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 individual happiness with civic integrity more than for the city, state, nation, or society.
Consider writing a personal paraphrase of the preamble, which offers fellow citizens mutual equality: For discussion, I convert the preamble’s predicate phrases 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 grandchildren 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 and theirs. 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 of states to a union of states deliberately managed by disciplined fellow citizens convinces me the preamble is legal. Equality in opportunity and outcome is shared by the people who collaborate for human justice.
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 grandchildren. “Freedom of religion,” which fellow citizens have no means to discipline, oppresses freedom to develop integrity.
Our Views
The ladies in my family seem to separate the issues September 28 (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_d7eb9cc2-c35c-11e8-a929-03b09c2067aa.html)
Those who know us recognize that MWW is the serene thinker in this family: I am the emotional type. Our children did not fall far from the tree.
The three ladies seem to separate the issues and shape a consistent view:
Dr. Ford seems unreliable: paranoid against flying except for vacations; relied on beach buddies to advise her on her beliefs; trusts the politicians who betray her, such as her U.S. representatives; climbed the stairs to a bedroom for her reasons; vividly recalls her mirage-like beliefs with no escort to and from the bedroom-stair she climbed with lots of other gaps; still has not discussed it with her parents; and egregiously attracts pubic attention to people she knows to be vulnerable.
Judge Kavanaugh, in his 53 years did not learn acting, whether for a movie or for a congressional hearing: when he feels indignant, it shows. He’s sympathetic about Dr. Ford’s described injuries but aggressive toward the Democrats. The three ladies in my family perceive the distinction: Kavanugh is aggressive toward the Democrats.
The Republicans exhibit impartial yet constitutional service to We the People of the United States. They interviewed Dr. Ford’s witnesses and tried to interview Dr. Ford in privacy. They took themselves out of the Democrat-caused public hearing by hiring a professional to interview Dr. Ford; this was not only politically astute but personally kind. The interviewer's final point was that the information could have been gathered privately if not for the Democrats' ambitions. The Republicans limited the Democrat’s demand for further delay.
Phil expressing what I think I hear from my family is not reliable, so I'll stop.
Speaking my opinion, we seem to hold in common the expectation that this dilemma will work itself out, but not in justice without political integrity, where “politics” means “the total complex of relations between people living in society.”
Politics also means “the art or science concerned with winning and holding control over a government.” So far, the Republicans represent themselves as artisans of the rule of statutory law, here, the U.S. Constitution. The Democrats represent themselves as practitioners in brute force: decide what you want and use any measures that might advance your line of attack, whether the battle will be won or not.
But what's the god? Senator John Kennedy doesn’t seem to realize what a sham he made of unconstitutional religious oaths. On the one hand, Kavanaugh’s oath to Kennedy “under God” instantly won Kennedy’s vote. Yet today, Kennedy says evidence that might surface next week could negate Kennedy’s support. How does the understanding between Kavanaugh and Kennedy impact the god they negotiated under, whatever the god is? We the People of the United States may reform the unconstitutional god charade.
It seems Kavanaugh is an innocent human being who is a judge with excellent credentials and experiences to uphold the agreement expressed by We the People of the United States. He seems to have the judgement by which the civic promises expressed by the preamble to the US Constitution may begin to be pursued after 230 years of regression to colonial British influence---Blackstone and traditional church-state-partnership to bemuse the people in Chapter XI Machiavellianism. All it takes is the idea that achieving the purpose and goals that are stated in the preamble is possible: individual happiness with civic integrity is the human expectation and intention.
I’d like to witness politicians and appointed officials who regard themselves first civic citizens as defined by the agreement that is stated in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. I’d like to witness an elected official who responds to the request to take an oath for office “under God” or with “. . . so help me God?,” respond with a statement like, “In this office I will be first a fellow citizen and in this office serve We the People of the United States. My spiritual inspiration and motivation does not impact execution of statutory justice, in other words, the rule of law.”
Perhaps that would help end America’s tyranny over the minds of fellow citizens. Fellow citizens need freedom-to develop integrity rather than freedom of religion; let the First Amendment be so amended.
The Advocate personnel is transparently uninformed about the U.S. Constitution September 28 (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_0c9a0d46-bd04-11e8-a444-77f0a738a9f4.html)
It seems The Advocate personnel are nanny-state products who just cannot relate to the U.S. Constitution so as to help readers do the same. The country may establish separation of church from state as soon as relegating spirituality to privacy seems vital to survival of We the People of the United States.
