Time for the people to reform the Church

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 preamble, the USA Constitution’s most neglected legal statement:  For discussion, I convert the preamble’s predicate phrase to nouns and paraphrase it for my proposal as follows: We the willing citizens of the United States collaborate for self-discipline regarding integrity, justice, goodwill, defense, prosperity, liberty, and children and by this amendable constitution limit the U.S.'s service to the people in their states. I want to collaborate with the other citizens on this paraphrase. I would preserve the original, 1787, text, unless it is amended by the people..

It seems no one has challenged whether or not the preamble is a legal statement. The fact that it changed this independent country from a confederation to a union of states disciplined by disciplined people convinces me the preamble is legal.

Every citizen has equal opportunity to either trust-in and collaborate-on the goals stated in the preamble or be dissident to the agreement. I think 2/3 of citizens try somewhat to use the preamble but many do not articulate commitment to the goals. However, it seems less than 2/3 understand that “posterity” implies children. “Freedom of religion,” which civic citizens cannot discipline, oppresses freedom to develop integrity.

Our Views

bad actors; domestic August 19 (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_66b27dac-a0b4-11e8-8eae-d766e94328d3.html)

Among domestic bad actors are, apparently, the FBI, the Louisiana Legislature with Governor, churches, racism indoctrinators, abusers, togetherers, respecters, and the free and irresponsible press like The Advocate. (With 230 years’ U.S. performance to chaos and only 46 more years of my human life, I am impatient.)

It occurred to me this morning that my chorus may be changing to:  The preamble to the U.S. Constitution offers willing citizens individual happiness with civic morality (rather than personal liberty with civic morality). Perhaps my awareness is moving toward freedom-from British, colonial tradition (for me, at last).

If so, it is perhaps due to a renewed neighborly appeal to eastern meditation like that described in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Monk_Who_Sold_His_Ferrari, but under the socially-hot button, “mindfulness.” The monk’s way seems like endless egocentricity purported to develop “love,” whatever that may mean to the ego. I prefer mindfulness as appreciation for fellow citizens who behave and collaborate for civic morality.

That fellow citizens do not recognize the 1787 Constitution as an opportunity to terminate British colonial tyranny and start anew is a grave concern. After all, the 1789 Congress was still a British colonial adolescent and the people never realized it.

So far, people who would like to establish a civic culture as defined by the preamble, have been bemused by Blackstone with Canterbury---the Chapter XI Machiavellianism that England constitutionalizes and American regimes unconstitutionally traditionalize. Greece v Galloway (2014) holds that I am niggling to try to expose the tyranny.

Freedom-from tyranny with the liberty-to responsibly pursue personal happiness rather than the dictates of another entity seems the most unpopular idea in town.

If you don’t understand me, never mind. I’m writing to civic citizens and dissidents who are yet fellow-citizens.

August 18 (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_6159f640-a178-11e8-b14a-33d5bd414d9d.html)

“Trump’s tariff policies, even more than his rhetoric, are threatening America’s free press.”

The fellow citizens President Trump fights for includes dairy farmers and the paper producers that went out of business in the past because The Advocate did not buy local product.

I consider U.S. milk and paper producers more reliable providers than The Advocate and their free and irresponsible press. Until The Advocate personnel take the role of responsibility, specifically, being individuals who are of We the People of the United States as defined by the preamble to the U.S. Constitution, I am willing for them to go out of business.

The preamble has, during the 230 years it has been established as a civil (legal) sentence, needed adult education by a free and responsible press. For example, many parents do not understand that “posterity” includes the children. Therefore, many parents lobby for adult satisfactions at the expense of children.

It is the press’s (The Advocate’s) job to clarify such facts and keep the coming children and adolescents informed. Instead, for example, the press tolerates generation after generation of Church business abusing the children of believing parents. The press is part of the Church-abuse problem: It’s a B2B relationship. Let them both either perish or reform.

  

Letters

End religion’s hypocrisy (Roland F. Carey) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/letters/article_b2532230-a496-11e8-9cdf-176d95a1e4e4.html)

“Away with un-Christian, race-based behavior.”

Unfortunately, Mr. Carey does not seem to recognize civic morality, which admits that Christianity is each believer’s mystery and thereby cannot be the basis of mutual appreciation among fellow citizens.

Not only that, if Carey wants to end “un-Christian, race-based behavior,” he may want to understand African-American Christianity; https://www.wsj.com/articles/dr-kings-radical-biblical-vision-1522970778. I learned the opinion (perhaps wrongly) from Jeremiah Wright’s 2015 talk (https://www.nola.com/opinions/index.ssf/2015/02/jeremiah_wright_tells_a_southe.html) that God’s chosen people have black skins and the only way a white man can save his soul is to help African-Americans reign supreme. One person told me Christianity emerged from Ethiopia, but I have no idea how many fellow citizens would agree.

No wonder I have trouble persuading black fellow citizens to help develop We the People of the United States as defined in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. One of my greatest concerns is that many fellow citizens do not perceive that “posterity” includes their children.

I think it is past time to relegate Christian pursuits to their proper places: in the heart, in the closet, in adult believer’s assembly, in willing collaborative dialogue; but not in civic collaboration to discover integrity for human justice.

Some citizens may be willing to collaborate on their God, but many fellow citizens are not interested in evaluating Gods, especially their own. Yet most everyone wants individual happiness with civic morality.

  

BTW, the picture with the little girl’s right hand flexed back and fingers splayed expresses that children resist Mitch Landrieu’s hypocrisy.

To Elaine O Coyle:  What has not happened is needed reform from traditional Christian dominance. The First Amendment’s clauses in defense of theism should be revised to promote civic integrity.

The 1787 U.S. Constitution, especially its first legal sentence, the preamble, offers explicit break from Blackstone common law and church-state-partnership. However, the First Congress was like adolescent parents doing what their mom and dad did; former British colonists knew not how to escape their own tyranny.

The church-state partnership is constitutional in England but only traditional in America. See Greece v Galloway (2014) to understand the gravity of the imposition on the people. The overall progress of civil church-state alliances since 1789 seem to be factional-American Protestantism, evangelicalism, Judeo-Christianity, and now Judeo-Catholicism.

However, the black caucuses want African-American Christianity to prevail.

I promoted the agreement that is offered in the preamble about two decades before I began to try to understand African-American Christianity.

 To Elaine O. Coyle again: ". . . minding our own business" is more profound than it may seem to some readers.

One of the first principles of the human condition is that unlike a foal, which can walk in an hour and find its mare’s tit within 3 hours, a human infant takes about a year to learn to walk. The human being is so physically and psychologically complex it takes three decades for him or her to develop understanding and intent to live a complete human life.

Most adolescents understand that their first obligation to self is to earn the life style they want. Few understand that to have the freedom from oppression so as to pursue the happiness they perceive---instead of the dictates of another---they must live responsibly and collaborate for justice.

I think I have covered some of the detail of “minding our own business,” and would appreciate anything you would add.

To JT McQuitty: Interesting observations.

There’s a wealth of evidence in your citation, and I am not smart enough to dig it out quickly. However, I copied the data to a spreadsheet and began exploring thoughts. I computed %black two ways: among whites and among the total population. I then computed the ratio of the first divided by the second, subtracted 1.0 and multiplied by 100, and labeled that variable “diversity ratio.”

NYC is ranks 35 by diversity and 4 by “dissimilarity index.” San Francisco ranks 24 and 93, respectively; Austin TX 42 and 174. I don’t know and seek clues.

Lawrence, KS, with its second to lowest dissimilarity index and ranked 316 has 4% blacks. That’s interesting, because Lawrence was founded by Christian abolitionists from Massachusetts to promote local decisions on whether a new state would allow slavery. “Bleeding Kansas” developed around 1856: white Christian blood caused to flow by white Christian bleeders over more erroneous religious beliefs. This opinionated war claim was incorporated in the Confederate States of America’s declaration of secession, 1860. Contrast Kansas City, ranked 37, with 23% blacks. Why do blacks populate Lawrence at only 1/3 of the national average, 13%? It’s an ironic outcome of Civil War era Christian abolition struggles. Another irony is African-American Christianity, whatever opinion that label represents.

