Hypocrisy or transparency?

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 preservation for 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.   

Our Views

April 9 (http://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_a31aab0c-6b4e-11e8-a074-bf3eb1ec0b3d.html)

The Advocate personnel did their part to hound Tom Schedler into submission to hearsay about a woman who had carried on with him for a decade; http://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_d81ccadc-4a43-11e8-92d3-e7cb1870e857.html. Gov. Edwards said Schedler should resign; https://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2018/02/john_bel_edwards_tom_schedler.html.

The systematic tolerance for diddling adolescent-aged citizens and children is appalling and smacks of Vatican-style management. It makes me visceral that elected officials in this state protect the abuse of children by religious and political elites.

Surely something can be done! The Advocate personnel lead when they should be silent and whine when they could be forceful.

I rescind every good thought I ever had about “journalists.” Journalism has used freedom of the press to corrupt itself!!! I want my sentiment to change, but first, The Advocate personnel may develop contrition then reform.

April 1 (http://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_9e97a99e-32d3-11e8-a696-b72954df9722.html)

To Marsha Marshal:

I address my preamble-paraphrase, which I offer for collaboration for 2018 living.

"Union" referred to the 1774 confederation of states under the Articles of Confederation, 1777. However, I view the preamble as an invitation to civic agreement by the extant We the People of the United States rather than the inhabitants of 1787 or 1788. Citizens are free to dissent, and I guess that about 1/3 of citizens are dissidents, some by default.

I am willing to commit to integrity, but not unity. The USA I work for offers each willing individual liberty with civic morality. Each citizen has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (IPEA) to develop integrity. Some people do not like the work required for integrity (establish understanding, learn the benefits, behave accordingly, civically discuss the understanding and listen, and remain open to new discovery). Some people see opportunity to pick the pockets of people who are too indolent to collaborate for integrity. I consider indolence and criminality as among dissidence to human justice. No way would I want unity with dissidents. However, I will always offer collaboration to develop integrity and fidelity. I work for integrity both as understanding and wholeness, but prefer dissonance when injustice has not be discovered or corrected.

 

BTW. The preamble is the first legal statement in the constitution for the USA. On June 21, 1788, the ninth required state ratified that civic sentence and the articles that follow, amended as they are. Thus, on that June 21, the Confederation of States was reduced from thirteen to four states. The four were dissident to the USA. A month later, one state joined, and on March 4, 1789, the USA began operations under the people in ten states. In another year and a half, the three dissident states, including a rebel that had not collaborated on the constitution except by the negativity of abstinence, had joined.

 

June 7 (http://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_8c22279a-69aa-11e8-8e0a-4f39d1c93357.html)

The Advocate personnel produced news articles and an editorial that offer tentative hope. However, to anticipate actual reform, we may in future observe that The Advocate personnel are contrite and have reformed in order to develop integrity---not due to ProPublica, but on their own.

Reporters, Rebekah Allen in https://www.propublica.org/article/louisiana-lawmakers-promote-bills-that-help-their-relatives-and-clients and Decca Muldowney in https://www.propublica.org/article/legislators-in-many-states-can-push-bills-theyd-profit-from write facts about elected officials picking the people’s pockets. Then, The Advocate editors call attention to the evil and suggest a start toward reform: “Voters must make their own judgments, but they need a clear understanding, when legislation is being debated, of what a lawmaker’s private interests in a bill might be. Greater transparency . . . would involve more rigorous rules of disclosure among legislators when a bill is filed.”
 
I’m a five-decades full subscriber, and feel I am civic citizen each time The Advocate sues for public information. I will also feel civic when I next vote against rather than for Dan Claitor, because of his support for HB 699 against transparency and SB 243 against impartial jury-unanimity, wherein Claitor sensationally gloated over his past honest privation of integrity. Privation of integrity seems characteristic of more than some lawyers. Many legislators and other officials are lawyers.

The Advocate was egregious in sensationalizing the past, especially the incendiary origins of Louisiana’s commendable measure to provide jury impartiality. Louisiana law provides for decisions on unanimity by 10 jurors, negating the power of up to two biased jury-members. The fact that bias prevails among dissidents to civic morality is plain to everyone, including The Advocate personnel. And everyone knows that every human has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (IPEA) to develop integrity.

The Advocate personnel, workers for other media, and Louisiana’s officials may not want to accept IPEA. Also, many use their IPEA to pick the people’s pocket. However, a civic people know dissidence to civic morality immediately: Immorality screams from the very walls and empty space.

