10-2 criminal jury verdicts

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 USA Constitution’s most neglected legal statement:  Willing 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 the children --- and to cultivate limited USA services to us and our states. I want to collaborate with other citizens on this paraphrase, yet would preserve the original, 1787, text, unless it is amended by the people. It seems no one has ever challenged whether or not the preamble is a legal statement, but the fact that it changed this country from a confederation of states to dual federalism managed by the people convinces me it is legal.

Our Views

June 23 (http://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_8e9d3c26-6e7d-11e8-b9fe-7fbd6152aabf.html)

“Waiting for miracles is a sad tradition,” but The Advocate personnel do their part to preserve Babel: for example, they publish G. E. Dean each week-day under “Today’s Thought.”

Today, it’s Joshua 24:15, CJB, “If it seems bad to you to serve ADONAI, then choose today whom you are going to serve! Will it be the gods your ancestors served beyond the River? or the gods of the Emori, in whose land you are living? As for me and my household, we will serve ADONAI!"

Dean routinely ignores Exodus 7:20, CJB, "You are not to use lightly the name of ADONAI your God, because ADONAI will not leave unpunished someone who uses his name lightly.”

Does the Bible blaspheme Dean in John 6:39, “. . . I should not lose any of all those he has given . . .”? Is choosing Dean’s god possible in competition with “those he has given”?

I was in a Senate Committee room a couple years ago when Senator Ben Nevers closed a passionate imposition, I recall, “Jesus is in this room.” Some of the faces in the panel seemed to express covert contempt. I was naïve until this April in https://www.wsj.com/articles/dr-kings-radical-biblical-vision-1522970778, that many of the people in the room were African-American Christians. Jesus is brown or black rather than white or red or yellow or spiritual.

  

Trusting in mystery produces chaos. Not only is there a god for every believer, there is a Jesus for every believer. So far, there’s been some 8 trillion man-years of human experience starting perhaps 2.8 million years ago, accelerating perhaps 0.1 million years ago, and exponentially advancing perhaps 0.01 million years ago. Only now has enough chaos emerged for humans to begin to accept that civic integrity comes from each individual. Each person owns the power, energy, and authority to develop individual integrity. Integrity is discovering the-objective-truth, understanding how to benefit, and behaving to benefit.

Mutual, comprehensive safety and security is possible only when most citizens collaborate for individual liberty with civic morality.

The Advocate started off topic. Now that we know Louisiana revenues are more than sufficient, the Legislators should vote to stop picking the people’s pockets for more. With up to $800 million new sales tax income on the way, there’s no excuse for preserving any of the temporary sales tax.

Indeed, lawmakers who oppose tax and spend, get back on track:  Kill John Bel Edwards’ diabolical plan to pick the people’s pockets as much as he can.

 
June 14 (http://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_8e9d3c26-6e7d-11e8-b9fe-7fbd6152aabf.html)

Marsha Marshal

Jay, the sun doesn't rise in the morning. The earth rotates, and the sun only appears to rise in the east each morning. 

By the way, are you a Geo-centrist or Flat Earther? How about Young Earth Creationism? You down with that World Ice Theory?

Like · Reply · 17h

To Marsha Marshal: I had no idea that you would answer for the artificial intelligence (AI).

But you wrote, “Jay, the sun doesn't rise in the morning. The earth rotates, and the sun only appears to rise in the east each morning.”

I doubt anyone who understands the earth’s rotation around the sun would respond as you did, because the earth is a shocking 93 million miles away from the sun. The earth’s rotation hides the sun each evening and un-hides it each morning. Once someone understands the relationships, his or her mind cannot construct “the sun only appears to rise.” The human mind is so powerful that once there is understanding he or she cannot re-use appearances. Each morning the mind thinks the earth’s rotation is un-hiding the sun. Yet I created a minor trick/riddle for the AI to resolve. Will Marsha Marshal again speak for the AI?