Is Dr. Ford a nanny-state, social-democracy product on par with James Comey? How can anyone of chronological adulthood display such failure in integrity as to blame every personal decision on someone else and expect We the People of the United States to appreciate their sustained adolescence? Ford’s beach buddies tell her what to do. She can’t fly unless it’s a vacation trip. She’ll talk freely with students about her paranoia. Who told her to go to an upstairs bedroom with boys? I thought most educated females were wiser and more attentive to their bodies and the viable ova their body may produce.
Apparently, her parents tried. Dr. Ford said, “I didn’t want to tell my parents when I was 15 in a house with no adults and drinking beer with boys.”
“Indelible in the hippocampus is . . . the stairwell, the living room, the bedroom, the bed, the bathroom in close proximity, the uproarious laughter, the multiple attempts to escape, and the final ability to do so.”
But the Church is implicated in this story. The child-abuse during seventy years in Philadelphia was going on in Chevy Chase Maryland, too. School children know what is going on and why; yet are unbelieving! Jesuit shame is not isolated to New Orleans.
A culture that nourishes appetites and sex-conflict confuses its grandchildren and beyond: families may work together to assure that the mom and dad’s grandchildren will have an opportunity for a better way of living. Sex may be an act of human bonding, and heterosexual spouses may use it for procreation with commitment to grandchildren and beyond (posterity). Using sex for promiscuous gratification begs woe, and when woe is begged, it surely comes.
I look forward to a time when no one in the room would commit the popular tyranny our own Senator John Kennedy made: invoking God in a civic and civil venue, especially as an oath. The U.S. Constitution, Article VI, ends, “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
Senator Kennedy is not alone. The U.S. Supreme Court, in Greece v Galloway (2014), refers to my objections to religious tyranny in this country as niggling. I hope Judge Kavanaugh will be in a position to help amend the First Amendment so as to protect each individual’s opportunity to pursue integrity, leaving the responsible pursuit of spirituality or association with an institution, religious or not, a matter of personal choice. I hope Judge Kavanaugh will be confirmed as a Supreme Court justice by next Monday.
My writing may seem radical, but it would not seem so if the majority of the people trusted-in and committed-to the civic agreement that is offered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. The Church is the primary villain, next to Blackstone, in bemusing the people that the preamble is a secular sentence, when the agreement is neutral to religion. Personnel for The Advocate could adopt the agreement that is in the preamble and thereby reform from their bent to advance social democracy at the expense of the American republic.
To Jim Devillier: You mix the humanity of beer drinking with the hypocrisy Kavanaugh has faced for weeks now---a cocktail that does not help your case.
Contrary to the scorched-earth reporting we are bombarded with, I think the Grassley led senate judiciary committee reached a workable conclusion.
If Kavanaugh gets confirmed from here it will be both because he seems an innocent human being who is qualified for the job and because the Democrats have decided to be civic fellow-citizens with a vote of 51 or better.
Either way, the Democrats failure to help Dr. Ford for 45 days hurt her and her family, Kavanaugh and his family, and the lives of the people Dr. Ford said would corroborate her story. The Democrats cannot escape that moral liability.
However, We the People of the United States has learned a lesson: beer drinking when you don't want mom and dad to know about it is not a good thing for individuals. The human brain, which does not complete its wisdom parts until age 25, is hazardous for individuals in a high-school atmosphere of beer and sex.
The message has been around for a long time, but excuses for ignoring it have taken a serious blow.
Religious coercion by Christopher Simon, “Submission,” September 28 (http://cdn4.creativecirclemedia.com/madisonville/files/20180710-153319-MM%20071118%20-%20full.pdf, page 8)
Every human has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (IPEA), to either develop integrity or not.
Evidence, so far, shows that the human faces death, and expecting personal death is a form of submission to the inevitable. However, some ancient stories claim particular people overcame death, either directly or by the actions of a life-giving agent.
On these stories, some people can be persuaded to expect afterlife in their personal afterdeath. Some stories speak of everlasting life in heaven and other speak of reincarnation. Selecting one of the stories is a matter of familiarization and belief, but not necessarily submission. Some people say, OK, I’ll hope for a favorable afterdeath, but in the meantime, I’ll exercise my IPEA to develop integrity.
