Q, regarding Post 3038:

In that post, Q, you appear to have made dogmatic statements. And have relied on tradition when describing patriotism.

Now, dogma has multiple meanings. Choose the one you intended to express, sir. It would be irrational (i.e. contradiction of the philosophical viewpoint stated in 3038) to abandon tradition because it is tradition; to abandon revelation because it is revelation; to abandon authority because it is authority; or to abandon dogma because it is dogma.

Further, the proposal that truth depends on logic, reason, and empiricism and on the rejection of authority, tradition, revelation, or dogma is a statement of insanity, sir. If you are proposing that the individual decides what is truth, that truth is relevant and not universal, then, sir, you have abandoned free thought as it is known classically.

With respect, please clarify rather than repeat a dogmatic statement that proposes rejection of dogma, and so forth. Philosophy that is centered on the individual is a dead-end for it is radical individualism.

Reason often stands against logic. Logic in itself is not truth but a tool for discovery and for testing all sources of knowledge. Likewise empiricism is a tool. Truth discerned is communicated through broad practices such as tradition, such as dogma, and such as authority. Truth is discerned in many ways that can be thought and lived and felt. Revelation is a route to truth. Reason itself is not in opposition to revelation; these are not oil and water but of the whole.

Communism is an example of what can come from the statement of Post 3038. As is groupthink. Always there will be tests of the individual. And of the collective – see your call WWG1WGA.

One can claim objectivity, certainly, even while relying on the individual as the arbiter of truth, which, if taken literally, becomes the tool of the subjective and arbitrary whims of the base emotions of human nature. Reason is one path to truth. Not the only path.

Hence the reasoned arguments in favor of self-governance – as the individual, as the family, as the collective of Patriots. Checks and balances allows for both freedom – of thought and of belief and of conscience – and duty/obligation. The rule of law depends on just this fluidity between the particular (individual) and the general (civil society). He who is brought closer to truth through revelation is not a second class citizen; and he who is brought closer to truth through reason is no less a citizen whose freedom is God-given.

Logic alone can lead to absuridities. Revelation alone can lead to falsehoods. Empircal evidence is interpreted and not entirely so by reason alone, as Reason can discover the truth first revealed intuitively, for example, in a flash of brilliance unbeckoned by positions dressed in logic. Often, given human nature, the claim to empericism is a claim of subjectivity and of authority and dogma.

That last point was on display, and continues to be on display, wherever the "gay marriage" proponents thumped their chests in demanding that reason be abandoned in marriage law so as to abolish from the law the truth of marriage itself.

So, sir, please choose your definitions with care and expect that the use of reason can be used to clarify and challenge the rejection of dogma, revelation, authority. Used soundly, too.

WWG1WGA is a call for common ground, surely. Human nature is common ground – it is a given we all contend with each and every day of our individual lives. Objective facts, common ground. Sound reasoning, common ground. Logic for the sake of logic, not common ground, but logic as a tool for check on all other sources of knowledge, yes common ground. But what checks logic? What checks reason? What checks the individual's subjectivity?

Return to human nature which shapes humankind as a social kind of creature. Return to the simple but profound revelation that we, as humankind, are god-like but not God – we are made in the image of God. We are neither pure spirit nor pure body but we are both at once. As such, it meakes sense – intuitively, yes, and by reason, yes, and by tradition, yes – that the least of us is no less than the supposed greatest amongst us. That is the basis for the rule of law, for the pro-life position, for the pro-marriage (man-woman) position. It is the root of WWG1WGA.

It is that root which makes it radical without contradiction. All these elments can be reconciled. It this is your intended meaning, then, please confirm.

Thank Q.

God Speed and may you be awashed in God's blessings.