MAGA Egalitarianism/The Cult of Q

 Say what, now?!!

We thought they were Authoritarians.

Authoritarianism happens when it's you and the policeman and you are not wearing a mask and he has a gun.

Aren't they individualist

No. They are in an identifiable group. Where I go, we all go, is not the oath of someone who does not want to be bothered by the group.

Aren't they hierarchists?

No. While they do organize, their social cohesion is not based in ritual nor the desire to move up in the ranks. They believe that everyone in the group is the same. They identify with their leader. They want to be like their leader, but don't believe in a path to become like him.

What makes them egalitarian? Egalitarians are also called sectarian or cultists. Good and evil does not come from following ritual. It comes from being inside or outside. This is why the Insurrectionists were truly confused when White cops dud not join them in liberating them from the evil of domination by their woke subjugators. Back home, their police were in the group, protecting them from the dangerous outsiders.

They believe in the brotherhood of their group. Trump is their brother. Q is their brother and the keeper of secret knowledge that he gives freely. They don’t trust doctors. Doctors are not part of their group, or rather, they cannot join the doctor group easily. They don't trust a group they do not belong to.

Egalitarians do not believe in the brotherhood of mankind. Such a brotherhood ends the unity of their group by destroying its boundaries. They refuse to be woke. Wokeness makes them like the other, absent a common enemy.

They are not hierarchists. No one can work their way into a group. They are either all the way in by claiming membership or are outsiders. To them, BLM is a group of outsiders. That there is violence associated with marches (and Antifa and Anarchists, who are also egalitarian, use violence (confirms their fears).

They don't like socialism. They associate it with the enemy, which is complicated because the old enemy is a friend of Donald – so if Donald couches for Putin, he must be OK. They don't trust government generally, especially a government that protects the rights if the enemy other (like abortionists and feminists).

Going after them with government will not bring them around. It merely stokes their fears and resentments.

They have to be invited in or be given the option if inviting others in.

You have to give them something that they want or find a way to join them in their own terms. They have to want to join. Economically, that means that any new system means better cash and prizes for group membership.

They will cooperate in a group that includes them. If there is a party to join or a form to fill out, count them out and don't ever ask them to conform or behave.

Do we try to pull them in and work together or should we let the capitalists keep winning?

The Sixteen Ways of Truth

Of late, I have been binging on videos from the folks at Objective Personality, who base their work on the cognitive functions identified by Carl Jung.  As a Ti dom with an Ne parent, I would, of course, work out my own logic and options for their theoretical framework. I will explain what I mean as I share my observations.

There are eight cognitive functions under this typology - four introverted and four extroverted. Everyone does everything, but four are active in our personalities. One of each base function, with two being introverted - or inward looking - and two extroverted - or outward looking.

The four basic functions are thinking, feeling, sensing and intuiting. OP calls the first two deciders and the second two observers - with the deciders reflecting self v. tribe and the observers relating to how we organize data. I don't agree with the latter. These are also self v. tribe.

Ti is introverted thinking. Ti users find truth using logic and reason. All Ti users are also Fe users. Fe is extroverted feeling. Extroverted feelers manage the emotions and seek to influence or accept the morality of the tribe.

Te is extroverted thinking. Te users find truth in the logic of the tribe, but they have their own strong moral base and convictions because they have Fi, introverted feeling. The latter means they put a high value on their own emotions.

Si is introverted sensing. Their physical world is internal and personal. They make themselves comfortable in their surrounds and with their memories of the past. They are also have extroverted intuition (Ne), so their outward focus is to provide plans and options to the tribe or group. They come up with outside the box solutions.

Se is extroverted sensing. They organize the external world for other people.They throw the best parties. They have introverted intuition (Ni) - meaning they come up with their own plans to get things done. They don't want anyone messing with their plan. Se is usually seen as not wanting to be controlled, however this is more about not violating their Ni.

As above, everyone has a T-F and an S-N polarity. If the TF top function is extroverted, then the top SN is introverted (and vice-versa). For example, an introverted thinker (Ti Dominant) will be either an extroverted sensor or extroverted intuitive (creator) in the second function. The third function is the other SN function - in which case it will be introverted. The fourth function is the opposite of the first (for thinking, it's feeling, etc.).