However, the AI’s impressions about the sun is not the real topic. The Advocate personnel have used Jim-Crow emotionalism to convince themselves that opposing a Louisiana treasure, the 10-2 jury rule, would serve their business plan, regardless of the harm it would do to the people of Louisiana. Let me explain again.

There’s lots of evidence that despite all appearances, about 2/3 of Americans (67%) live the unrecognized American dream: individual liberty with civic morality. “Civic” refers to citizens who responsibly “live and let live,” hoping the ever-present dissidents will reform during their individual lifetime. Dissidents are so not because they are evil but because of psychological complications. The citizens are divided yet remain citizens: civic and dissident; impartial and biased. The impartial are subject to psychological error and some biased individuals may be influenced to reform.

There is national evidence that judges agree with jury decisions 87% of the time https://www.ipr.northwestern. edu/publications/docs/workingpapers/2006/IPR-WP-06-05.pdf. The national study includes the 48 states that have a 12-0 jury rule. The national data is so large, we may interpret the numbers to say that 61% of the time, the courtroom experience, including the prevailing opinion in the jury room, influences the non-impartial (whether by psychological error or by bias) to join the prevailing opinion, or the 87% “judge quality” opinion.

The national constitution requires the state to provide an impartial jury of local citizens. Regardless of opinions written about unanimity, the constitution does not specify how to achieve impartiality when some citizens practice dissidence and some are subject to psychological error.

Using the above parameters: 87% jury accuracy, 2/3 impartiality among civic citizens, and the computed 61% courtroom influence, we can calculate chances when the state system unfortunately includes biased jury members. In other words, despite all efforts to provide an impartial jury, for example, paring a pool of 36 to 12 persons, it is possible that some biased individuals will be seated on a jury. The constitutionally compliant state protects the people from this systematic injustice.

With the 12-0 rule and all civic jurors, there are 8 impartial jurors and 4 who may be influenced by the court proceedings for another 2.44 impartial results, or only 10.44 total: not an impartial jury. Unanimity is not likely, and the empirical data cited above shows error 13% of the time.

With the 11-1 rule there may still be 12 civic citizens, 10.44 impartiality (as in all increments of the rule). However, one firmly biased person would reduce impartiality to 9.67 but to only 10.28 if courtroom influenced the biased to reform. But 11 is required. Thus, neither the 12-0 nor the 11-1 rule protects the people from predictable jury error.

Continuing down the list from 12-0 to 10-2 and on to 5-6, we compute the following chances for cases with an impartial jury: 0, 0, 17, 50, 60, 67, 79, 81, respectively. Only at 9-3 can one firmly biased juror be negated according to the study assumptions.

Whoever recommended the 9-3 jury rule over a hundred years ago did so on mathematical skills and past statistical evidence I can’t touch.

It is tragedy and tyranny that The Advocate personnel have so trashed a Louisiana treasure. I hope the people of Louisiana will preserve the 10-2 jury rule come November.

Marsha Marshal

Ray, 

There's nothing in the 6th Amendment nor in jurisprudence about the impartial jury clause even remotely touching on your entirely self-contained "civic citizens" nonsense, the 2/3rds, the secret preamble, all the rest. Because it's just something you made up, it has nothing to do with American law. It's not real. It's just in your head. 

What is actual American Constitutional law is Burch v. Louisiana, which mandates 6-0 for Louisiana petit jury trial convictions. That's a 1979 Supreme Court decision, decided unanimously, finding the necessity of jury unanimity under the 6th and 14th Amenments to the U.S. Constitution. And Louisiana's had to abide by that since 1979. 

But, because of two 4-4-1 decisions in Johnson and Apodaca, the SCOTUS has left non-unanimity on the table in Louisiana and Oregon. 

So, November 6th is coming, and so far you've got precisely ZERO public support for keeping non-unanimity. You got blown out of the legislature, you lost Gene Mills, you lost Colonel Rob Maness, you lost the Louisiana Republican Party. 

And you continue to believe Louisiana went to non-unanimity in 1880 because of "mathematical skills and past statistical evidence." Even though the studies you butcher like a boucherie were published about a century after the Louisiana legislature went to 9-3 in 1880. So, unless Doc Brown was on the legislature back then before returning to Hill Valley, no way they could use you erroneous, foolish, perversion of logic. 

