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,
state, nation, or other institution.
A personal paraphrase of
the June 21, 1788 preamble, the 1787 Constitution’s most neglected statutory
law: 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 and our states by the USA. I want to
collaborate with other citizens on this paraphrase, yet would always preserve
the original, 1787, text, unless amended by the people.
Our Views
May 10 (theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_c1009598-52ce-11e8-b466-8b6a495e6e21.html)
Will The Advocate
personnel ever be able draw the conclusion begged by their rendition of the
facts?
The
Advocate personnel seem to tacitly assert that Gov. John Bel Edwards “missed
out” because of the Koch Foundation and Kentucky.
Letters
Individual integrity
rather than philanthropy (Hebert) (http://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/letters/article_0e29ff50-53d1-11e8-96d7-a76853bb29ed.html)
Every individual has the
individual power, energy and authority (IPEA) to develop integrity.
Wellness is an individual
responsibility. It is well known that controlling appetites rather than
nourishing banality is essential to well-being. Hygiene, sexual discipline,
proper diet, regular exercise, rejecting entertainment drugs and nicotine, and
moderate alcohol consumption are at least four times more effective than
medical care.
If Hebert wants to dedicate her
income and wealth to medical care at a 1:4 effectiveness-ratio compared to
self-discipline, it makes no difference to me. However, I have no interest in
helping Hebert in such public folly. Folly attempts escape from integrity but
invites woe.
Hebert and many other chaplains
relish preposterous ideas like the Rooseveltan slogan “freedom from want.” It’s
a ruinous idea. When there’s freedom from want there’s no incentive to develop
integrity. I want to live in comprehensive fidelity and know many like-minded
citizens . . . and a few dissidents. But I read about (and from) dissidents often.
I think citizens should beware most ministers and especially their coalitions.
Good grief: For the past five decades we’ve contended with the divisive
African-American Christianity, whatever that is.
Hebert quotes Thomas Jefferson’s
claim: government should not destroy the human right to “seek a safe place to
live,” and expects us to accept her misunderstanding or worse. I doubt Hebert
understands integrity. Also, she would be happy to pick my pocket using the
priestly-politician partnership, the Chapter XI Machiavellian partnership that
is devoid of integrity among parishioners. Only someone who works for an achievable,
better future would object to Chapter XI Machiavellianism.
JT McQuitty I understand the Vatican proposed to store Alfie’s
body indefinitely. Quoting, “scans showed "catastrophic degradation of
his brain tissue" and that further treatment was not only "futile" but also
"unkind and inhumane". http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-43754949
British law prevailed, and that seems just for Alfie’s person, who should not
be made an international object of dispute.
Integrity
rather than mystery (Faust) (theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/letters/article_dc760fd0-4e44-11e8-b7b9-6b82036f7728.html)
The Advocate
writes, “Day of judgement is here . . . “
The Advocate
personnel could, but do not, journal the route to integrity.
The personnel don’t seem to accept that the
“Amazing Grace” political formula has not worked during eternity so far and
probably won't work for the rest of eternity. I refer to the political germ,
“’Twas grace that taught my heart to fear.” Humility empowers the individual,
but grace promotes pride: "I am blessed." Pursuing mysterious success
for the soul can bring actually-ruined life.
Every
individual has the authority, power, and energy by which he or she may develop
integrity. It isn’t easy. A confused world presents many distractions. But the
person who chooses integrity may discover comprehensive fidelity. Therein, the
individual manages the lesser powers he or she faces: banal satisfactions
(appetites), philosophical and religious constructs (coercion), and government
(force). Perhaps Faust is reaching beyond the mystery and infidelity to
struggle for integrity.
Faust wrote, “Whoever commits a crime should be punished. All mankind
should be looked at as the same. Racism is an act of ignorance. No one should
be judged by the color of their skin. No member of mankind has that authority
to look at a person and make a wrong decision based upon skin color. If anyone
uses their authority to discriminate, they should not be in office.”
I think this Faust mimics the
countless writers in humankind’s noble pursuit of integrity who wrote so as to
save their lives yet express integrity. I think Faust is urging the Louisiana
Legislative Black Caucus to either stop their racism or the people who are
tired of black-on-black killing, or vigilantism, should individually un-elect
them.
If so, she is not unlike Galileo,
Machiavelli, Emerson, Dostoyevsky, and many others, except that she is in Baton
Rouge, now.