Baton Rouge, with 32% blacks is rated 33, near Kansas City’s 37 with 23% blacks. In my “social science” observation blacks in Baton Rouge did not, in summer 2016, riot, destroying lives and property, as national black organizations and AMO leaders would have liked. That’s perhaps because most Baton Rouge blacks are of We the People of the United States through their genes, memes, and intentions.

Explanations may be obvious to some readers, one factor being French and Spanish influence in Louisiana and the consequence that in 1830, 13.2% of Louisiana blacks were free, compared to 0.8% free blacks in Mississippi. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_Louisiana,  https://www.lib.lsu.edu/sites/all/files/sc/fpoc/history.html, and http://www.knowlouisiana.org/entry/free-people-of-color for historical opinion.

Thank you again for your citation, and I hope to return to it in future.

Blackstone fallibility (Dwight Doskey) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/letters/article_75121a86-a192-11e8-b332-7f95ea39de2f.html)

I appreciate Doskey’s clarification that the November 6 vote to preserve Louisiana’s U.S. Amendment VI impartiality-provision through 10:2 unanimous-majority verdicts does not change capital-punishment trials.

Now, the people need an authority to do the calculations needed to show that the 10:2 rule favors black fellow citizens disproportionally to white fellow citizens and protects the people from criminal influence and bigotry.

No matter the skin-color of seated jury members, there is chance that not all twelve jurors are habitually and serenely impartial: Some fellow citizens may tend to self-doubt and some may be insecure. The courtroom experience can inspire errant jurors to reform to the majority, but not always. U.S. data (with 96% absolutely unanimous jury rules) shows that 13% of verdicts seem wrong or courtroom influence is sufficient 87% of the time.

The positive courtroom influence is insufficient at 11:1 allowable verdict, but predicts impartiality at 10:2. With one bigoted juror or criminal influence, the allowable verdict needs to be 9:3.

Impartiality helps black fellow citizens more than whites. Consider FBI data from 12,253 murder reports in 2013. Of 5500 reports involving blacks and whites, 3009 victims were white, with 409 black offenders, and 2491 victims were black, with 2245 black offenders. White offenders numbered 2509 and 189, respectively.

Black offenders victimized a black 84.6% of the time, and 90.1% of black victims suffered a black offender. The population in 2013 was 73.7% white and 12.6% black. Yet blacks accounted for 45.3% of murder victims and 48.2% of murders.

To preserve impartiality in criminal courtrooms, Louisiana blacks and whites will vote to preserve the 10:2 unanimous-majority verdict.

However, I hope Louisiana calls a special session to rescind the unconstitutional Act 493.

Papal infallibility (Rev. Louis Arceneaux) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/letters/article_2ac6647e-a191-11e8-8cb4-2bbd638c2003.html)

“[Sadow] never heard of the development of doctrine in the Catholic Church. In the early centuries of Christianity, slavery was accepted. As a Church, we came to realize that slavery reflected a failure to respect the dignity of every human. The same can be said about the death penalty. The dignity of every human is fundamental to our Catholic teaching.”

Is that blasphemy or what?

I recall “papal infallibility.” And confirmation of public awareness: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility. It seems to me papal infallibility is indisputably false dogma. But dogma and doctrine are not the same: one is disprovable, and the other can be amended so as to preserve its mystery. However, humankind collaborates to discover the-objective-truth. Mystery as a means of tyranny over humans is approaching extinction.

There’s also a Wiki on Arceneaux’s topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_doctrine. There we are informed “The term was introduced in [John Henry] Newman's 1845 book An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine. Newman used the idea of development of doctrine to defend Catholic . . . doctrine which he argued was in some way implicitly present in the Divine Revelation in Sacred Scripture and Tradition which was present from the beginnings of the Church.”

Arceneaux implies that the Holy Bible’s affirmation of slavery in the 405 AD, Church-canonized New Testament is offset by Tradition regarding the dignity of slaves. In other words, slaves have dignity without voice, if they submit to Tradition.

Consider 1 Peter 2:18-20, CJB: “Household servants, submit yourselves to your masters, showing them full respect — and not only those who are kind and considerate, but also those who are harsh. For it is a grace when someone, because he is mindful of God, bears up under the pain of undeserved punishment. For what credit is there in bearing up under a beating you deserve for doing something wrong? But if you bear up under punishment, even though you have done what is right, God looks on it with favor.” Church Tradition fixes the offense? Perhaps, if Tradition develops.

There’s also a Wiki on the Church’s doctrine of discovery, which said that lands in the Americas could be colonized and the indigenous peoples converted, enslaved or killed, but I prefer to cite https://centerforearthethics.org/message-pope-francis/. Fifteenth century papal bulls “authorized” first Portugal then Spain to enhance colonization by purchasing African slaves and shipping them to the Americas; http://ldhi.library.cofc.edu/exhibits/show/african_laborers_for_a_new_emp/pope_nicolas_v_and_the_portugu.

Do black-power theologians within African-American Christianity preach that slavery is valid, but subjects have white skin? I think I heard that tacitly from Jeremiah Wright, here in 2015. It seems to me discovered-objective-truth has passed mystery, and it is past time for clergypersons to become carpenters, the-objective-truth scholars, and civic citizens for responsible personal prosperity.

https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/politics/article_3bbbf70c-a0de-11e8-a69c-ab023a8e364f.html

Some remembrances makes me visceral if not bitter.

I regret having to vote for Edwards rather than a fiscal conservative and will find it hard to vote GOP in future . . . especially if they finally endorse abandoning a Louisiana treasure, the 10:2 unanimous-majority verdict, which enhances provision of the U.S. Amendment VI requirement of IMPARTIAL juries. This change was made in Louisiana in 1880 because French colonial influence was willing to abandon English tradition. England reformed their Magna Carta tradition of absolute unanimity in 1967, allowing 10:2 verdicts in order to lessen the influence of organized crime.

Nevertheless, I wish Edwards would resign in disgrace over everything that has happened: squandering 2016 flood relief on administrative fees; Medicaid liabilities; tax increase; toleration of illegal law enforcement; increase in the costs of judges and lawyers; increase in cost of low-value education; badly managing road taxes; Act 493 Vatican "blessings" on January 20, 2016; together; abusing posterity (children) by promoting adult satisfaction.

 

Columns

Vote to keep Louisiana’s 10:2 unanimous-majority criminal-jury verdicts (Jeff Sadow) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/jeff_sadow/article_e301875c-9bf7-11e8-b445-cf257b9a346c.html)

Sadow ought to write a column to correct his error regarding capital murder jury verdicts.

Also, he’s careless about the origins, supreme courts confirmations, value, and England’s reform to unanimous-majority verdicts. England reformed to 10:2 verdicts in 1967 in order to reduce organized crime’s influence on jury service.

Reform of a British tradition that emerged from Magna Carta starts with the 1791 U.S. Amendment VI requirement that states provide IMPARTIAL rather than unanimous juries. There’s French-colonial Louisianans’ low regard for British traditions like twelve-person juries with absolutely unanimous verdicts. The 1880 consequence was 9:3 unanimous-majority verdicts so that bigoted jurors may be nulled. With a U.S. Constitution stipulation 12 person unanimity, Louisiana might have gone to 12:3 juries at 25% higher jury costs. (Attorney General Jeff Landry expressed interest in preserving efficiency with impartiality.)

Both the Louisiana Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the 9:3 unanimous-majority verdict in 1970 and 1972, respectively. Therefore, the Louisiana Legislature’s imposition of a referendum to regress from state provision of impartial jury verdicts seems unconstitutional. The Legislature ought not impose injustice on the people.

To maintain collaboration for a civic culture rather than regress to vulnerability to organized crime and bigotry, Louisiana voters will maintain the 10:2 unanimous-majority verdicts.

In the future, capital murder rules might be revised to 11:1 or better so as to defeat crime and bigotry; also, non-capital verdicts may be returned to 9:3 unanimous–majority verdicts or even 8:4 or 7:3.

   

News

The Church repeats past error (Andrea Gallo) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/article_4916d8fe-a7c3-11e8-9807-6b81d6f7d004.html)

   

We the People of the United States, in individual self-discipline, may hold the Church responsible for civic integrity.