How these functions interrelate give us 16 types. Each has their own view of what is true (which I will base on the two top functions).

INTP: introverted thinking, extroverted sensing find their truth in what is reasonable and what is possible. They create and are not into dogma.

ENTP: extroverted intuition with introverted thinking puts possibility first and truth second. They don't care what dogma is and like to argue.

ISTP: introverted thinking with extroverted sensing find their truth in logical physical reality. Their truth is an ordered physical universe.

ESTP: extroverted sensing with introverted thinking find their truth in doing things for others and doing it well.

INFP: introverted feeling with extroverted intuition find their truth in their feelings and beliefs. They offer possible emotional and ethical options to the tribe. Their truth is mystical and personal.

ENFP: extroverted intuition with introverted feeling lead others to higher beliefs. Their truth is in moral transformation. You can find revivalism here.

ISFP: introverted feeling with extroverted sensing find their truth in how they feel and how they interact with the physical world. Their truth is in how they feel about the physical universe.

ESFP: extroverted sensing with introverted feeling  bring their personal beliefs into the physical world of others. They do things for others based on their beliefs. Their truth is in doing things for others based on their beliefs.

INTJ introverted intuition with extroverted thinking apply their personal creativity to find truth for others to use. They invent things to be used by others. They find their truth outside themselves and are creative inside of that truth. Their truth is innovation.

ENTJ extroverted thinking with introverted intuition make a plan for themselves to work within the truth of the tribe for their own interests. Their truth is success for themselves within the tribe.

INFJ introverted intuition and extroverted feeling have a plan for themselves to manage the feelings of the tribe. Their truth is building community.

ENFJ extroverted feeling and introverted intuition plan their lives around the feelings of the tribe. Their truth is conformity with the community.

ISTJ introverted sensing extroverted thinking manage their physical space for the well being of the group. They are nurses and others who serve others from what they know.

ESTJ extroverted thinking introverted sensing are the guardians of truth. They teach the group what to do in the physical world.  Their truth is the facts of the physical world as they know it. They inspect things.

ISFJ introverted sensing extroverted feeling use their internal world to manage the feelings of others. Their truth is how they make others feel. They are performers. Their truth is what they do for the audience.

ESFJ extroverted feeling introverted sensing enjoys the feelings of the tribe. They make great memories of their time with others. Where's the party? Their truth is what they remember, good and bad, of the past. Their truth is Auld Lang Syne (days gone by).

Biden, Communion, Gay Foster Parents, and You

There are two cases to unpack this week. 

The first was the drafting of a document on the Reception of Communion, especially by Joe Biden and other pro-choice politicians. The Vatican did not want the Church to rush into drafting. The bishops who rammed it through (who, under this Pope, have no chance of ever being Cardinals) want to use it to tell people not to vote Democratic in 2022. 

It had to be done now, because the next plenary after the one in November is after the election. This makes me wonder if the target is not Biden at all, but the ability for the bishops to tell Catholics how they must think on abortion and gay marriage when voting,

The Bishops, at least the ones pushing the document ahead of the election when specifically told not to by Rome, are ignorant regarding Constitutional Law. No matter any President puts on the Court, the result will be the same. Abortion will be considered a right, either of privacy or of bodily integrity. Any judge educated in this era is well aware of how these rights work and why they are essential.

More importantly, state governments do not have the power to change this or to make the unborn legal persons whose deaths must be avenged by the government against the interests of their own mothers. The unborn have the same right to life to not be executed (which is the only right anyone has under the Constitution). They also have a right to justice if they are harmed when their mothers are. 

While Congress could grant the unborn additional rights, they are the only ones who can. The bishops and the Republicans (not distinct sets) are less concerned with the unborn as to whether they can move the faithful to the statehouse and voting booth to get their social agenda passed, This includes not just the unborn, but couples using contraception, gay people getting married or having sex at all. 