The legislature's 1880 intent was clear: They wanted non-unanimity to overrule black people on juries, as part of the rollback of Reconstruction after 1876, and to feed the convict lease system. Done. That's the answer.

Like · Reply · 10h

To Marsha Marshal:

I appreciate my mom naming me Phillip Ray Beaver for at least two reasons. First, the initials seem to build, especially in script: PRB. But more importantly, when I meet someone named Ray and want to express appreciation, sometimes I say, "I'm Ray, too," and explain. Now I can tell this story. Someone who may not appreciate my preambling called me Ray merely because I asked. Thank you.

Today, an aging friend asked me "What is the meaning of early to bed and early to rise?” I responded, “I think the statement came from Benjamin Franklin. In the mid 18^th century, a home could not be well lighted 24-7. Franklin might have meant: to bed before Earth hides the sun and out when axial rotation un-hides it. My perception of the earth-rotation’s daily hiding and un-hiding of the sun cannot go back to before, and I doubt anyone’s could. It’s like discovering that Santa-Clause is a metaphor for goodwill to all.

It is remarkable that you write, “. . . the secret preamble . . . Because it's just something you made up, it has nothing to do with American law.” Patrick Henry, in 1787-88, lobbied to change “We the People of the United States” to “We the States,” so that the eastern-seaboard state confederation established in perpetuity in 1774 would not legally end.

Once a person recognizes brilliant civic morality from the past, there’s a determination to get to understand. In 19^th century Louisiana, someone, I’m betting a person schooled in Napoleonic law, decided to compute the probability of achieving jury impartiality with unanimity with 12 members by increasing allowance for bias. In other words, strengthen undeniable evidence by providing jurors among whom unanimity is possible, by offsetting firmly biased members. To put it another way, Louisiana would answer John Adams’ question, do you expect unanimity among 500 people? Louisiana uniquely would provide impartial unanimity among 12 jurors. Through their statistical model, however, they devised it, they recommended for 1880’s Louisiana the 9-3 jury-decision rule. The U.S. Supreme Court approved the rule each time it was challenged, first in 1972 and subsequently by not hearing appeals.

In 2018, we can re-examine the statistics of unanimous impartiality among 12 jurors. There are several evidences that in the U.S., perhaps 87% of the time the judge agrees with 12-0 jury decisions, the rule in 48 unfortunate states. In other words, 13% of the time, the jury failed, in the judge’s opinion. Also, there’s abundant evidence that 67% of citizens are impartial, leaving 33% with psychological tendencies toward bias. A common psychological problem is not understanding statutory law. Apparently, there’s a courtroom influence, about 61% effective, that convinces the 33% biased members to join the judicially impartial decision 87% of the time. In other words, 61% of 33% plus 67% is 87%.

With even one, possibly reform-able, biased jury member, it is statistically improbable for the state to provide an unbiased jury. According to the model, an impartial jury is not possible with 12, 11, or 10 unanimity requirement. With unanimity requirement of 9, 8, or 7, there may be may be 1, 2, or 3 firmly biased jurors, respectively. Perhaps an 8-4 jury rule is desirable.

The current selection process starts with 36 candidates. Defense and prosecution may each eliminate 12 candidates. The 9-3 jury rule helps assure an impartial jury even when one firmly biased juror slips through the vetting process. The people of Louisiana may preserve the 10-2 rule for now and lobby to return to the 9-3 rule, or to 8-4, which, in this model would accommodate two firmly biased jurors.

Once Louisiana citizens understand the statistics that supports the wisdom of a 9-3 jury rule, they are not likely to vote for a 12-0 rule. The enlightenment is not much different from enjoying the feel of the earth’s rotation un-hiding the sun each morning.

Perhaps petit jury unanimity ought to be 4-2. Perhaps the Supreme Court rule ought to be 6-3.