Along with a new governor, I am especially looking for a new senator for my district. I have tentative hope that a reformed hometown newspaper is developing. We’ll see how defense of a Louisiana treasure---jury decisions on unanimity of ten of twelve jurors---unfolds before the November vote. Keeping that provision of an impartial jury decision alive in the USA is important to the entire nation, and the ability to track its impact on human justice is equally important. Gov. John Bel Edwards may veto Act 335, reversing his error.

June 6 (http://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_93584092-68cb-11e8-b61d-7b34ba1e5e62.html)

The Advocate personnel have consistently lobbied for the legislature to do John Bel Edwards’ will:  pick the people’s pockets for more state spending.

It’s poetic that the staff would move their ultimatum to the front page of the news section.

“. . . it's time for the people, through their collective outrage, to save it from the shoals of crisis.” Recall John Bel Edwards and create legislation that requires a responsible and free press---put some enforcement in Louisiana’s constitutional protection of free expression yet liability for consequences.

To JT McQuitty:

Readers who click on your URLs do well; at least I am glad each time I click and read.

  

“Groups do not make choices; only individuals do.” Our annual library meeting on June 21, next at Goodwood Library at 10:00 am, celebrates Individual Independence Day; http://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/entertainment_life/calendar/?/event/8721598/53421699/5th-annual-individual-independence-day-celebration .

  

“Kenneth Arrow’s “impossibility theorem” shows that there is no mechanism for making collective choices, other than dictatorship, that translates the preferences of diverse individuals into a well-behaved social utility function.” The civic agreement that is offered in the preamble to the constitution for the USA, established June 21, 1788, offers individual collaboration for living in this place at this time rather than the dictates of either the state or the national government. The preamble is a civic rather than secular agreement. We think at least 2/3 of US citizens live that way but are prevented from recognizing each other by 1) the clergy-politician partnerships that have run federal political regimes since March 4, 1789 and 2) eight-hundred years of scholarship that pits reason versus religion as the basis of moral living (one view of “the common good”), obfuscating integrity. In actual reality, integrity is the basis of moral living. With individual integrity, a majority may develop that prevents dictatorship, social democracy, elitism, and many other errors we tolerate.

  

Every human has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (IPEA) to develop integrity. Integrity empowers and nourishes fidelity. People appreciate fidelity, and everyone wants appreciation.

“Voter ignorance is rational because the cost of gathering information about an upcoming election is high relative to the benefits of voting.” This is especially true with free and irresponsible media. The Advocate is so biased toward using social democracy to ruin this constitutional republic that I trust the commentary more than The Advocate’s “reports.” And I’m a full subscriber and have been for five decades! I want a Louisiana law that coerces The Advocate to develop state responsibility within federal freedom.

  

“Legislative catering to the interests of the minority at the expense of the majority is reinforced by the logic of collective action.” Perhaps Shughart felt he was above discussing Alinsky-Marxist organizers (AMO) like Saul Alinsky himself and the current prince, Barack Obama of OFA; https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/democrats-vs-trump/obama-aligned-organizing-action-relaunches-trump-era-n719311.  W.F. Buckley, Jr. felt AMO was worthy of objections; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsfxnaFaHWI . Listen to Alinksy endorse opinion-based violence during the last two minutes.

“. . . public interest evokes a Madisonian perspective on the problems of democratic governance . . . public choice recognizes that men are not angels . . .” Madison’s folly is made plain by today’s republican progress despite social-democracy chaos. Individuals who take interest in their civic welfare do not respond to appetites (banality), societies such as religions (coercion), or government (force): they use their IPEA to manage these lesser powers. For example, 2/3 of Irish (majority Catholic) voted to allow women to terminate their pregnancies in Ireland. Similarly, in America, 1.7/3 favor the pregnant woman’s decision in most cases; http://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/.

“. . . it is not necessarily desirable to use the same voting rule for all collective decisions; and . . . the public’s interest can be best protected . . . by making collective choices at the lowest feasible level of political authority.” The agreement offered by the preamble to the constitution for the USA is a legal statement, and only adult citizens who demonstrate that they trust-in and commit-to the agreement should have the right to vote: The preamble establishes “the lowest feasible level of political authority.” In other words, IPEA without civic trust and commitment does not qualify for political authority.
 
This reform may seem shocking to some Republicans and some Democrats, perhaps John Bel Edwards, but it is not at all shocking to civic citizens according to the preamble.