Simon arbitrarily limits the individual’s options to “giving over,” giving up,” or “giving in.” I prefer to “stay with” the quest for integrity.
In integrity, it is possible to discover the-objective-truth. That is, to discover actual reality based on evidence. Since there is no evidence that spirits are actually real, some people may come to regard spirituality as a mysterious substitute for what may be personally experienced, observed, and used to benefit: individual motivation and inspiration. Such people may develop fidelity to what is actually real, and family members are discoverable-objective-truths. The word “hate” has no place in such people’s lives.
Such individuals are not likely to be persuaded to revise motivation and inspiration based on the-objective-truth. By all means, thoughts like Luke 14:26, “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple,” do not create mysteries the reader ponders. He or she simply rejects the source: The Holy Bible, as a work of coercion.
It took a quarter-century of heartfelt discussion with MWW to help me end my half-century endeavor to adopt Mom and Dad’s religions (their individual versions of Southern Baptism). I took another decade to realize I had discovered Phil Beaver: a person who, from about age ten, pursued trust-in and commitment-to the-objective-truth. Thereby, I know both that I do not know better than to reject bad Bible ideas and that I do not want to influence others to follow me: let each person discover and use IPEA, rejecting coercion and force as they perceive them.
Letters
Philanthropic racism (Myesha Braden) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/letters/article_7b3c7e06-c0f5-11e8-ac65-6761aa8c74b8.html)
Every murder The Advocate personnel report is heart rending---always, yet especially when the victim is an innocent, Baton Rouge youth. Citizenship does not know skin color.
The Advocate personnel shamefully, shamelessly captions a national, “philanthropic” interference in mutual safety and security in Baton Rouge as “community collaboration.”
“The principal mission of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law is to secure equal justice for all through the rule of law, targeting in particular the inequities confronting African Americans . . .” See June 13, 2018 announcement at https://lawyerscommittee.org/2018/06/dialogue-on-race-and-policing-series-launches-in-baton-rouge/ . But what is equal justice when some people do not collaborate under the law---demand favor based on skin color?
It has long been known that blacks harm blacks more frequently than whites harm whites. For example, FBI murders combined with demographics show that in 2013, blacks were 523% disproportionally involved in same-race murder compared to whites. See 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 and https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk. There were 2245 black on black murders and proportionally 429 white on white murders.
Dialogues on race is a program to indoctrinate white-skins that black-skins are victims, ironically ignoring red-skins. Even if that indoctrination works on an individual---constructs artificial guilt, the indoctrinated white can only exhort blacks to stop harming blacks. (The 2002 program with Maxine Crump as my indoctrinator alerted me to the program’s alienating intentions.)
I work hard to persuade fellow citizens to consider the civic agreement that is offered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. Every newborn has the opportunity to develop individual power, individual energy, and individual authority (IPEA) to either develop integrity or not. Some individuals choose to develop crime. Those who choose integrity understand that people are equal under statutory law, and that IPEA works as well to defeat arbitrary law as to develop justice, but that civic fellow citizens may constrain dissidents to integrity. That is, dedicating IPEA to injustice does not lessen IPEA. Therefore, a civic culture hinges on the majority of newborns choosing to develop individual integrity.
Civilization on skin color is arbitrary and fools no one. Therefore, no one accepts racial civility or racial laws, dominant as they were in the past and still are in some places. Frederick Douglass, in his famous 1852 speech for the 4th of July called himself a fellow citizen and praised both the preamble and the articles of the U.S. Constitution. Over a hundred years later, Douglass’s wish became a national reform. However, the past half century has suffered regression, because most people neglect the civic agreement that qualifies fellow citizens a We the People of the United States.
Mayor Broome would do herself and fellow-citizens a favor to consider adopting, practicing, and promoting the civic agreement that is offered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution rather than listening to profit-generating non-profit directors and clergy in Maryland and Baton Rouge. Mayor Broome is exempt from neither fellow-citizenship nor the IPEA to develop integrity, and these concepts are emerging from EBRPL and now APL library meetings.