I appreciate sharing my name Ray and the prompt to exchange my mug shot for a yoga depiction, poor as my half-moon performance is.

June 17 (http://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_c6512bc8-6f31-11e8-9724-efcc862aa726.html)

I wonder who or what is writing: “The reality is that the money taxpayers invest in today's facilities is not enough. In a private business, pay would go up to fill vacancies; consultants would be brought in to make processes more effective; more money would be spent on technology, instead of constant make-do and paperwork in state institutions.”

I refute that private businesses always rely on more pay and consultants. Existing employees often know their business. But I focus on “constant make-do and paperwork in state institutions.” I recall consultant Bob Newhart’s message: Stop it; Stop it; Stop it.

I hope the legislature drives Edwards’ craving to propose an eighth special session and the people to demonstrate for his resignation.

Letters

Teacher’s article crazy (John S. White) (theadvocate.com07dffc68904d.html)

“Young black teachers throughout Louisiana should be insulted by the inference that they can no longer meet the standards their parents or older siblings have met.”

I agree, and there’s more.

What’s more shocking is that The Advocate personnel publish the insinuation that black skin means lessened humanity, lessened citizenship, lessened responsibility, lessened desire for safety and security. Police are to lessen civic expectations in certain zip-code areas. The judicial system is to favor the accused rather than the victim.

The Congressional Black Caucus and other black groups pretend that non-black skin-colored humans---yellow, red, and white are privileged. The white-skins are diabolically privileged even though the yellow-skins achieve higher scholarship. The Congressional Black Caucus would accuse me of racism! They might even want to castigate and censor me for not calling them the Congressional [African-American] Caucus; only they can emphasize skin color. They might object to my claim that the Civil War was fought white church against white church, and that some of black church evolved into African-American Christianity during the AMO era beginning in the late 1960s.

  

I think it is past the time black neighbors may think of themselves as 1) human beings and 2) fellow citizens, the willing setting moral examples for the dissident. That is, some trust-in and commit-to the preamble’s agreement and some erroneously don’t, for reasons ranging from innocence to arrogance to criminality. The preamble to the constitution for the USA divides citizens---for or against---on the stated purpose and goals. The literal subject of the preamble is the living We the People of the United States who choose to manage the USA, rather than the font-enhanced “We the People” or the lame “we, the people.”

The willing citizen knows that he or she must either work for the lifestyle he or she wants or thank bureaucrats. Likewise, he or she may work for the freedom-from oppression that enables the liberty-to responsibly pursue the happiness he or she wants rather than the dictates of another person, an institution, or an ideology.

A student in the classroom may think of himself or herself first as a human being, a person, and an individual, and second, a citizen. Race, creed, gender, and skin-color have no standing. Teachers may encourage and coach students: Your life is in your hands, so comprehend the knowledge, acquire the understanding, and intend to live a full human life.

There is a place in time where civic collaborations aim for human justice, or civic integrity and fidelity. We’re in the place. Let’s accelerate the time.

  

News

Should the government provide an impartial judge? (Matt Sledge) (http://www.theadvocate.com/new_orleans/news/courts/article_f3077286-7408-11e8-8089-b754330f0f50.html)

   

This civil-rights case sheds light on a Louisiana treasure: the 10-2 felony-jury rule. It would be wise to restore the 9-3 rule or better.

There’s lots of evidence that, at least in the USA, inhabitants are split into thirds regarding civic morality: active, passive and dissident (Mr. Miller pointed this out, based on his experience as an entrepreneur who interfaces with his customers). The agreement that is offered in the preamble to the constitution for the USA allows a citizen to consider where they stand on civic morality. According to the goals stated in the preamble, am I a civic citizen or a dissident---even a rebel or a criminal?

In this federal civil rights case I see two long-term problems for citizens for civic morality or human justice. Providing an impartial jury and providing an impartial judge.

In this case the accused’s father being a professor who could favor one juror’s scholastic pursuits does not relate to other student jurors with no connections to the accused’s father. I do not trust the judge’s reversal and oppose a civic people having to suffer the expense. A civic people of Louisiana and the USA are being subjected to judicial churn brought on by black skin-color.

