Fair Church℠


Accept your mortal descent from the immortal Goð.


The rest is commentary.  

At any time (including the present), feel free to stop reading and let the dogma, itself, speak to you.  

You live and you are a mortal Goð.  

Express it.

A Goð 's expression is Creation.  


Being a Goð means Acting to Create that which you find Good.  This is the essential unity between that which is Goð and that which is Good.

Recognizing descent from the immortal Goð, reflect on your mortal limitations in appreciation of the Creation of which you are a part and in which you Create.  

From this primary relationship proceeds all morality.

This primary relationship of the Individual to Creation precedes society.

One more thing precedes society:

The parent-child relationship.

Children are Creations of the mortal Goðs called "parents".  The family precedes society.

Parents are Sovereign over their children -- not society -- just as the immortal Goð is Sovereign over adults -- not society.

Fair Ecclesia

Human Society is the relationship between mortal Goðs.

When the Creative expressions of mortal Goðs come into conflict, their primary relationship with the immortal Goð provides fair adjudication.  

The Fair Church℠ exists to facilitate that adjudication through mortal Goðs voluntarily assorting  into societies, called Ecclesia embodying different Cultures, conducive to their individual Creative expressions.

A church is a kind of society.  The Fair Church℠ recognizes that the individual's descent from the immortal Goð precedes society.  Likewise, The Fair Church℠ recognizes that the child's descent from parents also precedes society.  These relationships therefore precede The Fair Church℠ itself.

Toward this end, The Fair Church℠'s motto, "May the best win!" means a fair contest between Ecclesia to resolve conflicts between mortal Goðs, respecting these primary relationships of descent.  

The Fair Church℠ subjects Fair Ecclesia, to only these constraints, so-as to protect the relationship between parents and their children, as well as the relationship between mortal Goðs and the immortal Goð:

  1. Its ecclesiastical law must be published in a single document that, if in printed form, can be read and held in the hand of adults consenting to its conditions.  The document must be completely self-contained.  Any words not in the vernacular must be defined.  The definitions must rely only on the vernacular, at least indirectly through other provided definitions.  This it must assert to be the sole and total expression of its intents and purposes, and of its mechanisms for bringing conforming pressures on all members or subordinate Fair Ecclesia.   There can be no rule of law, and consequently no law-abiding adults, unless the law is clearly stated.1

  1. It must not impede the physically harmless departure of any member and their children, not given up for adoption, upon formal request.  This includes members it is excommunicating2, but does not include invaders nor those resisting excommunication, thence exile.  Mothers have priority over pre-adolescent children in disputes with fathers.  Upon adolescence, choice is left to the nascent adult.

  1. Its ecclesiastical territory consists of non-enclaves dynamically reapportioned by competitive bid with other Fair Ecclesia.  Bidding authority is established by a census of its members.3 

  1. A minimum of 10% of its bidding authority must be toward territories for Natural Ecclesia.4

  1. The census of Natural Ecclesia grants additional territorial authority apportioned according to bids on their behalf.5

  1. It must not impede, though it need not facilitate, non-invasive passage by natural persons.  Non-invasive passage is characterized by the absence of substantial social or ecological impact.  Impediment is characterized by rendering passage substantially less practical.6

  1. Its members are obligated to neutralize, by the most practical means available, impediments to the dogma.7

1This constraint is derived from the book "Man's Relation to Government", section "The One Alternative To Bloody Revolution" by Melvin Gorham, ISBN 0-914752-16-2, Sovereign Press, 326 Harris Road, Rochester, WA 98579.  An exemplar for this kind of ecclesiastical law is given below, under "Natural Ecclesia:  Language For Ecclesiastical Natural Law", which also defines the term, "Natural Ecclesia" as used herein.

2Excommunication is strictly relative to the excommunicating Fair Ecclesia.  The Fair Church℠ does not excommunicate.  The Fair Church℠ is, in this sense, ultimately inclusive.  However, those excommunicated from all other Fair Ecclesia are restricted to Natural Ecclesia.

3This allots each adult with territory necessary for replacement reproduction, hence mitigating, not eliminating, the biological imperative for war.  It does not exclude semi-enclaves, nor does it exclude intercine wars, as the appeal of last resort in inter-ecclesia dispute processing.  In this respect, an ecclesium is sovereign in relation to other ecclesia, similar to The Treaty of Westphalia's notion of the nation-state under the doctrine of Cuius regio, eius religio.

4The intent is similar to that set forth by The Half-Earth Project.

5This further expands the territory of Natural Ecclesia as more of humanity is subject to individual selection.

6This is the necessary and sufficient condition to implement the originally-limited intent of the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, as well as facilitate emigration.  This naturally excludes pene-enclaves consistent with the intent of §3

7This is the obligation to serve in Holy War for Individual Integrity.

Natural Ecclesia

Language for Ecclesiastical Natural Law1

Instead of using the words “adult” and “minor,” or “female” and “male,” or “authority” and “layman,” or any of the many other pairs now used to designate and confuse social roles, this Law uses only two words “sovereign” and “shielded.” A significant carry over from current word usage is that “sovereign” implies decision backed by force. Full definition is given to the word “sovereign” and “shielded” by pointing out their social function.