The Advocate uses freedom of the press to suppress Swanson’s appeal to both sides (Rick Swanson) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/letters/article_6bf3be2c-c00b-11e8-b069-9f06628d1e19.html)
The Advocate personnel shamefully, shamelessly captioned Swanson’s appeal to gays to “gently teach [people who do not condone LGBTQ+ lifestyles that] their fears are mistaken."
Not Swanson, but The Advocate personnel vainly claim “Anti-gay prejudice is not acceptable.”
Moreover, by converting Swanson’s erroneous prejudices---referring to anti-gay opinion as fear---into an absolute, “Anti-gay prejudice is not acceptable,” The Advocate personnel express worthless judgement, exposing that they have an erroneous agenda. Opposition to gay lifestyles is based on encouraging practical routes to individual happiness with civic morality appreciating ova. In other words, only women generate ova, and people who, in their one chance at life, want a family, may do so efficiently through heterosexual monogamy for life (so as to work for the achievable better future for the couple's grandchildren).
Male bodies and psychologies differ from female bodies and psychologies: The female has the ability and responsibility to generate viable ova. Also, the female psychology emphasizes carrying, safety, and security, while the male psychology tends toward responsibility to support. People who---through ignorance, irresponsible sexual gratification, heterophobia, fear of monogamy, and other personal problems---ignore responsibility to prevent illicit conception beg woe. The fellow citizen who expresses opposition to willful lifestyles has evidence that is as old as humankind.
This does not preclude same sex-partners who are committed to monogamy from developing their life together. However, they dabble with denying the dignity and equality of an ovum to stay with its mom and the conception to stay with his or her couple. That is, the human motivation to form a family is strong, and same-sex partners tend to break the monogamy to form a family through adult contracts. Civic fellow citizens want no part of adult contracts that deny the equality and dignity of the viable ovum; regardless of erroneous US Supreme Court opinion.
The Advocate personnel harm themselves as fellow citizens by promoting egocentricity and willfulness by errant fellow citizens. The Advocate personnel are agents of irresponsibly free press.
To Helen Romanowski Hart: It's a larger political/civic-power issue than you present.
About 2400 years ago, the Greeks informed humans that everyone is equal under the law.
About 800 years ago, Magna Carta imposed the idea that the clergy-Lords-partnership controlled both the king and the classes of people. That English-constitutional fact was imposed in America by the 1789-1793 Congress as a tradition. In other words, under English law, people are not equal, and by tradition the same is true for fellow citizens in America. See Greece v Galloway (2014), wherein my objection is labelled "niggling."
Fellow citizens live with and neglect a powerful, legal sentence: the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. It states, in paraphrase, willing people in our state, want results that are listed herein and therefore authorize and limit the U.S. to serve us in our state. The ultimate goal stated therein addresses "our Posterity," which for a family refers to the parents' grandchildren and beyond.
Negating English, constitutional classism, and referring back to the Greek principle, people in the U.S., whether citizen or not, may behave so as to be either under the law or not, without diminishing their status, as long as they do not cause actually real harm that is discovered.
For a number of years, the person who is infant, adolescent, and young adult cannot optimally be independent: the human species is too physically and psychologically powerful to develop in less than two or three decades. Such a person is in the parents' care, but does not belong to the parents.
Just as the public has the prerogative to break a car window to rescue an abandoned child, the public has the prerogative to point out that errant lifestyles beg woe that affects people beyond the practitioner.
Columns
Racists may join the nation anytime they want to (Raymond A. Jetson) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/article_14861a14-c028-11e8-b787-bbc9fb56b0bd.html)
I’m an old white non-monist civic-citizen (that’s not WASP), who does not qualify for discussion with any of Raymond Jetson, Sharon Weston Broome, or The Advocate letters-to-the editor personnel, according to their responses to me.
I think that’s because my topic is the preamble to the U.S. Constitution, which offers an agreement that is both civic and legal. Citizens are free to reject the agreement for whatever reasons, but they are not free to behave arbitrarily. If they cause actually real harm that is discovered, dissident fellow citizens and resident aliens suffer statutory law.
I think that’s because my topic is the preamble to the U.S. Constitution, which offers an agreement that is both civic and legal. Citizens are free to reject the agreement for whatever reasons, but they are not free to behave arbitrarily. If they cause actually real harm that is discovered, dissident fellow citizens and resident aliens suffer statutory law.
I became a local preambler during the last three decades by intent and deliberate development of ideas for a better way of living. I had no idea how blind I am to factional thinking that exists in this country, but I found promising focus.
