The appeal is indeed to common sense, to generally shared ways of reasoning and plain facts accessible to all, but it is framed in such a way as to avoid these larger presumptions. Nor, on the other hand, does the case for liberty imply skepticism in philosophy or indifference to religion. Perhaps arguments for liberty of conscience can be given that have one or more of these doctrines as a premise. There is no reason to be surprised at this, since different arguments can have the same conclusion. However, we need not pursue this question. The case for liberty is at least as strong as its strongest argument; the weak and fallacious ones are best forgotten. Those who would deny liberty of conscious cannot justify their action by condemning philosophical skepticism and indifference to religion, nor by appealing to social interests and affairs of state. Only when it is necessary for liberty itself, to prevent an invasion of freedom that would be still worse is the limitation of liberty is justified. The parties in the constitutional convention, then, must choose a constitution that guarantees an equal liberty of conscience regulated solely by forms of argument generally accepted, and limited only when such argument establishes a reasonably certain interference with the essentials of public order. #RandolphHarris 10 of 21

Liberty is governed by the necessary conditions for liberty itself. Now by this elementary principle alone many grounds of intolerance accepted in past ages are mistaken. Thus, for example, Dr. Aquinas justified the death penalty for heretics on the ground that is it a far graver matter to corrupt the faith, which is the life of the soul, than to counterfeit money which sustains life. So if it is just to put to death forgers and other criminals, heretics may a fortiori be similarly dealt with. However, the premises on which Aquinas relies cannot be established by modes of reasoning commonly recognized. It is a matter of dogma that faith is the life of the soul and that the suppression of heresy, that is, departures from ecclesiastical authority, is necessary for the safety of souls. Again, the reasons given for limited toleration often run afoul of this principle. Thus Dr. Rousseau thought that people would find it impossible to live in peace with those whom they regarded as damned, since to love them would be to hate God who punishes them. Dr. Rousseau believed that those who regard others as damn must either torment or convert them, and therefore sects preaching this conviction cannot be trusted to preserve civil peace. #RandolphHarris 11 of 21

Dr. Rousseau would not, then, tolerate those religions which say that outside the church there is no salvation. However, the consequences of such dogmatic belief which Dr. Rousseau conjectures are not borne out by experience. A priori psychological argument, however plausible, is not sufficient to abandon the principle of toleration, since justice holds that the disturbance to public order and to liberty itself must be securely established by common experience. There is, however, an important difference between Dr. Rousseau and Dr. Locke, who advocated a limited toleration, and Dr. Aquinas and the Protestant Reformers who did not. Dr. Locke and Dr. Rousseau limited liberty on the basis of what they supposed were clear and evident consequences for the public order. If Catholics and atheists were not to be tolerated, it was because it seemed evident that such persons could not be relied upon to observe the bonds of civil society. Presumably a greater historical experience and a knowledge of the wider possibilities of political life would have convinced them that they were mistaken, or at least that their contentions were true only under special circumstances. #RandolphHarris 12 of 21

However, with dr. Aquinas and the Protestant Reformers the grounds of intolerance are themselves a matter of faith, and this difference is more fundamental than the limits actually drawn to toleration. For when the denial of liberty is justified by an appeal to public order as evidenced by common sense, it is always possible to urge that the limits have been drawn incorrectly, that experience does not in fact justify the restriction. Where the suppression of liberty is based upon theological principles or matters of faith, no argument is possible. The one view recognizes the priority of principles which would be chosen in the original position whereas the other does not. The power of life in Christ is seldom realized, but spiritual formation in Him, carried to fulfillment, would mean that the church as the body of Christ, and the members are nourishing one another with the transcendent power that raised up Christ from the dead and is not following through each of its members. That is what produces the Church as we see her spread out through all time and space and rooted in eternity, terrible as an army with banners. #RandolphHarris 13 of 21