In 405 AD the Church had the chance to purge from the New-Testament-canon all passages that condoned slavery in any way. An egregious example is 1 Peter 2:18-20, CJB. The Church apologized for slavery. On this error alone, we may know that neither the Holy Bible nor Church Tradition is the word of God.

Today, the Church coexists with African-American Christianity, whatever that means. I have heard at least one champion, Jeremiah Wright, attribute its development to the Church’s influence.

Neither Catholic spirituality, Protestant spirituality, African-American-Christian spirituality, nor any other spiritual hope collaborates for civic morality. But actual human justice surpasses spiritual hopes.

In 1992, I attended the public viewing to celebrate fellow-citizen Stanley Joseph Ott’s life. His was partly contemporaneous with mine. On Friday, my friend Hugh and I passed a block from St. Joseph Cathedral’s isolation and noted without objection that we were publically excluded. I doubt I will cross that gestapo threshold again.

  

However, the elected officials who were present may be aware that they serve We the People of the United States, rather than the Church. Consequently, officials who will be talking to Michael Duca may develop a transparent list of reforms so that Church canon in the U.S. conforms to U.S. statutory law.

Also, they may develop a list of Church reforms to civilly repress sexual abuse by Catholic clergy.

After attending a fair at a Catholic school, I asked a friend why elementary-school girls wear such short skirts. The friend responded, “Well, let’s just say that short skirts are titillating. And little girls become adolescent girls.” Parents cooperate.

I commend the Louisiana Legislature to pass a law that requires school uniforms to protect a girl’s innocence.

Hope in Jesus, but act within the law (Andrea Gallo) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/article_244931e6-a6f3-11e8-bf72-b33bf21995ae.html)

   

Installation of a new bishop is of civic interest in Baton Rouge, because 24.7% of the area people are Catholic; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Diocese_of_Baton_Rouge. The other 75.3 % of inhabitants may share hope for individual happiness with civic integrity.

Church canon has been around at least 1700 years, and recent skirmishes with statutory justice have occupied an inordinate amount of public power, energy, and authority (PPEA). PPEA derives from the collective individual power, individual energy, and individual authority (IPEA) each human citizen has and may employ to develop integrity or not.

We the People of the United States, repressed these 230 years, hope Michael Duca will dedicate himself and his flock to help separate church from state, a tacit goal of the preamble. The preamble is a legal sentence that states the purpose of the U.S.: tacitly, civic discipline by the majority rather than dominance by a minority. The U.S. was established on June 21, 1788 by former British colonist’s representatives of nine eastern-seaboard states. Since then, the U.S. has expanded to 50 more diverse states.

So far, minority factions of fellow-citizens have used hopes for mysterious afterdeath to persuade some fellow-citizens to think their civic station sits above human justice. It’s a false idea that begs civic reckoning.

  

Other fora

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-insecurity-and-self-doubt

You pose an impactful* question. Perhaps self-doubt derives from lack of particular information and insecurity develops from seeking higher authority.

The human being is the only species that faces such a profound dilemma. The human is so powerful it takes three decades to develop the understanding and intent to live a complete lifetime. Completion involves the subsequent decades to develop integrity and fidelity to the-objective-truth.

Rather than an increasing capacity to know enough, each newborn faces an exploding body of discovery that no source contains with integrity and most fellow citizens cannot attest to.

Google operates artificial intelligence that will help readers understand emerging phrases. For “fake news definition,” Google refers the reader to Wikipedia, which would like to be neutral but is subject to the writer’s bias. Wikipedia also intends to cover all knowledge, but is limited by the writers. For “gravitational waves definition,” Google accepts its own and presents for further reading What are Gravitational Waves? before a Wikipedia article.

The entire Internet seems insufficient. Consider “the-objective-truth” search without the quotes, for which the first URL is 4. Does Objective Truth Exist? The essay seems to equivocate “objective truth” with “absolute truth.” Both involve human evaluation, whereas the-objective-truth is and can only be discovered. For example, the-objective-truth regarding the existence of God may be discovered. But the point is, Google did not like “the-objective-truth.”

Most cultures impose the belief in higher power. However, every human has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (IPEA) to develop integrity and with practice go on to fidelity. Fortunate is the person who employs IPEA to manage the lesser authorities: appetites (banality), societies (coercion) and governments (force). Some people use IPEA for crime, believing that crime pays.

Integrity is a practice: discovering whether a heartfelt concern is valid or not, accepting the discovery, understanding how to benefit, behaving responsibly, publicly sharing the understanding, listening to public response so as to improve on mutual understanding, and remaining open to new discovery that requires change.

Self-doubt motivates more study to discover the-objective-truth, which may be: I don’t know at this time but have earned the opinion on which I behave. Insecurity derives from not using IPEA to constrain the lesser powers.

*Karen DiFulvio made me aware of this word on August 6, 2018, and I am grateful.

https://www.quora.com/Does-objective-truth-exist

This question has 34 answers because, IMO, it unintentionally omits a needed article. What exists is the-objective-truth.
I prefer “the.” The hyphens encourage listeners and readers not to substitute “objective truth,” which seems subjective—-a human attempt at absolute evaluation. See, for example, 4. Does Objective Truth Exist?.
I like to use actual reality as a conversational synonym for the-objective-truth, which can only be discovered. Rather than “an-objective-truth,” I prefer “a discovered-objective-truth” or “that-objective-truth.”
There is the-objective-truth respecting the existence of God. That-objective-truth has not been discovered.
I have used this phrase for several years, but only by searching [“the-objective-truth”+”phil beaver”] do I see a few URL’s to my work. I do not view “the-objective-truth” as Phil Beaver’s truth but admit I do not know the-objective-truth.
I write to learn so would appreciate comments.

 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.

The Advocate neglecting children and adolescents

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 preamble, the USA Constitution’s most neglected legal statement:  For discussion, I convert the preamble’s predicate phrase to nouns and paraphrase it for my proposal as follows: We the willing citizens of the United States collaborate for self-discipline regarding integrity, justice, goodwill, defense, prosperity, liberty, and children and by this amendable constitution limit the U.S.'s service to the people in their states. I want to collaborate with the other citizens on this paraphrase. I would preserve the original, 1787, text, unless it is amended by the people..

It seems no one has challenged whether or not the preamble is a legal statement. The fact that it changed this independent country from a confederation to a union of states disciplined by disciplined people convinces me the preamble is legal.

Every citizen has equal opportunity to either trust-in and collaborate-on the goals stated in the preamble or be dissident to the agreement. I think 2/3 of citizens try somewhat to use the preamble but many do not articulate commitment to the goals. However, it seems less than 2/3 understand that “posterity” implies children. “Freedom of religion,” which civic citizens cannot discipline, oppresses freedom to develop integrity.

Our Views

August 16 (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_3a9b45de-a0a8-11e8-be8d-87764dd335f7.html)

Second Post:

Entrusted with “freedom of the press” in the context of preventing the Union of States (the US government) from controlling the press, you’d think the press writers would perceive responsibilities to the civic people. As a chemical engineer, no boss could keep me from making certain the vessels I designed would not blow up. Fortunately, none of my bosses ever tried hard to discourage me.

One press responsibility I appeal to: Keep the public, especially the nation’s children and adolescents at the leading edge of knowledge.

When I was a child, Staub School taught me to read the newspaper. It perplexed me to encounter “God” in the newspaper when God in the church (Calvary Baptist) was so threatening.

Google says the press writes for 11th grade readers. The press need not challenge children and adolescent readers with obsolete personifications like “Mother Nature.” “Is rain controlled by a woman? Why did she ruin my doll and home? Is Mother also that cruel?”

“Civic morality” might be expressed as individual mindfulness for fellow citizens during life, while collaborating to benefit from the-objective-truth. The press task to purge harmful phrases like "Mother Nature" would be initially expensive and require continual updates, yet practical.

Coaching and encouraging the public to stay at the leading edge of discovery rather than to preserve obsolete opinions would be a step toward civic integrity.

The Advocate has most of what is needed, and reform would be easily noticed by readers. 

“Mother Nature cares little for political boundaries.”

 First Post:

Google informs us “’Mother Nature’ is a common personification of nature that focuses on the life-giving and nurturing aspects of nature by embodying it, in the form of the mother.”