On November 5, 2005, The Advocate’s “Voices on Faith” editor kindly published my column “Humankind evolves toward trusting truth,” with unfortunate editing, like arbitrarily capitalizing my “creator,” implying control of what unfolds without bargaining with people. Afterwards, during a reception following my speech “Faith in the truth,” Harold Weingarten asked if I was speaking of ultimate truth, absolute truth, a god’s truth, or just what. A few years later, I started speaking and writing “the-objective-truth.” The hyphens are intended mainly to keep others from separating the article “the.” Some people cannot communicate with me, because they insist on ignoring the hyphens or the article or both; they claim they cannot understand me. The-objective-truth exists, and humankind works to discover it and benefit by understanding the discovery.
The Advocate’s then letters-to-the-editors caption-writers published my letters proposing to revise the religion clauses of the First Amendment on at least four occasions: August 7, 1999; September 20, 2002; September 6, 2003; and November 29, 2003. Today, I want the First Amendment without “religion” or its practices so as to protect the individual’s quest for integrity---especially civic integrity. By civic integrity I mean behavior such that a fellow citizen’s responsible pursuit of individual happiness is not impeded. Spiritualism is a private pursuit. Show me the believer who wants to collaborate on his or her god’s attributes in a civic forum or legal debate.
The Advocate online forum is full of my efforts to understand African-American Christianity (AAC). Jeremiah Wright knows that I do not fret his “flag burning” (I will not quote swearing). Lorraine Davidson knows that it matters not to me if black theology holds that the only way a white-skinned person can save his or her soul is to help black Americans reign supreme, as long as believers do not actually, really harm me or mine. BJ knows I asked and he responded that it seems AAC teaches prayer and appreciation for dead relatives. Again, that’s a private practice for AAC believers. Some AAC believers hold that God is black, Jesus is brown, and God’s chosen people are black; I appreciate Fred Bear’s evidence that in these parts God is red. But no one, beyond their personal opinion, knows anything about the God.
I accept that my white skin disqualifies me from being an elder in Jetson’s and Broome’s exclusive society. However, I encourage them to consider Frederick Douglass’s 1852 speech on July 5 wherein he claimed fellow citizenship and praised both the preamble and the articles of the U.S. Constitution. Also, I encourage them to consider Shelby Steele’s op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, September 24, 2018, page A19: After hate, where may dissidents turn.
A civic people are equal under the law they agree to. Thereby, they both discipline themselves and manage the government so as to discover statutory justice. Dissidents who cause actually-real harm may suffer the law.
After hate plays out, the individual in this country, whether fellow citizen or resident alien may consider the civic agreement that is offered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution and decide to collaborate for civic integrity.
To John Smith: Heterophobia: that's fear of the commitment and responsibility involved in forming a monogamous heterosexual family; fear so severe that a person seeks same-sex sex so as to avoid considering heterosexual monogamy for life so as to assure that the couple's grandchildren will enjoy an achievable future that is better than the life the family enjoyed.
As human development goes, heterophobia doesn’t hit you until you discover your bride (or groom). Then, you realize: holy smoke! This is it. She (or he) is the spouse I need. But how can I be certain?
Five decades later, my message is: spouses bond from the beginning and work hard for the mutual discipline required for monogamy for life. MWW is instrumental in me discovering myself. In other words, without her, I would never discover my person.
I think same-sex partners can commit to each other for life, but cannot be parents without breaking the monogamy through adult contracts. Partnerships that do so are subjecting the grandchildren to variables that make fidelity difficult.
At all traces back to the ovum’s dignity and equality to stay with her or his mom and the conceptions dignity and equality to stay with his or her couple. I speculate Justice Anthony Kennedy retired a this critical time because he realized this oversight in his self-appointed lordship of dignity and equality; I’m probably wrong.
As human development goes, heterophobia doesn’t hit you until you discover your bride (or groom). Then, you realize: holy smoke! This is it. She (or he) is the spouse I need. But how can I be certain?
Five decades later, my message is: spouses bond from the beginning and work hard for the mutual discipline required for monogamy for life. MWW is instrumental in me discovering myself. In other words, without her, I would never discover my person.
