Phil Beaver
seeks to collaborate on the-objective-truth, which can only be discovered. The
comment box below invites readers to write.
"Civic"
refers to citizens who collaborate for individual
happiness with civic integrity more than for the city, state, nation, or
society.
Consider writing a
personal paraphrase of the preamble, which offers fellow citizens mutual
equality: For discussion, I convert the
preamble’s predicate phrases to nouns and paraphrase it for my proposal as
follows: “We willing citizens of the United States collaborate for civic,
civil, and legal self-discipline to provide integrity, justice, goodwill,
defense, prosperity, liberty, for ourselves and for the nation’s grandchildren
and beyond and by this amendable constitution authorize and limit the U.S.’s
service to the people in their states.” I want to collaborate with the other
citizens on this paraphrase and theirs. I would preserve the original, 1787,
text, unless it is amended by the people.
It seems no
one has challenged whether or not the preamble is a legal statement. The fact
that it changed this independent country from a confederation of states to a
union of states deliberately managed by disciplined fellow citizens convinces
me the preamble is legal. Equality in opportunity and outcome is shared by the
people who collaborate for human justice.
Every citizen
has equal opportunity to either trust-in and collaborate-on the goals stated in
the preamble or be dissident to the agreement. I think 2/3 of citizens try
somewhat to use the preamble but many do not articulate commitment to the
goals. However, it seems less than 2/3 understand that “posterity” implies
grandchildren. “Freedom of religion,” which fellow citizens have no means to
discipline, oppresses freedom to develop integrity.
Selected theme from this week
The Advocate republished my comments from last year. The
Advocate personnel seems to be recycling some of my comments from last year
preserving my Facebook opportunity to edit and update them. Perhaps it is like
a debate---a civic, civil, and legal collaboration for a civic integrity. Just
as my person is not the same as last year, my opinions improve with collaboration.
But I cannot access The Advocate opinion from a year ago; the public URL did
not change.
Our Views (The Advocate,
local press in Baton Rouge, LA)
Another view from
last year posted by The Advocate and updated by PRB (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_28b32ca2-047f-11e9-83ff-d3bc7d721d00.html)
Those Advocate personnel who are responsible for “Our Views,”
relish irresponsibility and hubris in their case for “Kennedy gets it wrong . .
.” Were I among them, my appreciation for the fact that I do not know what I do
not know would drive me to edit my caption to “Kennedy seems to get it wrong .
. .”
More importantly, after being the infamous April Fool’s 2018 champion to undo Louisiana’s impartial 10:2 unanimous verdicts with 12:0 absolutism in felony trials, how can The Advocate editors publish the mendacity, “Should the perfect be the enemy of the good?” That's as foolish as "Is God responsible for evil?"
Should jury absolutism pre-empt impartiality? Same answer: no.
Not only that, the U.S. Constitution, in Amendment VI, makes it clear that U.S. impartiality pre-empted British tradition---both absolute unanimity and stipulation of “peers.” The Advocate, the LSBA, and the Louisiana Legislature acted U.S. unconstitutionally in imposing on Louisiana citizens British colonial absolutism. French-influenced Louisiana had the sole U.S. brilliance to establish both impartiality and favor toward jury members who seek equal justice under statutory law.
I hope to see an injunction to prevent enactment of Amendment 2 from November 6, 2018. The scheme that eventually created a popular referendum to overturn Louisiana’s provisions of impartial jury verdicts and replace them with absolutism was unconstitutional based on the 1787 U.S. Constitution, Amendment VI (1791), Amendment XIV.1. (1868), and Johnson v Louisiana (1972).
The tyranny against the people was based on mendacities The Advocate personnel championed, including citing Jim Crow quotations, suggesting people view themselves as the accused rather than the victim, quoting John Adams, etc.
Placing before the people the opportunity to enact emotional democracy in order to overthrow statutory law may be likened to terminating the U.S. Constitution because it was framed during slavery!
This tyranny was imposed under the “watch” of Gov. John Bel Edwards. I hope AG Jeff Landry will stop it and the tyranny becomes one of the defining issues in removing Edwards from office.
I am glad Kennedy will continue in the office I helped elect him to. I don’t know enough about Ralph Abraham, but I’d like both of those gentlemen to take advantage of 230 years’ experience and help establish the civic, civil, and legal agreement that is offered in the U.S. preamble as an aid to civic integrity, committing to mature adulthood the practice of religion, whether theism, spiritualism, philosophy, or metaphysics is involved or not. Based on the chaos Judeo-Christianity has achieved in the succession from 1789 factional-American Protestantism, the time for civic integrity has come.
Is it possible for The Advocate personnel to back-pedal their published hypocrisy? No. May the employees individually reform so that most of the whole reforms? Yes. Should we the people of the United States (the actors in the agreement that is offered in the U.S. preamble) amend the first amendment to provide for freedom of a responsible press? Yes. Freedom to pursue civic integrity? Yes. Do I want my hometown newspaper to lead these reforms? Yes!
More importantly, after being the infamous April Fool’s 2018 champion to undo Louisiana’s impartial 10:2 unanimous verdicts with 12:0 absolutism in felony trials, how can The Advocate editors publish the mendacity, “Should the perfect be the enemy of the good?” That's as foolish as "Is God responsible for evil?"
Should jury absolutism pre-empt impartiality? Same answer: no.
Not only that, the U.S. Constitution, in Amendment VI, makes it clear that U.S. impartiality pre-empted British tradition---both absolute unanimity and stipulation of “peers.” The Advocate, the LSBA, and the Louisiana Legislature acted U.S. unconstitutionally in imposing on Louisiana citizens British colonial absolutism. French-influenced Louisiana had the sole U.S. brilliance to establish both impartiality and favor toward jury members who seek equal justice under statutory law.
I hope to see an injunction to prevent enactment of Amendment 2 from November 6, 2018. The scheme that eventually created a popular referendum to overturn Louisiana’s provisions of impartial jury verdicts and replace them with absolutism was unconstitutional based on the 1787 U.S. Constitution, Amendment VI (1791), Amendment XIV.1. (1868), and Johnson v Louisiana (1972).
The tyranny against the people was based on mendacities The Advocate personnel championed, including citing Jim Crow quotations, suggesting people view themselves as the accused rather than the victim, quoting John Adams, etc.
Placing before the people the opportunity to enact emotional democracy in order to overthrow statutory law may be likened to terminating the U.S. Constitution because it was framed during slavery!
This tyranny was imposed under the “watch” of Gov. John Bel Edwards. I hope AG Jeff Landry will stop it and the tyranny becomes one of the defining issues in removing Edwards from office.
I am glad Kennedy will continue in the office I helped elect him to. I don’t know enough about Ralph Abraham, but I’d like both of those gentlemen to take advantage of 230 years’ experience and help establish the civic, civil, and legal agreement that is offered in the U.S. preamble as an aid to civic integrity, committing to mature adulthood the practice of religion, whether theism, spiritualism, philosophy, or metaphysics is involved or not. Based on the chaos Judeo-Christianity has achieved in the succession from 1789 factional-American Protestantism, the time for civic integrity has come.
Is it possible for The Advocate personnel to back-pedal their published hypocrisy? No. May the employees individually reform so that most of the whole reforms? Yes. Should we the people of the United States (the actors in the agreement that is offered in the U.S. preamble) amend the first amendment to provide for freedom of a responsible press? Yes. Freedom to pursue civic integrity? Yes. Do I want my hometown newspaper to lead these reforms? Yes!
