Thomas Jay Oord - Barbie and Our Purpose

 

Barbie Main Trailer

by Warner Bros. Pictures

May 25, 2023

Billie Eilish - What Was I Made For? 

(Official Music Video)

by Billie Eilish

* * * * * * * *

Barbie and Our Purpose

article link

by Thomas Jay Oord

February 25th, 2024

Tripp Fuller and I have written a book called God After Deconstruction. It will be available in April 2024.

Among the issues we discuss is how to think about purpose after the traditional God is deconstructed. Here’s an excerpt from the book, which builds on the Barbie movie.

What Was I Made For?

In the blockbuster movie Barbie, we find the world-renown doll and diverse friends in roles their maker has chosen. The toys dance and sing, party, and live according to the determinations of their manufacturer, Mattel.

In a moment of questioning, however, Barbie ponders life beyond what has been decided for her. She wonders what the real world might be like. So she visits Weird Barbie and is presented with a choice: go “back to the way your life was” or “know the truth about the universe.”

At first, Barbie chooses what’s safe and familiar: Barbie Land. “I’m not Adventure Barbie,” she explains, “I’m Stereotypical Barbie.”

With a little coaxing, she opts to learn the truth. So she departs Barbie Land for an adventure. To her delight, Barbie finds the real world thrilling; her newfound autonomy gives joy. But this liberation raises questions about who she is, the customs of her past, and the desires of her friends, especially Ken. Barbie realizes that the restrictions of the status quo, especially patriarchy, cause harm.

Near the end of the movie, Barbie talks with corporate leaders at Mattel. In a conversation with a CEO, Barbie admits to being confused: “I’m not really sure where I belong anymore.” Billie Eilish expresses this angst beautifully in the Grammy Award-winning song written for the movie: “What Was I Made For?”

Barbie then interacts with Ruth, the woman who originally imagined her as a doll for her daughter. “I want to be part of the people that make meaning, not the thing that’s made,” Barbie says, “I want to be the one imagining, not the idea itself.”

“You don’t need my permission,” Ruth replies.

“But you’re The Creator,” says Barbie. “You control me.”

“Ha!” says Ruth. “I can’t control you any more than I could control my own daughter!”

God’s Role in Purpose and Meaning

After the God of traditional theology is deconstructed, questions arise: What is our purpose? Does life have meaning? What’s the point?

The God of traditional theology is like the patriarchy at Mattel… but even more controlling. This deity predetermines the actions of all, so we’re dolls playing predestined roles. Rather than agents with autonomy, we dance and sing, enjoy and suffer, bleed and die according to our Maker’s will.

When God is imagined as one who foreordains and/or foreknows, questions about purpose and meaning have simple answers. Life’s purpose is whatever God determines, and it means whatever God decides. When God is in control, it all makes sense…

at least at first.

Like Barbie, however, we who deconstruct begin to imagine life outside systems that confine us. We realize we make free actual choices, and our lives matter. So we embark on an adventure to discover a world beyond what’s expected. We grow.

Once we — like Barbie — recognize our autonomy, it becomes difficult to imagine a controlling God. When we suffer needlessly or encounter evil in the world, we begin to doubt God has a pre-selected blueprint. Unjust systems make us wonder about an omnipotent God’s purposes; pointless pain causes us to question whether life has ultimate meaning. We encounter the restrictions of controlling systems and the restricting gods required to manage them.

The Barbie movie answers these questions by saying the purpose of life is in the living of it. The movie’s last moments show Barbie imagining experiences of various types. The message seems to be that we find meaning in whatever happens. That has a measure of truth, but isn’t there something more?

How might we think about God, purpose, and meaning after traditional theology?

Chatbot & I discuss why "Common Sense Is Not So Common"

Chatbot & I discuss why

"Common Sense Is Not So Common"

by R.E. Slater and ChatGPT 3.5

November 22, 2023

Good Morning. Title of File: "Common sense is not so common" Please explain why or why not this may be true or false.

ChatGPT

Good morning! The statement "Common sense is not so common" is often attributed to the French philosopher Voltaire. The idea behind this phrase is that what seems like common sense to one person may not be so obvious or common to another. Here are a few reasons why this statement may be considered true or false:

True:

• Subjectivity: Common sense is often based on personal experiences, cultural background, and individual perspectives. What seems like common sense in one situation may not be perceived the same way by someone with different experiences or cultural norms.

• Diverse Perspectives: People come from different backgrounds and have varied levels of exposure to different situations. What one person may consider common sense due to their experiences, someone else might find unfamiliar or counterintuitive.

• Cognitive Biases: Cognitive biases, such as confirmation bias or hindsight bias, can influence how people perceive and apply common sense. These biases can lead individuals to interpret situations in ways that align with their existing beliefs or hindsight, rather than objectively assessing the situation.

False:

• Shared Values: In many societies, there are shared values and norms that are considered common sense. For example, concepts like honesty, integrity, and respect for others may be widely accepted as common sense in various cultures.

• Universal Principles: Some principles may be considered universally common sense, such as the idea of cause and effect or the need for balance in various aspects of life. These principles are often rooted in fundamental aspects of human cognition and societal organization.

• Educational Factors: Education and upbringing play a significant role in shaping an individual's understanding of common sense. In communities where education emphasizes critical thinking and problem-solving skills, there may be a higher level of agreement on what constitutes common sense.

In conclusion, the statement "Common sense is not so common" captures the idea that perspectives on what is considered common sense can vary widely among individuals. The extent to which it is true or false depends on factors such as cultural background, personal experiences, education, and shared values within a particular community or society.

Very good. It seems that through personal relationship contact and discussion and education commonality and difference may be surmounted. Are there other ways to surmount difference of ideation, expectation, and purpose?

ChatGPT

Certainly, there are various ways to surmount differences in ideation, expectations, and purpose. Here are some strategies:

Effective Communication:

• Active Listening: Actively listen to others, seeking to understand their perspective without immediately judging or formulating a response. This helps build empathy and creates a foundation for mutual understanding.

• Clarity in Expression: Clearly articulate your own ideas, expectations, and purposes. Use language that is accessible and open to interpretation to avoid misunderstandings.

Cultural Competence:

• Cultural Awareness: Be aware of cultural differences and nuances, as these can significantly impact how ideas and expectations are perceived. Foster a mindset of cultural competence to navigate diverse perspectives more effectively.

