Separate church from state at last

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 U.S. Constitution and the Church September 20 (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_0c9a0d46-bd04-11e8-a444-77f0a738a9f4.html)

If news surfaced: for 70 years the Rivercity Media Sentinel operated a business predicated on gaining people’s trust so as to make the people’s children sex objects, that media business would be immediately shut down. The perpetrators would incarcerated and the managers convicted of conspiracy in illicit sex, and a lot of other jobs and lives would face justice. Why does one of the religious businesses get a free pass?

Personnel for The Advocate take sex abuse by the Jesuits for granted and lamely advise them about Jesuit management style. How can the press so distort a civic people’s discipline and their statutory laws? Why? Money?

We saw in the Wall Street Journal yesterday that a handful of people were awarded $7 million each for abuses they suffered. And this time, insurance did not pay. The Church is to pay; https://www.wsj.com/articles/brooklyn-diocese-reaches-multimillion-dollar-settlement-in-sex-abuse-case-1537312151. Paying such sums is a reflection of judicial depravity. Moreover, the judicial cottage industry making individuals millionaires and their lawyers and judges multimillionaires increases misery and loss for fellow citizens.

I think America became depraved by political and judicial regimes 1) repressing the civic agreement that is offered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution and 2) labeling it “secular” when it is neutral to gender, national origins, skin-color, and religion. However, the people, who could be informed by a responsible and free press, are both more importantly at fault. Both citizens and the press are responsible for civic integrity.
 

The preamble is a legal sentence in two ways. First, it dissolved, on June 21, 1788, the confederation of the 13 free and independent states on the eastern seaboard and established a union of nine states as the United States. The other four states remained eligible to join the U.S., if they decided to ratify the 1787 Constitution, and Virginia did so in one month. The three dissidents joined when it became apparent that the English precedent, a Bill of Rights, would be imposed, despite the signers, by the first congress. However, after that, statehoods were granted under strict negotiations with Congress. Colonial British sympathies were strong, and the urge to mimic British “divinity” and consequential oppression was at work.

Second, humankind has the 2400 year old opinion of the Greeks that human beings under the law are equal. In other words, whether citizen or alien, people who agree to the statutory law are equal. For example, if the law says citizens cannot impose their religion on other citizens, but the Church asserts their personnel will impose religion on the people, the church personnel are dissidents: unequal under the law. I think Socrates took the hemlock to uphold this principle even though he was falsely accused and falsely convicted. But “under the law” can be distorted by identity groups to mean that equality is required by law whether the individual agrees with the law or not. Thus, the human being who does not accept the reality that economic feasibility requires that each person earn the quantity and quality of food he or she needs or wants may erroneously demand the “right” to eat high on the hog. The Church works this civic dissidence to an art. It is not a new art.

In 1787, events---discovery that England was enslaving eastern-seaboard colonists; militiamen taking the civic authority to liberate Worcester, MA, kicking the British out never to return; France annexing the American continental army for France’s crushing blow against England at Yorktown VA; the thirteen free and independent states ratifying their world status as specified in the 1783 Treaty of Paris;  Shay’s rebellion against the Articles of Confederation and thus the confederation of states; and the Virginia plan for a federal republic wherein states serve citizens therein and a limited nation serves the people in their states---resulted in a divided nation. It does not matter whether my writing makes sense or not; what matters is that the reader establish his or her understanding of the concerns.

TO BE CONTINUED

CONTINUED

A contested arrangement to establish equality under the law is stated in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution, as I paraphrase: We the people in our states disciplining ourselves to achieve the goals stated herein, authorize a limited nation and specify methods by which We the People of the United States may amend its constraints so as to meet our goals. Each generation has the opportunity to use their IPEA---individual power, individual energy, individual authority---to develop integrity or not. Every newborn has a clean slate and may use his or her IPEA to use integrity so as to develop fidelity or not.

Thus, U.S. citizens who trust-in and commit-to the preamble establish civic equality to discover civil justice. I cannot think of a more impressive example of civic integrity working its diligence in the people than the military result of the American Civil War. The declaration of secession cites the north’s “more erroneous religious beliefs” under the same god. However, civic integrity won out.

However, the preamble’s agreement was repressed by the 1789-1793 Congress, who re-established British common law (Blackstone) and church (Canterbury) partnership as a traditional practice rather than constitutional mandate.

Few Americans care that the English constitution requires Canterbury legislation; that is the Church of England has a specified number of seats in the English equivocation of “Congress”. In America, this church-state-partnership is illegal. However, American factional theism is imposed by the US Supreme Court as “tradition”; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_of_Greece_v._Galloway. The opinionating by Justice Anthony Kennedy is that Phil Beaver is niggling to object to the imposition of theism into public debate. In other words, Kennedy does not accept the agreement that is offered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution and deems himself a Lord of Theism: one appointed to expose Phil Beaver as a citizen with no Phil’s god in the collaboration for civic integrity.