To Jim Walley: Share what you have been saying so I can benefit. If not here, friend me on Facebook or write a separate message there.

In my view, Louisiana's 10-2 rule is a treasure that ought not be squandered over the sensational emotionalism The Advocate writers used in their hope to foil the public.

I bet some of the legislators who were lawyers professed "Let the people vote," but that was not their motive.

  

Between now and November I will take every opportunity to encourage both civic citizens and dissidents to preserve the opportunity for a unanimous ten-unbiased jurors prevent the injustice of two biased jurors.

 

Providing an unbiased jury is important to every individual, without consideration of skin color, religion, or any other peculiarity. The USA does not preserve English ideals. The laws of this land ineluctably work to fulfill the purpose and goals stated in the preamble.

To Jim Walley: This evil is made possible by the classical argument that humans are good and bad, that civic morality can only happen by coercion or force, and that religion and government may partner on the coercion and force using Chapter XI Machiavellianism; http://www.constitution.org/mac/prince11.htm.

We assert that every human has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (IPEA) to develop integrity. Many people have never considered developing integrity and many do not understand integrity or that honesty is insufficient.

People who say they do what they do because the pope tells them what to do while the pope manages systematic sexual abuse don’t realize how people who are developing integrity view their infidelity to civic morality as pitiable. The women whom legislators abuse with anti-abortion laws view the legislators with contempt.

I must stop; my rage seems pitiable:  The women whom legislators abuse with anti-abortion laws view the legislators with contempt. John Bel Edwards can veto the latest legislative attack on pregnant women and legislative arrogance against the physical, biological and psychological authority that gave women the power to remain pregnant or not.

To Michael Justice: I wrote, “Providing an unbiased jury is important to every individual, without consideration of skin color, religion, or any other peculiarity.”

What did you read?

To JT McQuitty: Right.
 
And philanthropy converted to a tax burden is tyranny. Consider TOPS and the Taylor Foundation’s involvement in the tax. I’d like to re-dedicate 90% of TOPS funds to the children in K-12.
 
Preventing political tyranny is the reason the education non-profit corporation I registered in Louisiana is not a 501-c-3 charity.

  

Letters

Undeserving (Bo Bienvenu) (http://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/letters/article_d3f226fc-6a9e-11e8-8440-a7797699efe8.html)

“ . . . they don’t deserve to the there,” applies first to citizens who do not understand, adopt, and promote the civic agreement that is offered in the preamble to the constitution for the USA.

“We the People of the United States” established the USA on June 21, 1788, but, so far, have not accepted that the preamble is a legal statement that promises an achievable, better way of living:  Individual Independence with Civic Morality. Statutory justice rather than dominant opinion constrains dissidents and motivates them to join the civic culture.

Civic citizens (Robert Hebert) (http://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/letters/article_b1b15166-6a9f-11e8-ad43-77587bb5279d.html)

Writers who aspire to be journalists can learn more from economists than from media personnel, such as The Advocate’s employees. We are fortunate to have Robert Hebert’s generous writing, and may appreciate The Advocate for publishing Hebert’s letters.

However, I would like to change one conventional phrase, “law-abiding citizens,” to “civic citizens,” meaning citizens who adopt the preamble to the constitution for the USA as the statement of civic integrity. The preamble divides us:  civic citizens vs dissidents. Civic citizens collaborate for human justice rather than merely abide the law.

The Advocate personnel consistently lobby for social democracy to defeat American republicanism, thereby choosing dissidence.  The preamble offers citizens the agreement to collaborate for human justice by collaboration to establish statutory morality. Many journalism schools mislead students to favor "social sciences," or design and production of statistics so as to create political power from mere opinion; https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/policy-based-evidence-making.

The preamble, on June 21, 1788, legally established the USA, terminating the 1774 confederation of states and the 1777 Articles of Confederation.

It is lame to reference “we, the people.” “We the People of the United States” adopt a civic agreement and develop the articles that follow in an ineluctable march toward individual liberty with civic morality. This achievable, better future can be accelerated by hometown newspapers whose personnel focus on civic integrity more than freedom of the press.

   

News

Submission of IPEA a bad idea (Tyler Bridges) (http://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/politics/legislature/article_57504034-65e4-11e8-b7bd-838eb086ca74.html)

   

Bridges and The Advocate typically fail readers by not addressing the immorality of civil legislation against women and their viable ova.