The visible church, which anyone can look at if one wills, is—with all her imperfections—the outward manifestation in history and society of the invisible church, which God sees alone. The spiritual unity of the Church is a primal synthesis willed by God. It is not a relationship that has to be established, but one that is already posited (iustitia passive), and remains invisible. It is not made possible by concord, similarity or affinity between souls, nor should it be confused with unity of mood. Instead it is real just where seemingly the most intractable outward opposition prevail, where each human leads one’s quite individual life, and it is perhaps absent where it seems to prevail most. It can shine more brightly in the conflict between wills than in concord. Into this church, the invisible body of her risen Lord, we come when we place our confidence in Jesus. He takes us in and forms a circle of sufficiency that is real and ultimate. It is first in relation to Christ that we begin to know about connecting; and we can then begin to see how the flow of loving presence from Christ extends through others to us and from us to others. This must happen within the imperfect communities and congregations available to us now. #RandolphHarris 14 of 21

However, the new life can and must eventually transform the entire social dimension of ourself toward the Heavenly future in which we shall know as we are now known by God—where every boo shall lie open to one another. John’s Gospel informs us that when Jesus completed His baptizing ministry in Jueda and decided to return to Galilee, He deemed it necessary to go through Samaria, which brought him to the ancient town of Sychar. Specifically, John tells us that “Jacob’s well was there, and Jesus, tired as he was from the journey, sat down by the well. It was about the sixth hour,” reports John 4.6. The sixth hour was noon, midday, time for a meal. So the Lord sent His disciples into town for groceries while He wearily sat sown by the well for some needed rest. The words “tired as he was” seem to indicate that he sat down just as a tired man collapses in motionless heap after a hard day’s work. He was exhausted, and for good reason. A glance at the Gospels revels that Jesus rarely had any time for Himself unless he stole away. When not being pressed by the multitude, He was ministering to the Twelve or the inner circle of three to irrepressible Peter. #RandolphHarris 15 of 21

And Jesus was always on the dusty road. At one point He had Himself said, “Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head,” reports Matthew 8.20. No wonder Jesus was more weary than His disciples, for when mental fatigue and physical wariness meet, there you find an exhausted man. So Jesus plopped down motionless. It was so nice to be alone in the warm sun and not moving. It is quite possible that the Lord has His eyes closed when He heard approaching steps and looked up to see a Samaritan woman. It would have been so easy for Jesus to sleepily close his eyes, saying to Himself, “I have been ministering to thousands…she is alone…just one person. And I have got to relax. If I do not take care of My body, who will?” However, not Jesus! Our Lord went for her heart in one of the grandest cases of spiritual aggression ever recorded. Jesus’s heart was so given to the care of souls that He mustered up the strength to minister even when He was at the edge of His physical capacity. People who share the disciplines of Christ’s heart will likewise reach out even when exhausted. #RandolphHarris 16 of 21

It has been said that the World is run by tired humans, and it is true, for we daily see that America is run by tired political leaders—and that wars are now won with exhausted generals—and that peace is secured by tired diplomats—and that peace is secured by tired diplomats—and that great legislation is accomplished by weary legislators. The reason for this is that such leaders are willing to put themselves out whenever necessary in order to accomplish their noteworthy tasks. Likewise, the Christian World is ministered to by tired people. Eastern Europe is being evangelized by tired missionaries who are making the most of the fleeting day of opportunity. Show me a great church and I will show you some tired people, both up front and behind the scenes, because greatness depends on a core of people who are willing to put out the situation demands. Humans, even when bone tired, we have to understand that we will never do great things for God without the willingness to extend ourselves for the sake of the gospel. Christ’s example teaches us that a ministering heart must of necessity be a labouring heart. #RandolphHarris 17 of 21

The Apostle Paul had a heart like that: “Surely you remember, brothers,” he says, “our toil and hardship; we worked night and day in order not to be a burden to anyone while we preached the gospel of God to you,” reports 1 Thessalonians 2.9. This apostolic work ethic is a prominent theme with Paul: “I have laboured and toiled,” he told the Corinthians, “and have often gone without sleep,” reports 2 Corinthians 11.27. The fact is, anyone who has ever done anything for God has had a labouring heart—no exceptions. Dr. Luther is said to have worked so hard that he often fell into bed. D.L. Moody’s bedtime prayer on one occasion, as he rolled his bulk into bed, was, “Lord, I am tired! Amen.” Big heart, the enlarged hearts that God uses, are labouring hearts which, though weary, will willingly be expended as necessary. You may fancy that you have a ministering heart, but if you are not labouring for the gospel in the place God where has put you, and do not find yourself being inconvenienced by your commitment, you are deluding yourself. Ministering hearts are disciplined to labour, for they regularly move beyond their comfort zones, they put themselves in vulnerable spots, they makes commitments which cost, they get tired for Christ’s sake, they pay the price, the encounter rough seas. However, their sails billows full of God’s spirit. #RandolphHarris 18 of 21

This play of opposites exists not only in Nature but also in human destiny. We observe repeatedly how fortune and misfortune are either intermingled or follow one another in phases. The modern Italian writer Cesare Pavese received in 1950 the highest literary praise of his country, yet before the year came to its end, he took his own life. There are two principles which are fundamental in the operations of our Universe, even though they are opposed to one another. We humanly label one good and the other bad, not seeing how one is necessary to the existence of the other and both to the Universe. A World without pain, without suffering, is a utopian, impossible World. Geometrical patterns and designs not only symbolize the Universe’s structure and nature, process and operation; they also show its harmonies and symmetries, conflicts and oppositions, its lights and shadows. Both forces—the static and the dynamic—are present in existence, in Nature and human life. In the Universe everything has its opposite; the one cannot exist unless at some point in time the other also exists. #RandolphHarris 19 of 21

“The manner which the disciples, who were called the elders of the church, ordained priests and teachers—after they had prayed unto the Father in the name of Christ, they laid their hands upon the, and said: In the name of Jesus Christ I ordain you to be a priest (of if he be a teacher, I ordain you to be a teacher) to preach repentance and remission of sins through Jesus Christ, by the endurance of faith on his name to the end. Amen. And after this manner did they ordain priests and teachers, according to the gifts and callings of God unto humans; and they ordained them by the power of the Holy Ghost, which was in them,” reports Moroni 3.1-4. The feast of bread we celebrate with bread baked and on our table to be shared among us, but first to be shared with the Lord of Grain. And so I break off this piece and pass it among you. Bless it, each who is here, that it may be the holy which we share with the holy, placing it in the [field/garden]; and sharing the rest, eating together with the Holy One. And this second loaf we give, turning it over wholly, after blessing it, each one of us, separating it out for him alone. And then we will place it, as well, in the [field/garden]. #RandolphHarris 20 of 21

We are grateful to you, Grain God, we send you our blessings. Please look kindly on us, King of bread, and continue to send us blessings in return. O Lord our God, please be gracious unto Thy people of America and accept their prayer. Please restore the worship to Thy sanctuary and receive in love the supplications of America; and may the worship of Thy people be ever acceptable unto Thee. O may our eyes witness Thy return to American. Blessed art Thou, O Lord, who restorest Thy divine presence unto America. We thankfully acknowledge Thee, O Lord our God, our fathers’ God to all eternity. Our Rock art Thou, our Shield that saves through every generation. We give Thee thanks and we declare Thy praise for all Thy tender care. Our lives we trust into Thy loving hand. Our souls are ever in Thy charge; Thy wonders and Thy miracles are daily with us, evening, morn and no one. O Thou who art all-good, whose mercies never fails us, Compassionate One, whose loving kindnesses never cease, we every hope in Thee. “And at that every hour there was a severe Earthquake and a tenth of the city collapsed. Seven thousand people were killed in the Earthquake, and the survivous were terrified and gave glory to the God of Heaven. The second woe has passed; the third woe is coming soon,” reports Revelation 11.13-14. #RandolphHarris 21 of 21

Cresleigh Homes

Whether you want to bathe in the tub or bathe in light, this #BrightonStation Residence 1 bathroom has you covered. ✨

The homes at Brighton Station are designed to make everyday living more enjoyable. Stylish design choices. Energy efficient. Smart floor plans. 2-3 car garages. Everything you need or want, wrapped up into the perfect home. https://cresleigh.com/brighton-station/residence-1/

#CresleighRanch
#CresleighHomes