To Matt Trekkie: Every fellow citizen who wants individual
happiness with civic integrity will persevere for equal justice under statutory
law. Each person has the individual power, the individual energy, and the
individual authority (IPEA) to pursue either crime or statutory justice. The
U.S. preamble offers each citizen the freedom-to choose either infidelity or
civic integrity.
Another view from
last year posted by The Advocate and updated by PRB (Dec 26) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_679faa10-e759-11e7-a074-930e0ac94614.html)
Our library meetings to promote the actual use of the preamble
to the constitution for the USA rather than to lamely claim “we, the people”
seems to separate my opinion more and more from the opinions The Advocate
promotes. The USA is unique in the world.
In the first place, on July 4, 1776, thirteen English colonizes formally changed their style to states, and declared that the existing war with England was for independence. Only 40% of the people wanted independence, 40% were satisfied to remain in the English commonwealth, and 20% were loyal with the potential to individually return to England.
The longstanding competition for eastern seaboard civic integrity between each indigenous peoples, France, England, and the colonists reached a climax at Yorktown in 1781. Colonies beyond the eastern seaboard, Spanish, French, Russian and others were not directly involved. France’s strategy and military dominance aided the former colonists (proclaimed statesmen) to defeat England. The statesmen ratified the 1783 Treaty of Paris that recognized thirteen free and independent states, naming each of them. They remained free and independent for four years.
However, on June 21, 1788, nine of the states ratified the 1787 U.S. Constitution, hoping the four remaining free and independent states would join. Dissidence, in about 1/3 proportion, seems to be a feature of the USA heretofore. Potential for authority had passed from England to the states to the willing people in their states. People of only two states joined the 1788 USA. The first Congress, seated on March 4, 1789, represented only eleven states. People of the other two states were, for their reasons, dissidents to the USA.
I assert that the above brief history represents both a civic people of the United States (meaning those who either explicitly or tacitly collaborate to achieve the goals stated in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution) as well as dissidents (those who for reasons they may or may not understand oppose the civic, civil, and legal agreement stated by the preamble). “Civic” refers to people collaborating for statutory justice whether the municipality or dominant culture is just or not.
This is not a British Commonwealth country. The USA is free from the traditional mixed constitution (classism), the Church of England’s role in Parliament, English common law, and lordly fox hunting. The colonists knew nothing of hunting, because the English commoners were not allowed to hunt on English lords’ estates. However, the indigenous peoples in this land taught the colonists how to hunt and fish for sustenance rather than to kill game merely to prepare for a night of reverie. Today, Americans, under District of Columbia v. Heller, 2008, may own guns for personal use such as hunting. Hunting for food is an American practice that English Boxing Day cannot imagine.
Attempting to dominate American life with Christianity is so common few people know how to object or would go to the trouble. Especially, when the President of the USA attempts to impose his religious views on the people, as President Trump seems to have done this year. Without objecting to Trump’s decisions, I point out that fellow-citizen and General George Washington’s farewell dated June 8, 1783 expressed civic commitment without interjecting personal theism. However, promoting Boxing Day seems anti-American. In my view, with such a frivolous Christian and business promotion, The Advocate expresses dissidence against the American republic.
I commend/request The Advocate to forget Boxing Day and promote June 21 as the date the USA was established, perhaps calling it “Individual Independence Day.” Celebrate each citizen’s opportunity to establish personal authority---the personal civic integrity to collaborate on the responsibility that is required for human freedom. In other words, promote the use of the agreement that is offered to fellow citizens by the preamble to the U.S. Constitution.
The Advocate has the advantage that these civic ideas came from five years of public meetings in EBRP libraries and can be traced to the participants. The candid civic collaboration originates in Baton Rouge, Louisiana and has the potential to establish an achievable, better future in the USA.
In the first place, on July 4, 1776, thirteen English colonizes formally changed their style to states, and declared that the existing war with England was for independence. Only 40% of the people wanted independence, 40% were satisfied to remain in the English commonwealth, and 20% were loyal with the potential to individually return to England.
The longstanding competition for eastern seaboard civic integrity between each indigenous peoples, France, England, and the colonists reached a climax at Yorktown in 1781. Colonies beyond the eastern seaboard, Spanish, French, Russian and others were not directly involved. France’s strategy and military dominance aided the former colonists (proclaimed statesmen) to defeat England. The statesmen ratified the 1783 Treaty of Paris that recognized thirteen free and independent states, naming each of them. They remained free and independent for four years.
However, on June 21, 1788, nine of the states ratified the 1787 U.S. Constitution, hoping the four remaining free and independent states would join. Dissidence, in about 1/3 proportion, seems to be a feature of the USA heretofore. Potential for authority had passed from England to the states to the willing people in their states. People of only two states joined the 1788 USA. The first Congress, seated on March 4, 1789, represented only eleven states. People of the other two states were, for their reasons, dissidents to the USA.
I assert that the above brief history represents both a civic people of the United States (meaning those who either explicitly or tacitly collaborate to achieve the goals stated in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution) as well as dissidents (those who for reasons they may or may not understand oppose the civic, civil, and legal agreement stated by the preamble). “Civic” refers to people collaborating for statutory justice whether the municipality or dominant culture is just or not.
This is not a British Commonwealth country. The USA is free from the traditional mixed constitution (classism), the Church of England’s role in Parliament, English common law, and lordly fox hunting. The colonists knew nothing of hunting, because the English commoners were not allowed to hunt on English lords’ estates. However, the indigenous peoples in this land taught the colonists how to hunt and fish for sustenance rather than to kill game merely to prepare for a night of reverie. Today, Americans, under District of Columbia v. Heller, 2008, may own guns for personal use such as hunting. Hunting for food is an American practice that English Boxing Day cannot imagine.
Attempting to dominate American life with Christianity is so common few people know how to object or would go to the trouble. Especially, when the President of the USA attempts to impose his religious views on the people, as President Trump seems to have done this year. Without objecting to Trump’s decisions, I point out that fellow-citizen and General George Washington’s farewell dated June 8, 1783 expressed civic commitment without interjecting personal theism. However, promoting Boxing Day seems anti-American. In my view, with such a frivolous Christian and business promotion, The Advocate expresses dissidence against the American republic.
I commend/request The Advocate to forget Boxing Day and promote June 21 as the date the USA was established, perhaps calling it “Individual Independence Day.” Celebrate each citizen’s opportunity to establish personal authority---the personal civic integrity to collaborate on the responsibility that is required for human freedom. In other words, promote the use of the agreement that is offered to fellow citizens by the preamble to the U.S. Constitution.
The Advocate has the advantage that these civic ideas came from five years of public meetings in EBRP libraries and can be traced to the participants. The candid civic collaboration originates in Baton Rouge, Louisiana and has the potential to establish an achievable, better future in the USA.
(Originally posted on 12/26/17. Updated 12/26/18 by Phil
Beaver.)
Second post:
On December 26, 2017, I objected to Boxing Day (a commonwealth
practice) as particularly un-American due to fox hunting not being for
sustenance. The commoners who came to this country learned from the indigenous
peoples hunting (and fishing) for food. Next day, I learned more about The
Advocate’s St. Stephen promotion and assert that on that basis Boxing Day is
even more un-American.
Further to my claim that America is independent of the British Commonwealth, America is independent of the Vatican and its fickle, factional, feudal system of saints. St. Stephen might be the patron of Serbia, a couple towns in Italy, a town in each Belgium and Germany, and Owensboro, Kentucky. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Stephen and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patron_saints_of_places.
