Wednesday, February 28, 2018

Asking conservative libertylawsite writers to consider "Jane Eyre"'s Christian experience


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_1fbd96fc-1743-11e8-ae7a-f75321fce1f6.html)

The Advocate on Tuesday reported an ultimatum by the Legislative Black Caucus, who “took a swing at Republicans for suggesting that the group had threatened to derail any compromise that didn't meet members' demands.” The Republicans had slammed Gov. John Bel Edwards for poor leadership. See theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/politics/legislature/article_c7421160-1b20-11e8-ba42-7be1f25d0e92.html.

Today, The Advocate chooses sides in the fray: “Compromise is now a dirty word, particularly in the balky caucus of the House Republicans. That's been the biggest obstacle to progress — even more than whatever errors Gov. John Bel Edwards might have made in the process.” Compromise is inferior to collaboration so as to help the people of Louisiana rather than conflict for dominant opinion.

It’s The Advocate and the Legislative Black Caucus against the people of Louisiana. Edwards is a mere pawn. I encourage Edwards to step aside under the adage: lead, follow, or get out of the way.

I hope The Advocate will reform from its attraction to social democracy. The USA needs to restore the path to private liberty with civic morality that was abandoned by dissidents after March 4, 1789, when the First Congress, representing ten states, was seated. It would not be too difficult to restore the 1787 constitution for the USA.

For one thing, the Congressional Black Caucus would need to voluntarily collaborate using the preamble, a civic agreement. The Civil War made it clear that most white citizens collaborate using the preamble.

Also, The Advocate could become responsible rather than merely free, so as to help preserve freedom of the press. I'm ready to create some restrictions on mendacity with means of enforcement.
Today’s thought, G.E. Dean (Mark 9:43 CJB), The Advocate, February 28, 2018, 7B.

"If your hand makes you sin, cut it off! Better that you should be maimed but obtain eternal life, rather than keep both hands and go to Gei-Hinnom, to unquenchable fire!

Dean says, “Hell is a real place. Jesus said so.”

Good grief! I long since perceived real people rejected such barbaric thinking. It is a travesty that my hometown newspaper, in the face of a crisis in mental health, publishes such barbaric trash.

It’s hard to prove that The Advocate and G. E. Dean have not encouraged barbaric acts during past decades! It is past time for them to reform from promoting harmful ideas.

Letters

Reacting to lies (Ruzicka) (theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/letters/article_895fc642-0ac9-11e8-9826-73579d00632e.html)
  
Ruzicka, your first political phrase, “our democracy” expresses a popular lie, which you could easily discover by reading the constitution. You live in a republic, specifically, the American republic. It is unique in the world, but not exceptional:  The people have neglected the responsibility to know how to vote for their personal interests. Most people neglect their personal authority to behave for civic morality.

Now, I know you as a liar. Considering a wise instruction from an often erroneous book, I should not help a liar advance his lies; see Matthew 7:6 and consider the metaphor’s pig or dog. In the past, I would have patiently tried to persuade you to consider the words in the constitution for the USA: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.” After President Trump’s examples, I am not certain how I would try to communicate with you; I’m reluctant to let the other party dictate my morality and have not resolved my dilemma on the point. I think what I might say is, as long as you represent the USA as “our democracy,” I have no reason to communicate with you. That way, I have not lied.

Trump lies to liars:  His is a clear message:  “I perceive you have come to me without establishing integrity and your commitment to express integrity. I hereby make that your problem, while I resume my day’s plans.”

Other forums

libertylawsite.org/2018/02/28/boise-state-universitys-blueprint-for-social-justice-university-radicalism-scott-yenor

I appreciate Professor Yenor’s post and the five comments so far.

“Who could object to a university embracing Academic Excellence, Caring, Citizenship, Fairness, Respect, Responsibility, and Trustworthiness as Shared Values?” An answer is: anyone who prefers privacy rather than caring; justice more than fairness; appreciation before respect; liberty rather than sharing; mutual safety and security more than citizenship; and freedom-from oppression and aspiration to liberty-to pursue personal happiness rather than the dictates of others.