BTW:
My commentary in the last few weeks has focused on integrity and
individual authority quite a bit. It seems time to amend my 1999 letter to the
editor, “Let’s revise the first amendment” (http://promotethepreamble.blogspot.com/2014/06/lets-revise-first-amendment.html), to “Congress shall
make no law respecting integrity,” dropping the religion clauses altogether.
Intentionally or not, Faust’s words address harm done
to black Americans by some elected officials who pretend to favor blacks but
actually harm them, and I appreciate her composition. Appreciate The Advocate’s
Christian caption? Not so much: it may be against "white church". We
still don’t understand “African-American Christianity” (wsj.com/articles/dr-kings-radical-biblical-vision-1522970778)
yet deem it divisive by its words. It seems to have developed during the last
five decades, and The Advocate personnel ought to have journaled it so that the
civic people could respond.
Columns
America first
altnernate for democrats (Froma Harrop) (https://okobserver.org/democrats-need-their-own-version-of-america-first/)
Inspired by Harrop’s
column, I am writing to suggest taking a good slogan before the Democrats read
about our work in Baton Rouge.
Harrop wrote, “’America
First’ is taken, and Democrats shouldn’t want it. Whatever they come up with,
however, should roll everyone into a single American identity, regardless of
race, creed or gender distinction. Democrats, go ahead and use your identity
pitches for grass-roots targeting, but put sea-to-shining-sea imagery in your
skywriting.”
I read Harrop’s column
while planning our fifth annual Individual Independence Day, June 21; www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/entertainment_life/calendar/?/event/8721598/53272800/5th-annual-independent-independence-day-celebration
.
“Individual independence”
or “American individual Independence” or “Individual citizen’s independence”
makes a good slogan; somewhat related to Pres. John F. Kennedy’s “Ask not what
your country can do for you . . . “ Mimicking that, the slogan might be, “Citizens
strengthen America by using individual power, energy, and authority to develop
integrity.”
America was made a globally legal entity by the willing people of nine free and independent states on June 21, 1788. We dub June 21
Individual Independence Day. During 230 years, 41 states were admitted to the
USA.
The first
constitutional sentence, the preamble tacitly asserts that each citizen may
accept individual power, energy and authority (IPEA) to develop integrity: some
citizens are dissident. Through American fidelity to all citizens, dissidents may
reform. After an introductory speech, here’s a possible Trump mantra:
Individual Integrity makes America First.
Perhaps also announce task
force to develop a program in education about integrity and fidelity. This education
is appropriate during the effort to reform immigration, domestic entitlement
programs, voting regulations, and poverty preservation. [Sent this much to the
White House.]
America’s wealth
extremes, made possible by capitalism but supported by regulatory schemes, is
attended by brutality to children, especially children in poverty. But in
general, children who learn propaganda
rather than understanding because indoctrination
is promoted in America. A current battle is between Christianity and social
democracy: we could have integrity.
Kill HB 365 (Marc
Hayden) (http://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/article_7012cf66-53aa-11e8-8d35-8f2e0c8093d6.html)
Kill HB
365, scheduled for tomorrow;
legis.la.gov/legis/BillInfo.aspx?s=18RS&b=HB365&sbi=y.
Louisiana’s
10-2 jury rule is a boon to justice and makes the Louisiana Constitution once
again exemplary to the USA and to the world. (By again, I refer to Louisiana’s
protection of free expression with responsibility for consequences. It puts
enforcement behind common sense like don’t yell “fire” in a crowd.)
Laws
are made to protect a civic people---those who live for comprehensive safety
and security more than for the city---from dissidents (those who would take
advantage of civic citizens). Just as the U. S. Supreme Court operates on 5-4
decisions: All Louisiana juries may operate on simple majority. Change to
uniform majority decisions may be considered. The opportunity for approved
adjudication starts with discovering reliable evidence of either guilt or
innocence rather than constructing verdict made evidence. Second is creating
jury pools of reliably impartial people.
In
crime, the victim wants justice and is heartbroken with time lost when the
system accuses an innocent person or worse when a conviction is overturned. The
same is true for civic citizens who are jurors: They neither want to consider
false evidence against the accused, nor misguidance from the judge, nor the
evidence falsely diminished by the defense.
The
Rev. Eleanor Faust spoke against the racism behind SB 243 and for a civic
people in
theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/letters/article_dc760fd0-4e44-11e8-b7b9-6b82036f7728.html.
Faust: “It is time for a change in the justice system and in the heart of
mankind. Whoever commits a crime should be punished. If anyone uses their
authority to discriminate, they should not be in office.” I think she invited
JP Morrell and Troy Carter and all other members of the Louisiana Black Caucus
to resign, or the constituents to un-elect them.