The latter reference lists patrons of countries: St. George for England, St. Andrew for Scotland, St. Patrick for Ireland and, beyond Britain, for examples, St. Michael for France and the Virgin Mary for the USA. Again, we’d need to apply to the Vatican for modern listings. (I’ll never forget MWW’s comment in the late sixties: “Oh, no. Just when my personal religion is being considered the Pope disqualifies some familiar saints!”) The patron system is important to many Louisiana Parishes.
Folks in St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana have an indigenous remembrance. “In 1810, President James Madison claimed West Florida as part of Louisiana and sent William C. C. Claiborne to claim the territory. Claiborne established the boundaries of the Florida Parishes. He created St. Tammany Parish and named it after the Delaware Indian Chief Tamanend (c.1628-1698), who made peace with William Penn and was generally renowned for his goodness. Among the nine Louisiana parishes (counties) named for "saints" (see "List of parishes in Louisiana"), St. Tammany is the only one whose eponym is not a saint of the Roman Catholic Church, the ecclesiastical parishes of which formed the basis for the state's civil parishes. In fact, Tamanend is not known to have been a Christian, and was certainly not a Roman Catholic. However, he became popularly revered as an "American patron saint" in the post-Revolutionary period (long after his death).” See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Tammany_Parish,_Louisiana.
America can be great because of its unique past collaborations for goodness. By educating both the young and the immigrants about the neglected American promise, a better future may be made possible. The neglected American dream is stated in the civic agreement that is offered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. The preamble invites human collaboration for mutual, comprehensive safety and security for everyone, including dissidents. In other words, a culture of statutory justice. Dissidents either reform to the culture’s example and statutory law or suffer constraint if they cause actual harm.
Dissidents include those who want to change the American republic, for example, into a European model. Or a Christian-style democracy. The Advocate opines for themselves, but I consider many of their causes, including Boxing Day, un-American. The Advocate might respond that I am just not among the elite---a modern Tammany proponent rather than a Cincinnati patron. I argue that on the basis of trust and commitment to the agreement stated in the preamble, I represent the elite American fellow citizen.
Members of the British Commonwealth cannot possibly understand the promise that is offered Americans and the future greatness that can accrue to the world. Most Americans may encounter, consider, and accept the authority to personally take the responsibility for human freedom in both public and private human contacts each person needs or wants. Just as a person must work for food, a person must work for statutory justice.
We know that neither government nor theism seeks to deliver statutory justice: The authority to discover and establish statutory justice rests with willing individuals.
Further to my claim that America is independent of the British Commonwealth, America is independent of the Vatican and its fickle, factional, feudal system of saints. St. Stephen might be the patron of Serbia, a couple towns in Italy, a town in each Belgium and Germany, and Owensboro, Kentucky. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Stephen and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patron_saints_of_places.
The latter reference lists patrons of countries: St. George for England, St. Andrew for Scotland, St. Patrick for Ireland and, beyond Britain, for examples, St. Michael for France and the Virgin Mary for the USA. Again, we’d need to apply to the Vatican for modern listings. (I’ll never forget MWW’s comment in the late sixties: “Oh, no. Just when my personal religion is being considered the Pope disqualifies some familiar saints!”) The patron system is important to many Louisiana Parishes.
Folks in St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana have an indigenous remembrance. “In 1810, President James Madison claimed West Florida as part of Louisiana and sent William C. C. Claiborne to claim the territory. Claiborne established the boundaries of the Florida Parishes. He created St. Tammany Parish and named it after the Delaware Indian Chief Tamanend (c.1628-1698), who made peace with William Penn and was generally renowned for his goodness. Among the nine Louisiana parishes (counties) named for "saints" (see "List of parishes in Louisiana"), St. Tammany is the only one whose eponym is not a saint of the Roman Catholic Church, the ecclesiastical parishes of which formed the basis for the state's civil parishes. In fact, Tamanend is not known to have been a Christian, and was certainly not a Roman Catholic. However, he became popularly revered as an "American patron saint" in the post-Revolutionary period (long after his death).” See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Tammany_Parish,_Louisiana.
America can be great because of its unique past collaborations for goodness. By educating both the young and the immigrants about the neglected American promise, a better future may be made possible. The neglected American dream is stated in the civic agreement that is offered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. The preamble invites human collaboration for mutual, comprehensive safety and security for everyone, including dissidents. In other words, a culture of statutory justice. Dissidents either reform to the culture’s example and statutory law or suffer constraint if they cause actual harm.
Dissidents include those who want to change the American republic, for example, into a European model. Or a Christian-style democracy. The Advocate opines for themselves, but I consider many of their causes, including Boxing Day, un-American. The Advocate might respond that I am just not among the elite---a modern Tammany proponent rather than a Cincinnati patron. I argue that on the basis of trust and commitment to the agreement stated in the preamble, I represent the elite American fellow citizen.
Members of the British Commonwealth cannot possibly understand the promise that is offered Americans and the future greatness that can accrue to the world. Most Americans may encounter, consider, and accept the authority to personally take the responsibility for human freedom in both public and private human contacts each person needs or wants. Just as a person must work for food, a person must work for statutory justice.
We know that neither government nor theism seeks to deliver statutory justice: The authority to discover and establish statutory justice rests with willing individuals.
(Originally posted on 12/27/17. Updated 12/26/18 by Phil
Beaver.)
Third post by Phil
Beaver, 12/28/2018:
To JT McQuitty:
JTM’s clarity is excellent and helped bring me back.
Realizing that the two posts of my comments from a year ago
(below) distracted me from this “Our Views,” I returned to share my 2018
opinion on the 2018 version. I think readers may be interested in the subtle
overtones in this year’s “Happy Boxing Day.” (I tried to use the URL in my
blog, “cipbr,” to read the 2017 edition, but alas, it gave me the 2018 version.)
The Advocate personnel’s propriety struck me as a cross
between French-influenced Mardi Gras and British classism. I use “propriety” to
represent words and phrases they know and we can discover.
“Revel” to replace “merry” gave me the sense the proprietary
opinion blends Christmas with Mardi-Gras, with its French and Catholic roots. A
Google search gave me “The
first American Mardi Gras took place on March 3, 1699, when
French explorers Pierre Le Moyne d'Iberville and Sieur de Bienville landed near
present-day New Orleans, Louisiana.”
I
leave it to others to discover whether or not Mardi Gras is a Christian
celebration, a Catholic rite, or sheer debauchery. I would not want to start a
path the history of priestly abuses of parishioners.
Nine
states established the U.S. on June 21, 1788. There were 17 states when France
sold the Louisiana territory to the U.S. Congress granted Louisiana statehood
in 1812. (Recall that in 1880, Louisiana broke free from British colonialism by
conforming to U.S. Amendment VI’s 1791 stipulation that states provide
impartial juries. Louisiana adopted the impartial 9-3 unanimous majority
verdict instead of 12:0 absolutism. The other states retained colonial British
absolutism, even though England reformed in 1967. Now, Louisiana is in a
position to restore the 9:3 rule for felony verdicts and initiate graduated
rules for more serious crimes, such as 11:1 for aggravated murder.)