The 14th Amendment specifically takes these decisions away from states, putting individual rights over the power of the government if there is no compelling state interest for government action. Having a majority agree with you does not qualify as a compelling state interest. Again, conservatives hate this.

The second example was the Supreme Court case where Catholic Social Services sued the City of Philadelphia as to whether CSS could be denied participation as a foster care provider if they do not allow gays to serve as foster parents. 

Freedom of exercise requires that the City make accommodations. The case was decided using statutory text - there were no constitutional issues raised, although Justice Alito wanted to bring them up (and not in a good way).

I suspect that CSS staff would have privately rather the decision had gone the other way, but they were not a party to the suit. Without their participation, the result was obvious. Under law, the bishop owns the agency and control what the staff must do in such questions. Because Church property is involved, there is no Protestant option to settle the matter (i.e., simply voting with your feet). 

The law is fairly clear. If the rules of the Church says that Medieval arrangements are in force, the people have no right to take control of parishes and organizations.Underlying that question, which is more basic, is who gets to decide issues of Church discipline and ownership. The Courts will not touch this, the Church must settle it internally.

If it had just been the rights of the employees, let us say the right to marry the person you love of the same gender, the question is whether the employee involved is in ministry. On the issue of marriage, if the Church allows employees with a heterosexual civil marriage (remember, the Church frowns on civil marriage) and not gay couples, then the question is not doctrine, it is bigotry. Hosanna Tabor lets the Church itself make that decisions, which is odd. I was not aware that someone can be ordained into ministry involuntarily. 

In essence, the question is not religious liberty, it is religious power. The Court's should keep this question in mind for the future where the interests of Catholic employees are at stake.

The basic question runs deeper. Indeed, it is the basic question of ecclesiology:

Do the bishops serve at our pleasure, or do we serve at the pleasure of the bishop?

This is not just the employment question. It is not just property. It is the question of conscience, as the Communion policy makes clear. This is the most essential question of the day and of all days. Formally, when a bishop is consecrated or assumes control over his diocese, he shows his credentials and the local Church accepts them and consents to his service. This, like the washing of the feet on Holy Thursday, has become an empty gesture.

The question is stark and one would hope that, when asked, the answer would be obvious. For many Catholics, it is not. They actually believe that the bishop has a say into whether they are Catholic or going to Heaven. No wonder the militant atheists think Catholics are less than rational.

More important, many bishops agree with the Fearful Faithful. They certainly think so when it comes to voting Republican.

The answer for many is to simply leave. This is the Protestant solution. It is lame. Staying and fighting is both more fun and it is something we owe to those who we would leave behind.

The answer is for the faithful to engage in that question. If we don't put the question, the Spirit cannot do Her will in helping keep the promise of Christ that the thrones of Hell will not overcome the Church.

I wonder how Francis feels about the answer? I suspect that the conservative bishops know and they don't like it.

More About Brights and Beliefs 2021

 In April of 2007, I posted a brief of review of Daniel Dennett's book, Breaking the Spell, with additional posts on atheism in 2007 and 2008. Professor Dennett's treatment of religion as a phenomenon and his identification of the belief in belief in God as driving many of the faithful makes sense. 

In my view, any examination of one's faith that does not examine the question of whether a God exists at all is simply mental inertia. The other benefit atheism has for religion is their exercise of the Spirit of Prophesy. Group self-criticism used to be regarded as coming from God in the early Christian Church. The modern Church does not so revere it, so atheists are filling that role. 

Secularism also is useful in reminding us that we put Christ in Yule. I usually point this out every year. Ptolemaic astrology estimates that the Magi would have sought Jesus due to his birth chart on April 17, 6 BCE. My review of the book came out on April 17th of that year. Jung would call that synchronicity. 

The Partial Birth Abortion decision, which took a pass at banning abortion, also came out that month. I would call that irony. You can read it all at http://xianleft.blogspot.com/2007/04/ These essays are still available on this blog, as well as in the companion volume The Christian Left Blogs on Faith, Morals and Rights, 2005 to 2013.

