Truth and Form
The full range and depth of worldly benefits for observing the humble sacred Truths always seem to eclipse those Truths. That’s how powerful the Truth is. That’s also how humble the Truth is.
The problem is when Truth’s humility is over-emphasized, or its power de-emphasized. Always this is done out of a secular ignorance of the form of the Truth, under the impression that the form is trivial, even unjust.
Of course, the form of Truth without the Truth is oppressive, to say the least. But, this in no way invalidates its form; it re-emphasizes it. The consummate marriage act has a form, and its form is inherently present with its truth. This, despite that that form can be so divorced from its truth as to make that form into one of the most unjust acts imaginable. So, it is admitted that such an unjust act, rather than invalidating the form, cannot help but re-emphasize the natural mutual necessity between that form and its original Truth.
So, the sacred Truths are so humble and gentle as to make possible the divorcing of the Truth from its form, for some evil’s sake that would misuse that form. This suggests a profound question: what is the most humble and gentle of all sacred Truths? And, how all-but-insensible is its true sacredness? Relative to the congruent naivety, some corners seem far more justifiably cut than others. This is especially the case for those corners that, to those who are all-but-insensible to them, seem not to be there at all.
I think everything anyone does, whether ‘good’ or ‘bad’, has an impact on others. I think everything is connected: that any actions we take in the social, political, or microbiological worlds have some impact on the totality of each, and on collectively all of them.
I think the social, political, and microbiological worlds each are most naturally open to mutual benefit with all parts of each. I think this mutuality of inter-benefit is really where we get our general sense of conscience.
So, I think our conceptual compartmentalization of widely various practical matters is much more a cognitive convenience than an accurate description of the world.
So, as to the debates about ‘legislating morality’, there are wrong acts which a professional executive branch ought to prevent, and there are wrong acts which that branch must tolerate. That no one should be forced to inhale harmful tobacco smoke in order just to live their lives is one thing not to be tolerated. But, there are other such things, and not all of them are as simple or clear a matter to people as is tobacco smoke.