MWW objects to what she calls “abortion for fun.” However, she appreciates women and their innate responsibilities to their ova. That’s about all she’ll say about it---the details hurt her viscerally, so the rest of this post is mine.

Most fertile women individually take care of her body, mind, person, and relationships, because she collaborates for best possible outcome for her and her delivered conceptions: the child she and the man who bonded with her produce. She is acutely aware of the chance for natural abortion or her demise during gestation and responsibly prepares before conception. The conceiving bond is for life, because grandchildren need grandparents.

Every person has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (IPEA) to develop integrity, for example, to understand the woman has the responsibility for her viable ova and the man is obligated to protect and join her collaboration with her ova. In no way would an authentic man threaten a woman and her ova.

Abortion for fun accounts for less than 15% of recorded abortions, not counting the unknown percentage of conceptions that do not attach to the womb---pass out of the woman’s body unnoticed. In numbers, there are about 9 million conceptions and 4 million live births, so there are 0.75 million abortions for fun and 4.25 natural abortions, not counting the failures to attach. Why do legislators abuse women about their natural responsibilities? Religion’s subjugation of women.

Accepted American scripture informs Judeo-Christian subjugation of women. First there’s Genesis 2:21-24, part of the writer’s expression of the creation. The subjugation is emphasized in Ephesians 5:22-33. A neighbor said, “Phil, your explanation of IPEA seems correct, and I submit mine to the Lord.” My neighbor may be religiously correct but un-civic. Can anyone can make a case for the civic morality of ignoring the welfare of ova? Within a woman’s body, life begins with ovulation and cannot have a good outcome without her care and his care.

Gov. Edwards is un-civic if he agrees with Bridges that Edwards is only following Catholic errors in their determined subjugation and abuse of women; it’s personal denial of IPEA. Also, Rep. Marcus Hunter reflects a similar privation of integrity in “I believe it’s a personal decision between you and your god.” Readers deserve attention to “you and your god,” as both particular to each person. Moreover, in Hunter’s case, “your god” ignores the welfare of potentially 400 viable ova for each woman during her fertile years. Through technology, each woman’s viable ova could become a person.

It is up to a civic people to end the folly of Judeo-Christianity’s erroneous influence on civic morality. My guess is that 2/3 of both Jews and Christians are civic people. For them, IPEA and the personal opportunity to develop integrity during your one lifetime has not been bemused by American freedom of religion. Religion represses the believer’s opportunity to develop integrity; the believer may be aware of the tyranny and manage his or her god.

The idea of freeing the USA from the tyranny of freedom of religion so that each citizen may choose to use IPEA, individual power, energy, and authority to develop integrity is shocking!!! However, only a short experience with freedom of integrity would make it evident that an achievable, better future was underway. With freedom of integrity, religious hopes and civic morality would each function for the individual’s person rather than the institution’s hubris.

Civic citizenship as common ground (Rebekah Allen) (http://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/politics/legislature/article_66b1ee8a-5ec6-11e8-9410-2bcfe33292c6.html)

   

I appreciate Rebekah Allen's research on this question and would like to see a thorough review of each legislator's particular method of picking the people's pocket. Further, do any of them subsidize, collaborate with, or leak to The Advocate? Is John Bel Edwards getting rich at the expense of the people? What about his apparent Vatican partnership? Certainly, some administrators are highly overpaid.

For example, examine the overwhelming legislative support for diluting Louisiana's unique jury law. Providing a 10 of 12 jury decision helps assure an impartial jury in the contest between victim and the accused. Requiring 12 of 12 or unanimity shifts the justice-balance against the victim. It also increases the cost of trails to favor lawyers, judges, DAs and all the rest of the judicial system. The people, especially victim families, lose.

If Louisiana follows John Bel Edwards’ advice to become like 48 other states, the USA loses Louisiana’s leadership on overcoming English tradition in order to meet each state’s obligation to provide an impartial jury. With unanimity, only one biased jury member can ruin the unanimity of ten impartial jurors; the states that allow that traditional English injustice are in error. With modern methods such as DNA evidence, connecting criminals to the crime is increasingly certain. Also, unbiased citizens come in all skin colors! But the lawyers use social emotions and admit their own integrity failures to reverse this objective logic! Too many of the legislators are lawyers and for other insider reasons promote the judicial industry at the expense of the people.

It is important for citizens who are interested in their individual welfare to vote in November against the constitutional amendment to require unanimous jury decisions.

We’ll see if The Advocate personnel examine the victim’s view in the debate they sensationalized using socially-charged facts rather than objective examination.