Like it or not, social phrases like “Mother Nature,” keep fellow citizens divided. Likewise, a quotation from the Declaration of Independence, “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God,” erroneously divides fellow citizens.

We the People of the United States, a voluntary special interest group that has been neglected if not repressed since June 21, 1788, may do better. Writers for the press may do better.

For example, “Physics cares [nothing] for political boundaries,” is defensible on a civic basis, where “civic” implies mindfulness for living rather than maintenance of traditions such as spiritualism. In this usage, “physics” means mass, energy and spacetime (from which literally everything in our universe emerges) rather than a study. Imagination as tradition emerges in privation of discovery.

Actual reality offers fellow citizens a choice: Collaborate to discover the-objective-truth or compete for dominant opinion. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution grants freedom of expression, with an added phrase for the press. It’s the press’s responsibility to create words and phrases that help people stay mindful of mutual, comprehensive safety and security. The press in Baton Rouge has a world-wide advantage: The achievable dream of a better future is being generated in free, public meetings at EBRP libraries, now in the fifth year.

Agents who freely neglect responsibility eventually lose privilege, because civic justice---integrity--- marches forward and cares not for the past. The-objective-truth cares nothing for erroneous beliefs.

 
August 12 (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_348a829a-9b44-11e8-b16a-3b8d60001669.html)

  

The Advocate personnel write like they were born yesterday and enjoy a world of conflicted mendacity.
 
There is a library of writing on jury rules and how the U.S. Constitution deals with them. Briefly, jury unanimity, 12:0 verdicts was a British tyranny that England ended in 1967 so as to interfere with organized crime’s influence on verdicts. The U.S. was never a British colony; only the 13 eastern seaboard colonies who named themselves states in 1774 had the bias to reinstate Blackstone common law and Canterbury style yet factional Protestantism despite the liberating preamble to the U.S. Constitution.

Blackstone and Chapter XI Machiavellianism were reinstated by the First Congress, with ten states on March 4, 1789 and 14 states ratifying the Bill of Rights on December 15, 1791. The former British colonists acted like teenaged parents---adolescents who know no more about parenting than to do what mom and dad did.

During those years, Louisiana territory was under French colonization and Spanish competition. The mid west was Mexican, and the far west was Spanish. The people in those territories were as likely to reject English tyranny as We the People of the United States could be, and as ready as England was in 1967, when they rejected the absolute unanimous verdict in criminal trials.
 
Only 2/3 of delegates to the 12 state Philadelphia convention signed the preamble and the articles that fallowed. British traditions did not dominate the document. However, the First Congress rejected the revolutionary independence from England and reinstated many British traditions. James Madison tried to mimic unanimous jury verdicts. However, the Senate rejected Madison’s bid, so U.S. Amendment VI requires that states provide impartial juries

After the Civil War, not convinced that former slaves were ready to enter society, the United States Congress created the Freedmen's Bureau; https://en.wikipedia.org/.../History_of_slavery_in.... Colonial Louisiana, uniquely under French Code Noir, became a state in 1812, and in 1830, 13.2% of blacks were free, compared to 0.8% in Mississippi.
 
In 1879, the Louisiana legislature asked, “How can Louisiana help provide Amendment VI’s required impartial verdicts?” Some governments considered impartiality with majority unanimity in a larger jury, say 12:3 verdicts, but find it impractical. Unburdened by English emotions about unanimity, Louisiana adopted the 9:3 majority verdict in 1879 and enacted it in 1880, 87 years earlier than England overcame their tyranny against their people.
 
Many other considerations have gone into the U.S. Supreme Court’s continual protection of Louisiana’s law, most importantly, upholding in Johnson v Louisiana (1972), the Louisiana Supreme Court’s defense in 1970.
 
We the People of the United States ineluctably march toward civic integrity, because that is the U.S. discipline; I think Jeff Landry understands the office he serves. The Advocate personnel feel free to lead the charge for an unconstitutional referendum, foisted on the voters of Louisiana by the special-interest groups involved. Ed Tarpley, with a resolution that ignores some facts, such as Johnson v Louisiana, promotes injustice as a religious miracle of Biblical proportions. The 2018 Louisiana Legislature and Gov. John Bel Edwards collaborated against the people. Shame on their disrespect for Louisiana history and people.
 
Any day now, The Advocate personnel may vacate the right side of the division created by the preamble to the U.S. Constitution: people on the left voluntarily collaborate for the civic purpose and goals stated in the preamble, and people on the right favor a special interest group, such as either Blackstone loyalists or African-American Christianity as the civic morality.

To Scuddy LeBlanc: Scuddy, with "dishonest," you raise an interesting consideration.

Honesty is expressing an opinion you hold even though you have not done the work to establish integrity. If the evidence is not there, integrity permits the individual to declare: I do not know the-objective-truth yet state my opinion. Dishonesty is expressing an opinion you do not hold.

 

I agree with your opinion that The Advocate personnel establish dishonesty.
 
I struggle to understand: If my perception reflects actual reality, why would The Advocate publish dishonesty? Were they merely born yesterday; do they advocate harm against the people; are they aliens against both Louisiana and America or what?

To Phil Stanley: I agree.
 
Not only can the Attorney General have opinions, he is elected by the people to fulfill the office.

Article VI, Paragraph 8 of the Louisiana Constitution: “As necessary for the assertion or protection of any right or interest of the state, the attorney general shall have authority (1) to institute, prosecute, or intervene in any civil action or proceeding.”

In civic terms, or obligations to the people, the above statement means maintain constitutional integrity. In his responsibility for civil integrity, the AG reports not to the Legislature, nor the Governor, nor The Advocate, nor racial-interest groups but to the people.

It seems to me Act 493 is unconstitutional in that both the Louisiana Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme court have thoroughly considered the arguments against Louisiana’s 9:3 majority verdicts and verified compliance with both constitutions, especially U.S. Amendments VI requirements for impartiality. When justice is established, a legislative act to go back to known tyranny is an offense against the people. It is Landry’s job to stop it.

Perhaps Landry has served the Louisiana Legislature notice and is giving them time to rescind their unconstitutional act. If so, they would be well advised to act on their own while they can.

As for The Advocate, by their example, I rescind any positive sentiment I ever expressed for the press. My hopeful appreciation for journalism and journalism schools was erroneous. I am grateful for the work I do that qualifies me to own that regret. I write for reform.

I want Louisiana’s protection of expression reformed so as to penalize writers for the press and their employer for promoting mendacities the people may easily discover. The U.S. phrase, “freedom of the press,” does not exclude press consideration of integrity; in other words, the need for integrity is recognized by the press, and when they deviate, the people are free to punish them. I commend the Louisiana Legislature to initiate an effective Louisiana enforcement of “freedom of expression”, as a high priority.

To Nicholas James: Your emotional regard for unanimous juries from Magna Carta is obsolete. In 1967, England reduced vigilantism by allowing 10:2 majority verdicts.

Black victims, because of internal vigilantism, suffer disproportionally the 13% error-effect of unanimous verdict requirements in the 48 states (outside Louisiana and perhaps Oregon); https://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2007/06/juries.html.

Blacks who collaborate for civic justice would be disproportionally hurt by approval of Act 493, contrary to The Advocate’s “Our Views” today, August 12, 2018.

Consider FBI data, by race, on murders in 2013; https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_6_murder_race_and_sex_of_vicitm_by_race_and_sex_of_offender_2013.xls. Of 5500 murders, 3009 victims were white, with 409 black offenders, and 2491 victims were black, with 2245 black offenders. Black offenders victimized a black 84.6% of the time, and 90.1% of black victims suffered a black offender. The population in 2013 was 73.7% white and 12.6% black. Yet blacks account for 45.3% of murder victims and 48.2% of murders. Blacks practice black on black vigilantism 600% more frequently than white on white vigilantism.

The facts suggest that both you and The Advocate are comfortable with decreasing protection of the people from vigilantism. Further, you seem willing for blacks to discover you ignore the facts about their disproportionate vulnerability to judicial strategies that do not provide impartial juries, such as the obsolete 12:0 verdict rule.