The court is not impartial about ensuring the right of a civic people to be first human and second citizens respecting civic justice. The court is bemused by black skin-color.

This is another case that serves to illustrate the obligation of each state to provide unanimous jury agreement that the evidence was presented beyond a shadow of doubt. One firmly biased juror guarantees biased jury decisions when 12 of 12 jurors must agree!!! The 48 states that have a 12-0 unanimity rule are struggling against statistics. Impartiality, required by the sixth amendment, is not expectable with the 12-0 rule, even though judges think juries reach the right decision 87% of the time.

There’s data that shows that 67% of citizens are probably impartial, leaving 33% who may be influenced or not. The 87% judge-agreement implies that 61% of the time, the 33% are influenced, perhaps by the courtroom experience, to join the impartial jurors. Unanimous impartiality among 12 jurors is not possible with one firmly biased juror. By judges opinion only 13% of the time does the jury fail. To provide impartial 12-person juries, the statistical study shows that only 9-3 jury rule may accommodate one firmly biased juror and still reach impartial unanimity among 9, 10 or 11 of the 12. An 8-4 rule would accommodate 2 firmly biased jurors.

It is critical for Louisiana citizens to preserve in November the unique 10-2 jury rule in Louisiana. In the meantime, civic citizens may commend the legislature to restore the 9-3 jury rule or better so as to protect from firmly biased jurors.

Our posterity (Bryn Stole) (http://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/politics/article_acd9917c-7345-11e8-aab7-f30a5861756b.html)

(My cat pic is so popular I'll let it identify Phil Beaver a while longer. I appreciate Alex with theadvocate.com for teaching me how to report a fake account to Facebook. My report took effect within minutes. Alex explained that my account had not been compromised. Someone simply created a facebook account using "Phil Beaver" and copied and pasted my photos. I could have continued leading them from mug shot, to yoga shot, to cat, etc., but consider that a waste.)

  

U.S. Rep. Mike Johnson, R-Bossier: “Every parent understands the heartbreak of what is happening at our Southern border.”

This is hyperbole or not true. There are 6 million abused and neglected children in America. It’s barbaric to continue to support adult satisfactions while many newborns face a life without appreciation for his or her person---neglect or abuse.

The final goal stated in by We the People of the United States is to “our Posterity.” That means children. Our children.

People who exploit foreign risks to children at the expense of children in the USA are blameworthy.

Parents in the USA who neglect and abuse their children are not in Johnson’s group, and We the People of the United States are wrong to foster domestic child neglect and abuse.

Gov. Edwards appetite facing another rebuke (Tyler Bridges) (http://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/politics/legislature/article_1db93dde-70b2-11e8-9e0b-9b76f61c0270.html)

   

There’s no bias in a front-page article captioned “Gov. Edwards’ tax appetite facing a seventh rebuke.”

But the review of Edwards’ and Democrats’ legislative tyranny is striking, so the caption is understandable.

In defense of the people who pay sales taxes, income taxes, and property taxes, I appreciated Bridges’ statement: “conservatives opposed [tax] and spend more money for government programs.” Citizens work for a living rather than for government programs, so we can thank Bridges for defending us.

Hopefully, a seventh failure will send Edwards packing.

  

Other fora

https://www.quora.com/Is-capitalism-incompatible-with-ethics

If I may restate the question, I will answer: Does civic morality require capitalism?

My response is: yes.

In civic morality, citizens collaborate for individual liberty with civic morality. “Civic” requires mutual, comprehensive safety and security so that each individual may responsibly pursue the happiness he or she perceives rather than the dictates of someone else.

No one can supply the goods and services needed to facilitate his or her lifestyle. Also, no one can alone create continual improvements on those goods and services. The person who perceives new goods and services or improvements on old ones, the entrepreneur, takes responsibility and risk the consumer is unwilling to take. In return for taking responsibility, the consumer happily rewards the entrepreneur with profit on the venture.

