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)
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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 15th 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:
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.”
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.
Obviously, you are
OFF YOUR MEDS AGAIN:
Get thee back to
the cuckoo’s Nest!
“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.
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.
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.
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?”
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.”
“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.”
Is there nothing
new on reversing Judge Jack’s work?
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