This Law recognizes that force is an element of every social structure. At the same time it recognizes that a quality of being that inspires protection is the essential balancing element to force.

The force that perpetuates the social organization set forth here is that of sovereign individuals.

Those who inspire and receive the protection of an individual sovereign are designated as “shielded.” The shielded have some protection by all sovereigns and some behavior is enforced on them by all sovereigns. When old enough, children of either sex who have been shielded, may choose forceful sovereignty. As an alternative, they may choose to continue non-participation in the use of force by not declaring their sovereignty.

This Law gives formal social approval to the use of force in certain circumstances by sovereign individuals. This Law severely limits the use of group force. The group can use only as much sovereignty as individuals — by this Law — have delegated to the group and no more.

Within this Law a vote is always a deliberated group decision to use group force within the severely limited area herein specified that group force can be used. Because a vote is a basis for the use of force, only sovereigns can vote on matters that are decided by vote.

A provision for formal combat between individual sovereigns is a group enforced protection against demagogues who seek to extend the areas for the use of group force. Because men of honor and integrity usually disdain the twisted use of mob-swaying words (the reason-mutilating weapon of demagogues) formal physical combat on Nature’s terms is every sovereign’s prerogative.

A shielded person cannot vote and cannot be challenged to formal combat.

Small children cannot effectively function as sovereigns, and some adults may not wish to do so. Such persons may be shielded by a sovereign individual.

The shielded are partially protected from action of other sovereigns by the one sovereign under whose shield they live. A shielded person becomes subject to the discipline of all sovereigns if the one sovereign’s shield is removed.

The following statements help define the terms “sovereign” and “shielded”:

A child is born protected by the shield of its mother if she is sovereign or by the shield of her sovereign if she is shielded. Anyone who has reached the age capable of procreation may become sovereign by formal declaration of one’s sovereignty — except for the special condition noted below regarding formal combat.

Except for the special condition noted below regarding formal combat, a sovereign acting alone may remove the shield from one protected by it. Removal is made by a formal declaration of the fact. The shielded person thereby becomes sovereign.

All who are protected by a sovereign’s shield become sovereign if their sovereign dies or disappears.

A sovereign who is shielding no one may cease to be sovereign and become shielded by another sovereign if formal declaration of the relationship is made by both sovereign and shielded.

A sovereign (unshielded) child who is too young to make a valid declaration of its wishes may become shielded by a sovereign who makes a formal declaration of the relationship.

The Seven Points of Ecclesiastical Natural Law

  1. Except in self defense or enforcement of this Law, no one may willfully kill, disable, or permanently disfigure another. No one may secretly restrain another. No one who has reached the age capable of procreation may physically force upon another any offensive, sexually-oriented act; nor engage in any offensive, sexually-oriented act with any person who has not reached the age capable of procreation even when no force is involved. An open (not secret) majority vote of all sovereigns assembled as set forth In 3 below shall be the effective determination as to whether the alleged act took place and whether the act was offensive and was sexually-oriented. Any degree of participation in group force that results in violation of this point of Law regarding offensive, sexually-oriented acts makes every participant fully guilty of the result, along with the person actually performing the act.

  1. No man shall force the act of procreation on a woman without her deliberated consent. Rape Is hereby defined as an act of procreation without the involved woman’s deliberated consent. Any man who engages with a woman in an act of procreation without her formal, publicly-proclaimed deliberated consent may be found guilty of rape. In the absence of a formal public acceptance, the individual woman involved Is the sole judge of whether an act of procreation was rape. If a woman who has not made advance formal acceptance of a man prior to the act of procreation, formally accuses him of rape within three months after the alleged act, and if a majority of sovereigns assembled as set forth in 3 below vote that the man engaged in the act, then It shall invariably be construed as rape – even though it may clearly be shown that the woman Invited, or even persuaded, the man to engage In the act. A woman may revoke formal acceptance of a man at will by giving formal public notice of such revocation.

  1. Any individual, either sovereign or shielded, or any group of Individuals, may restrain persons suspected of breaking this Law for a period of not to exceed fifteen days, conduct a trial for them at a specified, easily accessible place on a date, time, and place publicly and formally announced three days In advance, and penalize (in person or by proxy or proxies) those deemed guilty by an open (not secret) majority vote of all sovereigns at the trial who are permanent residents of the community. (The composition of “community” and the meaning of “permanent resident” is to be defined by those subject to this Law.)
  2. No one shall be required to give testimony at a trial but it Is agreed that one found guilty of perjury by formal trial, as set forth In 3 above, shall be subject to the penalty set forth In 7 below.