   

To SandraandMichael Evans:

“Somehow, we the people, need to find a common ground.” We are working on it and have an annual meeting in two weeks.

On June 21, 1788, willing people of nine free and independent states established the USA by ratifying the 1787 Constitution. The next day four dissident states had the opportunity to join. Only one did before the USA began operations on March 4, 1789. Citing July 4, 1776 as the nation’s birthday is part of the mythology that keeps the people bemused!!!

More importantly, on June 21, 1788, willing people legally changed the plan for “unity” in this country---from a confederation of states under Congress to management by individuals in their states who trust-in and commit-to the civic agreement that is stated in the preamble to the constitution for the USA. The preamble is a civic rather than secular sentence.

We call people who accept the civic agreement “civic citizens” and the others “dissidents”. That includes innocents, rebels, criminals, and worse. Thus, the first step in finding common ground is for the people to admit to themselves that citizens in the USA are divided: the USA, as designed by the signers of the 1787 Constitution (2/3 of the delegates representing 12/13 of the states) does not expect a utopia. Appreciating the preamble’s purpose and goals, we celebrate the willing individuals.

For these reasons, especially the individuality of the agreement, we title our annual June 21 celebration, “Individual Independence Day.” Please attend, at 10:00 AM, June 21, Goodwood Library, Conference Room A; http://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/entertainment_life/calendar/?/event/8721598/53421699/5th-annual-individual-independence-day-celebration .

   

Other fora

“Kate Spade, Entrepreneur,” https://www.wsj.com/articles/kate-spade-entrepreneur-1528414544

Anyone who aspires to write, let alone claim journalism, may contemplate the base materialism (and bassesse) of this text and its ending, “the world’s good fortune . . . a large legacy.”

I hope death delivers each individual to dust rather than afterdeath awareness.

Jack Phillips, “The High Court Let Me Live My Faith Again,” https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-supreme-court-let-me-live-my-faith-again-1528413065

I appreciate the civic relief granted Phillips by the often morally errant Supreme Court and Phillips sharing his individual pursuit of happiness. He, like all fellow-citizens has my best hopes and wishes for responsible pursuit of individual happiness.

However, it is important for him and others to expect that in ultimate human justice, the mystery of Jesus cannot be imposed on civic citizens: those of “We the People of the United States” who adopt the civic agreement that is offered in the preamble to the constitution for the USA. The agreement is neutral to each religion (including theism), ethnicity, and race.

Every citizen has the opportunity to trust-in and commit-to the preamble’s agreement or not. Moreover, every human has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (IPEA) to develop integrity or not. With integrity, the individual admits “I do not know,” when his or her hopes and comforts are founded in mystery rather than discovery. For example, to the question “Is atheism true?” integrity requires the admission to self, “I don’t know.”

I doubt that Phillips innocently shares his truth in Colossians 3:17 but neither the divisive Exodus 20:7 (misnomers), Luke 14:26 (family hate) nor John 15:18-23 (civic hate). It is important for Christians to stop trying to impose their mysteries onto civic morality; to recognize that fellow citizens collaborate for private happiness that does not ruin human justice.

  

On the other hand, the nine voters on the Supreme Court must admit to themselves that Mark 10:7-8, while a poetic expression implies the actual reality that the ovum from a woman is fertilized by the spermatozoon of a man, and thereby, developing a human being is made possible. Thus, there are two issues involved in civic marriage: adult bonding, which is not gender specific, and commitment to develop a human being. Responsibility for the newborn, the “our posterity” in the preamble, this citizen does not want to take from biological families.

Assuring a newborn person equity and dignity in the three-decades transition from feral infant to adult who has the understanding and intent to live a complete human life is a civic culture’s duty that is best assigned to the conceiving couple. With technical origins such as breaking a couple’s monogamy, petri-dish conception, surrogate gestation, and same-sex parenting a civic culture seems untenable to this citizen:  The culture is not doing all it can for equity and dignity of the individual person. Furthermore, technological creation of human beings to serve same-sex partners invites new variations of family infidelities. A partner and child may reasonably fall in love and motivate divorce by the partners.

Mixing poetic expressions from the Bible with civic collaboration to discover and deliver human justice is a failure of the USA’s commitment to freedom of religion rather than freedom of integrity. The First Amendment may be and should be amended to protect integrity rather than religion.

To Jim Roberson on FB:

I appreciate your catalog of concerns.