It is not OK for 48 states to require obsolete unanimous verdicts, but it is wrongful for special-interest groups to try to force Louisiana into past injustice.

Letters

Quitting quitting (Mitch Zeller) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/letters/article_18383f2a-9f17-11e8-9de9-ef564e1ab91d.html)

In 1972, I decided to quit quitting and MWW agreed. We got help from Bob and Loretta who had attended a cessation training at LSU. We quit, using the five-day nicotine-purging diet. Carroll bet me five dollars I’d smoke again. That Texan saved me many a dollar and pain. Thanks to them and MWW, our children never smoked. They prove that erroneous behavior does not have to be shared from generation to generation.

I had already damaged my health, and 36 years after quitting my lung cancer appeared. Thanks to doctors, including Gahan, Hodges, Miletello, Bringaze, McClleland, followup-chemo and exercise, I am cancer free again.

Like Zeller, the battle began with my parents; both were heavy smokers. It is not a pretty memory, even though they were great providers, as best they knew. My two siblings suffered. 

To Doug Johnson: Doug, the only time I smoked cigars was after a steak at a restaurant. That tradition could have hooked me back if I had not collected $5 from Carroll. The thought of giving that tall Texan $10 kept me from lighting up for years. Now, the only habit is appreciation for Carroll's generous bet. Thank you, Carroll.

Bashing the legal system (John DiGiulio) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/letters/article_18e9885e-9f1a-11e8-804a-d718976e49be.html)

I oppose DiGiulio’s expressions and think his passion is misplaced.

Justice is every citizen’s concern, and many lawyers, judges, and politicians are taking a heavy hand against a civic people---those who trust-in and commit-to the civic agreement that is offered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution, signed on September 17, 1787.

The agreement seeks justice and tranquility rather than advantage to criminals. The justice system must be impartial. Civic citizens may collaborate to overcome government’s mismanagement of monopoly force, or control of vigilantism, where “vigilantism” means arbitrary force. I don’t trust DiGiulio’s “evidence” for criminals and racism.

Can citizens trust the FBI? Consider FBI data, by race, from 12,253 murder reports in 2013; search online “fbi murder data 2013.” Of 5500 reports involving blacks and whites, 3009 victims were white, with 2509 white and 409 black offenders; and 2491 victims were black, with 189 white and 2245 black offenders. Black offenders (2654) victimized a black 84.6% of the time, and 90.1% of black victims suffered a black offender. White offenders (2698) victimized a white 93.0% of the time, and 83.4% of white victims suffered a white offender.

The population in 2013 was 73.7% white and 12.6% black; search online “historical race demographics.” Yet blacks accounted for 45.3% of murder victims and 48.2% of murders. Black on black vigilantism occurs 525% more frequently than white on white vigilantism. Black on white vigilantism occurs 1050% more frequently than white on black vigilantism.

I suggest that black vigilantism against blacks is a consequence of racism. However, racism arose from political response to evolution and is a global problem. Skin color erroneously became the false definer of the body, mind, and person.

I assert that We the People of the United States, 1) having been the victim of the African slave trade with sales of a bitter commodity by African chiefs to ruthless European colonizers not one of whom would be a slave and 2) the beneficiaries of the world’s most promising political sentence, the preamble to the U.S. Constitution, have the privilege to solve our race problem and let the world benefit from the example.

Dissident lawyers, judges, politicians, preachers, and black citizens may decide to join We the People of the United States yet are free to be un-civic citizens. The preamble is both a civic and a legal (civil) sentence that is neutral to gender, race, ethnicity, and religion.

I encourage DiGiulio, a citizen I assume, to apply himself to improving the precision and accuracy of accusation, indictment, conviction, and execution of actually real murderers rather than adding to the problem by arguing numbers most citizens including victims cannot access.

One other issue DiGiulio invoked: The pope has no standing regarding civil justice in the preservation of body, mind and person. His stated domain is the mysterious salvation of souls. Let him compete on beliefs, such as African-American Christianity, another harmless, private pursuit for adults. Beyond cooperating for public safety and security, let religious businesses opine only on the spirit: separate state from church; America from English tradition; life from afterdeath.

Columns

Kill HB 365 (James Gill) (theadvocate.com/new_orleans/opinion/james_gill/article_501a5382-4ee1-11e8-b429-d35c9544b293.html)

Add to

  

News

Family disturbance (Charles Lussier) (theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/education/article_7f14074c-2951-11e8-8c9b-47f9ed22cbaa.html)

   

The

Other fora

https://www.quora.com/How-is-banning-abortion-practical-to-the-society-I-understand-that-abortion-is-murder-however-arent-laws-for-maintaining-a-stable-society-rather-than-telling-us-what-s-moral-or-immoral

Life begins with a woman’s production of a viable ovum. An authentic man knows that and protects both woman and ovum from unwanted conception.

Papal psychology can’t assimilate authentic manhood, so the Church chose to impose on women.

In other words, banning abortion is a way for the Church to obfuscate its failure to humankind.

Most abortions are a matter of physics correcting its errors so as to prevent unwanted lives. As it is, the woman’s decision to not remain pregnant is the ultimate physics correction. With this actual reality, the U.S. Supreme Court opined that a woman’s decision not to remain pregnant is private.

Men’s will to impose pregnancy on women and impose life on fertilized ova creates civic immorality. Legislators create civil injustice. The pope should resign a corrupt business of abusing humankind.

  

https://www.quora.com/Do-social-norms-influence-society-more-than-judicial-laws

The question: Do social norms influence society more than judicial laws?

I am so unsocial the question does not invoke my response, so I’ll respond as I can. I do not appreciate social norms, preferring civic morality or to use a hot word, mindfulness---for mutual living more than for spirituality. I do not encourage social influence, preferring individual liberty with civic morality. When I researched the phrase “judicial law,” Google did not define it. Some URL’s took me to “law”, and others to “judiciary” as the system that provides rules and enforcement.

Perhaps “judicial law” refers to the arbitrary statues a system imposes on the people, but there’s little evidence of human justice in extant civilizations.

No matter what the law says, and no matter what society says, most individuals seek the happiness they perceive rather than subjugate to someone else’s plan for them.

My opinion addresses my life in the U.S. (1943 till now), where the social norm is Christianity, plus a pitiful travel and study experience beyond. My impression is that social norms dominate civilizations more than laws.

I have studied the preamble to the U.S. Constitution and opine that it is the most promising political power in existence. However, factional societies repress the preamble’s public acceptance, and it lies fallow. It defines a special interest group whose purpose is mutual, comprehensive safety and security. Unfortunately, most societies within that group perceive advantage and therefore will not collaborate for civic integrity.

I promote civic integrity and work to develop it. In a civic culture, statutory justice would be based on the-objective-truth, which can only be discovered.

http://www.libertylawsite.org/2018/08/17/righteous-indigenization-macdonald-statue-victoria-canada/

Second post, Aug 18:

I apologize for the multiple postings. However, I think this revision expresses better a shared opportunity for civic integrity.

Dr. Havers draws attention to Louisiana civic citizens with, “Now the radical politics of statue removal, which initially targeted various Confederate monuments, has migrated northward.”

Civic citizens in the U.S. (especially Richmond, VA) and in Canada my share experiences, observations, and ideas for reform.

I’m in Louisiana and recall New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu, speaking about removal of statutes that commemorated Civil War leaders:  He didn’t know where removal ends but knew where it would begin. A New Orleans writer opined on July 13, 2015 that it began with Landrieu’s ignorance; http://uptownmessenger.com/2015/07/owen-courreges-before-you-tear-down-a-statue-shouldnt-you-know-who-it-depicts/. I agree: abject ignorance that could lead to the removal of St. Louis Cathedral and the rest of Jackson Square.

Dr. Havers claims, without stating the evidence, “Thanks in part to the spread of Christianity, the slave trade eventually ended.” The Church started the Atlantic-African slave trade.

The Church could have rejected slavery when priests canonized the New Testament in 405 AD. They could have admitted the universal observation Frederick Douglass expressed in 1852: “There is not a man beneath the canopy of heaven, that does not know that slavery is wrong for him.” Priests perhaps felt exempt from literal beatings when they canonized 1 Peter 2:18-21.