Liberty, equality and fraternity is a French idea that
conflicts with both British classism and England’s constitutional
Canterbury-lords-partnership in Parliament. And neither of those two
long-standing cultures has recognized the promise of the civic, civil, and
legal agreement that is offered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. In
the U.S., fellow citizens are offered the opportunity to collaborate for equal
justice under statutory law. Let me repeat that: a citizen’s responsibility to
collaborate for equal justice has been known since Athenian Greece, 2400 years
ago, and in the U.S., the agreement is offered in the U.S. preamble.
Meanwhile The Advocate personnel think opinions supporting
Christmas revelry and Downton-Abbey classism will enhance their business plan!
Readers may wonder if there are European combatants in unexpected places.
The alien-reform that is needed is to stop widely repressing
the civic, civil, and legal power of the U.S. preamble. Fellow citizens may
effect this reform, but leaders who promote it might put lasting warmth in
their hearts. I think I will witness acceleration of the preamble’s agreement
in my lifetime.
The preamble proposes that fellow citizens discipline their lives so as to prevent local, state, and federal governments as well as religious institutions (perhaps including the press) from repressing the opportunity to pursue happiness with civic integrity during one human life. Happiness and integrity cannot be separated, and the victims of infidelity are the grandchildren and beyond: “our Posterity,” quoting the U.S. preamble.
More than any hometown newspaper in the world, The Advocate employees can take on this reform, because the ideas (far beyond these) are being generated in local libraries by equal fellow citizens.
The preamble proposes that fellow citizens discipline their lives so as to prevent local, state, and federal governments as well as religious institutions (perhaps including the press) from repressing the opportunity to pursue happiness with civic integrity during one human life. Happiness and integrity cannot be separated, and the victims of infidelity are the grandchildren and beyond: “our Posterity,” quoting the U.S. preamble.
More than any hometown newspaper in the world, The Advocate employees can take on this reform, because the ideas (far beyond these) are being generated in local libraries by equal fellow citizens.
I look forward to 2019, but revelry and subjugation to opinion
are not on my list of interests.
conserving the
worst traditions ( Dec 25) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_ebcbf0a4-de66-5e03-bbcc-da1bcc5098c2.html)
Nothing is more hilarious than a social democrat writing to
preserve ruinous tradition. And that is what naïve personnel for The Advocate
accomplish in this editorial. We the People of the United States who live in
Louisiana need relief from The Advocate’s traditionally irresponsible freedom
of expression.
I write to aid acceleration of the retreat from false teaching
such as 1) humans must conflict, 2) love and charity are more valuable than
appreciation and collaboration, 3) faith is religion, 4) and Christianity is free
from hate. These false teachings arise from Christianity’s failure to accept
civic, civil, and legal governance for living so that it may focus on salvation
of believer’s reason-constructed souls.
Respecting readers’ reasons to refuse to consider points 1-4, I
ask them to consider only John’s Christianity in John 15:18-23.
In my fifth decade, I realized that my Sunday school class
tacitly believed that my Christian wife and children hated them and me. I
decided that repeatedly defending their infant baptism and other differences of
opinion was futile. Therefore, I dropped out of Sunday school, much to my
pastor’s concern that the church was losing a thought provoker. Little did I
realize that I had dropped out of religion so as to affirm my faith-in
(trust-in and commitment-to) the-objective-truth. That phrase may be
grammatically wrong, but it invites the reader to understand that “objective
truth” is insufficient in the search for actual reality or civic integrity.
Recently, in my eighth decade, I discovered John 15:18-23 with regret that the
church never attempted to teach it. I reject the hate Christianity would impose
on me.
The Advocate personnel published, “Human conflict is as old
as humanity itself, and it remains a constant in every season, even one
supposedly devoted to peace and joy.” And further, “Those teachings, which
affirm the value of love and charity, continue to resonate with those of other
faiths, and even with many of those who claim no faith at all.” And delivers
the hypocrisy, “Today, we renew our hope for peace and good will, and we wish
our readers a merry Christmas.” Where’s the humility to wish non-believers
“happy holiday” or something?
My wish during this possible season of good will to all is
that my hometown newspaper will reform from irresponsible freedom of the press.
Also, that its focus will turn from a living constitution to an amendable U.S.
constitution; from social democracy to civic integrity; from socialism to equal
justice under statutory law; from church-state partnership to statutory
justice; from faith in reason to commitment to the-objective-truth; from
imposition of Christianity to humility toward actual reality, whether God is to
be discovered or not.
Readers who do not understand my writing are invited to do the work to comprehend and refute rather than attempt to censor my work, which proposes to collaborate for peace at last. I think we can enjoy collaboration to end conflict during my life.
Readers who do not understand my writing are invited to do the work to comprehend and refute rather than attempt to censor my work, which proposes to collaborate for peace at last. I think we can enjoy collaboration to end conflict during my life.
(Originally posted on 12/25/17. Updated 12/25/18 by Phil
Beaver.)
Second post after
checking on repost from 12/25/2017
I checked both my Facebook account and my Twitter account
and see no tampering today, after killing a Facebook problem yesterday.
It’s a mystery to me that my 12/25/2017 post was re-posted
today, a year later. I don’t object, except that I was not using the pic of MWW
and me last year. The 12/25/17 text is available on one of my blogs---cipbr and
in The Advocate records. However, when you click on the pic for the strange
message it ought not take you to my Facebook URL yet does, and as readers may
see, I can edit it.
I suspect the extraneous posting
with my name “Phil Beaver” and odd pics of beaver-animal faces are attempts to
silence me. Hopefully, they are unrelated to this incident.
However, drawing attention to me by re-posting a year old
appeal to civic integrity rather than Christian bullying and hate seems
strange. I called the police, but they cannot help because I have not been
physically attacked. I tried to call The Advocate but understandably no one
answered. I will continue to try to understand what is happening.
Third post after
checking on repost from 12/25/2017
I checked with my computer guru whom I
recommend, so check with me for the ID. The technician surmised that this
incident is an artifact of The Advocate's software system. The use of my
current pic is incidental with Facebook. That is, my post from last year would
be automatically updated to my current
pic. I hope it's another case of all's well and people are behaving.
I like the re-posting of my last year's message
and hope an achievable culture of civic integrity is on it's way.
To JT McQuitty:
Interpersonal trust within the U.S. steadily fell from 48%
in 1984 to 31% in 2014; https://ourworldindata.org/trust. That's a 35% decline
in the latter 13% of the nation's age!
A shift in focus from Judeo-Christianity morality to the
national discipline of civic integrity (a practice) might reverse the trend.
Widespread collaboration using the purpose and goals for
individual discipline that are offered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution
perhaps would reverse the march to anarchy.
If not, at least the nation would know that the agreement
that is offered in the preamble is worthless rather than merely neglected.
JT McQuitty again:
Your comments on the data collection invite the disclosure
that I found https://ourworldindata.org/trust searching with the phrase
"religious affiliation."
Also, I prefer that your quote of me cover both paragraphs,
which I condense, after correction, to "A shift in focus from
Judeo-Christian morality to . . . widespread collaboration using the purpose
and goals for individual discipline that are offered in the preamble to the
U.S. Constitution perhaps would reverse the march to anarchy."
The U.S. preamble is neutral to gender, race, skin-color,
religion, wealth, ancestry, ethnicity, and many other distinctions, whereas
Judeo-Christian morals exclude people. Consider John's opinions in John
15:18-23. I reject John’s opinion because I reject hate as a civic practice.
The U.S. preamble also addresses your point that, for
example, a population wherein the majority collaborate for equal justice under
statutory law may enjoy more trust that a people who do not believe in justice.