I think same-sex partners can commit to each other for life, but cannot be parents without breaking the monogamy through adult contracts. Partnerships that do so are subjecting the grandchildren to variables that make fidelity difficult.
At all traces back to the ovum’s dignity and equality to stay with her or his mom and the conceptions dignity and equality to stay with his or her couple. I speculate Justice Anthony Kennedy retired a this critical time because he realized this oversight in his self-appointed lordship of dignity and equality; I’m probably wrong.
Walter Williams on the constitution, September 12, https://www.creators.com/read/walter-williams/09/18/its-our-constitution-not-kavanaugh
Williams is correct that in Federalist 45, Madison asserts that proposed federal powers are limited so as to exclude state powers covering the people’s lives. However, in Federalist 46, January 29, 1788, Madison respecting state and federal governments wrote, “we must consider both of them as substantially dependent on the great body of the citizens of the United States.” Further, that “[Dissidents] must be told that the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone.”
I hope Kavanaugh will be confirmed and help establish the neglected and repressed legal entity, We the People of the United States. Then, he may, through his public speeches encourage We the People of the United States to amend the First Amendment so as to protect the quest for integrity, a civic necessity, rather than religion a private comfort and hope. What’s perhaps new here is the recognition that colonial-English originalism with its constitutional church-state-partnership is not the independence the revolutionary war provided.
I want to recall Williams’ list of defenders:
· 1796, Rep William Giles of VA asserted that Congress attends to assigned authority rather than generosity
· 1854 President Franklin Pierce denied authority to dispense public charity
· President Grove Cleveland vetoed 584 unwarranted expenditures by Congress
Williams identifies the phrase “provide for . . . general Welfare of the United States” in Article 1, Section 8 is interpreted by some congressmen to justify expenditures. Thomas Jefferson, not a signer, said in 1817 that Congress is limited to enumerated welfare concerns. Madison agreed with more words and referred to the Constitution’s “creators.” I hold in higher esteem the signers, since many of the creators abandoned We the People of the United States.
I also hope Williams gets my point and urges fellow citizens to consider the agreement that is offered in the preamble, trust-in and commit-to the agreement, publicly promote the agreement, behave with the self-discipline it invokes, and manage local, state, and federal government so as to achieve the preamble’s purpose and goals.
(posted at the URL above)
Also, to pschearer:
The human being is so powerful it takes a quarter century for her or his body to complete construction of her or his brain. It takes another few years for the person to start accumulating wisdom. Self-discovery, or freedom from both external and internal constraints takes a full human lifetime if it happens at all.
If a human lifetime is 90 years, and psychological wisdom advances in proportion to a person's expected lifespan beyond the first 30 years, Kavanaugh, may be 40% as wise as he might become. Yet he may already have some facts straight.
For example, human life begins at ovulation rather than at conception. If the mom has been careless with the live ovum, say, exposed him or her to drugs that prevent gestation and live birth, physics, or its progeny, biology may self-correct with natural abortion. In another example, if the mom knows that the dad is already abusing one or more children, she has the final say as to whether or not she will remain pregnant. That’s the actual reality of her power and responsibility.
The opinions of the Church have no standing in the-objective-truth regarding the dignity and equality of the viable ovum. No man can grant a fetus the overcall of the mom’s decision not to remain pregnant; that’s what the US Supreme Court said. I hope Kavanaugh gets the chance to develop to his fullest.
For example, human life begins at ovulation rather than at conception. If the mom has been careless with the live ovum, say, exposed him or her to drugs that prevent gestation and live birth, physics, or its progeny, biology may self-correct with natural abortion. In another example, if the mom knows that the dad is already abusing one or more children, she has the final say as to whether or not she will remain pregnant. That’s the actual reality of her power and responsibility.
The opinions of the Church have no standing in the-objective-truth regarding the dignity and equality of the viable ovum. No man can grant a fetus the overcall of the mom’s decision not to remain pregnant; that’s what the US Supreme Court said. I hope Kavanaugh gets the chance to develop to his fullest.
News
James Meredith speaking for himself (Charles Lussier) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/education/article_dfce5cb6-c1b5-11e8-874b-d718cd26f5e2.html)
Meredith is still fighting his fight on his terms, famously rejecting civil rights fame, reports Lussier.
I found more information on that topic at https://www.upi.com/Decades-after-desegregation-James-Meredith-fighting-for-Americas-moral-character/7871534260160/ and am glad I searched.