Many people ponder what to do about the chaos that has developed. I constantly work to inspire relief by the people rather than by government or God. Neither one of those powers—state nor church—usurps human authority.

American citizens lost track of the 1787 Constitution for the USA. Some are influenced by foreigners, who do not realize the USA is unique more than exceptional. For example, some citizens are influenced by English tradition. The colonists turned statesmen won independence from England in 1781 at Yorktown, Virginia. In general, Europeans erroneously work for social democracy. But Americans understand freedom-from and liberty-to and will not freely go back to before.

The colonists had experienced freedom-from European oppression and from 1607 through 1765 earned the liberty-to live according to private preferences yet pursue civic morality. They declared war for justice more than controversial rights. In 1788, the people in nine of the 1783 Treaty of Paris’s thirteen free and independent states authorized a unique nation based on a civic agreement that is offered in the preamble to the constitution for the USA. By “civic” I mean voluntary, or without contrived coercion or force. The agreement is in the civic American’s genes and memes more than articulation.

The preamble offers a voluntary agreement by individual citizens, and many Americans erroneously reject it for reasons they may or may not understand. The agreement proposes collaboration for the American republic rather than democracy or monarchy. The American republic empowers every individual who collaborates for civic justice rather than dominant opinion. But most people do not accept their individual authority for living, and therefore choose some doctrine. Perhaps, by experience, they discover the doctrine’s evil before their life ends. If so, they may seek a new doctrine, continuously denying personal authority to live their life. Some, at last, accept their human authority and behave.

“Everybody knows” that something is in control of everything, in other words, something is in control of actual reality. Perhaps the controller is God, or the-objective-truth, or chaos, or potential energy, or physics, or sheer power.

“Everybody knows” that with 7.6 billion people on earth, there must be order. Perhaps order comes from government, cultures, the people, or raw power. Many people overlook—take for granted—the civic order they practice. For example, almost all people civically queue to enter a concert.

Thus, there are two external powers each person must deal with: actual reality and government. But there’s a preeminent authority that responds to the two external powers: Each individual has the authority over his or her energy for life—perhaps his or her ninety years. He or she may develop that authority according to personal preferences. The collective, individual choices effect humankind’s progress or regress.
Those who develop authority may choose to develop fidelity; perhaps a comprehensive fidelity. That is, fidelity to the-objective-truth, to self, to family, to extended family and friends, to the people (nation), to the world, and to the universe. No one knows, but the-objective-truth may involve the God; I doubt it but do not know.

Not everyone behaves with fidelity. For example, some people perceive crime pays and therefore abuse justice until harm is discovered. Then, they may either reform or perhaps face statutory justice, even annihilation. People who lie don’t realize that they isolate themselves from the quest for justice.

Humankind seems on a deliberate march toward statutory justice, which is written law and law enforcement based on the-objective-truth (actual reality) rather than opinion. When an-objective-truth has not been discovered, a civic people collaborate for necessary law according to the theory of interconnected, discovered-objective-truths.
Having the same individual authority as other humans, criminals can accept statutory law but invariably reject capricious, dominant opinion. Criminals may be inspired to reform when a culture develops statutory justice.

Individuals who have discovered comprehensive fidelity may begin each day with the commitment: In every thought, in every word, in every action, I will first do no harm. It is a commitment more than an intention. For example, if someone has lied to him or her, he or she identifies and rebukes the lie. If he or she perceives need to act but imagines harm to another party, he or she discusses the proposal, listens to the other party’s views, and collaborates to discover beneficial action or none. These are only examples of recent experiences from my quest to first do no harm, now in my second month of practice.

I share these ideas with everyone who will read or listen and hope you will share too, with improvements I’d like to learn for collaboration. By word of mouth, we can establish an achievable, better future. One of the keys is each citizen’s individual authority to trust and commit to the preamble’s civic agreement.
  
libertylawsite.org/2018/02/28/marriage-market-and-politics-in-middlemarch-george-eliot-classical-liberalism

I am disappointed that you do not compare “Jane Eyre,” by Charlotte Bronte. Janet lives an uncanny life of civic rectitude despite potentially devastating Christian impulses.

But that’s only my view. I would love to read yours.

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