Instead, papal bulls in the 15^th century “authorized” African slave trade by Portugal (http://ldhi.library.cofc.edu/exhibits/show/african_laborers_for_a_new_emp/pope_nicolas_v_and_the_portugu) then by Spain, also as part of the Doctrine of Discovery. Later, Protestant kings competed. They unleashed a story that is not yet complete.

How may Canada and Europe respond to African-American Christianity? See https://www.wsj.com/articles/dr-kings-radical-biblical-vision-1522970778? Does the Christian God intend the chosen people to be black skinned? I’m not theorizing: I understood that view from Jeremiah Wright in 2015; https://www.nola.com/opinions/index.ssf/2015/02/jeremiah_wright_tells_a_southe.html.

One approach for monuments is to create (replaceable) plaques that commemorate continually discovered history so that peoples, neither today nor in the future, repeat past mistakes. Christianity is a private pursuit, but its global impacts are civic issues. If not private constraint; civic; if not civic; civil.

The Confederate States of America, in 1860, declared secession, listing complaints against their own 1788 Union of States and denying their 1774 pledge in perpetuity. They concluded, “. . . all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanction of more erroneous religious belief.” See http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp. The erroneous Christian belief was rendered bare by defeat and death in proportion to eight million citizens at today’s population.

Unfortunately the expert politician, Abraham Lincoln, responded unmindfully to CSA war threats in his 1861 inaugural address, “Why should there not be a patient confidence in the ultimate justice of the people? Is there any better or equal hope in the world? In our present differences, is either party without faith of being in the right? 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.”

Lincoln could have caringly stated that the seven-state CSA proposed war against twenty-seven states with superior military power. He could have quoted fellow citizen Frederick Douglass! He could have shamed the Church and churches that did not support emancipation of the slaves. He could have shamed Bleeding Kansas.

Monuments to CSA celebrities should be preserved with plaques that record the failure of some Christians and other citizens to respond to Frederick Douglass’s plea to fellow citizens. See https://rbscp.lib.rochester.edu/2945. The Atlantic slave trade had ended soon after the target, 1808, but the internal slave trade was prolific as Douglass spoke in 1852. Havers suggests there are Canadian analogs.

Civic citizens may separate public morality from religious hopes: collaboration from cooperation; mutual discovery from conflicted opinion; belief from integrity; preserving life rather than comforting death. Monuments and plaques may celebrate civic integrity. No one knows the-objective-truth, but plaques may be updated as discovery occurs.

First post, Aug 17, was accepted twice:

Guttenburgs Press and Brewery says

August 18, 2018 at 11:35 am

“Monuments and plaques may celebrate civic integrity.”
They (monuments) may also serve as testaments to idiocy and and the delusional grandiosity of aberrant thought processes.
However, to acknowledge that unpleasant fact would be considered by some to be “un-civic.”

Reply

·         Phil Beaver says

August 18, 2018 at 3:26 pm

Quoting my 8/17 post, “a civic people—those with mindfulness for mutual, comprehensive safety and security during life, benefitting from the-objective-truth.”

The ability to collaborate to discover the-objective-truth distinguishes a civic people from fellow citizens who are dissidents to comprehensive safety and security. For their reasons, dissidents perceive they do not need civic morality: egocentric morality will suffice. Among the dissidents are evils, criminals, doctrinaires, tyrants, ignoramuses, innocents. Some civic citizens need assistance and fellow citizens provide. Some fellow citizens think crime pays, even after they are caught and incarcerated. The Church has maintained the person-abuse business for reasons only the pope might be asked to explain.

I have yet to encounter a person who is willing to discuss the phrase from the CSA’s declaration of secession, even though I have many times quoted R. E. Lee’s theism (erroneous I think) in his 1856 letter to his wife, four years after Frederick Douglass’s statement I quoted earlier. See Lee’s lament against abolitionists in https://leefamilyarchive.org/9-family-papers/339-robert-e-lee-to-mary-anna-randolph-custis-lee-1856-december-27.

Jeremiah Wright seems to assert that Lee was right, but the slaves God intends have white skins and the masters have black skins. People may regard Wright’s point as un-civic, yet stonewalling him blocks civic integrity. Wright’s opinion is an unpleasant fact, and I know not how deeply it represents African-American Christianity. However, we may know that England already experienced the challenge.

gabe says

August 18, 2018 at 4:51 pm

Obviously, you are OFF YOUR MEDS AGAIN:

Get thee back to the cuckoo’s Nest!

Reply

Phil Beaver says

August 18, 2018 at 5:42 pm

“gabe” your AI (artificial intelligence) should have learned by now not to respond to my posts.

I remember when you invited me to Coventry. I said MWW and I love to travel. I asked you for your address; when you did not respond, I looked up the slang usage. I love to tell the joke.

I’m not about to agree again to visit your nest even to have a beer.

Reply

·         Pukka Luftmensch says

August 18, 2018 at 5:24 pm

In re meds:

The dysphoria is noteworthy, and whether it’s the consequence of taking them or of not taking one’s meds may be the question for some, but for me it’s a mere matter not of medicine but of intelligibility.

Wally Cleaver understood the Beave and was able, at times, to set him straight with big-brotherly advice.
But I just do not understand what the man is saying, so sub silentio, whatever it is he’s discussing I leave it to Beaver, whatever the meaning of “it” or “is” is.

 Phil Beaver says

August 18, 2018 at 6:03 pm

I apologize for the lose “it” you may be referring to; I sometimes repeat nouns in the same sentence to avoid pronouns. Also, any lose “is” that may have stumped you; I try to use “seems” and other soft verbs.

As for your civic abuses of my name, I like an old saying: Let a sleeping log die.

Quotes I did not use:

“The plaque that has replaced Macdonald’s statue says it all. It refers to him as a “a leader of violence against Indigenous peoples,” because he initiated the residential school system for aboriginal children. From 1876 to 1996, the federal government, with the assistance of Christian churches, ran boarding schools that promoted “assimilation,” namely teaching the language and culture of English and French civilization to these kids, who in many cases were taken from their parents.”

“Does a politics of purity, which reduces a nation to its historic injustices, allow for the civilized dissent that Macdonald championed? As Hegel explains in The Phenomenology of Spirit (1807), this sort of politics is suited to a ‘beautiful soul’ who believes in his own moral superiority while he mercilessly judges others for their reprobate actions. What Hegel calls an “inner moral conceit” at work here aptly describes the radical Left today, which reduces western civilization to a story of oppression, violence, and injustice.”

“Thanks in part to the spread of Christianity, the slave trade eventually ended.”

“If we cannot trust the state with the care of vulnerable children, why should we trust it with the power to rewrite or erase our history?”

http://www.libertylawsite.org/2018/02/08/the-steep-costs-of-judges-as-institutional-reform-advocates/

This is a great post for many reasons, and I appreciate the instruction it offers.

Pulliam describes a mixed economic system, wherein some goods and services are free market and others are provided by the government. That mixture can work under a republican form of government, which the U.S. Constitution guarantees. However, civic citizens must discipline the federal governments.

A major problem with this entire status of the U.S. is the acceptance of a democratic society rather than statutory justice according to civic integrity. That is, justice that is determined by collaborating to discover the-objective-truth rather than conflicting for dominant opinion.

The first legal sentence in the U.S. Constitution is the preamble. When the U.S. was established on June 21, 1788 by the peoples’ representatives to state ratification conventions in nine state, the Union lessened the Confederation to four free and independent states, one of which joined the Union before operations began on March 4, 1789. Then, the three dissident states and their citizens had no standing to attend Congress.

Also, the preamble offers a civic agreement which citizens are free to decline. Thus, there was and always will be two transcending special interest groups among citizens: fellow citizens who trust-in and commit-to the preamble for civic integrity and fellow citizens who, for reasons they may understand, are dissidents. I call the non-dissidents civic citizens.

In the American democracy, there is one vote per qualified citizen. Activists have ruined the vote by making mere existence plus chronological age 18 sufficient qualification for non-felon citizens to vote. I would like to see an initial requirement that first-time voters demonstrate trust-in and commitment-to the preamble in order to vote. But the balance of powers and federalism spoils democracy as a political system. A vote for U.S. Senator in Wyoming is 68 times more politically powerful that a vote for U.S. Senator in California. I hope Editor Pulliam well help a chemical engineer understand Pulliam’s seeming favor toward democracy.