Every
human has individual power, energy, and authority (IPEA) to develop integrity.
Most don’t. Those who develop integrity may develop fidelity.
If so,
they may discover fidelity to the-objective-truth, which cannot be constructed.
Fidelity to the-objective-truth may develop to comprehensive fidelity: to self,
to immediate family, to extended family and friends, to the people, to
humankind, to the earth, and to the universe, both respectively and
collectively.
With
comprehensive fidelity, the individual may, in every thought, word, and action,
neither initiate nor tolerate harm.
Thereby,
the individual may manage the lesser powers he or she faces: appetites
(banality); societies and civilizations (coercion); and governments (forces,
both domestic and foreign).
I think
the biggest mistake in life is to not develop integrity.
Few
people are attracted to integrity, and I think that is because most religions
teach that the human psychology is a good-evil duality, and to favor good, a
human needs a higher power. However, it seems obvious that appetites, gods, and
governments are ruinous to the individual.
Some
people honestly criticize the 10-2 rule, but honesty is insufficient: Mutual,
comprehensive safety and security requires integrity. People who have no
integrity identify themselves in their thoughts, words, and actions.
Contact
your state representative and senator and urge them to kill HB 365, scheduled
for floor debate tomorrow, 5/11;
legis.la.gov/legis/BillInfo.aspx?s=18RS&b=HB365&sbi=y. Killing HB 365
will kill SB 243.
Kill HB 365 (James
Gill) (theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/letters/article_dc760fd0-4e44-11e8-b7b9-6b82036f7728.html)
Add to the English and Scotland
cases, 10-2 and 8-7, respectively, France’s 4-2 jury vote: “. . . only when prosecuted for a felony (crime in
French). Conviction requires a two-third majority (four or six votes).” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_trial#France.
If anything, Louisiana
ought to revise its rule to 5-4, and require the jury pool to be civic citizens
rather than dissidents according to the preamble to the constitution for the
USA. After all, We the People of the United States, rather than Blackstone and
England’s Protestant God, authorized and maintain the USA.
But these
reforms are matters for a state constitutional convention, with broader reforms.
There, a civic citizen may be defined as the individual human who accepts his
or her human authority, power, and energy to develop integrity. Further,
individuals who accept that human authenticity collaborate to discover
the-objective-truth as the basis of justice rather than conflict for dominant
opinion. With all citizens practicing fidelity to the-objective-truth, the
nation could develop infallibility.
However, there
will always be individuals who choose to try to take advantage of civic
citizens. Therefore, the people must develop statutory justice, or laws derived
from the-objective-truth.
The theory of
an achievable, better future is developing right here in Baton Rouge, in EBRP
library meetings.
Meanwhile,
contact your state representative and senator and ask them to kill HB 365,
which would change Louisiana’s 10-2 jury rule to 12-0. Also, kill HB 699.
News
Incidental sex
slavery? (Sara Pagones) (theadvocate.com/new_orleans/news/communities/st_tammany/article_c0d6c3a8-4fa9-11e8-8dca-5f9fb0e1f4db.html)
I wonder if Cowell's DNA and truck are evidence of sex slavery. More
importantly, I wonder if incidental sex slavery is illegal.
Judicial secrecy
(John Simerman) (http://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/article_f5d47386-4efd-11e8-925e-5b89b2f876ad.html)
To Marsha
Marshal: Furtherless,
the USA was established on June 21, 1788. Madison’s state remained a dissident.
The nine formerly free and independent states hoped the dissident four would
join the USA. The USA began operating on March 4, 1789 with three states still
dissident. The first congress unconstitutionally restored Blackstone but muddied
with factional American Protestantism rather than the Church of England.
Go figure the
myths Blackstone and Christianity impose on dissidents to the preamble and
attempt to impose on civic citizens. The preamble is the fundamental legal
agreement that is offered in the constitution for the USA.
We know that
Madison had some bad ideas, not merely because the present generation exerts
its human authority, power, and energy to collaborate for integrity, but
because the USA is in chaos.
Consider the
embarrassing enmity among potentially civic citizens who write in this forum.
Marsha Marshal
again: Every human
has the individual power, energy, and authority (IPEA) to develop integrity.
Many people refuse IPEA by pawning their IPEA off on others.
Integrity is
perplexing; it cannot be taught. The individual discovers integrity on his or
her own. Integrity can, however, be encouraged and coached. I would assert that
my reading, writing, talking, preaching, and sincere listening is an exercise
in integrity. After a few decades study of James Madison, I concluded that his
brilliance was more political than moral.
People who defer
to James Madison have no hope for integrity, because they are relying on
mystery. For example, Madison corroborated in contradictions then denied
authorship. See the editor’s extensive comments at https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-08-02-0163.
I wish I had had access to these
notes two to three decades ago when Memorial & Remonstrance (M&R,
whoever wrote it) first perplexed me with ideas like: “. . . what is here a
right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man
to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be
acceptable to him.” Deism seems the sentiment, and the capital “C” with lower
case “h” seems to assert that an individual’s beliefs take precedence over a
Creator’s demands.
This contradiction as to who or what is "the
Lord"---the debate---is at the heart of America’s unfortunate bemusement
with freedom of religion rather than liberty to develop individual integrity.
If you assert
that Madison is at the heart of that tyranny over the minds of individuals, I
would agree. Perhaps Thomas Jefferson opposed Madison’s tyranny. Protecting
freedom of religion, an institution, rather than protecting the citizen’s
opportunity to develop individual integrity, is unconstitutional, and I am not
the first to say so, perhaps in other words.
Further into
the text, M&R has this gem, “During almost fifteen centuries has the legal
establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or
less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility
in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.” We may now add
to that list the 1861-65 Civil War over “more erroneous religious opinion.” See
the Declaration of Secession’s conclusion of complaints against the North. Moreover,
since the early 1970s we've had the divisive phrase "African-American
Christianity." I can speculate what that phrase means to fellow-citizen
Jeremiah Wright, Jr, based on what I heard from him.
Apparently,
M&R’s author (Madison?) was conflicted as to whether religion should be
separated from state or have a partnering role, as the text continued, “. . .
the policy of the Bill is adverse to the diffusion of the light of
Christianity. The first wish of those who enjoy this precious gift ought to be
that it may be imparted to the whole race of mankind. Compare the number of those
who have as yet received it with the number still remaining under the dominion
of false Religions; and how small is the former!”
I comprehend that M&R’s author was expressing that
the Christian ought to want to impose Christianity on the world, but that government
imposition did more harm than good. With integrity, the author would have
admitted that religious beliefs are not of interest to the government at all,
as long as the beliefs do not motivate infraction of the law.
So far, you belittle (representing yourself) my
articulation that every human has the individual power, energy, and authority
(IPEA) to develop integrity. I read, write, talk, and preach to collaborate
with fellow-citizens and learn. Stonewalling is a form of lying, but that lie
can only be found in the mirror. My low esteem for James Madison comes from
many hours before my mirror of integrity. I still seek to learn why I should
not hold him in moral disdain for his political intentions.
Please do your
part to kill HB 365, which could ruin one of Louisiana’s excellent
distinctions: the majority vote, now 10-2, in jury decisions. It would be
enhanced by revision to 5-4 and a jury pool of citizens who have demonstrated
integrity rather than dissidence to justice; in other words, impartial citizens
as discerned by the-objective-truth rather than reams of jurisprudence, Madison
mystery, or other political construct.
The travesty of
social morals for Muslims (Yonat Shimron) (https://religionnews.com/2018/05/01/muslims-disapprove-of-countrys-direction-but-are-proud-to-call-themselves-americans/)
Among We the
People of the United States---those who embrace the civic agreement that is
offered in the preamble to the constitution for the USA---a few may describe
Americanism as private liberty with civic morality. Christians who do so may
use Christianity for hope in the afterdeath but civic morality for living. That
is, they separate church and state.
I think
President Trump does that in his way, yet is following the erroneous decision
by the US Supreme Court in Greece v Galloway. A constitutional amendment may be
needed so as to promote integrity.
Muslims seem to
think civic morality, or offering goodwill to other citizens, requires Islam.
There seems disconnect not unlike the emergence of African-American
Christianity some five decades ago.
Adopting the
civic agreement that is offered in the preamble can relieve civic citizens from
the religious conflict. Also, the First Amendment to the constitution for the
USA may be revised so as to protect the individual’s authority, power, and energy
to develop integrity. Thereby, every responsible religions my flourish
according to believers’ hopes for their afterdeaths.
I have yet to
try a civic conversation with a Muslim that did not end with something like,
“Phil, you are an honorable seeker. But sooner or later you will submit to
Allah.”
Even if I take
“Allah” to be whatever may control actual reality, it do not accept the “sooner
or later.” I think that when my body, mind, and person stop functioning, there
will be no afterdeath. Therefore, all I want in life is comprehensive safety
and security so that I may pursue my preference, which is developing personal
integrity.
I hope that if
I achieve a status of unerring fidelity, it will not mean death, a theological
idea I learned from the wonderful photographer who took my employment photo in
1967. She spoke of a Baton Rougean who had recently died. He had perfected
himself and went to join his father in heaven. Of course, I am so far from
perfection I do not fear death from developing integrity.
Everywhere I
go, I have wonderful conversations with strangers. However, among most people I
know or knew, there is only mistrust. I speculate that I am a stranger to all
but a few.
I think a civic
American trusts-in and is committed-to the civic agreement that is offered in
the preamble to the constitution for the USA. Other people are dissidents.
People who think their religion must be imposed on other American citizens are
dissidents. They do not accept that every human individual has the authority,
power, and energy to develop integrity. Thus, a human cannot attest to a
religion he or she does not believe. Yet, every individual has the
responsibility to offer goodwill to every person living in their years and
place. Even the dissident to the preamble should receive the hope for reform.
Even someone who “dusts a neighbor off” (Matthew 10:14) deserves patience.
Submitted on
the newsite.
Muslim hubris (Yonat
Shimron) (religionnews.com/2018/05/01/muslims-disapprove-of-countrys-direction-but-are-proud-to-call-themselves-americans/)
A typical
mutigenerational, mixed-European American, I feel alienating-coercion in my
birth country. I trust-in and commit-to the-objective-truth, which exists and
can only be discovered rather than constructed from reasonable imagination.
Thomas
Jefferson wrote, “The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only
as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say
there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my
leg." He also wanted notoriety for the statement, “I have sworn upon the
altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of
man."
In the first,
civic quote, he used a capital “G”, but not in the second. These two quotes may
assert that beliefs may be erroneous and should not be involved in the
evaluation of civic morals (in other words offering goodwill and behavior to
other citizens), but Jefferson individually trusts a controller of actual
reality that does not respond to worship or entreaty and would not impose his
serenity on another person. For example, perhaps the controller is energy,
which Einstein proved is interchangeable with mass.
Good grief! As
of the early 1970s, there’s African-American Christianity here, according to
West and George rather than King;
wsj.com/articles/dr-kings-radical-biblical-vision-1522970778. I understand that
religion means the only way I may save my colorless soul is to help black
Americans reign supreme. I hope I’m wrong, but there must be a reason for the
divisive phrase. But it’s futile, because I don’t subscribe to the soul-fear
construct in the first place. I do not subscribe to “Amazing Grace.” I prefer humility.
Some people will accuse me of arrogance.
Moreover, the
preamble to the constitution for the USA, whose willing citizens authorized and
maintain the laws and institutions of the USA, says nothing about religious or
ethnic distinctions. Only dissidents separate themselves from the civic
agreement. It has long been known that George Washington expressed humility
through his personal religion, but did not include religion beyond his personal
life---did not try to impose his religion on other people.
Washington
presided over the form and signing of the 1787 Constitution with its authority:
We the People of the United States.
People who want
to be Americans cannot approach citizenship with dissident demands. They must
consider the preamble, paraphrase it so as to accommodate their way of living,
consider each goal, and either adjust their way of living to accommodate the
preamble or suggest revision of the preamble to accommodate their way of
living. If they prefer to revise the preamble, they must collaborate with the
civic people of America to effect the change or the people’s alternate that is
even better. If not, they must accept the preamble or remain dissident.
For example, I
think every individual has the authority, power, and energy to develop
integrity. Perhaps there is a universal integrity, but it is sufficient for a
person to achieve the degree of integrity their journey in life will allow.
Thus, unity does not seem a feasible individual goal. Therefore, I propose to
change from “to form a more perfect Unity” to “to develop integrity” or better.
Fellow citizens should not accept the hubris to ignore my trust-in and
commitment-to the preamble. In other words, as a fellow citizen, I should not
be ignored.
Fellow citizens
who don’t comprehend what I am proposing and don’t do the work to understand
and propose reform are dissidents either by default or by intent and have no
claim to Americanism according to the preamble..
Sooner or
later, each human individual either accepts the individual authority, power,
and energy to develop integrity or does not.
I hope this
helps and would appreciate comments and questions.
Posted on the
website.
Other fora
libertylawsite.org/2018/05/10/why-liberalism-needs-natural-law-integralism-burke-political-economy/
“Burke regarded what some call ‘liberalism’ today as
incomprehensible, unworkable and unjust in the absence of widespread commitment
to natural law. Without natural law foundations . . . how can we determine what
is and isn’t a right other than appeals to raw power or utility . . . ?”
“. . . some have concluded that integralism
offers a better way forward.”
“. . . as long
as humans are fallible, natural law reasoning won’t guarantee a liberal order
free of imperfections. It does, however, [avoid both] authoritarian liberalism
. . . and . . . integralism which . . . can’t help but produce the type of
relationship between church and state that not only blurs their respective
competencies but usually ends up being very damaging to both politics and
religion.”
Huh? Aren’t
politics and religion to be kept separated?
Traditional
scholarship follows edicts such as “write in English” and “write for the audience,”
constraining the writer in two ways: 1) he or she cannot express the message
because of obsolete, unrelated, or temporal usage of terms---words and phrases,
like “liberalism” and “natural law”, and 2) the audience is so diverse and
aggressive the writer can satisfy few if any readers. I reject instruction so
as to record my message for the few readers who will learn my glossary. I
cannot deliver my message when I’m gone, so I’ll do it while I’m here and hope
someone cares enough to seek clarity when my fallibility prevails.
To address
Samuel Gregg’s essay, I’d like to agree with the overall premise and suggest an
attainable, better future. The basis is the-objective-truth, which can only be
discovered, rather than natural law, traditionally based on reason.
I think Gregg’s
premise is that humankind has discovered so much of the-objective-truth yet developed
so many diverse civilizations that most people, with perhaps 80 years expected
life, have lost hope for individual liberty. In other words, while technology
has advanced exponentially, scholars debate civic morality imagined some 300
years ago, dampening enthusiasm for the next 80 years.
The mature human
being is so physically and psychologically powerful that it takes about three
decades for a well-coached and encouraged infant to acquire the understanding
and intent to live a full life. The aware young adult has the individual power,
energy, and authority (IPEA) to develop integrity. Most don’t; some think crime
pays. But there are outliers who develop integrity.
“Integrity”
exceeds honesty. Integrity requires five practices: 1), a) the work to
comprehend an-objective-truth and understand how to benefit; b) when action is
required but the-objective-truth is unknown, choose the action that most
closely conforms to the theory of the-objective-truth, 2) behavior so as to
benefit from the-objective-truth, 3) public expression of the understanding and
benefits, and 4) open-mindedness for discovery that demands change in behavior
for benefit.
Those who
develop integrity also develop comprehensive fidelity. Its basis is
the-objective-truth and fidelity extends, both respectively and collectively to
self, to immediate family, to extended family and friends, to the people, to
the world, and to the universe.
When IPEA motivates
integrity and fidelity, the individual, in every thought, word, and action,
neither initiates nor tolerates harm. This practice is beyond intention, and if
he or she errs, it’s because of oversight such as consequences for another
party. On notice, he or she effects correction soon, if possible. He or she
approaches individual infallibility.
The individual
manages the lesser authorities each human faces: appetites (banality),
civilizations (coercion), government (power), and the unknowns (fear or doubt).
Respecting the unknowns, the individual serenely develops his or her comforts
and hopes. That is, every harmless religion flourishes.
Humankind is
comprised of individuals at different chronologies and with different natural
abilities, each living in a distinct civilization and culture. Therefore, the
variations on acceptance/rejection/misuse of IPEA are as many as the people
living at any moment. However, it is important to recognize that humankind is
divided: some are developing integrity and some not.
A transcending
culture of mutual, comprehensive safety and security seems achievable if most
humans accept IPEA and choose to develop integrity. Effecting this change
worldwide seems remote. However, the USA was designed for IPEA. The first,
legal sentence in the constitution for the USA, the preamble, asserts that the willing
people authorize the laws and institutions for stated purposes, and among the
articles is the authority to amend the constitution so as to increase integrity.
By “willing people” I mean those citizens who trust-in and commit-to the
agreement that is stated in the preamble. The sentence addresses civic issues,
leaving comforts and hopes respecting the unknowns for individual attention.
With a majority
of citizens accepting IPEA and developing integrity, the people may approach
infallibility.
These ideas have
developed upon collaboration by about sixty people in public library meetings
in Baton Rouge, LA, into our fifth year. Here, citizens are infamously divided:
Democrat vs Republican; black vs white; African-American Christian vs perhaps all
others; the poor vs the affluent; incorporated Baton Rouge vs the proposed St.
George City.
What began as a
proposal to consider being We the People of the United States (as specified by
the legal agreement that is offered by the preamble to the constitution for the
USA) developed into the additional articulation that each individual has the
power, energy, and authority to develop integrity and fidelity. So far, IPEA
has been well received, but not by all hearers and readers.
Also posted on
promtethepreamble.blogspot.com as a standalone essay.
The question: What are the
biggest mistakes to avoid in life?
The question is mind
mindbogglingly indolent: Should the response cover the top three, top ten, top
one-hundred?
Every human has individual
power, energy, and authority (IPEA) to develop integrity. Most don’t. Those who
develop integrity may develop fidelity.
If so, they may discover
fidelity to the-objective-truth, which can only be discovered. It may develop
to comprehensive fidelity: to self, to immediate family, to extended family and
friends, to the people, to humankind, to the earth, and to the universe, both
respectively and collectively.
With comprehensive fidelity,
the individual may, in every thought, word, and action, neither initiate nor
tolerate harm.
Thereby, the individual may
manage the lesser powers he or she faces: appetites (banality); societies and
civilizations (coercion); and governments (forces, both domestic and foreign).
I think the biggest mistake
in life is to not develop integrity.
Few people are attracted to
integrity, and I think that is because most religions teach that the human
psychology is a good-evil duality, and to favor good, a human needs a higher
power. However, it seems obvious that appetites, gods, and governments are
ruinous to the individual.
With the above articulations,
I hope very soon a super-majority of citizens if not inhabitants will embrace
IPEA and develop integrity and comprehensive fidelity.
I write to learn and would
appreciate comments.
Cleve commented against fear and hesitation against responsible self-determination.
Jurisprudence in the USA is confused by
statements like, “While the Preamble in which those words appear does not
actually have any innate legal implications beyond introducing the rest of the
Constitution.” The author may be honest, but the statement is not verifiable.
The preamble offers each citizen an agreement,
and depending on acceptance, he or she is either civic or dissident. Likewise,
a state that does not agree is dissident. The Civil War demonstrated that a
state that rescinds its perpetual commitment can secede only with the military
power to effect the separation.
The preamble is revolutionary. It breaks from
Great Britain, the oldest constitutional monarchy and the oldest continuous
civilization in the world. When the American Revolution broke out, free
citizens were 40% statesmen, 40% passive, and 20% loyalists. The prevalent way
of living was British colonial, in other words American factional,
Protestantism with Blackstone Common Law. Therefore, the First Congress
restored legislative “divinity” by hiring factional-Protestant members,
obfuscating governance under the people with “under God.”
My paraphrase is: Citizens in our state want to
achieve the goals stated herein and therefore maintain limiting laws and
institutions whereby the USA may serve us in our states. A citizen who cannot
accept the preamble as the basis of American civics and law ought not to serve
in any civil capacity, even to vote. That includes people in the highest
offices of the land.
The preamble may be improved, so state the
objection and suggest improvement, but meanwhile, be civic; that is, behave
according to the agreement.
We encourage citizens to read, contemplate,
adopt, practice and promote the civic agreement that is stated in the preamble.
quora.com/What-singular-historical-event-has-had-the-most-profound-impact-on-present-day-society/answer/
The question: What singular historical event has had the most profound
impact on present day society? My response is, Roman legalization of
Christianity then canonization of the Holy Bible.
“In
313, the struggles of the Early
Church were
lessened . . . by the Emperor Constantine I.” (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Catholic_Church)
“According to some accounts, in 382 the Council
of Rome first
officially recognized the Biblical
canon, listing the
accepted books of the Old and New
Testament, and in
391 the Vulgate Latin translation of the Bible was made.”
For example, the
Holy Bible contains passages that condone the master-slave relationship and
vice versa. Frederick Douglass’s 1852 observation that slavery is OK for
everybody but him (my paraphrase to represent Douglass’ human authority and
power) was observable the first time anyone ever controlled a person’s labor without
paying the cost to live and save for financial security. (Modern terms do not
negate ancient awareness.)
A publicized,
mysterious message of love (as in empathy) was wrapped in an obfuscated message
of hate so powerful that belief can be sold to individuals of practical reason.
See John 15:18-23 and Luke 14:26, for examples. There’s no excuse for using the
word “hate” to lessen relations between human beings so as to promote a God.
Two types of reason are involved in the promotion of God: Believers fear for
their “souls” and leaders prey on that fear to partner with the priests to pick
believers’ pockets (Chapter XI Machiavellianism).
The Old
Testament’s “God’s chosen people” creates competition among the three major
branches of Abraham’s family that causes the world’s misery and loss.
Interpretation of the Holy Bible spawns multiple factions of each Judaism,
Christianity (seven branches and thousands of sects), and Islam. Perhaps 55% of
inhabitants claim an Abrahamic faith; pewforum.org/2012/12/18/global-religious-landscape-exec/.
As of the early 1970s, there has developed a new branch, African-American
Christianity, within which some theologists posit that the only way a white may
save his or her “soul” is to help black Americans reign supreme. “I am blessed”
has many meanings, none good in my experiences and observations.
However, the
evil of Abrahamic teaching is that the human psychology is a duality between
good and bad and if a person prefers good, he or she needs a higher power.
Not only that, he or she is to either impose that power on other people or
consider them unworthy of civic existence. “Civic” refers to citizens behaving
so as to live in the same years and locales with mutual, comprehensive safety
and security. Let me repeat that: civic citizens collaborate for private
liberty with civic morality. Others are dissidents to human justice.
I’m in the 45%
and am in the small faction that trusts in and commits to the-objective-truth.
It exists and cannot be constructed from imagination, revelation, or any other
human endeavor beyond discovery. I neither impose nor tolerate the imposition
of religion in civic collaboration. Five years of meetings at public libraries
with iterative collaboration by participants has produced the following
proposal.
While the United
Nations statement of human rights is abusive to the individual human, the
preamble to the constitution for the USA is basic enough that most citizens can
trust in and commit to the agreement that is offered. The population is divided
by the preamble as civic citizens versus dissident citizens. That is, on that
agreement the citizens divide themselves. I know this principle is not accepted
by most Americans, but America is in chaos . . . yet on the rise.
Every human individual has the authority,
power, and energy to develop integrity. Most don’t. Those who choose to develop integrity discover
fidelity. It is comprehensive fidelity that begins with the-objective-truth
then extends to self, immediate family, extended family and friends, the
people, humankind, the earth, and the universe, both respectively and
collectively. With fidelity to the-objective-truth, the human has the knowledge
to manage the lesser powers that confront his or her life: appetites
(banality), civilization and society (coercion), and government (power).
The mature
individual is motivated by humility rather than grace. The mature human, in
every thought, every word, every action, neither imposes nor tolerates harm.
This behavior cannot be imposed on an individual, because he or she has the
authority, the power, and the energy to choose how to spend his or her
lifetime. Some think crime pays.
Christianity’s
hubris to canonize passages that condone the master-slave relationship created
a human competition that may be reaching its nadir. Perhaps the ideas expressed
above will inspire individuals to accept their authority to develop integrity.
With most people doing so, an achievable, better future may unfold during our
lifetimes---right away.
The partnership
of priests and politicians has ruined civic morality, so far. Constantine’s 313
legalization of Christianity may be the pivotal, worst such partnership.
However, the articulation that each individual has the authority, power, and
energy to offer good will could end the disaster mankind has observed so far.
I hope this
addresses your question, and would appreciate your comments.
quora.com/Why-dont-politics-have-a-well-defined-language-like-mathematics
Mathematics is the language of numbers that
represent physics, from which everything emerges. Politics is the language of
tyranny over the authority, power, and energy of the human individual.
“Physics” herein is the object of the study
called physics. It’s energy, mass and space-time. Physics discovered is
the-objective-truth, and the unknowns empower lies.
The politician who can convince people to
reject their personal authority, power, and energy so as to do the politician’s
bidding can pick the people’s pockets.
Skeptics even try to bemuse people with the
question, can 2 plus 2 be five? See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_%2B_2_%3D_5. It’s a
politician’s power play. However, each human has the authority, power, and
energy to put two apples and two oranges on the table and ask the politician
what’s there. The politician ought to answer, “Four fruit.”
Physics provides clarity. Politics offers
easily rejected bemusement for people who accept their human authority.
Peggy Noonan, “[A
dinner staged by writers for the press]”, Wall Street Journal, May 5-6, 2018,
page A13, wsj.com/articles/a-dogs-breakfast-of-a-dinner-1525388174.
Noonan expresses woeful hubris when
she describes her ilk “journalists”.
Responsible journalists would be
recording this country’s march to civic integrity; justice; individual liberty
with civic morality; happiness the individual perceives rather than the mores
someone else prescribes for them yet does not attend.
How can Noonan get away with such
proud nonsense as “Mainstream media’s disdain for [Trump supporters] is not
news to [the media’s objects of disdain]---[Trump supporters] know exactly what
their betters think. But how does [the press’s false hubris] help the press?”
Trump supporters are in control but
the press are their betters? If Noonan has the authority, power, and energy to
pursue integrity. Why doesn’t she?
Phil Beaver does not
“know” the-objective-truth. 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