• Empathy:Put Yourself in Others' Shoes: Try to understand the world from the perspective of others. Empathy enables individuals to appreciate different viewpoints and acknowledge the validity of diverse experiences.

Conflict Resolution:

• Constructive Conflict Management: When conflicts arise, focus on finding solutions rather than placing blame. Encourage open dialogue to address differences and work toward mutually beneficial outcomes.

Collaboration:

• Teamwork and Collaboration: Emphasize collaboration and teamwork. Bringing people with diverse perspectives together can lead to creative solutions and foster an environment where differences are seen as assets rather than obstacles.

Education and Awareness:

• Continuous Learning: Foster a culture of continuous learning, where individuals are encouraged to expand their understanding of different ideas and perspectives. This can be achieved through training programs, workshops, and exposure to diverse experiences.

Shared Goals and Values:

• Identify Common Ground: Find common goals and values that can serve as a foundation for collaboration. Establishing shared objectives can help bridge gaps in ideation and purpose.

Flexibility and Adaptability:

• Open-Mindedness: Be open to new ideas and be willing to adapt. Recognize that the world is dynamic, and solutions that worked in the past may need adjustments to meet current challenges.

Leadership:

• Inclusive Leadership: Leaders play a crucial role in setting the tone for inclusivity. Leaders who promote diversity and inclusion contribute to an environment where differences are respected and leveraged for collective success.

Technology and Tools:

• Collaborative Technologies: Leverage technology and collaborative tools to facilitate communication and coordination, especially in situations where individuals may be geographically dispersed.

By combining these approaches, individuals and groups can work towards overcoming differences in ideation, expectations, and purpose, fostering a more inclusive and cooperative environment.

Personal and Group Collaboration seem an effective means to identifying, and perhaps resolving, difference. This latter purpose may assist in resolving, sharpening, and/or accepting difference.

ChatGPT

Absolutely, personal and group collaboration are powerful tools for identifying, understanding, and potentially resolving differences. Here's how collaboration can contribute to addressing and navigating differences:

Diverse Perspectives:

• Collective Wisdom: When individuals with different backgrounds, experiences, and perspectives collaborate, they bring a diverse range of ideas and insights to the table. This diversity can lead to richer, more comprehensive solutions to problems.

Enhanced Problem-Solving:

• Synergy: Collaborative efforts often result in synergies where the collective intelligence of the group is greater than the sum of its parts. This synergy can be particularly effective in finding innovative solutions to complex challenges.

Conflict Resolution:

• Open Dialogue: Collaboration encourages open dialogue and communication, providing a platform for addressing conflicts or differences constructively. Through respectful conversation, individuals can gain a deeper understanding of opposing viewpoints and work towards resolution.

Building Trust:

• Shared Experiences: Collaborative projects provide opportunities for individuals to work together, share experiences, and build trust. Trust is a crucial element in overcoming differences, as it establishes a foundation for open communication and cooperation.

Learning and Growth:

• Continuous Learning: Collaborating with others exposes individuals to new ideas and ways of thinking, fostering a culture of continuous learning. This, in turn, can contribute to personal and collective growth, allowing individuals to adapt to change and broaden their perspectives.

Common Goals:

• Alignment of Purpose: Collaborative efforts often revolve around shared goals and objectives. Identifying common ground in terms of purpose and vision helps unite individuals and groups, minimizing conflicts arising from divergent aims.

Inclusive Decision-Making:

• Participation and Inclusion: In a collaborative setting, decision-making can be more inclusive, involving input from all stakeholders. This inclusivity ensures that a broader range of perspectives is considered in the decision-making process.

Adaptability:

• Flexibility and Adaptation: Collaboration promotes adaptability by encouraging individuals to be open to new ideas and receptive to change. This flexibility is essential in navigating and embracing differences in rapidly evolving situations.

Cultural Competence:

• Cross-Cultural Collaboration: In a globalized world, collaboration often involves individuals from different cultural backgrounds. Engaging in cross-cultural collaboration fosters cultural competence and helps navigate and appreciate differences.

Conflict Transformation:

• Transformative Approaches: Collaborative processes can go beyond resolving conflicts to transforming them into opportunities for positive change. By addressing root causes and underlying issues, collaboration can lead to lasting solutions.

In summary, personal and group collaboration serves as a dynamic and effective means to identify, understand, and address differences. By fostering an environment of open communication, trust, and shared objectives, collaboration contributes to the resolution, refinement, and acceptance of differences in a wide range of contexts.

Considering all of the above it seems more hopeful the Voltaire statement "Common sense is not so common" may be surmountable... but what if it cannot. What are the items which may prevent personal and/or group transformation towards positive ends?

ChatGPT

While collaboration and efforts to bridge differences are valuable, there are several factors that can impede personal and group transformation toward positive ends. These obstacles may hinder the resolution of differences and the achievement of common goals. Some key factors include:

Lack of Open Communication:

• Communication Barriers: Ineffective or closed communication channels can obstruct the exchange of ideas and hinder understanding. Miscommunication, misunderstandings, or a lack of transparency may contribute to the persistence of differences.

Unwillingness to Change:

• Resistance to Change: Individuals or groups may resist change due to fear of the unknown, attachment to existing ways, or a reluctance to step out of their comfort zones. This resistance can impede transformational efforts.

Cultural and Institutional Barriers:

• Cultural and Institutional Inertia: Deep-seated cultural norms or institutional structures resistant to change can pose significant challenges. Overcoming ingrained practices may require substantial effort and time.

Lack of Trust:

• Distrust and Mistrust: A lack of trust among individuals or groups can undermine collaborative efforts. Building trust is crucial for effective communication, cooperation, and the willingness to work toward common goals.

Inequality and Power Imbalances:

• Power Dynamics: Unequal power distribution can hinder transformation efforts. Individuals or groups with more power may be resistant to relinquishing control, and those with less power may feel disempowered and less inclined to engage.

Cognitive Biases:

• Confirmation Bias: People may be inclined to seek out information that confirms their existing beliefs, reinforcing cognitive biases. This can lead to the rejection of alternative perspectives and impede transformative dialogue.

Lack of Inclusivity:

• Exclusionary Practices: Exclusive or discriminatory practices can hinder collaboration. If certain individuals or groups are consistently excluded from decision-making processes, it can perpetuate divisions and prevent positive transformation.