Additionally, I oppose social morality and write to interest fellow citizens in civic morality. “Civic morality” might be expressed as individual mindfulness among fellow citizens for mutual, comprehensive safety and security during life more than for the past yet for an achievable better future, benefitting from the-objective-truth.

Lawyers and judges are first fellow citizens, and if they behave as dissidents, it is up to self-disciplined civic citizens to either correct or reject the dissident’s services in elected or appointed office.

“. . . the institution of representative self-government—manifested by elections—gives legitimacy to the compromises that inevitably result.”

“. . . compromises are unavoidable in a democratic society.”

“Thanks in part to the encouragement of Harvard law professor Abram Chayes in an influential 1976 article . . . Shouldering aside mayors, governors, school boards, and legislators (and the voters who elected them), imperious judges—presuming to be the heirs of the civil rights movement—arrogantly dictate what is in the public interest.”

“Judge Eugene Nickerson’s . . . beneficiaries . . . were the burgeoning administrative bureaucracy, the plaintiffs’ attorneys, and richly-compensated ‘special masters.’”

“So long as aggressive special interest groups can [shop] their grievances to an activist federal judge . . . both federalism and representative democracy will be compromised.”

“Most institutional reform litigation is simply liberal social engineering, badly done.”

“Part 2 of this post will discuss . . . the case pending before federal district judge Janis Graham Jack in Corpus Christi, M.D. v. Abbott.  The lawsuit was filed in 2011 by a New York-based advocacy group, Children’s Rights, which was originally a project of the ACLU.  [T]he judge employed the familiar gimmick of making up a new constitutional right, the novel ‘right to be free from an unreasonable risk of harm.’ Texas declined to enter into a consent decree and fought the case instead.”

http://www.libertylawsite.org/2018/02/14/institutional-reform-litigation-and-the-demise-of-democracy-part-ii/

“No matter how much money is spent attempting to repair the damage of broken and dysfunctional families, the results will be imperfect. Critics will always be able to identify flaws, especially in hindsight.”

“From a more cynical perspective, ‘compassion’ is also an excuse frequently seized upon by opportunistic special interest groups and power-hungry judges to usurp authority properly entrusted to elected officials. If the political process fails to deliver enough government largesse to suit the activists’ demand, litigants have learned that federal judges—eager to win the praise of the liberal establishment—will intervene to shake more money out of the taxpayers’ pockets.”

“Without any precedent whatever, Jack ruled that Texas owes a duty to foster children, under the U.S. Constitution, to protect them from the risk of experiencing any harm, both physical and emotional.”

“Jack ruled that the special masters’ subjective “best practices” for foster care established a minimum standard under the Constitution. This is pure judicial imperialism.”

“The issuance of an injunction, however, finally ended Jack’s unsupervised mayhem in the Southern District of Texas, Corpus Christi division. The Fifth Circuit issued an immediate stay of Jack’s decision, pending appeal, a sure sign of disapproval.”

“The Fifth Circuit has an opportunity—and an obligation—to restore popular sovereignty and democratic rule in the Lone Star State. Government by judiciary is inconsistent with federalism, and Jack’s lawless frolic must be resoundingly overturned.”

I posted:

Is there nothing new on reversing Judge Jack’s work?

https://www.quora.com/unanswered/Does-the-creation-of-a-Religious-Task-Force-in-the-DOJ-conflict-with-the-founding-fathers-idea-of-separation-of-church-and-state

So far, neither Congress nor the Supreme Court has effected the separation of church and state. Instead, they cling to English tradition, and England is a constitutional Canterbury-Parliament partnership. Many U.S. lawyers and judges proudly reference Magna Carta to undo the 1787 Constitution for which we may be grateful to the signers so as to forget any so called “founding fathers.”

What’s needed is replacement of the religion clauses in the U.S. First Amendment with protection of the individual and corporate development of civic integrity.

It is likely that the DOJ will reach that conclusion. So, yes, the task force is consistent with separation of church and state.

Incidentally, an important confusion about separation of church and state arises from the political power of the erroneous phrase “founding fathers.” The people who negotiated a document that promised separation from England’s colonial oppression were the 39 of 55 delegates from twelve states who signed the 1787 Constitution with its powerful preamble. Forget “founding fathers.”

Signers of the Declaration of Independence announced war against England. Victory at Yorktown, VA, was substantially a French victory in their war against England. The treaties were negotiated in Paris, and the thirteen named free and independent states ratified the 1783 Treaty of Paris in 1784.

The states could not survive free and independent. Nine of them ratified the 1787 Constitution on June 21, 1788, establishing the U.S.. Another state joined, and so ten states began operating on March 4, 1789, under a document that separated church and state. However, the Congressmen were no more able to govern than a teenage couple are able to parent. Therefore, they reinstated Blackstone with factional-American Protestantism as a surrogate for Canterbury in the church-state partnership.

The term “founding fathers” is a political tool used to justify laws that are unconstitutional to the document the signers created. “Founding fathers” is a lame competition against the signers of the 1787 Constitution.

https://www.quora.com/If-democracy-is-not-perfect-what-would-need-to-change-to-make-it-so  

Democracy as force can only produce chaos. Democracy as voting needs constraint. The U.S. is a representative republic under neglect by the people.

The object of force is mutual, comprehensive safety and security. Dissidents do not collaborate for mutual interests. Dissidents by ignorance may not require constraint, but criminals and worse are the objects of force. A civic culture assigns a monopoly on force to government. Thus, government’s authorized responsibility is to administer comprehensive safety and security.

Only a civic citizen should be allowed to vote. That is, mere existence does not qualify a person to collaborate for civic morality.

In the U.S., a civic citizen trusts-in and commits-to the agreement that is offered by the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. The person who does not claim to be of We the People of the United States is a dissident and should voluntarily not vote. In other words, mere citizenship does not qualify a person to vote. I’d like legislation to make commitment to the preamble required for a license to vote.

I speculate that about 2/3 of the population somewhat commit to the preamble’s agreement, but only 1/3 practice the goals, 1/3 being passive. The other 1/3 are dissidents. Since the U.S. establishment in 1788, the two party system has proven a divergent influence regarding civic morality. I suggest that 2/3 of the passives and the 1/3 civic citizens must collaborate to win an election. In other words, it takes 2/3x1/3+1/3 or 5/9 to win an election. That’s 55.55% of licensed voters to win an election. That’s five voters for and four voters against, which is sufficient to wreck the two-party system.

To run for office requires substantial demonstration that the candidate is of We the People of the United States as defined in the preamble.

Additionally, the preamble offers a civic agreement that is neutral to religion, a private pursuit for adults. The religion clauses in the First Amendment may be amended so as to protect the development of integrity, both individually and corporately.

Also, expression has consequences and speakers should be held accountable, both the individual and for the press. For example, an organization that announces a hate event which results in the death of a police officer should be held accountable to the officer’s family. A media that inspires insurrection should be held accountable.

Otherwise, the existing U.S. Constitution seems adequate.

I hope these ideas are interesting to you and would appreciate comments.

http://www.libertylawsite.org/book-review/benjamin-constant-on-religion-and-the-values-of-a-liberal-society/

I appreciate Dr. Engler’s comments about a formidable book, and perhaps her modern applications. I want to suggest for consideration individual liberty with civic morality for a promising future.

By her perception of Constant, I am reminded of Michael Polanyi’s book, Personal Knowledge, 1958. He spends 404 pages bashing my trust-in and commitment-to the-objective-truth in order to discover civic morality. Yet he grants “progress of [my] own towards an unthinkable consummation,” then concludes, “that is also . . . how a Christian is placed when worshipping God.”

Constant’s false premise that “religion tells us ‘what is evil and what is good’; ‘reveals to us an infinite being’; and creates ‘order,’” portends, “one might still be asking what religion really is for Constant.”

Sentiment (perhaps Constant’s religion) informs us that the sun will come up tomorrow, when in fact, the earth’s daily rotation on its axis totally hides our 109 times larger sun almost half the day only because it is 93 million miles away. The progress of the un-hiding and visibility during the day empowers the observer to sense the speed of rotation, to perceive her or his directional position, and to anticipate the re-hiding at day’s end. Sentiment informed egocentric ancients that they could fall off the earth, so only those who appreciated the oceans fearlessly traveled toward the horizon.

“Still, the religious sentiment is presented as all-encompassing. It includes ‘all that is beautiful and all that is noble,’ defined more often in opposition to egoism than on its own terms.” The beauty of a sun un-hiding is not lessened by the poetry of sunrise. A stronger appreciation comes from understanding actual reality rather than imposing human constructs. Comprehension comes from discovery rather than reason and imagination. The-objective-truth does not respond to non-conforming reason.

“It may even be said that Constant imported . . . the secular into the religious, particularly the spirit of civic participation [and] civic virtue is juxtaposed with self-sacrifice, and martyrdom with citizenship. Constant had little interest in drawing a line between sacred and secular authority.”

Civic participation and civic virtue entail collaboration for individual liberty with civic morality, where “civic” refers to individual safety and security during life. Fidelity to the-objective-truth cannot be taught, but is learned by alert individuals, who react to both experienced and observed misery and loss. Avoiding misery and loss is a benefit rather than self-sacrifice or martyrdom.

Every human has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (IPEA) to either develop integrity or not. If so, she or he has the IPEA to manage the lesser authorities: appetites (banality), associations and societies (coercion), and governments (force).

“Despite these lingering questions, we are left with the valuable argument that a free society cannot endure on the basis of self-interest, and more strongly, that liberalism can and ought to have a stronger, more spiritual foundation than individual rights.”

Happiness is a matter of self-interest, which neither the people nor any institution can specify for the individual. Every human has the right to develop integrity or not, according to personal motivation and inspiration. If his or her preference is immorality, he or she is risking civil constraint if actual harm becomes evident. Both of these opportunities---happiness and integrity/not---are addressed with collaboration to establish civic integrity, wherein civic morality is discovered using the-objective-truth and individual motivation and inspiration are appreciated as private matters so long as there is no actual harm.

If there is hope for an achievable, better future, I want to learn about it, and if not, I hope for collaboration on individual liberty with civic morality.

https://www.quora.com/Extremism-in-defence-of-liberty-is-no-vice-and-moderation-in-the-pursuit-of-justice-is-no-virtue-What-does-it-mean

Barry Goldwater: “Extremism in defence of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”

I have no idea what Goldwater intended, but can share my reaction to it. It seems the kind of idealism that kept me from supporting Goldwater for president.

As in all political statements, there is much need for word definition. For example, crime is one “extremism in liberty,” and is a vice. Liberty demands responsibility.

I wonder if Goldwater equivocated liberty to freedom. If so, extremism in defense of freedom-from oppression is no vice to the extent that the extremist can afford any consequence of taking the liberty-to be extreme. Time in jail made Henry David Thoreau more famous and perhaps inspired Martin Luther King, Jr. But I am not impressed with the integrity of either man. I am so pleased with reading, writing, and debating the author, I could stand isolation as long as I had provisions for creature comforts: bed, table and chair, bathroom, exercise, sunlight, sustenance. Mutually appreciative conversation would be sustaining, but I can argue with Plato.

I also have trouble with Goldwater’s pursuing justice without moderation. After all, I do not know the-objective-truth and therefore cannot impose my understanding on fellow citizens. All I can do is express my comprehension and listen to the other person’s response. If they present an ultimatum that does not threaten violence, I can only accept their decision for their life. I can, for example, wish to tell James Madison or Michael Polanyi how much I dislike their theisms, but it is by no means essential.

I think every human has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (IPEA) to either develop integrity or not. He seemed honest, but I’m not convinced Goldwater discovered integrity.

Integrity is a practice: observe, think and imagine so as to question; discover the-objective-truth respecting the question; understand how to benefit; behave accordingly; share your understanding publically so as to listen to people’s responses and perhaps improve mutual understanding and benefits; be alert for new discovery that requires change; if so, recycle the necessary parts of the practice. Often, the discovery is that what was imagined was a mirage, which ends the practice. Often, the conclusion is, “I do not know, for now.”

I think Goldwater’s statement is nonsense but great fodder for Saul Alinsky and other Alinski-Marxist organizers (AMO).

https://www.quora.com/How-should-we-make-use-of-our-freedom

Use freedom-from oppression so as to responsibly develop the liberty-to pursue accomplishments for one lifetime rather than yield to someone else’s preferences.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-one-thing-you-would-change-about-society

I was reared to seek a higher power: I’d benefit by understanding Holy Bible interpretation. It seems that’s the way many people are reared, perhaps with different scripture. I would change that more than any other inculcation I have thought about. In a word, I would coach and encourage every newborn human being to develop integrity.

I do not know the-objective-truth. However, it seems that every human being has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (IPEA) to either develop integrity or not. I invite busy readers to stop and think about IPEA, and perhaps forget about rest of this essay.

It may not be totally coincident that the agreement offered by the preamble to the U.S. Constitution accepts similar personal autonomy. Not only may the U.S. citizen learn about the preamble, he or she may read it for comprehension and discover that it is a legal sentence. It offered the people in the 13 eastern seaboard states the opportunity to create a union of states and end the confederation of states. To the individual, the preamble is both a civic agreement and a civil contract that each citizen may reject. The agreement divides citizens as civic collaborators and dissidents. Civic collaborators work to avoid loss of freedom and dissidents risk constraint if found guilty of crime. Yes: some citizens use IPEA for crime. Some people think crime pays.

Integrity cannot be taught. It is a practice each human may choose. The steps are: discover the-objective-truth about a thing or a practice; comprehend benefits from the discovery; behave to benefit; publicly share the reasons for the behavior; listen to public response so as to improve mutual understanding; be alert to new discovery that demands change. If there is no discovery, there is no comprehension, and the individual must admit to self not knowing the-objective-truth.

For example, no one knows that any god should be believed; only the believer may establish a god. Believers who discuss their god do not realize their god is unique. Yet civic believers may act on opinion. A person who must believe in a god in order to live may understand that his or her beliefs are personal rather than corporate. His or her god is not offered for civic collaboration. In other words, in integrity, each person separates civic justice from personal preferences. Likewise, a church knows its doctrine is private rather than civic.

In integrity, the civic citizen uses IPEA to discipline the lesser authorities: appetites (banality), associations and societies (coercion), and government (force). (Science, a study process, and religion, a doctrinal construct are direct competitors in coercion.) The civic citizen’s individual discipline conforms to the-objective-truth or actual reality, and he or she ought not suffer force of any kind. A civic citizen neither initiates nor tolerates harm to or from any person or institution.

Persons who practice integrity develop fidelity. It is a comprehensive fidelity which extends from the-objective-truth to self, to loved ones, and beyond to all people and things. Comprehensive fidelity includes the people who use their IPEA for infidelity. With widespread fidelity, statutory justice evolves to conformity to the-objective-truth.

The freedom to choose to use IPEA to develop integrity and fidelity or not is essential to humankind and indeed to integrity itself. The person is so cognitively powerful that it takes three decades for him or her to transition from feral infant to young adult with comprehension and intent to live a full human life according to personal preference: either develop integrity and fidelity or pursue another path. For example, some people are reared in a culture of crime and choose to improve on the practices. Therefore, humankind must have statutory laws and law enforcement. Institutions, including church and state, cannot be exempt from statutory laws.

However, statutory law cannot be arbitrary, because humans who choose to use their IPEA for crime have the ability to perfect their practice unless caught. To create a culture that encourages and coaches every newborn to develop integrity requires statutory laws in fidelity to the-objective-truth.

In statutory justice, the objective is prevention of crime. For example, the actual murderer forfeits his or her opportunity to live. Accusation, indictment, trial, and conviction of the actual murderer is perfected by an impartial judicial system that is bound to the-objective-truth and intends to prevent that particular murder’s second forfeit of his or her life.

A culture that encourages and coaches each infant to use IPEA to develop integrity develops adults with the understanding and intent to live a full human life. I want to live in that culture before my afterdeath sets in.

I would change humankind’s propensity to seek higher power.

   

 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.