In this D-day anniversary, with NFL flag-controversy, I do not appreciate a veteran who claims he can be willful toward the USA. He or she can say whatever they want, but if they do not trust-in and commit-to the civic agreement that is offered by the preamble to the constitution for the USA, they neither have nor can win my respect until contrition and reform occurs to them.

On the other hand, if my neighbor is so alarmed that he burns his flag, I'm going to knock on his door and say, "Neighbor, I got your message. What happened to you and how can I help?"

http://www.libertylawsite.org/2018/06/05/metaphysics-as-politics-d-c-schindler-on-locke-and-liberalism

Thank you, Paul Seaton, for 1) the most comprehensively informative book review I have ever read, and 2) an illustration of effective word choice that invites George F. Will to either retire or stop expressing writer’s propriety.

“The modern will is a certain kind of power, a power conceived as cut off from reality’s reality and authority, whole unto itself, a power of self-determination that knows only its own force and outside forces.”

 

As with so many of your sentences, there is much to say. First, I often write “actual reality” as a synonym for the-objective-truth, which can only be discovered; see Albert Einstein’s essay at https://samharris.org/my-friend-einstein/ and I like your “reality’s reality”.

Social democracy invents its own demands, and without resisting forces, produces chaos. The activists, Alinsky-Marxist organizers (AMO), would abort the American republicanism that is authorized and maintained under the subject of the preamble to the constitution for the USA: We the People of the United States. But the agreement that is offered to individuals by the preamble is not at all metaphysical. The goals are, in essence: integrity, justice, collaboration, defense, prosperity, liberty, and preservation for the children.

“. . . one can read Schindler’s book and never encounter the Thirty Years War . . .” One can read the scholarship about the American civil war and never encounter 1) the CSA’s claim that war is necessary because “. . . public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanction of more erroneous religious belief,” and 2) Abraham Lincoln’s direct yet sly response, “If the Almighty Ruler of Nations, with His eternal truth and justice, be on your side of the North, or on yours of the South, that truth and that justice will surely prevail by the judgment of this great tribunal of the American people.” See http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp and http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/lincoln1.asp . It is disturbing that Lincoln was so political he had not the courage to explicitly pit the North’s god against the South’s god as the prevailing power of civic citizens. Civic Americans accepted that slavery is wrong despite the Church’s claims in their Holy Bible, e.g., Ephesians 6:5. In other words, civic citizens fought for human justice against religious beliefs.

The American Civil War illustrates the observation that every human being has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (IPEA) to develop integrity. Many don’t. The validity of Frederick Douglass’s 1852 speech https://rbscp.lib.rochester.edu/2945 could have helped Robert E. Lee save his future instead of tout his ministers’ metaphysics in 1856 https://leefamilyarchive.org/9-family-papers/339-robert-e-lee-to-mary-anna-randolph-custis-lee-1856-december-27 . Integrity requires each: the work to understand the-objective-truth, which in the absence of discovery is, “I don’t know”; the fidelity to learn how to benefit from the-objective-truth; advantageous behavior; public expression of the-objective-truth and listening so as to collaborate with the other party; and remaining open-minded to discovery that demands change or reform.

“The good was severed from the will or human freedom, and freedom both replaced the good and was held to be the good in liberal societies tutored by the modern philosophers.” And, “They had observed that “the Good,” instead of perfecting and uniting, had become a battle-cry. What to do?”

Burke, Aristotle, and Plato were only commenting on ancient propriety. The entire body scholarly commentary focuses on whether or not moral living is based on reason or religion; physics or metaphysics; discovery or imagination; the-objective-truth or human constructs. These dualities obfuscate integrity as the basis for moral living. I am reminded of David Hume, who might say: put the body of reason vs religion scholarship on a pile and burn it. Also, Marshall McLuhan might assert that a conference on reason v faith would obfuscate integrity.

“. . . ‘esoteric writing’ . . . was dictated by complex motives, a rhetoric appropriate to one’s audience, a concealment necessary for heterodox thoughts and thinkers, a puzzle for potential like-minded thinkers.”

I think propriety is a hoax:  Every human may use his or her IPEA to develop integrity, and those how don’t may ask themselves if they are fruitlessly pursuing power over those who do. Either way, civic citizens are aware of dissidents. The futility of war, such as the American Civil War, is only a mirror of self-defeating conflict for dominant opinion instead of collaboration for the-objective-truth.

To Thomas G. West:

I am compelled to ask:  What if “integrity” was unencumbered by “reason,” “Christianity,” and “nature and nature’s god”?