There, I found Meredith-ideas like, "The only word mentioned in the Constitution identifying human beings is 'citizen.' I was born in the United States of America and therefore I was a full citizen," he said. "I may have recognized somebody with the capacity to force me not to enjoy some of my rights, but never would I give up any."
Indeed, “citizen(s)” is used 22 times. However, the U.S. Constitution begins with its subject: We the People of the United States, and in that sentence offers a civic agreement; the amended articles use “people” another eight times. The Constitution uses person(s) 49 times.
Daniel Uria wrote, “[Meredith] feels . . . the civil rights movement . . . represented a crusade by a select group of white people to encourage African Americans to win some of their rights, as long as they understood they weren't entitled to all of them.”
"That was a theory I could never buy," [Meredith] said. "So, I never saw anything connected to civil rights being against anything I was for. It was just giving up more than I was willing to give up."
I see parallels in Meredith’s journey and mine, except that I have had less courage to leap. I like to take the time to understand what is drives me to change. My present understanding is that I reject both coercion and force as much as I can and that I work to encourage people to consider themselves fellow citizens with the opportunity to trust-in and commit to the civic agreement that is offered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution.
Under that agreement, all people are equal, regardless of how they were created and what capabilities they may possess. Each person is free to discover their individual power, their individual energy, and their individual authority to either develop integrity or not. In civic integrity, inhabitants collaborate for individual happiness with civic morality.
This brief visit with James Meredith brought my attention to civic rights rather than civil rights. In civic rights, the individual’s opportunity to develop integrity is not subjected to civilization, socialization, or immoral legal forces---arbitrary governance. The individual has freedom-from oppression so that he or she may exercise the liberty-to responsibly pursue the happiness he or she perceives rather than the dictates of someone else.
It seems to me Meredith has done so and is resuming his quest. Best wishes to him.
To Scuddy Leblanc: Scuddy, I think you and Meredith have similar messages and express them differently.
Despite his independence, Meredith is careful not to offend major forces.
Consider the quote, "I never saw anything connected to civil rights being against anything I was for. It was just giving up more than I was willing to give up."
The Kennedy brothers helped him enter college, and practical help continued under Linden Johnson. However, Meredith perceived them much as a colonial America would perceive King George: a fellow human and thus not a higher citizen.
Elites want to maintain the status quo. However, We the People of the United States may collaborate for individual happiness with civic integrity. We may establish civic rights rather than civil rights by using the agreement that is stated in the preamble.
For example, if there was widespread regard for the "our Posterity" goal in the preamble, many families might perceive that parents and children are collaborating for the parents grandchildren and beyond. Thereby, more people would reject the Democrats' intentions to spend money for adult satisfactions by building national debt for our grandchildren to repay.
Other fora
A handy distraction from papal dilemma (Kathryn Jean Lopez) https://patriotpost.us/opinion/58415-lessons-from-washington
I appreciate the possibility that “I want Roe v. Wade overturned as much as anyone,” applies to Dr. Ford in her attack on Kavanaugh.
I always appreciate attention to George Washington. Everyone may appreciate his four pillars, presented in his farewell address of June 8, 1783. It is a note from the American underground, but is available at http://www.loc.gov/teachers/classroommaterials/presentationsandactivities/presentations/timeline/amrev/peace/circular.html . There, he makes it clear that a nation is needed and to survive it must have the Church: the Catholic Church. Maybe there’s something wrong with that.
Email response to Paul Marchand
I think the education system spends the money on competing adults rather than the children. Public schools are top-heavy in administration expenses, and charter schools increase administration costs.
More importantly, schools substantially teach traditions rather than the leading edge of what children need to know. A couple years ago, I worked intensely on this point and created a list of changes I’d like to see. The system may be revamped to coach and encourage children to develop their person so as to become a young adult, at age 30, with the understanding, intent, and beginning job so as to live a complete human life. It takes a lot of words to unpack that sentence; I won’t bore you. However, here’s what I think should be taught and where some money should go:
- Humankind has discovered so many facts and imaginations that no single depository---even the Internet---is a reliable resource.
- Discovery and imagination are expanding at exponential rates.
- Thus, the present generation knows by experience and observation that it does not have the knowledge students will face.