This spring, instead of re-releasing the updated companion volumes, I have been watching YouTube videos, including those featuring Dr. Dennett (who, by the way, is a better Christian than most Christians because he is not looking for favors from a god he does not believe in), as well as many on physics who also favor materialism. I have some observations to add to my prior work, so maybe the universe was having me wait to publish until this essay was written.

One such video had Daniel speaking before an audience of fellow non-believers. They share an attitude that religionists are self-delusional and downright anti-social in their belief in Hell and the need to fear god. I can only call their attitude one thing - religious. Religion and spirituality are two different things. The latter is a commitment to living life beyond one's passions and need not imply a creator, although many do (see below). The former is a social group with a common belief in their truth and the falsity of other beliefs. That particular meeting had all the markings of a Revival.

Perhaps there is something that Brights can learn from the Church while they call out our very persistent flaws so that we can learn from them.

With time, I find myself to be more and more of a materialist, including about religion. The soul can only be experienced materially. Neuroscience has made this abundantly clear. There is a 0.1 second break between what are brain does and what we perceive. Likewise, the life energy of a person can be explained as the time between the beginning of epigenesis at gastrulation until it ends when the brain dies and entropy takes over. There is no physical proof of an immortal soul.

In the interim, I have also been studying the faith of my fathers. A friend in a spiritual program pointed out to me that many of my fellow Ashkenazim were converted by Luther at the sword. Luther, like modern day Evangelicals who support the Jewish State, believed that converting the Jews would bring back the period where Christ rules on Earth. They do not see this as a metaphor and are scandalized at the work of Elaine Pagels on revelation, which shows that prophesy is about current, not future day. 

Prophesy is social commentary. This has been true since the times of Amos and Hosea, whose works were actually the first written scriptures. I learned that last bit by viewing videos on Judaism and the origins of scripture. Back to my family, we were again forcibly converted, this time to Catholicism. Until my parents married, they generally married other ethnically Jewish Catholics, so the religion was lost to us.

My search for truth also had me look for the various names of G_d in Judaism. There are many, even in monotheism. Each relate to an aspect of the divinity, including Shekinah, who is the female aspect. In my own personal faith, the divine feminine is the Holy Spirit. Shekinah is a Her, not an It. The misogynists in the Church will not face that fact. It would mess up their male monopoly.

Learning about the names of God puts the doctrine of the Trinity in perspective. The three persons are merely the way God relates to us - or more properly, the way we relate to God. There is really little difference in the basics of the naming of the divine. We have no way of knowing how God actually exists, if They/It exist. We relate to God on our terms, not God's.

The three persons are Being (He who Is - YHWH), Truth (the Word) and Love (the Spirit). These things can exist in materialism. Being is simply the Universe. Truth is our ability to figure the universe (and each other) out with science and Spirit is our animating principle, the desire to love and be loved. Our breath of life. 

This is where scientific determinism comes in. Physics favors a materialistic view of free will - that there is none. Physics works well on the planetary level. We also now understand it on the micro level. There are simply no missing particles in particle physics. All equations are known. While quantum physics still shows some randomness that goes away with measurement, measurement is possible. We can mostly predict human behavior. 

If astrology is looked at as the action of the solar wind on the magnetosphere, which acts on the ionosphere in the same range as alpha rhythms in the brain, a case can made for determinism, as are the effects of biology and past experience on the future. The belief that time exists in a moment that can be looked at in both directions also argues for determinism. The brain, rather than consciousness, controls behavior and responds to stimulus. Knowing the stimulus predicts behavior rather well.

Or does it. Spirituality in the Twelve Step realm is both deterministic and active. The essence of spirit is not a consciousness that creates human agency, but a brain that can think about its thinking - even if it is the brain doing the thinking. While some people's behavior can be absolutely predicted, the ability to go beyond the animal brain and react in ways that are not predicted shows that rationality and free will may still exist. 

Creativity is not so explainable. It arises with languaging, especially in the creation of new language. People who don't create language and concepts have less freedom than those who do. While thought may simply be a response to stimuli or the random firing of neurons as predictable from chaos theory, the ability to analyze that stimulus and put aside biological reactions - such as being anti-racist rather than responding as the animal brain does by fearing the outside - supports some kind of active will. 