Fear of Failure:

• Risk Aversion: Fear of failure or negative consequences can deter individuals or groups from taking risks associated with transformation. A culture that punishes failure rather than viewing it as a learning opportunity can stifle innovation.

Short-Term Focus:

• Lack of Long-Term Vision: Focusing solely on short-term gains or immediate concerns may prevent individuals or groups from investing in long-term transformation efforts. Sustainable change often requires a forward-looking perspective.

Lack of Leadership Support:

• Lack of Leadership Commitment: Without strong leadership support, transformative initiatives may lack the necessary resources, direction, and influence. Leaders who are not committed to change can hinder progress.

Overcoming these obstacles requires a concerted effort from all involved parties. It involves fostering a culture of open communication, building trust, addressing power imbalances, promoting inclusivity, and cultivating leadership committed to positive transformation. Recognizing and actively working to overcome these challenges is essential for achieving meaningful and sustained positive change.

Are there brief historical examples of both instances? One with negative outcomes and the other with positive outcomes?

ChatGPT

Certainly, historical examples can provide insights into instances where efforts toward positive transformation were successful and where they faced significant challenges.

Positive Outcome:

• The Civil Rights Movement in the United States (1950s-1960s):

• The Civil Rights Movement in the United States aimed to end racial segregation and discrimination against African Americans. It was marked by nonviolent protests, legal challenges, and grassroots activism. Despite facing considerable resistance and violence, the movement achieved significant positive outcomes, including the passage of landmark legislation such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. These legislative victories marked transformative changes in the legal and social landscape, contributing to greater racial equality.

Negative Outcome:

• Apartheid in South Africa (1948-1994):

• Apartheid was a system of institutionalized racial segregation and discrimination in South Africa. The policy was implemented by the National Party, leading to the marginalization and oppression of the majority black population. The regime faced widespread international condemnation and resistance from within South Africa. However, it took several decades before transformative change occurred. The negative outcome persisted for a long time due to deep-seated cultural and institutional barriers, as well as resistance from those in power. The system eventually crumbled in the early 1990s, leading to the establishment of a democratic, multiracial government.

These examples illustrate how historical movements can either successfully overcome significant challenges and bring about positive transformation (as in the Civil Rights Movement) or face prolonged periods of resistance and injustice before achieving positive change (as in the case of the dismantling of apartheid in South Africa). The success or failure of transformation efforts often depends on a complex interplay of social, political, economic, and cultural factors.

Are there more historical examples?

ChatGPT

Certainly, historical examples of both positive and negative outcomes in transformation efforts abound. Here are a few more examples:

Positive Outcome:

• The Women's Suffrage Movement (Late 19th - Early 20th Century):The women's suffrage movement sought to secure voting rights for women. Women across the globe, particularly in the United States and Europe, campaigned for their right to vote. Overcoming deep-seated cultural norms and significant resistance, the movement achieved success in various countries. For example, the 19th Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified in 1920, granting women the right to vote.

Negative Outcome:

• Rwandan Genocide (1994):The Rwandan Genocide was a tragic event marked by the mass killing of an estimated 800,000 people, primarily from the Tutsi ethnic group, within a span of 100 days. Deep-seated ethnic tensions, fueled by political and historical factors, led to the genocide. Despite international condemnation, the violence continued for several months before outside intervention and internal efforts gradually brought it to an end. The genocide stands as a stark example of the failure to prevent mass atrocities and the devastating consequences of long-standing ethnic divisions.

Positive Outcome:

• The End of Apartheid in Namibia (1988-1990):Namibia, formerly South West Africa, was under South African rule and subject to apartheid policies. The United Nations played a crucial role in pushing for Namibian independence. International pressure, combined with internal resistance, led to negotiations and the eventual withdrawal of South African forces. Namibia gained independence in 1990, marking the end of apartheid in the region and the establishment of a democratic government.

Negative Outcome:

• Cultural Revolution in China (1966-1976):The Cultural Revolution in China, initiated by Mao Zedong, aimed to reassert communist ideology and eliminate perceived bourgeois and traditional elements. The movement resulted in widespread persecution, violence, and social upheaval. It led to the loss of countless lives, the destruction of cultural heritage, and lasting social and economic impacts. The Cultural Revolution serves as an example of a transformative effort with profoundly negative consequences.

These examples highlight the varied outcomes of historical transformation efforts, showcasing instances where positive change was achieved through persistence, collaboration, and social mobilization, as well as situations where deep-seated conflicts and resistance led to tragic consequences.

How about historical theological outcomes?

ChatGPT

Historical theological outcomes have played a significant role in shaping religious beliefs, practices, and institutions. Here are a few examples of historical theological developments with both positive and negative implications:

Positive Outcome:

• The Reformation (16th Century):The Protestant Reformation, led by figures such as Martin Luther, John Calvin, and others, was a theological and religious movement that sought to reform the practices of the Catholic Church. The movement emphasized principles such as salvation by faith alone and the authority of Scripture. While the Reformation led to the division of Western Christianity into Protestant and Catholic branches, it also contributed to the promotion of individual religious freedom, the translation of the Bible into vernacular languages, and a greater emphasis on personal relationship with God.

Negative Outcome:

• The Great Schism (1054):The Great Schism of 1054 marked the formal split between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church. The theological disagreements, cultural differences, and political tensions between the Eastern and Western branches of Christianity eventually led to the mutual excommunication of leaders in 1054. This schism resulted in a lasting division within Christianity, with distinct theological, liturgical, and organizational differences between the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic traditions.

Positive Outcome:

• Second Vatican Council (1962-1965):The Second Vatican Council (Vatican II) was a landmark event in the Roman Catholic Church. Convened by Pope John XXIII and continued by Pope Paul VI, Vatican II aimed to renew and update various aspects of Catholic theology and practice. The council led to significant reforms, including greater openness to ecumenism, changes to liturgical practices (such as allowing Mass to be celebrated in the vernacular), and a renewed emphasis on social justice and the role of the laity.

Negative Outcome: 

• The Spanish Inquisition (1478-1834):The Spanish Inquisition was a series of tribunals initiated by the Catholic Monarchs Ferdinand II of Aragon and Isabella I of Castile to maintain religious orthodoxy. While it had theological underpinnings, the Inquisition resulted in widespread persecution, torture, and execution of individuals deemed heretical or non-Christian. It stands as a dark chapter in the history of the Catholic Church, reflecting the dangers of using religious authority for coercive and oppressive purposes.