Integrity is: doing the work to understand actual reality, learning how to benefit from the discovery, behaving for the benefits, publicly sharing the understanding and listening for either affirmation or improvement, and remaining open to discovery that demands reform. A culture of integrity is not free to reason or believe infidelity to actual reality. Yet integrity does not require forgoing personal hopes regarding the un-discovered or possibilities that are consistent with actual reality---which I also call "the-objective-truth," using the hyphens to avoid distractions like “objective truth.”

How might new use of old phrases and words empower collaboration on your three-point set? Here’s my suggestion:

1.         Locke’s narrow claim of human equality was erroneous. All human beings have the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (IPEA) to develop integrity. Physics and its branches, especially biology, psychology, and fidelity, effect variations both in newborn IPEA and in community influence. All infants have unique potentials and some infants are born into ignorance, dissidence, crime, evil, abuse, and worse. For example, the infant born into a system of sexual abuse may react negatively and develop IPEA to defeat the system or may be attracted to the lifestyle of the perpetrators and join them. Humans are equal, in that the opportunity to use IPEA for integrity exists, but unequal in whether or not he or she will choose infidelity. Consequently human outcomes are unequal and may improve only in a culture of integrity and fidelity rather than reason and faith.

2.         Physics, the object of study rather than the study practice, is, according to Einstein, mass, energy, and space-time, from which the-objective-truth may be discovered. When the-objective-truth is un-discovered, imagination may attempt to fill the gap, but speculation is no substitute for actual reality: The posture, “We don’t know,” cannot be changed to certainty based on imagination. The human being, unlike other species has IPEA, and it requires about three decades for a person to acquire the understanding and intentions to live a complete human life---to be working to perfect his or her unique person. Most existing cultures inculcate reason and faith as competitive influences, obfuscating the potential for each person to use IPEA to develop integrity. Commentary on actually ancient thinkers has, for 2500 years, used the reason v faith debate to obfuscate integrity. Why?

3.         Einstein may have been wrong when he said in 1941 that civic citizens do not lie to each other so as to reduce pain and loss (see Einstein’s essay at https://samharris.org/my-friend-einstein/); but I doubt Einstein was wrong. Humankind’s integrity ineluctably marches forward and for scholars to press Locke (d. 1704) vs Aristotle (d. 322 BC), ignoring Einstein (d. 1955), seems un-civic respecting the 2018 newborn. A culture advances on the integrity its individual newborns develop.

As a chemical engineer (retired 2001), I learned to ask myself, “Is this work assuring the safety and security of the stakeholders, especially the public?” If my answer was “No,” I considered how to make it so, and if necessary, discussed a change of direction with my boss. The vessels I designed will not blow up, and some, before me, could have. Sometimes, bosses were changed, but I served the company for 35 years, always developing my integrity.

I think a culture of integrity requires each person to ask, “Is what I am doing helping the public?” If “No,” personal reform is in order; the culture cannot advance without individuals who advance. The cry for a culture of integrity rather than reason or faith has long since been expressed by America’s children, currently about 4 million live births per year; currently 75 million under age 18. They are born into an erroneous culture of reason vs faith rather than integrity, and the majority will suffer. Even some financial elites psychologically suffer.

  

https://www.quora.com/Would-it-be-morally-ethically-wrong-if-you-stole-50-dollars-from-someone-today-but-give-them-100-dollars-tomorrow

Stealing is morally wrong, no matter what additional harm occurred before restitution. Further, the victim might not accept 100% recompense.

My opinion comes from contemplation, during the past two decades, of Agathon’s speech in Plato’s “Symposium.” I call Agathon’s posture “appreciation” for the-objective-truth. His principle is that an appreciative person neither initiates nor tolerates harm to or from any person or god. I doubt anyone would agree my interpretation was Agathon’s intent, especially the incorporation of the Hippocratic oath.

In the USA, the citizens are divided on Agathon’s principle. Citizens who are willing to trust-in and commit-to civic human justice according to the-objective-truth collaborate to constrain dissidents while encouraging those who do harm to reform during their lifetimes.

In my eighth decade, I am developing integrity to the-objective-truth. “Nor tolerates harm” motivated me to respond to your question. I hope my response helps.

I write to learn, so please comment.

http://www.libertylawsite.org/2018/05/30/the-case-against-education-bryan-caplan/#comments

To Michael T Kennedy:

I appreciate your comment and its creativity and want to collaborate for a more promising, achievable future.