It is possible to analyze with personality (and Jungian psychology is a good way to do it) and change behavior. The more one knows about themselves, the more one can change their reactions - with or without help from the outside. Seeking outside help is a hallmark of free will. It engages the behavior of others, with the interaction being even less predictable. 

Time may be one moment, but mankind does not have the ability to observe that moment. This is an attribute of divinity - the going outside of time. Materialism dictates that we are within time, so the future cannot be known by us. There may yet be a plane where C is infinite, which means that movement through space and time is instantaneous. We simply cannot get there in this life.

The preference between the monotheistic religions and materialism is not based on rationality. Existentialism teaches that choice that can be informed by data, but is not determined by it.  Choices are acts of will, not decisions based on analysis. We make choices to believe and not believe and then create logical systems to justify them.

There are a lot of flaws in religion, especially Catholicism. It is misogynistic, authoritarian and superstitious. The people enable the priestly class and all but a few believe more in the belief in God than God Herself (this is the Age of the Spirit, so going with Her is more appropriate than It or Them).

For God to exist, She must be Humble - something that religionists choke on. Essentially, this means that God does not need human worship or moral behavior. Her Love must be unconditional and universal, even for Brights, if She exists at all. In moral terms, a humble god must be responded to with a humanistic. 

The God Meme (or Theodicy) is a change in how we relate to Her, or to the concept of Her. we need not keep the one we inherited. Indeed, all memes change with time and language. My YouTube studies also include the evolution of language. It is constant and every 500 years, it is absolute.

The sexual teachings of Christianity are based on bad scriptural scholarship (bad meaning non-existent). The story of Eden has to do with blame - the knowledge of the evil of others. There was no original offense, it is a built in tendency. The way Jesus dealt with it was to teach universal forgiveness, not universal damnation. Any reference he made to Hell and the Devil was a reference to what he knew in his day, when the Zoroastrian mythology was common knowledge in the region.

Jesus was not an Ubermensch. He would not have had knowledge of any wrongness, being fully human. He was certainly not Asexual. Christian sexual teachings go back to the misogyny common to the Neo-Platonism of the fourth century of the common era. Irony strikes again. During the persecutions, it was the morality of state, which true to form deified its rulers, which put forth the Neo-Platonic ideal. For centuries, martyrs died resisting both the deity of the emperor and his religion. After Constantine, the belief in Christ was turned to a belief in Christ the Roman. A sad irony.

Today, the Eucharist in Adoration, a particularly Roman custom, is a symptom of Magicism. The clerical language around the Sacraments are magic words. Rather than seeking the presence of God in Communion, it has become a power of the priest. Since Clement, the pastor/bishop/patriarch of the Antioch city church first used Communion as a weapon to command loyalty. This was not an original abuse. It evolved. It can be devolved too.

Priestly holiness, it turns out, is based in the undistinguished asexuality of those who remain in the priesthood who are not gay (and if gay priests get married rather than ordained, it will be solely asexual). The tragedy is that many are not out to themselves. If they accepted Gender Theory, they would be healthy and more humble regarding sexual teaching. Those who are also stuck in a childish asexuality are the ones who abuse children and teens (although some gay priests likely get into non-abusive relationships with gay youth). 

The practice of celibacy stunts the sexual health of both gender identities, but only the Aces prey on children. The solution is to out the asexuals and expand the priesthood. Accepting gender theory also lets gay priests mature and have appropriate and open relationships, ending the attraction to youth. That the human institution evolved in this way is not a reason to deny the possible existence of God, it shows the need to reform the priesthood and the Sacraments.

In the first century of the common era, what became the Mass was celebrated as part of Shabbat. It can be again, with public worship retained as well. If the host is seen as a miracle rather than a magic item, the fear that it will be abused goes away. Christ is experienced in reception, not in adoration. I have found no use for the latter devotion. Jesus would have a fit he saw the practice he started devolve into idolatry.