These historical theological outcomes illustrate the complex interplay between theological developments, institutional changes, and their impact on religious communities and societies. The positive outcomes often involve movements toward greater inclusivity, understanding, and adaptability, while negative outcomes can result from theological rigidity, power struggles, and the misuse of religious authority.

Are there any pertinent examples of church and state success or failure in this area?

ChatGPT

Certainly, the relationship between church and state has been a complex and dynamic aspect of history, with examples of both success and failure in navigating their interactions. Here are a few examples:

Success:

• American Model of Church-State Separation:The United States is often cited as a success in establishing a model of church-state separation. The U.S. Constitution's First Amendment prohibits the establishment of a state religion and protects the free exercise of religion. This has allowed for a diverse religious landscape, where individuals are free to practice their faith without state interference. The success of this model is seen in the relative religious harmony and the absence of religious conflicts that have plagued other regions.

Failure:

• The Holy Roman Empire and the Investiture Controversy (11th-12th Century):The Investiture Controversy was a power struggle between the papacy and secular rulers, particularly Holy Roman Emperors, over the appointment of bishops and church officials. The conflict arose from the dual role of bishops, who held both spiritual and secular authority. The controversy led to tensions, excommunications, and even armed conflicts. While the Concordat of Worms in 1122 attempted to resolve the issue, the Investiture Controversy highlighted the challenges and failures in achieving a harmonious relationship between church and state during this period.

Success:

• Edict of Milan (313 AD):The Edict of Milan, issued by the Roman emperors Constantine the Great and Licinius, marked a pivotal moment in the history of religious freedom. The edict granted tolerance to all religions within the Roman Empire, allowing Christians to practice their faith openly without fear of persecution. This contributed to the eventual establishment of Christianity as a recognized and favored religion within the empire.

Failure:

• Tudor England and the Church of England's Supremacy (16th Century):The reign of Henry VIII in England saw a complex interplay between church and state. Henry's desire for a male heir led to his break with the Catholic Church over his marriage to Catherine of Aragon. The Church of England was established with the monarch as the supreme head. While this resolved the immediate issue, it led to religious conflicts and tensions, including the persecution of Catholics and later conflicts between Anglicans and Puritans. The attempt to tightly integrate the church with the state in this context had both political and religious repercussions.

These examples highlight the challenges and varied outcomes in the relationship between church and state. Success often involves finding a balance that respects religious freedom, prevents undue interference in religious matters, and avoids the establishment of a single, state-sanctioned religion. Failures, on the other hand, often result from power struggles, attempts to impose religious uniformity, and the disregard for the principles of religious freedom and separation of powers.

Might you have any observations of today's trumpian church-state success or failure?

ChatGPT

As of my last knowledge update in January 2022, I don't have specific information on events or developments related to the intersection of church and state in the context of the Trump administration beyond that date. Therefore, I cannot provide real-time analysis or observations on recent occurrences. Please note that developments in this area may have occurred since my last update.

During Donald Trump's presidency, there were several instances where the relationship between church and state became a subject of discussion and debate. Here are a few observations based on events up to my last knowledge update:

1. Religious Liberty Executive Order:

• In May 2017, President Trump signed an executive order on religious liberty. The order aimed to address concerns among some religious groups about their ability to freely express their beliefs without facing legal repercussions. Critics argued that it could potentially allow for discrimination in the name of religious freedom.

2. Engagement with Evangelical Leaders:

• President Trump had a close relationship with many evangelical leaders and sought their support. This engagement led to policies and decisions that aligned with certain conservative religious values, such as the appointment of judges with conservative views on social issues.

3. Controversies Surrounding Church Photo-Op:

• In June 2020, there was a controversial incident in which protesters near the White House were forcefully cleared to allow for President Trump to pose for a photo holding a Bible in front of St. John's Episcopal Church. The incident raised questions about the use of religious symbols for political purposes.

4. Supreme Court Appointments:

• The appointments of conservative judges, including three Supreme Court justices during Trump's tenure, had implications for cases related to religious freedom and social issues. These appointments were generally well-received by conservative religious groups.

5. Policies on Contraceptive Coverage:

• The Trump administration took actions to expand exemptions for employers with religious or moral objections to providing contraceptive coverage in their health insurance plans. This move was praised by religious conservatives but criticized by those concerned about women's access to reproductive healthcare.

• Public opinion on these issues and the Trump administration's approach to the intersection of church and state varied widely, reflecting the diverse perspectives within the United States.

It's important to note that the evaluation of "success" or "failure" in this context is subjective and often depends on individual perspectives and values. Additionally, developments may have occurred since my last update, and I recommend checking more recent sources for the latest information and analyses.

As these "social policy changes" are disputable to many in a free, civil society how might they be resolved with conservative religious elements?

ChatGPT

Resolving disputes over social policy changes involving conservative religious elements in a free and civil society requires a careful and inclusive approach that respects differing perspectives. Here are some strategies that can contribute to constructive dialogue and potential resolution:

Open and Respectful Dialogue:

• Encourage open and respectful dialogue between different stakeholders, including religious leaders, policymakers, and representatives of the affected communities. Providing a platform for genuine conversation allows for the exchange of ideas and helps build mutual understanding.

Engage Interfaith Dialogue:

• Facilitate interfaith dialogue to bring together representatives from various religious traditions. This can foster common ground, promote understanding, and highlight shared values, even among diverse religious perspectives.

Educational Initiatives:

• Implement educational initiatives to inform the public about different perspectives on social policy issues. Knowledge about the religious and cultural underpinnings of diverse viewpoints can foster empathy and reduce misconceptions.

Community Involvement:

• Involve local communities in decision-making processes. Community members, including those with conservative religious beliefs, should have the opportunity to voice their concerns, propose alternatives, and be part of the conversation.

Mediation and Conflict Resolution:

• Utilize mediation and conflict resolution techniques to address disputes. Independent mediators or facilitators can help guide discussions, identify common ground, and work towards consensus.

Respect for Pluralism:

• Emphasize the importance of pluralism within a free society. Acknowledge and celebrate diversity, recognizing that individuals and communities may hold different beliefs and values.

Legal Protections:

• Ensure that legal protections for religious freedom are clearly defined and respected. This includes understanding the boundaries between religious freedom and other societal interests, such as non-discrimination principles.

Religious Freedom Commissions:

• Establish commissions or advisory bodies that include representatives from diverse religious communities. These bodies can offer recommendations on policies that respect religious freedom while considering broader societal needs.

