February 25, 2018

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.

  

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.