Let me mention the after-life. Studies have shown that those who experience life after death and return have likely gone through a natural process where the brain fires at all once when it ceases function. There can be no memory of an actual afterlife. If one is truly dead, that which remembers is also dead. There is no way to really know what happens after that point.

Again, choosing faith in life after death is a choice, not a logical conclusion (putting aside the experience of those who are mediums - not the paid psychics but people whose brains operate that way). The question of this ability is interesting, as it relates to the discovery of a part of the brain that is sensitive to feelings for a god. There are others who do not have that region.

Is this an evolutionary response to a belief in the belief in God or the ability to respond to Her. It can be seen either way. Like the afterlife, this is a choice.

The key feature of Catholicism is the belief in the Resurrection as historical fact. Doctrine is that the Apostles were just the Twelve. History states that apostles are all the witnesses to the risen Jesus. The bishops have taken over this witness as an official duty, proclaiming the resurrection each Easter and each Mass. 

Can the Church, with all of its flaws, be a reliable witness to this one thing? Writings from the early Pauline letters, dated to that time period, shows that such witness is not out of the question. Still, the same scriptures say that happy are those who believe without seeing. Whether that happiness is eternal or in community may or may not matter. It is a choice.

This brings us to Communion. The cynical proof of God is that people actually experience Christ in the Sacrament, despite, ot because of the Church. Is this experience reality or choice?

Giving sacraments to adults may provide the answer. Brights who were not baptized as a child can give it a whirl, skepticism in hand. If they experience the indwelling of the Spirit, as I have heard the newly baptized relate, then the evidence is valid. 

Evangelicals believe that the Eucharist is commemorative rather than actual and they experience it that way. Give them Catholic or high church Protestant Communion and ask them if they have a different experience. I have experienced that Presence at Mass, as with other Sacraments; also at Presbyterian and Anglican Eucharist. It is more than group dynamics. 

On one occasion, I took an Evangelical friend to Mass (we were on a business trip). His experience was like mine rather than he was used to. I don't consider this priestly magic. It is simply a minor miracle. This validates the cynical proof of God. It is also a replicable experiment.

Just maybe some believers are not so irrational afterall. 

This is not to say that the Church is fine the way it is. I have dedicated my life to bringing it to what it can be. It can be a powerful force for goodness, especially in a cooperative society which goes beyond government. The Spirit of Prophesy bids me to act. I leave the result to a choice to believe. Proceeding without hope would be irrational.

Text for the State in 19-1392, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization

Text for the State in 19-1392, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization

As the State of Mississippi prepares its argument, I have some updated text for it to use based on 163 U.S. 537, 16 S.Ct. 1138, 41 L.Ed. 256, with minor revisions.

12

The proper construction of this amendment was first called to the attention of this court in the Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, which involved, however, not a question of sex but one of exclusive privileges. The case did not call for any expression of opinion as to the exact rights it was intended to secure to women, but it was said generally that its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the fetus, to give definitions of citizenship of the United States and of the states, and to protect from the hostile legislation of the states the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as distinguished from those of citizens of the states.

13

The object of the amendment was undoubtedly to enforce the absolute equality of the two sexes before the law, but, in the nature of things, it could not have been intended to abolish distinctions based upon sex, or to enforce medical, as distinguished from political, equality, or of the right to medical care of the two sexes upon terms unsatisfactory to either. Laws prohibiting abortion, do not necessarily imply the inferiority of either sex to the other, and have been generally, if not universally, recognized as within the competency of the state legislatures in the exercise of their police power. The most common instance of this is connected with the establishment of separate medical practice, which have been held to be a valid exercise of the legislative power even by courts of states where the political rights of the female gender have been longest and most earnestly enforced.

