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 responsible freedom more than for the
city.
A personal paraphrase of the June 21, 1788 preamble: We
the civic citizens of nine of the thirteen United States commit-to and trust-in
the purpose and goals stated herein --- integrity, justice, collaboration,
defense, prosperity, liberty, and perpetuity --- and to cultivate limited
services to us by the USA. I want to collaborate with other citizens on
this paraphrase, yet would always preserve the original text.
Our Views (theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_918bddca-1676-11e8-818e-eff16fe03545.html)
The people of Louisiana, for personal interests, ought
to fire Gov. John Bel Edwards, and The Advocate personnel may create a
responsible press any time they perceive financial gain by doing so.
“. . . Gov. John Bel Edwards . . . kibitzed from the
sideline, saying he did not favor changes to the program,” might motivate
readers to think The Advocate personnel create responsible press. However, the
awkwardly written, “. . . even as budget problems — not, admittedly, of the
governor's making — required him to submit proposals to reduce TOPS funding
sharply,” is evidence of willful mendacity.
The constitution requires the administration to
propose a balanced budget. Edwards and Dardenne could have proposed less
spending, more controls, less favor to special interests, institute reliability
to industrial tax breaks, and control the Medicaid expansion Edwards ordered.
Instead, they issued irresponsible starting points for discussion, aimed at
creating citizen-fear that might force legislators to vote for tax personal
property and income increases.
Because they do not collaborate for the achievable
better future for the people of Louisiana, both Edwards and Dardenne are ready
for forced retirement, in my opinion.
I hope Rep. Foil re-introduces his bill for 2.75 GPA
requirement.
Today’s thoughts about a PRB Socratic experience
Mom and Dad were such good providers! But one thing I wish they had done: both accept that I prefer commitment to the-objective-truth rather than belief in Baptist Christianity and coach me in my preference. Alas, they did not know enough, and I do not fault them for what they did not know. On the other hand, my sister thought my preference for the-objective-truth made Mom erroneously apprehensive for her salvation. But this is three or four generations later.
Yesterday, approaching age 75, I recalled my experience
at age 10. I read the last two verses of the Holy Bible and felt, without
articulating, “No God, whom I would follow, is so weak as to think he or she
needs to psychologically threaten me.” It follows, that any person who
psychologically threatens me is weak.
By personal experience, I know that 10 year old boys
think for themselves; can be indoctrinated; yet have future chances to accept
their human authority to think. This second point is illustrated in William
Faulkner’s Barn Burning, a 30-mintue read: archive.org/…/collecteds…/collectedstories030393mbp_djvu.txt.
A 10-year old boy tastes civic justice for the first time and consequently
chooses to live by himself.
Yesterday, five boys rang my door bell. I answered and
stepped out to enjoy the conversation and beautiful weather. Boys qualified to
invite are commissioned to hear the response.
The boys tried to give me a packet and invite me to
attend a Baptist church today (2/25/2018). I told them that I had dropped out
of the Baptist church thirty years ago and now work to encourage civic
morality. I encourage civic morality any time I perceive invitation.
I saw curious, open eyes and continued. “I see
religion as private concern then hope for a favorable afterdeath; nothing wrong
with that. [I perceived general agreement.] I see justice for living as a
separate issue. Therefore, I try to interest people in using rather than merely
referring to the preamble to the constitution for the USA. [I perceived
interest.]” I asked, “Does anyone recall the preamble?”
They all raised their hands but a boy who seemed in
the middle age-range seemed especially aware, so I asked him, “How does it
start?”
He responded commonly correctly, “We the People.”
I said, “That’s part of it, but understanding the
subject of the sentence requires the entire phrase: We the People of the United
States.”
I quickly stated that it represents the individuals in
their states, and only twelve states sent representatives to Philadelphia.
Rhode Island suspected plans for the convention. Then, I explained that nine
states ratified the draft preamble; the USA was established on June 21, 1788.
In 1789, Congress was seated with only ten states, and dissidence from what the
signers had made possible was restored. People hide the dissidence by referring
to a broad group of statesmen as founders, but the establishers were the
signers of the draft constitution.
To illustrate my point, I was going to explain what
happened in the Civil War. I asked, “Why was the Civil War fought?”
The same boy answered, “To end slavery.”
I responded, “That’s close, but the reality is that it
ended a dispute over Bible interpretation.” I started into an explanation of
Robert E. Lee’s religious views in 1856, when an adult and seven more boys
hurried up my sidewalk.