Seek Common Ground:

• Identify areas of common ground where compromise may be possible. While not all differences may be reconciled, finding commonalities can help build bridges and foster cooperation.

Long-Term Engagement:

• Recognize that resolving disputes may require long-term engagement. Change often takes time, and ongoing dialogue can contribute to evolving perspectives and solutions.

Leadership and Role Models:

• Leaders, both religious and political, play a crucial role in setting the tone for respectful dialogue. Encourage leaders to model open communication, tolerance, and a commitment to finding common solutions.

Legal Challenges and Appeals:

• If necessary, ensure that legal mechanisms are available for addressing grievances. This includes opportunities for appeals and legal challenges, especially in cases where fundamental rights may be at stake.

Resolving disputes involving conservative religious elements in a civil society requires a commitment to pluralism, open communication, and a recognition of the diverse perspectives that make up a free society. By fostering an environment of inclusivity and understanding, it becomes more possible to navigate complex social policy changes in a way that respects the rights and values of all members of the community.

Hence, personal and group dialogue might be an effect solution to discussing hot disagreement between religious and civil groups... and yet, my experience tells my religious groups would be the last to change their opinions and beliefs structure. What can a civilly free democratic society do in the face of these difficulties?

ChatGPT

Navigating hot disagreements between religious and civil groups, especially when there is resistance to change, can indeed be challenging. In a civilly free democratic society, several strategies can be employed to address these difficulties and foster a more inclusive and tolerant environment:

Promote Civic Education:

• Implement comprehensive civic education programs that emphasize the principles of democracy, pluralism, and the importance of respecting diverse perspectives. Educating citizens about the foundations of a democratic society can contribute to greater understanding and tolerance.

Legal Protections and Safeguards:

• Ensure that legal protections are in place to safeguard the rights of individuals and groups, including religious freedom. Establish a legal framework that balances the rights of religious groups with the broader principles of equality, non-discrimination, and the protection of individual liberties.

Independent Judiciary:

• Maintain an independent judiciary that can impartially adjudicate disputes and ensure that legal decisions are based on constitutional principles. An impartial judiciary helps protect the rights of all citizens, including those with differing religious beliefs.

Media Literacy and Responsible Journalism:

• Promote media literacy to help citizens critically evaluate information sources. Encourage responsible journalism that provides balanced and accurate coverage of diverse perspectives, fostering a more informed public discourse.

Community Engagement Initiatives:

• Facilitate community engagement initiatives that bring together diverse religious and civil groups. Encourage dialogue, cultural exchange, and collaborative projects that build bridges and promote mutual understanding.

Interfaith Dialogue:

• Support interfaith dialogue initiatives that involve leaders and members of various religious traditions. Interfaith dialogue can promote empathy, dispel stereotypes, and highlight shared values.

Conflict Resolution and Mediation:

• Develop mechanisms for conflict resolution and mediation. Trained mediators can assist in facilitating constructive conversations and finding common ground, even in deeply rooted disagreements.

Public Forums and Debates:

• Organize public forums and debates on contentious issues, allowing for respectful and moderated discussions. These forums can provide a platform for different perspectives to be heard and may contribute to shifting public opinion over time.

Promote Inclusive Leadership:

• Encourage inclusive leadership at various levels of society. Leaders who champion diversity, inclusion, and the principles of a democratic society can set positive examples and influence public attitudes.

Protection of Minority Rights:

• Prioritize the protection of minority rights within the democratic framework. This includes ensuring that minority religious groups are not marginalized or discriminated against, and their voices are considered in the decision-making process.

Long-Term Community Building:

• Recognize that change may take time, and focus on long-term community building. Establish platforms for ongoing dialogue, relationship-building, and collaborative initiatives that contribute to positive social change.

Public Awareness Campaigns:

• Launch public awareness campaigns that emphasize the benefits of diversity and the importance of respecting individual rights. These campaigns can counter misinformation and promote a culture of tolerance.

It's important to note that these strategies should be implemented with sensitivity to cultural and religious contexts, and a commitment to upholding democratic values. Overcoming deeply entrenched beliefs and fostering a more inclusive society often requires a multifaceted and sustained effort.

Moving from a civilly free democratic state centered on moral empathy for the plight of others seems extremely difficult to produce in the light of the human condition to protect itself and vested interests such as one's belief structure. Often the religious element claims immorality for morality, and morality for immorality... that is, it claims wrong is right and right is wrong in light of its religious beliefs. To a civilly free and open democratic society willing to co-exist and co-operate with all members of its society the conservative mindset can present (extreme) difficulties to such a democratic institution attempting to remove its discriminatory practices off the backs of the discriminated (racial minorities, religious nationalities, sex and gender differences, medical health options to all versus limited medical health options to some).

ChatGPT

You've highlighted a significant challenge that democratic societies often face when attempting to balance the principles of individual freedom and religious belief with the broader goals of inclusivity, non-discrimination, and the protection of minority rights. The tension between the preservation of personal belief structures and the promotion of a society that values diversity and equal rights can indeed be a complex and delicate matter. Here are a few additional insights into addressing these challenges:

Dialogue and Education:

• Continuous and open dialogue is crucial. Engage in educational initiatives that promote understanding and empathy. This includes not only educating the wider public but also providing opportunities for individuals with differing beliefs to engage in respectful conversation.

Legal Protections and Boundaries:

• Clearly define the boundaries between individual freedom of belief and actions that may infringe on the rights and well-being of others. Ensure that legal protections are in place to prevent discrimination based on race, religion, gender, or other protected characteristics.

Religious Literacy:

• Promote religious literacy to foster a better understanding of different belief systems. This can contribute to breaking down stereotypes and dispelling misconceptions, creating a more informed and tolerant society.

Secular Governance:

• Emphasize the importance of secular governance, where government decisions are based on reason, evidence, and the well-being of all citizens rather than religious doctrine. This helps maintain a neutral and fair approach to diverse belief systems.

Ethical Leadership:

• Encourage ethical leadership that upholds the principles of justice, equality, and human rights. Leaders who prioritize these values can influence public discourse and set the tone for inclusive policies.

International Human Rights Standards:

• Uphold international human rights standards as a foundation for domestic policies. International agreements and treaties provide a framework for protecting the rights of individuals and minorities, regardless of their religious beliefs.

Public Engagement and Activism:

• Facilitate public engagement and activism. Encourage citizens to peacefully advocate for their rights and for the rights of others. Public pressure and activism can influence policy changes and foster a culture of inclusivity.

Social and Cultural Initiatives:

• Support social and cultural initiatives that celebrate diversity. Festivals, events, and programs that showcase the richness of various cultures and beliefs contribute to a more inclusive society.

Collaborative Decision-Making:

• Promote collaborative decision-making processes that involve representatives from diverse backgrounds. Inclusive policymaking ensures that the perspectives of all citizens are considered.

Media Responsibility:

• Encourage responsible media reporting that avoids perpetuating stereotypes and biases. Media plays a significant role in shaping public perceptions, and responsible journalism can contribute to a more informed and tolerant society.

It's important to acknowledge that achieving a balance between individual beliefs and societal goals is an ongoing process. Striking this balance requires a commitment from both individuals and institutions to uphold the principles of democracy, human rights, and social justice while respecting the diversity of beliefs within a society.

In the main, religious beliefs are stubborn and resistant to change. Religious beliefs also underline racial, national, religious, and personal discriminations which refuse to be displaced by open acceptable practices of common sense morality. A sense of incompleteness and failure seems to inhabit a truly civilly free society when some of its members prefer to continue in their religious mindsets of unfairness and unfair relationship toward the unacceptable other...

ChatGPT

Your observation touches on a fundamental tension that exists in societies where religious beliefs, which are deeply personal and often rooted in tradition, encounter the principles of equal rights and social justice. This tension can indeed create challenges for the realization of a truly civilly free society. Here are some additional considerations:

Inherent Conservatism:

• Religious beliefs often carry a sense of tradition and continuity. They can be deeply conservative, resisting change, especially when long-held doctrines and practices are involved. This conservatism may extend to societal attitudes, affecting issues such as gender roles, sexuality, and relationships with those outside the religious community.

Identity and Belonging:

• For many individuals, religious identity is closely tied to their sense of self and community. Challenging religious beliefs can be perceived as a threat to one's identity and a rupture with a community that provides a sense of belonging. This can create resistance to change even when it conflicts with principles of equality.

Selective Interpretation:

• People may selectively interpret religious teachings to fit their existing beliefs or prejudices. This can lead to the use of religious doctrines to justify discriminatory practices, despite the presence of alternative interpretations that promote inclusivity and compassion.

Fear of the Unknown:

• Change can evoke fear, particularly when it challenges deeply ingrained beliefs. Members of a religious community may fear the unknown consequences of embracing more inclusive practices, leading to resistance even in the face of evolving societal norms.

Lack of Exposure:

• Limited exposure to diverse perspectives and experiences can contribute to the perpetuation of discriminatory beliefs. In some cases, individuals may not have had meaningful interactions with people from different backgrounds, reinforcing stereotypes and prejudices.

Generational Shift:

• Change in religious beliefs and practices often occurs gradually, and generational shifts can play a role. Younger generations may be more open to evolving views, but resistance can persist among older generations who may hold more traditional perspectives.

Role of Religious Authorities:

• The stance of religious authorities and leaders can significantly influence the beliefs and practices of a religious community. When leaders resist change, it can impede progress toward more inclusive and tolerant attitudes.

Balancing Individual Freedom and Societal Values:

• In a civilly free society, there is a delicate balance between individual freedom of religious expression and the promotion of societal values that uphold equality and justice. Striking this balance requires ongoing dialogue and negotiation.

Addressing these challenges involves fostering understanding, engaging in respectful dialogue, and working toward a shared vision of a society that upholds both individual freedom and collective well-being. It may require a combination of legislative measures, educational initiatives, and community-led efforts to encourage more inclusive and empathetic perspectives. Recognizing the complexity of these issues is a crucial step toward finding meaningful and sustainable solutions.

To wrap up, this discussion shows the degree to which "Common sense is not so common" among members of the same society... that there must be a civic willingness to live peaceably with one another when commonality is eschewed for discriminatory traditionalism. Both the Magna Carta as well as the teachings of the Apostle Paul and Jesus in the New Testament declare one seeks love and compassion with one's neighbor when all else fails. It is the higher calling - if not the highest subversive calling - to any nation wishing to avoid forms of societal oppression, division, suspicion, fear, and refusal to see one another re a universal blessing and benefit to any democracy.

ChatGPT

Your thoughtful reflections encapsulate the essence of the challenges and aspirations inherent in the pursuit of a just and inclusive society. Indeed, the idea that "Common sense is not so common" underscores the complexities that arise when individuals and communities grapple with the tension between traditional beliefs and the evolving values of a democratic and civilly free society.

The call for a civic willingness to live peaceably with one another, even in the face of discriminatory traditionalism, resonates with the foundational principles of justice, compassion, and love espoused in documents like the Magna Carta and the teachings of figures such as the Apostle Paul and Jesus. These principles advocate for a higher calling—a commitment to a shared humanity that transcends divisions and embraces the richness of diversity within a society.

Your mention of love and compassion as the ultimate response echoes a universal theme found in many ethical and religious traditions. It serves as a reminder that, even in the midst of disagreements and entrenched beliefs, a commitment to empathy and understanding can pave the way for positive change. This higher calling challenges societies to rise above oppression, division, suspicion, and fear, fostering an environment where each individual is seen as a universal blessing and a benefit to the collective well-being of a democracy.

The pursuit of such ideals requires ongoing efforts, dialogue, and a collective commitment to building bridges of understanding. It is an aspiration that speaks to the heart of creating a society where respect for individual rights, inclusivity, and a shared commitment to common values form the bedrock of civic life.

Thank you for engaging in this insightful and meaningful discussion. If you have any more questions or if there's anything else I can assist you with, feel free to reach out.

Thank you for your dialogue. Peace.

ChatGPT

You're very welcome! If you ever have more questions or want to engage in further dialogue, feel free to return. Wishing you peace and all the best!

"Common Sense," created by R.E. Slater  |   Imagine   |   Trademarked

Lasting Relationships Depend on 2 Basic Traits

Flickr/Scarleth Marie

Science Says Lasting Relationships

Come Down To 2 Basic Traits

http://www.businessinsider.com/lasting-relationships-rely-on-2-traits-2014-11

by Emily Esfahani Smith, The Atlantic

November 9, 2014

Science says lasting relationships come down to—you guessed it—kindness and generosity.