In civic morality, both consumer and entrepreneur exercise discipline. However, there are some citizens---dissidents---who abhor discipline. Therefore there must be government. The civic consumer and the civic entrepreneur have discipline, but because of the dissidents, they need government---a monopoly on force.

However, government offers power, since the officials are given authority to manage the instruments of force. Government attracts dissidents to civic morality. The dissidents use the power to manipulate capitalism, creating the appearance that neither consumers nor entrepreneurs are disciplined.

However, most citizens, both consumers and entrepreneurs are disciplined, and they resist government expansion, which could ruin capitalism.

Capitalism is the only economic system wherein both the consumer and the entrepreneur have the means to moderate government so that the people may survive.

It may seem that I hold my opinion as the-objective-truth. However, I do not know the-objective-truth and can only express my opinion.

https://www.quora.com/Why-should-I-live-7

Comment to Mel Knight: The person is the cumulative choices the individual makes.

Humans live within the-objective-truth, both the static and the dynamic actual reality. If the individual develops fidelity to the-objective-truth, long life is possible. With long life the individual will discover his or her person.

It takes about 65 years for the mature individual to emerge. With freedom from both external and internal constraints self-discovery may begin. At that point, the discovery is well worth whatever it takes to continue the appreciation made possible by fidelity.

Midway to age 80, I am developing civic integrity and hope to carry on in well-being until at least age 121, perhaps to end able to attest that I did what I intended to do.

Justice Kenney’s hubris (https://www.wsj.com/articles/discrimination-law-isnt-supposed-to-punish-the-wicked-1528326381)

Ryan T. Anderson, in “Discrimination Law Isn’t Supposed to ‘Punish the Wicked’,” WSJ, June 7, 2018, presents some insight into Justice Kennedy’s erroneous lord-of-dignity-and-equality hubris.

Anderson quotes Kennedy in Masterpiece [Cakeshop], “religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression.”

Religion and philosophy, reason and faith, and science and religion all compete with actual reality as sophistry. We are passed the possible time for sophistry to make way for the-objective-truth. In other words, Kennedy uses reason to (erroneously) obfuscate the-objective-truth.

Kennedy’s opinion emerges from the court’s obsession with conflicting opinion about 400 year old opinion! In a culture of civic integrity, the judicial system monitors the process of discovering the-objective-truth, determining how to benefit from the discovery, legislating statutory law and law enforcement that is compatible with actual reality, and Congressional action when new discovery demands change. When the Court discovers injustice, Congress may amend the constitution.

On this topic, civil union of non-heterosexual partners, actual reality informs us that adult contracts that do not offer a child parenting for life by a heterosexual, bonded, married couple, compromise the child’s dignity and equality and that of the child’s children---posterity. It is true that some adults may focus on personal satisfaction, like believing in personal beliefs, more than a child’s dignity and equality. It is also true that some children suffer worse impositions. But a culture of integrity does not condone imposing beliefs on non-believers: The LGBT beliefs may not negate Christian beliefs. Competitive believers may conform to the-objective-truth.

The purpose and goals stated in the agreement offered in the preamble to the constitution for the USA divide citizens as civic citizens and dissidents. The civic citizen hopes the dissident will reform before actual reality terminates the dissident’s mind, body, and person. But there will always be dissidents for reasons the dissident holds dear; some sincerely believe dissidence pays. Yet people with the hubris to hold their opinion above the-objective-truth beg woe. To the question, “How do you advocate the dignity and equality of the child you subject to an adult contract?”, Kennedy could admit, “I don’t know.” My mantra is: I do not know what I do not know and do not encourage others to act on what I do not know. I don’t object to either Christianity or LGBT lifestyle chosen by adults, but neither belief ought to be imposed on children.  

Actual reality, a synonym for “the-objective-truth,” does not respond to any of philosophy, religion, science (a study method) or reasonable men, as Justice Kennedy seems to dub himself.