The U.S. preamble is neutral to gender, race, skin-color,
religion, wealth, ancestry, ethnicity, and many other distinctions, whereas
Judeo-Christian morals exclude people. Consider John's opinions in John
15:18-23. I reject John’s opinion because I reject hate as a civic practice.
The U.S. preamble also addresses your point that, for
example, a population wherein the majority collaborate for equal justice under
statutory law may enjoy more trust that a people who do not believe in justice.
annual press irresponsibility regarding Santa (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_11822cc8-c62d-11e6-a44c-abcc411b0614.html?mode=comments)
Parents who introduce their young children to "mysteries of
faith" like the gift-giving Santa may eventually face challenges like,
"My classmates teased me that Santa is not real: What’s
the-objective-truth?"
One of my children asked, and I answered, "The person, Santa, is made-up, but the idea is true."
I continued, to protect my child from further concern or debate and assure our integrity, not expecting the follow-up questions, below.
I explained, "Santa is a personification--a myth to represent an idea. Santa represents the idea of responsible goodwill toward other people.
Most people naturally want to practice goodwill always but are imperfect and sometimes act unkindly. Some people don't want goodwill for reasons they may or may not understand. Most cultures have a traditional event to recall, renew, and encourage fidelity to goodwill throughout the community. In majority-Christian communities, that time of the year is Christmastime, during which some people celebrate the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem. In the story, three wise men carried gifts to the baby Jesus.
In Christian tradition, the patron saint of children is St. Nicholas. Some Christians, for givers’ anonymity, named St. Nicholas the gift giver, and the name evolved to ‘Santa.’
Santa is accepted beyond the Christian community, especially by stores, to promote sales. Thus, the tradition of gift-giving extends to adults as well."
My 8-year-old daughter responded, "So the gifts marked 'from Santa' are really from you and Mom like my classmates said? Mom put cookies out and you ate them?"
I answered, "Yes."
She softly said, "Thank you, Dad," and went to thank her mom for another wonderful yearly effort.
There was no "humbug" in my candid response. Gifts from our daughter have always been thoughtful and novel. Nearly 35 years have passed and at some point during Christmas eve dinners she happily shouts "Let's hurry! I want to see what Santa brought."
Santa means good will toward everyone if there are no objections.
One of my children asked, and I answered, "The person, Santa, is made-up, but the idea is true."
I continued, to protect my child from further concern or debate and assure our integrity, not expecting the follow-up questions, below.
I explained, "Santa is a personification--a myth to represent an idea. Santa represents the idea of responsible goodwill toward other people.
Most people naturally want to practice goodwill always but are imperfect and sometimes act unkindly. Some people don't want goodwill for reasons they may or may not understand. Most cultures have a traditional event to recall, renew, and encourage fidelity to goodwill throughout the community. In majority-Christian communities, that time of the year is Christmastime, during which some people celebrate the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem. In the story, three wise men carried gifts to the baby Jesus.
In Christian tradition, the patron saint of children is St. Nicholas. Some Christians, for givers’ anonymity, named St. Nicholas the gift giver, and the name evolved to ‘Santa.’
Santa is accepted beyond the Christian community, especially by stores, to promote sales. Thus, the tradition of gift-giving extends to adults as well."
My 8-year-old daughter responded, "So the gifts marked 'from Santa' are really from you and Mom like my classmates said? Mom put cookies out and you ate them?"
I answered, "Yes."
She softly said, "Thank you, Dad," and went to thank her mom for another wonderful yearly effort.
There was no "humbug" in my candid response. Gifts from our daughter have always been thoughtful and novel. Nearly 35 years have passed and at some point during Christmas eve dinners she happily shouts "Let's hurry! I want to see what Santa brought."
Santa means good will toward everyone if there are no objections.
Letters
Personally
alienating IPEA (Joseph J. Vizzini)
(https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/letters/article_845a0e54-055b-11e9-8544-9bda9e044e08.html)
Citizens who collaborate for statutory justice are not
impressed with references to “society,” an obvious attempt to impose on the people
the hopes and comforts of the writer’s special interest group. This use of the
word “society” may be a product of social democracy, the not so innocent
movement to distract the march toward statutory justice.
It has not been expressed this way in the past, but every
human being has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual
authority (IPEA) to either develop infidelity or integrity. For example, a
person may pursue either crime or statutory justice, the ultimate goal of
statutory law and its enforcement. IPEA cannot be consigned, for example to the
believer’s god or to a government.
In this country, the freedom to choose the extremes---infidelity or integrity, or any variation---is registered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. I know of no other sentence that admits to the human prerogative to both choose infidelity and face any consequences. Happy is the fellow citizen who recognizes the importance of the U.S. preamble and collaborates to achieve its purpose and goals.
In this country, the freedom to choose the extremes---infidelity or integrity, or any variation---is registered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. I know of no other sentence that admits to the human prerogative to both choose infidelity and face any consequences. Happy is the fellow citizen who recognizes the importance of the U.S. preamble and collaborates to achieve its purpose and goals.
These ideas are further explored in response to Vizzini’s
Lopez reference on my Facebook page.
To Ricky Thompson: I agree and suggest that you are also a primary victim of the
crime.
The first victim of crime is the civic fellow citizens who,
because some fellow citizens think crime pays, choose to provide and maintain
the justice system. By "maintain" I include continually improve.
When the crime is aggravated murder, the criminal has chosen
crime, taken a life, and the civic fellow citizens have no recourse but to
support statutory law and its enforcement.
Let 2019 be the year we fellow citizens of the U.S. break
free from England. “The
phrase hear, hear seems to have come into existence as an abbreviation of
the phrase hear him, hear him, which was well-established in Parliament in the late
seventeenth century.” U.S. individuals may reject most British influence, past
and current, so as to help establish statutory justice.
Seriousness
aside, beyond “hear him,” there’s “consider his opinion,” discover whether or
not it collaborates for either infidelity or for statutory justice, and
publically share your position.
If
infidelity, give actually real evidence to make your case. If constructive,
either affirm the fidelity to statutory justice or add personal viewpoints that
enhance his opinion so that he can consider them for improvement of his
statements.
The Athenian Greeks informed humankind to take responsibility for equal justice under statutory law. Four hundred years later, Jesus died, and some people constructed theological competition with Judaism. In another 400 years, the Church had completed a book the Roman emperor could use to convert pagans to Christians. In another 1600 years, the Church is exploding over its secret protection of human abuses.
The Athenian Greeks informed humankind to take responsibility for equal justice under statutory law. Four hundred years later, Jesus died, and some people constructed theological competition with Judaism. In another 400 years, the Church had completed a book the Roman emperor could use to convert pagans to Christians. In another 1600 years, the Church is exploding over its secret protection of human abuses.
In
the Church’s theory, as demonstrated by its performance, it can forestall
civic, civil, and legal justice in this life for an eternity in their
metaphysical world. However, a civic people are in charge of statutory justice
for every human being’s lifetime, a brief 80 years of, so far, perhaps 8
trillion man-years of experience. The Church’s metaphysics is easy as long as
there are some believers. However, the physics of murder is terminal for the
victim and if aggravated may also be terminal for the murderer.
History
shows there will always be dissidents to statutory justice. However, it is the
only possible provision for individual happiness with civic integrity. The
people are responsible for it, and the Church’s voice is like sand thrown into
the wind.
I gave Mr. Vizzini each hear, consider, assess and rebuke.
Ms. Kooi, I have no idea what you heard. Do you know and can you present evidence?
I gave Mr. Vizzini each hear, consider, assess and rebuke.
Ms. Kooi, I have no idea what you heard. Do you know and can you present evidence?
Substituting
“science” for discovery (Marion Friestadt) (Climate change . . . )(not yet
online)
Scientist Freistadt illustrates how ignorant self-adulation
can seem and how insensitive the press is to writers who beg shame.
So many fellow citizens don’t recognize that science is a
study-practice that can focus on discovering the-objective-truth or diverge in
pursuit of a mirage. People like Albert Einstein are discovers who use the
scientific method in their work.
The atmospheric temperature has been cycling for 50 million
years in a range that dwarfs scientific-model power. Furthermore, other than
being more sensible about economic feasibility of further populating the earth,
proposing human control of the cycling is like chasing a mirage in the desert.
For a “scientist” to refuse actual reality, whatever it is,
is shameful. Friestadt would have done himself a favor to write his letter,
look in the mirror, and admit: Friestadt doesn’t know the-objective-truth.
Columns
Fellow citizens
aspiring to be God (Kathryn Jean Lopez) (https://www.muskogeephoenix.com/opinion/lopez-death-penalty-proves-indecent/article_adcb0f94-0282-11e9-b4e0-7f522097c049.html)
Theists pretend that God made man in his image and from
there broke off woman as a rib. The authors of that ancient hoax did not expect
humans, with their IPEA, to reason that God therefore had their skin color,
mostly shades of brown, but with outliers like red and pure black. Maybe
the-God has skin, but I doubt it. Regardless, the-God is not any of the
spokespersons for the Catholic Church. Every person has the IPEA to claim that
the Church fails statutory justice.
(I trust-in and commit-to the-objective-truth and will not again turn my back on the indisputable facts to pursue a god’s wisdom. Grammar rejects my expression for actual reality, but the hyphens prevent any but the arrogant reader from psychologically converting my expression to “objective truth” or “truth” or any of a multitude of words and phrases scholars use to establish that their opinion represents the-objective-truth.)
(I trust-in and commit-to the-objective-truth and will not again turn my back on the indisputable facts to pursue a god’s wisdom. Grammar rejects my expression for actual reality, but the hyphens prevent any but the arrogant reader from psychologically converting my expression to “objective truth” or “truth” or any of a multitude of words and phrases scholars use to establish that their opinion represents the-objective-truth.)
Many people, for example, Abraham Lincoln, have focused on
humankind’s responsibilities. He faced a justice-dissident faction that claimed
Lincoln led a “more erroneous religious opinion.” Lincoln responded “Why should
there not be a patient confidence in the ultimate justice of the people? Is
there any better or equal hope in the world?”
The Athenian Greeks, 400 years before perpetrators
constructed Christianity and 800 years before the Church canonized the New
Testament, argued for equal justice under statutory law.
Without crime, there would be no need for justice. Without crime there would be no victims. Criminals victimize first the people who collaborate for statutory justice and second the direct victim of crime.
Without crime, there would be no need for justice. Without crime there would be no victims. Criminals victimize first the people who collaborate for statutory justice and second the direct victim of crime.
When the crime is aggravated murder, the victim is dead. Enforcement
of statutory justice is the people’s only recourse. The people’s system is
continually improved, for example, with DNA evidence. The Church wants DNA
evidence to exonerate the falsely-accused but not to convict the murderer. If the people allow the Church, organized crime,
or any other civic faction to overthrow statutory justice, ultimate justice
will be left to the-God; in other words, left to chaos.
It has not been represented this way, but the preamble to
the U.S. Constitution is the tacit civic, civil, and legal agreement by which
fellow citizens either pursue crime or collaborate for statutory justice.
Lincoln, in his Gettysburg address, seemed to perceive the power of the U.S.
preamble but mislead the immediate future when he spoke of “governance” rather
than civic discipline of, by, and for the people. No civic citizen wants to
govern fellow citizens, but all people perceive that discipline lessens
personal misery and loss. This message can help terminate Lincoln’s fallacy.
Governance under statutory law and law enforcement with the
U.S. preamble’s goal of statutory justice according to the-objective-truth is
under attack by social democrats---the proponents for anarchy rather than
“ultimate justice of the people.” Both England and France, America’s 1787
opponent and 1781 ally, respectively, are in chaos today because of social
democracy. American’s can find relief by trusting-in and committing-to the
civic, civil, and legal agreement that is offered willing citizens in the U.S.
preamble. The revolution against British colonialism in America has barely
begun, because past regimes have suppressed the power of the U.S. preamble.
The 2000-year history shows the Church is so ignorant about
life it is powerless to offer living citizens anything but continual abuse!
Both believers and non-believers can end the misery and loss.
Sacrificing the US
Constitution for social justice (Stephanie Grace) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/stephanie_grace/article_1214cbfe-0547-11e9-a924-4f1605b69a12.html?mode=comments)
Louisiana’s impartial 10:2 unanimous-majority verdicts is a
brilliant development from this country’s 1774 rebellion against the British
Empire. French-settled Louisiana was then ruled by Spain, neither of which
favored British tradition. The Louisiana law was unconstitutionally attacked.
The goal of the U.S. Constitution is statutory justice
rather than social democracy. Fellow citizens are offered an agreement, the
U.S. preamble, which is the basis for developing statutory justice. By
trusting-in and committing-to the preamble’s agreement fellow citizens may know
that they deserve equal justice under statutory law. When a crime occurs, the
justice system is in place to protect current and future victims without
convicting a falsely accused fellow citizen.
But some citizens use their individual power, energy, and
authority to commit a crime. The entire statutory justice system is needed only
because some fellow citizens think crime pays. Criminals organize.
The 1774 British colonists suffered abuses and declared they
were statesmen rather than loyal colonists. Virginia still has in their bill of
rights requirements that criminal trials provide the accused “the right to a
speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of his vicinage, without whose
unanimous consent he cannot be found guilty. He shall not be deprived of life
or liberty, except by the law of the land or the judgment of his peers . . . “
But Virginia's conflicting provisions did not hold in the USA formation: the US
dropped "unanimous" and "peers" leaving them to the states.
The US Constitution drops “unanimous” and “peers,” in favor
of “impartial.” Starting in 1880, French-influenced Louisiana brilliantly
favored impartiality and peers by creating the 9:3 unanimous-majority verdict
rather than the erroneous 12:0 absolutism in the other 38 states. By 1967,
England had reformed to 10:2 verdicts to lessen organized crime’s influence of
juries. Most former British colonies have adopted unanimous-majority verdicts
rather than absolutism.
One other point: The
Advocate’s statistical social politics hurt black fellow citizens 700%
disproportionately to whites. FBI data show that with only 13% of the
population, blacks account for about half of crimes, and 90% of black crimes
are black on black. Perpetrators dropped the original “Jim Crow” racial appeal
and convinced innocent voters to imagine themselves the accused rather than the
victim.
I think by creating a referendum to end Louisiana impartial
10:2 verdicts the Louisiana Legislature broke its commitments to both the
Louisiana Constitution and the U.S. Constitutional according to U.S. Article
II, Section 2 (1788), Amendments V and VI (1791), Amendment XIV.1 (1868), the
Civil Rights Act against discrimination (1964), and Johnson v Louisiana (1972).
National special interest groups have always fought
Louisiana’s impartial criminal verdicts, but the Legislature’s unconstitutional
action was instigated by the Louisiana State Bar Association (LSBA) and The
Advocate personnel with their erroneous social statistics. Every lawyer in the
state must below to LSBA, but they also swear to uphold the U.S. Constitution
and the Louisiana Constitution.
Finally, the U.S. is founded on a 2,400-year-old Greek
principle, equal justice under statutory law. Civic citizens collaborate for
law and social democrats conflict against statutory justice. Grace pushes for
“basic fairness,” claiming to know “the founders’ original intent,” and that
the words of the U.S. Constitution count for nothing. She expresses freedom of the
irresponsible press.
On my facebook
page the next day, 12/24:
Yesterday, I tried to comment on Stephanie Grace's column
about the recent U.S. unconstitutional referendum on 12:0 criminal jury
absolutism to replace Louisiana's impartial 10:2 unanimous-majority verdicts.
In the process, I saw the flag for reader comments disappear.
Later, I clicked on the Facebook flag and was taken to my
page. My comments on the Grace column may be viewed below at 12/23/2018, 9:35
AM.
Perhaps The Advocate personnel decided they no longer want a
community forum on their opinions. In other words, The Advocate personnel
withdrew into a shell. Maybe they decided freedom of expression restricts
freedom of the press.
If so, I'm reminded of an old saying: If you can't stand
the-objective-truth don't attempt collaboration for discovery.
Other fora
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-democracy-regarded-as-a-modern-form-of-government?
“Democracy” according to Merriam-Webster online, in my
paraphrase, is first, either direct popular rule or popular selection of
representatives in government, fourth the “common” people and fifth, the
absence of classism within the people.
There are several modern movements under the word “democracy.” First, there’s the perhaps misguided ambition for every government to provide either inhabitants or citizens one vote each on elections and referenda. Governance almost never conforms to the vote. Second, there is a movement for political chaos, whereby whatever the majority wants now they get right away. The U.S. Constitution spoils that hope yet is losing to activist judges who operate outside the constitution. Third, there’s the sincere desire to hear every voice, yet collaborate for civic integrity. I work to establish the later use of democracy in the U.S. representative republic.
The 1787 U.S. Constitution offers a representative republic, wherein many laws and institutions ruin democracy. Yet the U.S. preamble offers willing people a purpose and goals that express self-discipline by fellow citizens in their states so as to manage the governments---local, state, and national, respectively---in increasing fidelity to the constitution.
There are several modern movements under the word “democracy.” First, there’s the perhaps misguided ambition for every government to provide either inhabitants or citizens one vote each on elections and referenda. Governance almost never conforms to the vote. Second, there is a movement for political chaos, whereby whatever the majority wants now they get right away. The U.S. Constitution spoils that hope yet is losing to activist judges who operate outside the constitution. Third, there’s the sincere desire to hear every voice, yet collaborate for civic integrity. I work to establish the later use of democracy in the U.S. representative republic.
The 1787 U.S. Constitution offers a representative republic, wherein many laws and institutions ruin democracy. Yet the U.S. preamble offers willing people a purpose and goals that express self-discipline by fellow citizens in their states so as to manage the governments---local, state, and national, respectively---in increasing fidelity to the constitution.
The 1789 Congress, only nine months after nine states, on
June 21, 1788, established the U.S., bemused the preamble’s goals by mimicking
the constitutionally required Canterbury-Lords-partnership in Parliament. Congress
hired factional-Protestant congressional chaplains. They gave Congress a
“divine” status. Thereby, Congress created the British-like Bill of Rights,
1791.
These Congressional actions were unconstitutional according
to the U.S. preamble, which is neutral to religion---in integrity leaves
metaphysics a matter of personal interest or not. However, Congress could get
away with it because only 5% of free inhabitants were citizens who could vote
and 99% of them were American-factional Protestants. Today, 99% may vote and
only 14% are traditional-American Protestants.
The Bill of Rights comprise 10 amendments, and since 1791,
only 17 amendments have been added. That’s 13.4 years per amendment. Louisiana,
from 1974 to 2017, amended the state constitution 300 times, or 7 years per
amendment. During that time, the church-state-partnership has morphed from
factional-American Protestantism to Judeo-Catholicism as represented by the
nine-member U.S. Supreme Court.
The Warren Court (1953-1969) accelerated a “living constitution” philosophy attributed to Oliver Wendell Holmes and Woodrow Wilson. That movement erroneously expresses human rights without responsibilities or the chaos of direct democracy. It is important to note the decline in American freedom-from oppression since the Warren Court, and perhaps that will surface after the 50Th anniversary of 1968, a pivotal year in American chaos of the last half century.
The Warren Court (1953-1969) accelerated a “living constitution” philosophy attributed to Oliver Wendell Holmes and Woodrow Wilson. That movement erroneously expresses human rights without responsibilities or the chaos of direct democracy. It is important to note the decline in American freedom-from oppression since the Warren Court, and perhaps that will surface after the 50Th anniversary of 1968, a pivotal year in American chaos of the last half century.
Thankfully, President Trump has nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court two justices who may help restore the march to civic integrity that was tacitly intended in the non-theistic 1787 U.S. Constitution.
Theism seems antagonistic toward the nanny-state social
democracy that seems noisy and popular just now. However, by divesting the
imposition of metaphysics into the appeal to collaboration with social
democrats, the value of civic integrity for life can become clear, and the
slowness of the U.S. representative republic can be seen as an advantage for
mutual, comprehensive safety and security.
Democracy does not demand the responsibility that is
required for statutory justice. Individual discipline, as invited in the U.S.
preamble, the key to an achievable, better future, has never been established
among a majority.
https://www.quora.com/Does-democracy-work-when-you-only-have-60-participation?
Democracy cannot work, because the human individual is too
powerful to yield to opinion. No other existing species has the ability to
establish a different opinion. But there may be relief.
Consider the civic, civil, and legal agreement that is
offered in the U.S. preamble and the articles and amendments that follow it,
some of which do not conform to the preamble’s purpose and goals.
The grammatical subject and political actor in the U.S.
preamble is “We the People of the United States.” However, the rest of the
sentence is a civic, civil, and legal agreement to individually collaborate for
equal justice under statutory law. Remarkably, fellow citizens are free to
either adopt the agreement or be dissidents to it. Thus, there is no intention
to force totalitarianism, yet a collective pursuit of civic integrity may
develop.
Those who adopt the agreement may behave according to
personal preference: know and obey the law whether there’s statutory justice or
not; notify an official if an injustice is discovered; also offer a
well-grounded remedy; or publically act to effect reform of injustice.
Dissidents may range from fellow citizens who sometime learn
the law when their behavior causes harm to ones who think crime pays until they
are arrested.
Discovery and correction of unjust laws is a continual
necessity because the physics of actual reality evolves. Any individual, at any
time in his or her life, is subject to his or her understanding of statutory law
in addition to any reforms toward statutory justice.
The individual who chooses development of civic integrity
suffers the vagary of humankind’s diverse marches toward statutory justice. For
example, just this morning, I wrote about my hometown newspaper expressing both
French and British influences when they could promote the U.S. preamble. So
far, humankind failed to establish a standard of civic integrity. Most nations use
various constructs, such as a religious morality, a philosophy, or military
force to control citizens. The consequence is that the world is in political
chaos, even though wars perhaps diminished.