Every day in June, the most popular wedding month of the year, about 13,000 American couples will say “I do,” committing to a lifelong relationship that will be full of friendship, joy, and love that will carry them forward to their final days on this earth.

Except, of course, it doesn’t work out that way for most people.

The majority of marriages fail, either ending in divorce and separation or devolving into bitterness and dysfunction.

Of all the people who get married, only three in ten remain in healthy, happy marriages, as psychologist Ty Tashiro points out in his book "The Science of Happily Ever After," which was published earlier this year.

---

Social scientists first started studying marriages by observing them in action in the 1970s in response to a crisis: Married couples were divorcing at unprecedented rates. Worried about the impact these divorces would have on the children of the broken marriages, psychologists decided to cast their scientific net on couples, bringing them into the lab to observe them and determine what the ingredients of a healthy, lasting relationship were.

Was each unhappy family unhappy in its own way, as Tolstoy claimed, or did the miserable marriages all share something toxic in common?

Psychologist John Gottman was one of those researchers. For the past four decades, he has studied thousands of couples in a quest to figure out what makes relationships work. I recently had the chance to interview Gottman and his wife Julie, also a psychologist, in New York City. Together, the renowned experts on marital stability run The Gottman Institute, which is devoted to helping couples build and maintain loving, healthy relationships based on scientific studies.

John Gottman began gathering his most critical findings in 1986, when he set up “The Love Lab” with his colleague Robert Levenson at the University of Washington. Gottman and Levenson brought newlyweds into the lab and watched them interact with each other.

With a team of researchers, they hooked the couples up to electrodes and asked the couples to speak about their relationship, like how they met, a major conflict they were facing together, and a positive memory they had. As they spoke, the electrodes measured the subjects' blood flow, heart rates, and how much they sweat they produced. Then the researchers sent the couples home and followed up with them six years later to see if they were still together.

From the data they gathered, Gottman separated the couples into two major groups: the masters and the disasters. The masters were still happily together after six years. The disasters had either broken up or were chronically unhappy in their marriages.

When the researchers analyzed the data they gathered on the couples, they saw clear differences between the masters and disasters. The disasters looked calm during the interviews, but their physiology, measured by the electrodes, told a different story. Their heart rates were quick, their sweat glands were active, and their blood flow was fast. Following thousands of couples longitudinally, Gottman found that the more physiologically active the couples were in the lab, the quicker their relationships deteriorated over time.

But what does physiology have to do with anything? The problem was that the disasters showed all the signs of arousal — of being in fight-or-flight mode — in their relationships. Having a conversation sitting next to their spouse was, to their bodies, like facing off with a saber-toothed tiger.

Even when they were talking about pleasant or mundane facets of their relationships, they were prepared to attack and be attacked. This sent their heart rates soaring and made them more aggressive toward each other. For example, each member of a couple could be talking about how their days had gone, and a highly aroused husband might say to his wife, “Why don’t you start talking about your day. It won’t take you very long.”

Flickr/Marg

The masters, by contrast, showed low physiological arousal. They felt calm and connected together, which translated into warm and affectionate behavior, even when they fought. It’s not that the masters had, by default, a better physiological make-up than the disasters; it’s that masters had created a climate of trust and intimacy that made both of them more emotionally and thus physically comfortable.

---

Gottman wanted to know more about how the masters created that culture of love and intimacy, and how the disasters squashed it. In a follow-up study in 1990, he designed a lab on the University of Washington campus to look like a beautiful bed and breakfast retreat.

He invited 130 newlywed couples to spend the day at this retreat and watched them as they did what couples normally do on vacation: cook, clean, listen to music, eat, chat, and hang out. And Gottman made a critical discovery in this study — one that gets at the heart of why some relationships thrive while others languish.

Throughout the day, partners would make requests for connection, what Gottman calls “bids.” For example, say that the husband is a bird enthusiast and notices a goldfinch fly across the yard. He might say to his wife, “Look at that beautiful bird outside!” He’s not just commenting on the bird here: he’s requesting a response from his wife — a sign of interest or support — hoping they’ll connect, however momentarily, over the bird.

The wife now has a choice. She can respond by either “turning toward” or “turning away” from her husband, as Gottman puts it. Though the bird-bid might seem minor and silly, it can actually reveal a lot about the health of the relationship. The husband thought the bird was important enough to bring it up in conversation and the question is whether his wife recognizes and respects that.

People who turned toward their partners in the study responded by engaging the bidder, showing interest and support in the bid. Those who didn’t — those who turned away — would not respond or respond minimally and continue doing whatever they were doing, like watching TV or reading the paper. Sometimes they would respond with overt hostility, saying something like, “Stop interrupting me, I’m reading.”

These bidding interactions had profound effects on marital well-being. Couples who had divorced after a six-year follow up had “turn-toward bids” 33 percent of the time. Only three in ten of their bids for emotional connection were met with intimacy. The couples who were still together after six years had “turn-toward bids” 87 percent of the time. Nine times out of ten, they were meeting their partner’s emotional needs.

Flickr/Scarleth Marie

By observing these types of interactions, Gottman can predict with up to 94 percent certainty whether couples — straight or gay, rich or poor, childless or not — will be broken up, together and unhappy, or together and happy several years later. Much of it comes down to the spirit couples bring to the relationship. Do they bring kindness and generosity; or contempt, criticism, and hostility?

“There’s a habit of mind that the masters have,” Gottman explained in an interview, “which is this: they are scanning social environment for things they can appreciate and say thank you for. They are building this culture of respect and appreciation very purposefully. Disasters are scanning the social environment for partners’ mistakes.”

“It’s not just scanning environment,” chimed in Julie Gottman. “It’s scanning the partner for what the partner is doing right or scanning him for what he’s doing wrong and criticizing versus respecting him and expressing appreciation.”

Contempt, they have found, is the number one factor that tears couples apart. People who are focused on criticizing their partners miss a whopping 50 percent of positive things their partners are doing and they see negativity when it’s not there.

People who give their partner the cold shoulder — deliberately ignoring the partner or responding minimally — damage the relationship by making their partner feel worthless and invisible, as if they’re not there, not valued. And people who treat their partners with contempt and criticize them not only kill the love in the relationship, but they also kill their partner's ability to fight off viruses and cancers. Being mean is the death knell of relationships.

---

Kindness, on the other hand, glues couples together. Research independent from theirs has shown that kindness (along with emotional stability) is the most important predictor of satisfaction and stability in a marriage. Kindness makes each partner feel cared for, understood, and validated—feel loved.