14

One of the earliest of these cases is that of Roberts v. City of Boston, 5 Cush. 198, in which the supreme judicial court of Massachusetts held that the general school committee of Boston had power to make provision for the instruction of colored children in separate schools established exclusively for them, and to prohibit their attendance upon the other schools. 'The great principle,' said Chief Justice Shaw, 'advanced by the learned and eloquent advocate for the plaintiff [Mr. Charles Sumner], is that, by the constitution and laws of Massachusetts, all persons, without distinction of age or sex, birth or color, origin or condition, are equal before the law. * * * But, when this great principle comes to be applied to the actual and various conditions of persons in society, it will not warrant the assertion that men and women are legally clothed with the same civil and political powers, and that children and adults are legally to have the same functions and be subject to the same treatment; but only that the rights of all, as they are settled and regulated by law, are equally entitled to the paternal consideration and protection of the law for their maintenance and security.' It was held that the powers of the committee extended to the establishment of separate schools for children of different ages, sexes and colors, and that they might also establish special schools for poor and neglected children, who have become too old to attend the primary school, and yet have not acquired the rudiments of learning, to enable them to enter the ordinary schools. Similar laws have been enacted by congress under its general power of legislation over the District of Columbia (sections 281-283, 310, 319, Rev. St. D. C.), as well as by the legislatures of many of the states, and have been generally, if not uniformly, sustained by the courts. State v. McCann, 21 Ohio St. 210; Lehew v. Brummell (Mo. Sup.) 15 S. W. 765; Ward v. Flood, 48 Cal. 36; Bertonneau v. Directors of City Schools, 3 Woods, 177, Fed. Cas. No. 1,361; People v. Gallagher, 93 N. Y. 438; Cory v. Carter, 48 Ind. 337; Dawson v. Lee, 83 Ky. 49.

18

In the Civil Rights Cases, 109 U. S. 3, 3 Sup. Ct. 18, it was held that an act of congress entitling all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States to the full and equal enjoyment of certain rights. was unconstitutional and void, upon the ground that the fourteenth amendment was prohibitory upon the states only, and the legislation authorized to be adopted by congress for enforcing it was not direct legislation on matters respecting which the states were prohibited from making or enforcing certain laws, or doing certain acts, but was corrective legislation, such as might be necessary or proper for counter-acting and redressing the effect of such laws or acts. In delivering the opinion of the court, Mr. Justice Bradley observed that the fourteenth amendment 'does not invest congress with power to legislate upon subjects that are within the domain of state legislation, but to provide modes of relief against state legislation or state action of the kind referred to. It does not authorize congress to create a code of municipal law for the regulation of private rights, but to provide modes of redress against the operation of state laws, and the action of state officers, executive or judicial, when these are subversive of the fundamental rights specified in the amendment. Positive rights and privileges are undoubtedly secured by the fourteenth amendment; but they are secured by way of prohibition against state laws and state proceedings affecting those rights and privileges, and by power given to congress to legislate for the purpose of carrying such prohibition into effect; and such legislation must necessarily be predicated upon such supposed state laws or state proceedings, and be directed to the correction of their operation and effect.'

19

Much nearer, and, indeed, almost directly in point, is the case of the Louisville, N. O. & T. Ry. Co. v. State, 133 U. S. 587, 10 Sup. Ct. 348, wherein the railway company was indicted for a violation of a statute of Mississippi,.... The case was presented in a different aspect from the one under consideration, inasmuch as it was an indictment against the railway company for failing to provide the separate accommodations, but the question considered was the constitutionality of the law. In that case, the supreme court of Mississippi (66 Miss. 662, 6 South. 203) had held that the statute applied solely to abortion law within the state, and, that being the construction of the state statute by its highest court, was accepted as conclusive. 'If it be a matter,' said the court (page 591, 133 U. S., and page 348, 10 Sup. Ct.), 'respecting commerce wholly within a state, and not interfering with commerce between the states, then, obviously, there is no violation of the commerce clause of the federal constitution. * * * No question arises under this section as to the power of the state to regulate abortion in different states, or affect, in any manner, the privileges and rights of such women. All that we can consider is whether the state has the power to require that patients within her limits shall have separate medical treatment for the two sexes. That affecting only commerce within the state is no invasion of the power given to congress by the commerce clause.'