- Therefore, the education system is designed to encourage and coach each individual to take charge of his or her acquisition of basic skills with which to develop integrity to self.
- That is, since the individual cannot know all and do all that is possible for human beings, he or she may develop integrity respecting his or her individual preferences.
- Integrity is a process: do the work to understand whether what is imagined is actually real or a mirage; do the work to understand how to benefit from the actually real; behave according to the understanding; publically declare the benefits of the behavior; listen to reactions to the understanding so as to collaborate for improvement; remain open minded for discovery that requires change in behavior so as to lessen misery and loss.
- The human condition, as expressed so far, is not new, but awareness of the possibility for the individual happiness with civic morality is perhaps new and delightful.
- The coaching and encouragement is progressive with each child’s psychological development more than age, and psychological markers include:
- Acceptance of individual human being
- Autonomy; in other words, self-reliance in weighing choices
- Collaboration for mutual, comprehensive, safety and security
- Behavior for mutual appreciation (rather than social acceptance, “love,” or unearned respect)
- Confidence with serenity and humility
- Because a new-born has not the ability to imagine their psychologically mature person, enhance education with an incentives program that awards the thirty-year old who took charge of his or her education $80,000 in cash or IRA rollover. Accumulate this sum in a state-held stock fund with awards of about $5,000 to $10,000 at manageable stages in the process: age 0.5 years, entering first grade, sixth grade, high school graduation, and college graduation or equal. Failure to achieve means failure to receive, and crime eliminates the fund.
This was a short introduction of a proposal I made a couple years ago, and it may be read on my blog and found by googling “"Child incentives brief" and taking the first URL (to cipbr, etc)
I hope some people take enough interest in the children to help them acquire civic integrity despite a traditionally confused and conflicted community.
I hope some people take enough interest in the children to help them acquire civic integrity despite a traditionally confused and conflicted community.
https://www.quora.com/unanswered/Where-the-Spirit-of-the-Lord-is-there-is-liberty-What-kind-of-liberty-In-a-place-or-what-How-can-this-apply-to-a-believer-or-an-unbeliever
The question: “Where the Spirit of the Lord is there is liberty? What kind of liberty? In a place or what? How can this apply to a believer or an unbeliever?”
Response: liberty to develop integrity; here and now; for willing individuals.
First, both believer and unbeliever may accept that “the Spirit of the Lord” does not conform to either party’s opinion. In other words, actual reality regarding what has been imagined exists and cannot be constructed by human beings. That is, imagination does not control actual reality, even though imagination may change events.
Both parties are dependent on discovery, and so far, “the Spirit of the Lord” has not been discovered in a way that persists day to day, year to year, and person to person. Thus, the parties are equally ignorant about “the Spirit of the Lord.”
Both parties need freedom-from oppression in order to have the liberty-to develop civic integrity rather than conflict for dominant opinion. With integrity, the parties choose to mutually protect freedom-from oppression so that each may responsibly pursue individual happiness with civic morality. That is, pursue the responsible happiness each perceives for self rather than the happiness the other party conceives for him or her.
In other words, the “old saying,” responsibly live and let responsibly live, works. Wait: “responsibly” wasn’t in the old saying!
I write to learn and hope for responses to my post.
The shame of freedom of the press (https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-shameful-season-for-american-journalism-1537830679)
Many citizens don’t realize that letters to the editor are routinely censored, and the newspaper often uses the caption to slant any letter they decide to publish. Some writers discover that “freedom of speech” is routinely constrained the free and irresponsible press.
Writers express hubris when they judge themselves “journalists.” The journalist the people need exercises integrity in chronicling events. The journalist is neither judge nor jury, neither prosecution nor defense. The journalist would not imagine controlling events. He or she has humility rather than hubris.
In a civic culture there’s no such thing as “good journalism.” There’s either journalism or writing that risks harming the people.
https://www.lawliberty.org/2018/09/24/ratifying-the-constitution-was-more-peculiar-than-most-people-realize
Professor Rappaport, a review like this, for people who always had the facts straight seems appreciable.
But for a civic student who has been listing an error for a couple years now, it's a blessing, and I thank you. Somehow, I had New York's ratification a year later and the US operations beginning with only ten states!
I had that error in my recent Constitution Day celebrations at five public libraries, but read your post in time to correct the published presentation, updated to all that was learned during the week.
Thank you.
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.