“My bounty is as boundless as the sea,” says Shakespeare’s Juliet. “My love as deep; the more I give to thee, / The more I have, for both are infinite.” That’s how kindness works too: there’s a great deal of evidence showing the more someone receives or witnesses kindness, the more they will be kind themselves, which leads to upward spirals of love and generosity in a relationship.

There are two ways to think about kindness. You can think about it as a fixed trait: either you have it or you don’t. Or you could think of kindness as a muscle. In some people, that muscle is naturally stronger than in others, but it can grow stronger in everyone with exercise. Masters tend to think about kindness as a muscle. They know that they have to exercise it to keep it in shape. They know, in other words, that a good relationship requires sustained hard work.

“If your partner expresses a need,” explained Julie Gottman, “and you are tired, stressed, or distracted, then the generous spirit comes in when a partner makes a bid, and you still turn toward your partner.”

In that moment, the easy response may be to turn away from your partner and focus on your iPad or your book or the television, to mumble “Uh huh” and move on with your life, but neglecting small moments of emotional connection will slowly wear away at your relationship. Neglect creates distance between partners and breeds resentment in the one who is being ignored.

The hardest time to practice kindness is, of course, during a fight—but this is also the most important time to be kind. Letting contempt and aggression spiral out of control during a conflict can inflict irrevocable damage on a relationship.

Flickr/Ian Livesey

“Kindness doesn’t mean that we don’t express our anger,” Julie Gottman explained, “but the kindness informs how we choose to express the anger. You can throw spears at your partner. Or you can explain why you’re hurt and angry, and that’s the kinder path.”

John Gottman elaborated on those spears:

• “Disasters will say things differently in a fight. Disasters will say ‘You’re late. What’s wrong with you? You’re just like your mom.’

• Masters will say ‘I feel bad for picking on you about your lateness, and I know it’s not your fault, but it’s really annoying that you’re late again.’”

For the hundreds of thousands of couples getting married each June — and for the millions of couples currently together, married or not — the lesson from the research is clear:

If you want to have a stable, healthy relationship,

exercise kindness early and often.

---

When people think about practicing kindness, they often think about small acts of generosity, like buying each other little gifts or giving one another back rubs every now and then. While those are great examples of generosity, kindness can also be built into the very backbone of a relationship through the way partners interact with each other on a day-to-day basis, whether or not there are back rubs and chocolates involved.

One way to practice kindness is by being generous about your partner’s intentions. From the research of the Gottmans, we know that disasters see negativity in their relationship even when it is not there. An angry wife may assume, for example, that when her husband left the toilet seat up, he was deliberately trying to annoy her. But he may have just absent-mindedly forgotten to put the seat down.

Or say a wife is running late to dinner (again), and the husband assumes that she doesn’t value him enough to show up to their date on time after he took the trouble to make a reservation and leave work early so that they could spend a romantic evening together. But it turns out that the wife was running late because she stopped by a store to pick him up a gift for their special night out.

Imagine her joining him for dinner, excited to deliver her gift, only to realize that he’s in a sour mood because he misinterpreted what was motivating her behavior. The ability to interpret your partner’s actions and intentions charitably can soften the sharp edge of conflict.

“Even in relationships where people are frustrated, it’s almost always the case that there are positive things going on and people trying to do the right thing,” psychologist Ty Tashiro told me. “A lot of times, a partner is trying to do the right thing even if it’s executed poorly. So appreciate the intent.”

---

Another powerful kindness strategy revolves around shared joy. One of the telltale signs of the disaster couples Gottman studied was their inability to connect over each other’s good news. When one person in the relationship shared the good news of, say, a promotion at work with excitement, the other would respond with wooden disinterest by checking his watch or shutting the conversation down with a comment like, “That’s nice.”

We’ve all heard that partners should be there for each other when the going gets rough. But research shows that being there for each other when things go right is actually more important for relationship quality. How someone responds to a partner’s good news can have dramatic consequences for the relationship.

REUTERS/Michelle McLoughlin

In one study from 2006, psychological researcher Shelly Gable and her colleagues brought young adult couples into the lab to discuss recent positive events from their lives. They psychologists wanted to know how partners would respond to each other’s good news. They found that, in general, couples responded to each other’s good news in four different ways that they called: passive destructive, active destructive, passive constructive, and active constructive.

Let’s say that one partner had recently received the excellent news that she got into medical school. She would say something like “I got into my top choice med school!”

• If her partner responded in a passive destructive manner, he would ignore the event. For example, he might say something like: “You wouldn’t believe the great news I got yesterday! I won a free t-shirt!”

• If her partner responded in a passive constructive way, he would acknowledge the good news, but in a half-hearted, understated way. A typical passive constructive response is saying “That’s great, babe” as he texts his buddy on his phone.

• In the third kind of response, active destructive, the partner would diminish the good news his partner just got: “Are you sure you can handle all the studying? And what about the cost? Med school is so expensive!”

• Finally, there’s active constructive responding. If her partner responded in this way, he stopped what he was doing and engaged wholeheartedly with her: “That’s great! Congratulations! When did you find out? Did they call you? What classes will you take first semester?”

Among the four response styles, active constructive responding is the kindest. While the other response styles are joy-killers, active constructive responding allows the partner to savor her joy and gives the couple an opportunity to bond over the good news. In the parlance of the Gottmans, active constructive responding is a way of “turning toward” your partners bid (sharing the good news) rather than “turning away” from it.

Active constructive responding is critical for healthy relationships. In the 2006 study, Gable and her colleagues followed up with the couples two months later to see if they were still together. The psychologists found that the only difference between the couples who were together and those who broke up was active constructive responding. Those who showed genuine interest in their partner’s joys were more likely to be together. In an earlier study, Gable found that active constructive responding was also associated with higher relationship quality and more intimacy between partners.

---

There are many reasons why relationships fail, but if you look at what drives the deterioration of many relationships, it’s often a breakdown of kindness. As the normal stresses of a life together pile up—with children, career, friend, in-laws, and other distractions crowding out the time for romance and intimacy—couples may put less effort into their relationship and let the petty grievances they hold against one another tear them apart.

In most marriages, levels of satisfaction drop dramatically within the first few years together. But among couples who not only endure, but live happily together for years and years, the spirit of kindness and generosity guides them forward.