“Democracy” a modern mystery. (https://www.wsj.com/articles/sometimes-the-language-game-needs-a-penalty-box-1528326307)

Joseph Epstein, in “Sometimes the Language Game Needs a Penalty Box,” Wall Street Journal, June 7, 2018, cites H.L. Mencken as one who feels that sticking to the dictionary is pedantic, then asserts that “sometimes words become so twisted in their meanings that one feels the need for a referee . . . to keep things at least generally in bounds.” He gives examples. “Surreal” means fantastic but is used for the ordinary, such as delivering twins. “Many” and “several” are often misquoted as “multiple.” “Global,” formerly spherical, now means worldwide. Table, once a surface on legs, changed to a verb meaning delay.

I think by his stylish writing Epstein misses the seriousness of the problem. However, his article is evidence that I am not alone in the thought that a glossary is necessary to express 2018 thoughts. And it is not pedant: It is hard work.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-relationship-of-culture-society-and-politics

What is the relationship of culture, society, and politics?

Each of these three entities seek something distinct yet associated. We have over 400 years of scholarship about the common good. Often, the scholar is debating reason or religion as basis of common good. Sometimes its science or religion.

I think each individual wants mutual, comprehensive safety and security with the opportunity to pursue the happiness he or she perceives rather than the dictates of another entity, be it a person or an institution. I call this way of living civic morality, where civic implies individuals collaborating for freedom-from oppression throughout their lives so each may have the responsible liberty-to pursue the happiness he or she desires. I hope this paragraph defined civic morality, a goal.

So far, civic morality is not pursued anywhere on earth. To achieve civic morality requires the development of civic integrity. Practicing integrity develops comprehensive fidelity to the-objective-truth or actual reality rather than opinion, mystery, or doctrine. Comprehensive fidelity extends to all relationships and transactions. If a majority of a people, say 2/3, developed civic integrity and fidelity, a civic culture would emerge. The 1/3 who were dissident to integrity and fidelity would be motivated and coached to reform, and if necessary due to caused-harm, be constrained or annihilated.

I work to establish this new way of living and regard the culture as the ultimate goal, society as both the collaborators and the dissidents involved, and politics as the power by which a civic people discover statutory justice that does not excuse dissidence. In other words, individuals break laws because they consider the laws to be capricious and often are correct. A culture of civic integrity would deliberately lessen the preponderance of arbitrary laws.

I hope I have expressed that culture is a continuous pursuit of life, society is the living people involved, and politics develops power over society, with or without civic integrity.

I write to learn and would appreciate comments.

Comment on Phil Beaver's answer to What’s the most disturbing part about American society?

Thomas Hanson

I’m afraid I don’t understand. Are you saying that the right of religion should not exist? Or that it isn’t as important as the freedom to develop your own moral code? And this is my personal opinion here: The 1st Amendment isn’t there to protect the institution of religion so much as one’s right to hold their own religious beliefs. If it was to protect the Constitution, then the Church would collect taxes, raise a military, and have significant power. If the US was protecting the institution then it would’ve used its muscle to shut the Boston Globe up about the Catholic Priest child molestation scandal, instead of working to root out the priests responsible.

To Thomas Hanson

I wrote, “Freedom of religion rather than freedom to develop integrity is tyranny!”

An institution is two things: a corporation and a practice. I’m saying that government has no standing to favor a practice that bemuses an individual’s development of integrity.

In a secondary consideration, government also has no standing to support religious institutions. Believers maintain pursuits that help them and reject the others.

Individuals do not develop moral codes. Morality exists in actual reality, the-objective-truth, which humans may only discover, learn how to use for benefit, and behave accordingly. The-objective-truth does not respond to reason, belief, doctrine, or any other human construct.

For example, life begins with the ovum, and therefore a woman ought to take care of her physiology and psychology. A man does not threaten a woman and her ova. Only a man and a woman who are bound to each other for life risk creating a human, a newborn person. They share the commitment for life unto posterity, as required for the human condition. In this example, religion is not involved at all.

Integrity is a practice: discovery of the-objective-truth and fidelity to the discovery. Integrity is a human opportunity not everyone chooses.

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.