September 5, 2017

Phil Beaver works to establish opinion when the-objective-truth has not been discovered. He seeks to refine his opinion by listening when people share experiences and observations. The comment box below invites readers to write.

Note 1:  I often dash words in phrases in order to express and preserve an idea. For example, frank-objectivity represents the idea of candidly expressing the-objective-truth despite possible error. In other words, a person expresses his “belief,” knowing he or she could be in error. People may collaboratively approach the-objective-truth.
 
 Note 2: It is important to note "civic" refers to citizens who collaborate for the people more than for the city.
 
A personal paraphrase of the preamble by & for Phil Beaver:  Willing people in our state routinely, voluntarily collaborate for comprehensive safety and security: continuity (for self, children, grandchildren & beyond), integrity (both fidelity and wholeness),  justice (freedom-from oppression), defense (prevent or constrain harm), prosperity (acquire the liberty-to pursue choices), privacy (responsibly discover & pursue personal goals), lawfulness (obey the law and reform injustices); and to preserve and cultivate the rule of law for the USA’s service to the people in their states.
 
Composing their own paraphrase, citizens may consider the actual preamble and perceive whether they are willing or dissident toward the preamble.  

Our Views (theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_22961c4e-8dc5-11e7-940b-5377701ed753.html)

The irresponsible press, often The Advocate, uses phrases and words that bemuse the people who have vested interest in the-objective-truth --- everyone who wants civic justice. The people of Louisiana need a free and responsible press.

For example, “taxpayer” shields activities against the people. It pretends that tax recipients are benefitting from the taxpayers. In other words, the desired redistribution is working.

This point is at the heart of comments reported in theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/article_7f98b4c6-187a-11e7-a8bb-c76b128ed9dd.html. "This is definitely a human issue, not a race issue as we are also African Americans and we were taken advantage of by an African American."

Jackson’s activity may be illegal. If so, she should face the law. Southern University’s obfuscation may be illegal. If so, Southern should face the law. The Council on Aging’s conduct may be illegal. If so, they should face the law.

When words are used to obfuscate the facts, the people of Louisiana are hurt. “. . . a university more interested in protecting one of its own than answering its public obligation to taxpayers,” depicts the conflict as the people versus taxpayers. It is a false idea. The people are hurt by the stonewalling, and The Advocate contributes to the injustice by not reporting the facts: Illegal activity hurts the people of Louisiana.

Today’s thought, G.E. Dean (Matthew 4:17, CJB)

“From that time on, Yeshua began proclaiming, “Turn from your sins to God, for the Kingdom of Heaven is near!”

Dean says “Following Jesus means that we turn away from sin.”

I often equivocate “sin” as “error.” This debate by Dean against Matthew inspired me to see “sin” differently. Matthew seems to imply that “sin” is rejection of God, which a person should not tolerate near Heaven; maybe that’s near death. Dean equates Jesus to God, but is not specific about “following Jesus.”

When I make a mistake, I work hard to admit it and avoid repetition. I also work to understand the-objective-truth and thereby avoid new error. However, I cannot imagine Phil Beaver without error. If Dean has arrived, more power to him, but I doubt it is so.

What is The Advocate’s business plan: How much longer do they expect me to support the moral outrage of promoting Biblical phantasms? Maybe move it to the comic-strips or a “faith and values” section, but get it off the civic opinion page.

Other forums 

libertylawsite.org/2017/09/05/the-fusion-of-the-personal-the-political-and-the-scholarly/

To argue for the right, Weiner extols Willmoore Kendall, who seems to argue for the Word, as in the Bible. Kendall exposes himself to the error he, I think erroneously, claims Socrates made: extolling personal revelation rather than the-objective-truth. In other words, claiming to have the god’s authority merely because the existence of the god has not been disproved.

Quoting Kendall, “The Liberal proclaims Truth to be his highest value. Press him, however, about his commitment to Truth, and you will find that it is a commitment not to Truth as, say, Milton would have understood that term, but rather to Truth as a shorthand expression for what the Liberal supposes to be the process by which Truth is arrived at and to a certain view of the history of that process. The moment never comes, according to the Liberal, when man can pause in his search for Truth and say, with any confidence: “This truth I know to be valid, and beyond possible revision in the light of the new discoveries of tomorrow or the day after.”

The right is in the same error as the left. Scholars take for granted such nonsense as capitalizing “Truth” and then claiming it is subject to right opinion versus left opinion and that one has the higher ground based on a personal revelation --- whether pre-historical, ancient or modern. Scholars pretend that "natural law" is the weaker alternative to revelation. They avoid the-objective-truth, most of which is undiscovered but some is understood. They claim to be correct and that voices in opposition are dissidents.

I think Socrates died to uphold the rule of law even when law-enforcement errs. Further, I think that when he spoke of the god, he was citing the good, but using the language of his accuser, Meletus, as well as the court of judgement.

Kendall asserts that Athen’s civilization was a way of life --- a closed question. He says a civilization facing a radical has three options: silence the radical, change the morality, or “tolerate” the radical. Using devices well established by scholars, Kendall ignores the fourth option: collaborating for civic morality based on the-objective-truth rather than conflicting for dominant opinion by which to establish civility, whether as arbitrary law or social manners. “Civic” refers to people who collaborate mutual, comprehensive safety and security during every decade of their lives.

By agreeing to collaborate using the-objective-truth, the right and the left can establish comprehensive safety and security, or civic morality, but which dissidents who cause actual harm may be constrained by the rule of law. These principles are tacitly stated in the purpose and goals of the preamble to the constitution for the USA, established on June 21, 1788.

  

Phil Beaver does not “know” the-indisputable-facts. He trusts and is committed to the-objective-truth of which most is undiscovered and some is understood. He is agent for A Civic People of the United States, a Louisiana, education non-profit corporation. See online at promotethepreamble.blogspot.com.