The adult somewhat took over, despite not knowing the
prior conversation, and said that he did not want me misleading the boys. Also,
he did not intend them to knock on my door, since I had sent some boys packing
a year ago; in my opinion then, one of them became too insistent with his
unawareness or ignorance; I did not relate this year to last year. Regardless,
the adult said their message is that Jesus loves me and they want me to enjoy
heaven with them and are praying for me.
A pretty severe debate and argument ensued, wherein I
informed the adult (and all who heard) that just as I do not fear my origins I
do not fear my destiny. I then informed him that I do not appreciate anyone
coming to my home to try to invoke fear and promises for relief from the
fabricated fear. Yet I appreciate a neighbor who helps in time of need; he
retorted that the civic neighbor works for God’s reward. He added that my
salvation is compelling, because it is getting late [I guess he is not aware of
my plan to live to age 121]. He regurgitated Jesus’ love for me.
I informed them it’s not a love I want: I turned my
back on hate decades ago. I stepped inside and retrieved my bible, and asked a
boy to read Luke 14:25-27. He began, “Large crowds were traveling with Jesus,
and turning to them he said: ‘If anyone comes to me and does not hate father
and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such
a person cannot be my disciple. And whoever does not carry their cross and
follow me cannot be my disciple.’” [The metaphor does not work: When the
executioner has condemned you, how can you retrieve the execution stake? How
many people have erroneous let a poisonous snake bite them to prove either
immunity or resurrection after death?]
At some point in the reading, the adult interrupted
and said, “Jesus hates the sin.” A boy echoed the statement. They don’t know
anything. Perhaps “disciple” was one of the twelve. But it does not matter: the
erroneous “hate” is the problem.
I responded, “If it’s sin, then this passage asks
family members to judge each other. Regardless, there’s no excuse for using the
word “hate” in an expression about family.” I asked the older boy in the group,
“Would you like someone suggesting hate among your family members?”
He hesitantly answered, “No.”
Trying to bring the debate to a close, the adult said,
“We love you and are praying for you.”
I responded, “Pray in your closets, but do not pray at
my doorstep.”
One of the boys erroneously said, “We pray
everywhere,” as though my doorstep means nothing to him. I don’t fault the boy
but the people who sent him. Perhaps some news reports are correct: There’s a
newly aggressive, Christian evangelism in America.
Believing religion is for adults: The male human body
does not complete the wisdom-building parts of the brain before age 25 (females
23). Giving a few years for experience and observations to kick in, a person
ought not believe religion before age 40 or later, if ever. The worst human,
psychological violence is to try to persuade a civically moral person that
their private motivations and inspirations portend doom!
On departing, the adult reiterated that he was
concerned about what the boys may have heard from me. I responded that my
message was civic and that he was indoctrinating the boys in error and abusing
them in the door-to-door work. As he reached the end of my walk, I said, “What
you did today was aggression.”
I hope adults in Baptist and other churches read this
and accept that some citizens think the preamble to the constitution for the
USA requires every citizen to collaborate for civic morality, leaving religious
morality a mature-adult choice. Churches don’t seem to realize that some
children reared on mystery become wayward adults, much to their dismay.
Christianity might help some believers if the
institutions (about 4000) would adopt civic morality for living, reserving
mysterious morality for the afterdeath.
__________
__________
Followup on Feb 26, 2018. The adult and I met and apologized
for each of our failures: in every thought, word, and action, first do no harm.
His similar language is do as Jesus would do.
The articulation of individual authority to behave while
spending the energy of one human lifetime is new to me as I approach age 75. It
led to the articulation of the commitment: in every thought, word, and action,
first do no harm.
So far, I have learned that the practice of these two
principles may require understanding and development. MWW, our daughter, and a
friend helped me reject the notion, “first intend no harm.” Agathon’s speech, about
2500 years ago, reported in Plato’s “Symposium,” informs me that if a service I
am paying for has lied to me I must discuss with the customer service office
until I am convinced reform will be considered; otherwise, I am corroborating
with lies to customers. I have yet to articulate the lessons from this
experience, but will write about them when it seems clear to me.
One thing I am convinced of: in a civic culture, no individual has the human authority to inform another individual that his or her authority to nourish both civic motivation/inspiration while seeking comfort and hopes for favorable afterdeath is erroneous. While I don’t doubt my authority to behave, I could be wrong.
One thing I am convinced of: in a civic culture, no individual has the human authority to inform another individual that his or her authority to nourish both civic motivation/inspiration while seeking comfort and hopes for favorable afterdeath is erroneous. While I don’t doubt my authority to behave, I could be wrong.
Phil Beaver does not “know”
the actual-reality. He trusts and is
committed to the-objective-truth which can only be
discovered. He is agent for A Civic People of the United States, a Louisiana,
education non-profit corporation. See online at
promotethepreamble.blogspot.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment