In part three, we left off with a disquieting question:  “Do we need this tension, this ‘tug of war’, between and among extremes in order to keep a balance in society?”  “If so, does such never-ending tension lead to unhealthful stress, never mind the tragedies which arise, or does such tension, with its unavoidable detriments, give us the best possible life, meaning that, try as we might, we could not create a better life?” 

An astute person would look at the last question and ask, “Does that mean that we would never, could never, create paradise on Earth?”  In many theologies, the answer would be “No, we would never, could never, create paradise on Earth”.  Many would subscribe to that. 

But many others would not.  So we ask a different question:  which group should have its way, those looking for a better life in the afterlife or those wanting to end Earthly strife in order to have a better life? 

Instead of answering that question, let us think outside the box and ask ourselves, “Can the two different world views co-exist without the debilitating, dreamlike dilemma in which we find ourselves presently?”  Of course.  If we thought outside the box, we could find a solution.  (But be careful, as too much thinking outside the box can lead to a head cold.) 

How can the two world views co-exist?  Well, we almost do it through federalism, which is expressed in the Tenth Amendment of the Bill of Rights: 

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. 

We let each state create its own laws.  However, there are two big handicaps to American federalism:  (a) the Federal constitution limits what our state may do and (b) our state’s population is so large that we cannot achieve, sociologically, a unity which would enable us Californians to share a world view.  In light of these handicaps, what can we do, if anything? 

August 2, 2007