  1. No agreements beyond this Law that give a group’s decisions effective power over individuals shall be made. Any group of two or more individuals who make other agreements giving a group decision effective power over Individuals, or who fail to abide by these Laws, shall be deemed a conspiracy against Individual freedom. All acts against them by an Individual or a group of Individuals subject to this Law shall be construed to be self-defense. — Further explanation:  Anyone may bring interpersonal problems before a voluntarily convened formal open Forum structured after the manner of a traditional court of law. In such a Forum opinions regarding the interpersonal problems, and deliberated recommendations for settling differences, can be formally given, but such opinions and recommendations will not be binding on those Involved. Those who bring problems before the formal Forum may, if they choose, make personal agreements congruent with the Forum’s recommendations after the recommendations have been made. Those found guilty of making agreements to be bound by the Forum’s recommendations before the recommendations are made are guilty of making agreements giving a group decision effective power over individuals.

  1. Any sovereign may challenge another sovereign to formal combat for any reason. The following are the conditions for such formal combat:

  1. All combat shall be one sovereign individual against one sovereign Individual.

  1. A challenger shall give formal public notice three days prior to combat and a formal public declaration of reasons therefore.

  1. There shall be up to a one year interval from the time one is challenged to formal combat before one may again be engaged as the challenged. This interval may be shorted by the challenged issuing a formal public declaration of its termination. The challenged may not shield others from the end of combat through the end of this interval.

  1. Subject to the following provisions, the conditions of formal combat shall be established by a majority vote of all sovereigns of the community who assemble after three days public notice. The intent shall be to give challenger and challenged the equal opportunity they would have In Nature — if no human society existed. Terrain of the combat ground shall be varied and extensive enough to permit strategy and to give the physically weak the chance that Nature gives them. Combatants shall have equal weapons and clothing. Weapons shall be a sword or knife with a blade not to exceed 25 cm (approximately 10 inches) plus a 15 meter (approximately 50 feet) length of strong cordage. All previous agreements between challenger and challenged are automatically suspended during the period of formal combat. There shall be no rules within the combat ground. Challenged and challenger shall enter combat ground from opposite sides. No one but challenger and challenged shall be within the combat ground. No one shall attempt to aid, hinder or observe what happens. It Is intended that only one shall return alive from formal combat. When two return alive one shall forever be shielded by the other. The relationship must be announced jointly by them before they are permitted to leave the combat ground. Two are not permitted to return alive if one has been permanently disabled or disfigured by his opponent.

  1. No sovereign who has an unanswered challenge pending may leave the community, refuse combat, or relinquish one’s sovereignty.

  1. Guilt for breaking any point of this agreement shall be determined according to Item 3 above. The invariable penalty for anyone found guilty of breaking any point of this agreement shall be death within twenty-four hours.

1The language for the Natural Ecclesia is derived from p90-93, “Valoric Fire And a Working Plan for Individual Sovereignty” From the Valorian Society ISBN 0-914752-18-9, except for the underlined additions set forth in §6.3 above.  For technical exigesis, see introductory text in Sortocracy's "The State of Nature".

Fair and Natural

Fair Ecclesia may exclude anyone for any reason whatsoever but may not prevent them from leaving.   Natural Ecclesia may not exclude anyone but may, within ecclesiastical natural law, restrain them from leaving and even kill them.

The diversity of Fair Ecclesia arising from conflict provides a wide range of options for those excluded from some Fair Ecclesia.  These options narrow as a person is excluded from ever-more Fair Ecclesia.  Ultimately, Natural Ecclesia may be the only option for some, but this would be after exclusion even by those Fair Ecclesia offering the equivalent of voluntary servitude in harsh environments where their labor is poorly compensated and life is endangered.

In this way The Fair Church℠ replaces the secular morality of "human rights" with a single, well defined, moral right to vote with your feet. This right to vote with your feet necessarily implies three material rights:

  1. The material right to land.
  2. The material right to transportation.
  3. The material right to border enforcement.

#1 is obvious since you can’t put your beliefs into practice without land. #2 is also obvious as people who cannot practically relocate cannot vote with their feet.

#3 should be obvious but, due to the moral zeitgeist, it is not. Incarceration rates, particularly in the US, show us that there are two, fundamentally opposed, kinds of borders: Those that keep people out and those that keep people in. Of the two, the kind that keeps people in is least compatible with the right to vote with your feet.  Even the US’s 13th Amendment to the Constitution has provision for involuntary servitude: Slavery for those imprisoned.  De facto, legalized, slavery is increasing.  We see moral outrage perpetrated as the prison-industrial complex arising at the interface of government and capitalism exploits this gaping loophole in the 13th Amendment.  The pseudo-secular moral zeitgeist’s dogma is “inclusion”.  What is not admitted is this necessarily entails walls that keep people from leaving who are found to be “criminal” by the "inclusive society".

The moral zeitgeist has to reconcile its moral outrage at imprisonment with its moral outrage at "exclusion". The answer to this, consistent with The Fair Church℠ dogma, is the freedom to escape any Fair Ecclesia, combined with each Fair Ecclesia's freedom to exclude anyone for any reason whatsoever, with Natural Ecclesia as the, possibly fatal, inclusion of last resort.