Griggs v. Duke Power Co was decided in 1971. I considered your comment within the timeline of its decade, highlighted mostly from https://www.shmoop.com/civil-rights-black-power/timeline.html. I contend that black leaders, following Alinsky-Marxist organizers (AMO), have hurt We the People of the United States by distracting citizens from the appreciation for the preamble and the constitutional provisions that followed Frederick Douglass expressed in his 1852 speech; https://rbscp.lib.rochester.edu/2945 . The brief timeline is:

1963 march on Washington

1964 civil rights act against racial discrimination, then President Johnson’s war on poverty

1965 voter rights act; the Moynihan report, “The Negro Family.”

1966 SNCC and CORE fully embraced the slogan of "black power" to describe . . . trends towards militancy and self-reliance; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_rights_movement#Activist_organizations. New foundations;  Black Panthers, National Organization for Women.

1967 riots, Newark and Detroit, MLK, Jr. against poverty

1968 MLK, Jr. assassinated, major cities riots, poor people’s march

1969 James H. Cone publishes, “Black Theology & Black Power.” Democratic Select Committee” founded

1971 school busing, Congressional Black Caucus founded

1972 National Black Political Convention. Saul Alinsky, violently against black poverty, published “Rules for Radicals.”

The confluence of black power, black liberation theology, black caucuses, and radical organizations started a five-decades path toward black-white division in the USA that produced African-American Christianity (AAC) rather than civic citizens’ Christian church or American Christianity; https://www.wsj.com/articles/dr-kings-radical-biblical-vision-1522970778. One, perhaps minority, AAC belief I receive, for example, from Jeremiah Wright, is that God’s chosen people have black skin and the only way a white individual may save his or her soul is to help black Americans reign supreme. Whatever it means to believers, the Canterbury Church got an introduction at the recent royal wedding. Beforehand, I had no idea African-American Christianity might extend to Europe. I have no idea where Judeo-Christianity stands with AAC.

Relief from the fruitless movements to establish supremacy of a religious group in this country, whether Christian or not, is available in the civic contract that is offered in the preamble to the constitution for the USA. It is a legal statement; for example, the statement changed the form of government from loosely cooperative, free and independent states to limited federalism managed by willing people in their states.

I propose a constitutional amendment that states that only adults who demonstrate that they trust-in and commit-to the preamble’s goals may vote in national elections.

Further, I propose to make it clear that the agreement's goal is human justice, which is based on the-objective-truth rather than dominant opinion, especially majority opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, amendment of the constitution must be based on integrity regarding the-objective-truth rather than either reason or religion.

https://www.quora.com/What-s-the-most-disturbing-part-about-American-society/answer/Phil-Beaver-1/comment/63867611?__nsrc__=4&__snid3__=2620477788

The pertinent part of the quote is, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The statement is in conflict with both 1) the agreement that is offered in the preamble to the constitution, which is neutral to religion and 2) statutory justice, which can only be discovered in the-objective-truth rather than opinion, especially Supreme Court opinion, which is reversible.

We the People of the United States did not and do not authorize Congress to create a law concerning the duty and opportunity for a human being to think. Since Congress has no power to limit a citizen’s thought, it has no prerogative to consider the person’s thought. Congress can only challenge consequences of thought.

Consider your interpretation of the statement: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of thought, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” That’s non sense. In the first place, Congress cannot determine a citizen’s thought, no matter how craftily Congress positions its inquiry. Congress can only observe the consequences of a person’s thought.

Consider Congress’s cunning in the religion clauses. It does not define “religion.” That leaves it to the Court’s opinion as to whether or not the person with standing to present a case defined “religion” consistent with religion. The citizens says, “I object on my religious beliefs.” The Court asks, “What is ‘religion’?” Then, the court deliberates the definition and its fit with statutory law.

Consider an institutional issue. The Catholic confessional protects the priest from the requirement to report a crime. In question is the case of an adolescent girl reporting that an adult was sexually abusing her. Since the report came in during confession, the priest claimed he could not report to the police. In this case, Church canon must reform so that it conforms to the rule of law. However, the Court is perplexed.

The religion clauses in the First Amendment protect religion. It would be sufficient to delete the clauses altogether. However, one of the duties of the constitution is to maintain the record of discovery of human justice. Therefore I suggest amending the clauses to “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of integrity, or prohibiting the free development of integrity,” or better.

I hope this helps us collaborate and look forward to your response.

   

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.