Scholars compare the wisdom of reason vs nature, and many of
them favor reason. However, physics, the object of scientific study rather than
the study, is the source of everything that can be affirmed by evidence. In the
best terms I know, everything emerges from E=mC-squared, which in 2016, with
discovery of gravitational waves became Einstein’s law of general relativity.
No one would argue that reason cannot be used to stop a tsunami. Reason may be used to explore the physics of the tsunami, but cannot directly prevent one. Likewise, ethics cannot limit integrity; in fact, the discovery of integrity may be used to journal the status of ethics. Finally, Einstein’s only example that integrity is based on physics is the statement that humans avoid lying so as to lessen misery and loss. The use of physics and its progeny such as biology to dispel deceit is illustrated in Rudyard Kipling’s short story, “The Man Who Would Be King.” The men of the village elected the king to be God, but the women cut his skin to disclose the blood evidence that he was only a man.
No one would argue that reason cannot be used to stop a tsunami. Reason may be used to explore the physics of the tsunami, but cannot directly prevent one. Likewise, ethics cannot limit integrity; in fact, the discovery of integrity may be used to journal the status of ethics. Finally, Einstein’s only example that integrity is based on physics is the statement that humans avoid lying so as to lessen misery and loss. The use of physics and its progeny such as biology to dispel deceit is illustrated in Rudyard Kipling’s short story, “The Man Who Would Be King.” The men of the village elected the king to be God, but the women cut his skin to disclose the blood evidence that he was only a man.
Thus, discounting all the scholarship that elevates reason
above “nature” as a surrogate for physics, the object of scientific study, can
rid humankind of the binds of metaphysics and establish a standard for
developing statutory justice. I label principles that may be established and
maintained through scientific discovery of physics as part of
the-objective-truth. The hyphens are used to prevent the reader from ignoring
the article. That is “objective truth” can deviate from the-objective-truth.
Under the sparse acceptance of the agreement to pursue equal
justice under statutory law, opinion in the U.S. often gravitates toward a 2/3
majority (67%). For example, almost 60% believe a woman should be able to
decide whether to remain pregnant or not. Of the 12/13 state delegates to the
1787 constitutional development, only 71% of the framers signed the U.S.
preamble and the articles that followed. It required ratification by 9/13
states.
The U.S. is a representative republic, with many offices elected by means other than popular vote. Some people among California’s 40 million think it is unfair that Wyoming’s 0.6 million also has two senators. The system is so slow that statutory justice has time to influence written law. Thus, America is designed to spoil democracy. The fact that citizens, empowered by the U.S. preamble, may collaborate for civic, civil, and legal justice is made clear by the optional status of the contract.
The U.S. is a representative republic, with many offices elected by means other than popular vote. Some people among California’s 40 million think it is unfair that Wyoming’s 0.6 million also has two senators. The system is so slow that statutory justice has time to influence written law. Thus, America is designed to spoil democracy. The fact that citizens, empowered by the U.S. preamble, may collaborate for civic, civil, and legal justice is made clear by the optional status of the contract.
It seems the 1787 framers of the U.S. Constitution
recognized that even mature populations such as the people of England’s 3500
year old culture could not pursue statutory justice by popular vote. Out of the
1787 deliberations, the committee of forms created the U.S. preamble, and some
framers chose not to sign it. We may be grateful to the 39/55 of delegates from
12/13 states or 66% of representatives who signed the U.S. preamble and the
rest of the 1787 Constitution.
An achievable better future is possible because of the people who trust-in and commit-to the agreement offered by the U.S. preamble.
An achievable better future is possible because of the people who trust-in and commit-to the agreement offered by the U.S. preamble.
Perhaps this explanation of U.S. fellow citizens’ powers to
divide based on individual intent to either establish statutory justice or not will
accelerate possible recovery from 230-years’ neglect of the opportunity to
collaborate for individual happiness with civic integrity.
I appreciate your post and copied it to a word file so as to
study its details. Thank you.
Your writing has corollaries to my work to unlock the yoke
of past scholarship’s word usage. For example, “A right is first of all a moral
principle. Not in the religious sense, but in the natural sense,” becomes more
direct with this new, specific usage of old words: Rights derive from physics
more than from psychology.
Here, “physics” represents something like if not e=mC squared
from which everything derives including fiction, lies, and spiritualism.
My work is tedious in that much effort must be invested in
the word usages. But once they are mastered, the Babel of the world may be
reduced. For example, once an audience understands that religion is empowered
by physics’ unknowns, that is, what exists but has not been discovered, it is
not difficult to accept that someone’s plausible god ought not be belittled yet
may be doubted without objection. That is, when the-objective-truth about
someone’s god has not been discovered, it makes no sense for other people to
belittle the responsible believer’s beliefs. Responsible believers practice
civic integrity, discussed below.
Further, your claim, “Objectivist for 50 years,” inspires me to learn more about objectivists. Maybe I am an objectivist with a novel slant.
Further, your claim, “Objectivist for 50 years,” inspires me to learn more about objectivists. Maybe I am an objectivist with a novel slant.
I have long been turned off to Ayn Rand because of the flood
of specific knowledge it would take to understand her work. Alas, when I
searched for “objectivists” at my favorite philosophy resource I got https://plato.stanford.edu/entri...,
for which I am grateful. There I found, “In her own words, her philosophy, ‘. .
. in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness
as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest
activity, and reason as his only absolute.’ (Rand 1957 [1992]: Afterword)”
It inspired me to mimic her to express my “philosophy”: a
human being cannot consign his or her IPEA and will use it to develop either
infidelity or integrity; the meaning of life is to discover and use IPEA to
develop individual happiness with civic integrity; the development is mature
when the individual is aware of the product of his or her contributions to
humankind; and he or she strives to conform to the-objective-truth, which
exists and does not respond to reason.
IPEA is individual power, individual energy, and individual
authority.
Integrity is a practice not unlike the “scientific process”
but covering both physics and its progeny, psychology. For example, fellow
humans do not lie to each so as to lessen misery and loss. An illustration was
expressed by Rudyard Kipling in “The Man Who Would be King.” The men of the
village elevated the king to a God and intended to marry him to the elite
villager. However, the women suspected the king and bled him to prove he was
not a God.
Civic integrity is the recognition that other humans also
may apply IPEA to develop integrity but some to not, and therefore a system of
statutory justice must be established and maintained.
In the Kipling story, the village men used reason to elect
the king as a God, but the women used physics and its progeny, biology, to disprove
the God. [On the other hand, maybe they proved that Gods are constructed in
human images and thus bleed. There may be a God, but I doubt it and accept that
my doubt does not matter.]
The-objective-truth exists and may be discovered but cannot
be constructed. Scholars cite “truth” and “the truth” to, in one way or
another, elevate their opinions. However, “the-objective-truth” empowers the
writer to admit that it is alright to admit not knowing what the writer does
not know. That explanation seems condescending to some listeners, and some
deflect it for themselves with responses about “objective truth,” “ultimate
truth,” “absolute truth,” or “Almighty truth,” falling back on obsolete
scholarship. I write to collaborate for a replacement for “the-objective-truth,”
and have been doing so for about a decade.
Phil
Beaver does not “know.” He trusts in and is committed to the-objective-truth which
can only be discovered. Conventional wisdom has truth founded on reason, but it
obviously does not work.
Phil is agent
for A Civic People of the United States, a Louisiana, education non-profit
corporation. See online at promotethepreamble.blogspot.com, and consider essays
from the latest and going back as far as you like.