23

In this connection, it is also suggested by the learned counsel for the plaintiff in error that the same argument that will justify the state legislature in requiring doctors to provide medical care for the two genders will also authorize them to require medical care to be provided for people whose hair is of a certain color, or who are aliens, or who belong to certain nationalities, or to enact laws requiring women to walk upon one side of the sidewalk, and men upon the other, or requiring men's houses to be painted white, and women's black, or their vehicles or business signs to be of different colors, upon the theory that one side of the sidewalk is as good as the other, or that a house or vehicle of one color is as good as one of another color. The reply to all this is that every exercise of the police power must be reasonable, and extend only to such laws as are enacted in good faith for the promotion of the public good, and not for the annoyance or oppression of a particular class. Thus, in Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356, 6 Sup. Ct. 1064, it was held by this court that a municipal ordinance of the city of San Francisco, to regulate the carrying on of public laundries within the limits of the municipality, violated the provisions of the constitution of the United States, if it conferred upon the municipal authorities arbitrary power, at their own will, and without regard to discretion, in the legal sense of the term, to give or withhold consent as to persons or places, without regard to the competency of the persons applying or the propriety of the places selected for the carrying on of the business. It was held to be a covert attempt on the part of the municipality to make an arbitrary and unjust discrimination against the Chinese race. While this was the case of a municipal ordinance, a like principle has been held to apply to acts of a state legislature passed in the exercise of the police power. Railroad Co. v. Husen, 95 U. S. 465; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Kentucky, 161 U. S. 677, 16 Sup. Ct. 714, and cases cited on page 700, 161 U. S., and page 714, 16 Sup. Ct.; Daggett v. Hudson, 43 Ohio St. 548, 3 N. E. 538; Capen v. Foster, 12 Pick. 485; State v. Baker, 38 Wis. 71; Monroe v. Collins, 17 Ohio St. 665; Hulseman v. Rems, 41 Pa. St. 396; Osman v. Riley, 15 Cal. 48.

24

So far, then, as a conflict with the fourteenth amendment is concerned, the case reduces itself to the question whether the statute of Mississippi is a reasonable regulation, and with respect to this there must necessarily be a large discretion on the part of the legislature. In determining the question of reasonableness, it is at liberty to act with reference to the established usages, customs, and traditions of the people, and with a view to the promotion of their comfort, and the preservation of the public peace and good order. Gauged by this standard, we cannot say that a law which authorizes or even requires childbirth is unreasonable, or more obnoxious to the fourteenth amendment than the acts of congress prohibiting funding abortions in the District of Columbia, the constitutionality of which does not seem to have been questioned, or the corresponding acts of state legislatures.

25

We consider the underlying fallacy of the plaintiff's argument to consist in the assumption that the prohibition of abortion stamps women with a badge of inferiority. If this be so, it is not by reason of anything found in the act, but solely because women choose to put that construction upon it. The argument necessarily assumes that if, as has been more than once the case, and is not unlikely to be so again, women should become the dominant power in the state legislature, and should enact a law in precisely similar terms, it would thereby relegate the male gender to an inferior position. We imagine that men, at least, would not acquiesce in this assumption. The argument also assumes that social prejudices may be overcome by legislation, and that equal rights cannot be secured to women except by upholding the right to abortion. We cannot accept this proposition. If the two sexes are to meet upon terms of social equality, it must be the result of natural affinities, a mutual appreciation of each other's merits, and a voluntary consent of individuals. As was said by the court of appeals of New York in People v. Gallagher, 93 N. Y. 438, 448: 'This end can neither be accomplished nor promoted by laws which conflict with the general sentiment of the community upon whom they are designed to operate. When the government, therefore, has secured to each of its citizens equal rights before the law, and equal opportunities for improvement and progress, it has accomplished the end for which it was organized, and performed all of the functions respecting social advantages with which it is endowed.' Legislation is powerless to eradicate sexual instincts, or to abolish distinctions based upon physical differences, and the attempt to do so can only result in accentuating the difficulties of the present situation. If the civil and political rights of both genders be equal, one cannot be inferior to the other civilly or politically. If one race be inferior to the other socially, the constitution of the United States cannot put them upon the same plane.