I am glad I was born in America and want to do my part to motivate both the people and the media to use the preamble as the civic agreement that develops statutory law so as to increase the incidence of individual happiness with civic integrity. A necessary provision is for most inhabitants to recognize that the signers of the 1787 Constitution created a document that offered total and permanent separation from English oppression. However, the 1789-1793, with James Madison’s religious leadership, reinstituted Blackstone common law and factional-American Protestantism that evolved into whatever theism the dominant political regime wants. This is Chapter XI Machiavellianism, and humankind was informed---warned---in 1513, in plenty of time for James Madison to have done better from 1785 on.

The first amendment religion clauses may be amended so as to protect civic integrity rather than church opinion. Also, the media may reform so as to journal America’s progress toward accomplishing the goals stated in the preamble. The Advocate personnel have early notice, because these ideas have been generated in EBRP libraries over the past five years. Let’s reform right away.

To Christine Kooi: Perhaps my experience 58 years ago and clear as yesterday relates to Ford’s situation.
 
When I was a senior, a girl who didn’t know me, only knew I was as class officer, patted her fanny and said, “This is mine, all mine, but you can have a piece if you want it.”
 
I had long since acquired heterophobia: Fear of talking to an available girl perchance I inseminated a viable ovum. I perceived that for my own sake I should bond with a woman before taking that chance. That girl seemed to hold a grudge toward me after that.
 
Some people don’t resist grudges, and hope for erroneous revenge works their misery and loss.

 Confirm Kavanaugh September 15 (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_d2693f70-b2cc-11e8-bc27-0b8506ba4bd9.html)

MWW has, for decades, displayed in our guest bathroom a wooden presentation of a Ben Franklin quote, “None preaches better than the ant, and she says nothing.” (Perhaps she was cautioning me.)

It matters not why, but today, I pressed her as to why Franklin attributed a gender to the ant and why he chose female. I speculate that he referred to the queen of the colony. MWW insisted she could not interpret Franklin’s mind. I urged her to speculate. She responded, “I don’t speculate about anything.”

Then I read today’s editorial and discovered, “In the case of judges, and particularly potential justices of the highest court in the land, it makes sense for nominees to avoid speculating on cases they might or might not see before them.”

I prefer MWW’s brevity.

Letters

Activist against fellow citizens (Denise L. Paddock) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/letters/article_8cde939e-b79d-11e8-81f5-0b34b6bb2677.html)

Also, many voters fear they have been lied to by the hometown newspaper business whose personnel are aiding a special interest group. My study informs that the primary special interest group is trial lawyers seeking rent from fellow citizens, and the primary victims are black fellow-citizens.

FBI data on crime by race shows that black fellow citizens 592% disproportionately suffer the 12:0 verdicts. 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 .

There’s evidence that 13% of the time 12:0 juries reach unjust verdicts. That often means more courtroom expense to fellow citizens with the profits going to lawyers, judges, the media, and other judicial processors. It is well known that some processors do not work for justice.

Contrary to the reported ACLU opinion, Louisiana’s 9:3 unanimous-majority rule emerged from the 1791 U.S. Constitution, Amendment VI. James Madison wanted the British tradition of unanimous jury verdicts in criminal cases. However, the Senate overruled Madison’s desires and A. VI requires states to provide impartial juries. In 1880, former French colonial Louisiana, with no passion for English tradition, saw that the state can help provide impartiality with 9:3 verdicts. The 9:3 rule was upheld by the Louisiana Supreme Court in 1970 and by the US Supreme Court in 1972. Nevertheless, Louisiana revised to 10:2 in 1974, perhaps due to judicial greed at the expense of fellow citizens, regardless of skin color.

Ed Tarpley created a resolution for the Louisiana State Bar Association (LSBA) that shamefully does not disclose the above facts. LSBA approved the resolve to urge the legislature to change the constitution. The legislature knew 2/3 approval could not be achieved, so they shamelessly passed the decision to the voters.

England reformed in 1967 to allow 10:2 verdicts so as to lessen bigotry and organized crime’s influence on jurors. In the US, 48 states have not adopted Louisiana’s impartial 10:2 unanimous-majority verdicts, even though England reformed to 10:2 fifty-one years ago. According to discoveries since 1791, the 48 states are, by evidence, not in compliance with U.S. Amendment’s requirement for impartiality. Louisiana has no incentive to join the errant 48.

If the English tradition of 12 is critical, A. VI impartiality can be provided with 12:2, or better to protect from bigots, 12:3. However, jury expenses to the people would increase 17% to 25%, respectively, and Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry has tacitly made that point. He recommends keeping the 10:2 unanimous-majority verdicts so as to efficiently provide impartiality for each victim, the accused, and impartial fellow citizens.

I wonder why neither ACLU, The Advocate, nor Paddock share these facts with fellow citizens. Do the acting persons view themselves as agents for a special interest more than fellow citizens acting in civic integrity? If so, I encourage reform; people often injure themselves.

Vote “No” on amendment to 12:0 unanimous juries in order to keep a Louisiana-people’s treasure: 10:2 unanimous-majority verdicts.

(People who may be interested in my report, “Unanimous verdicts,” July 17, 2018, may find it at promotethepreamble.blogspot. com.)

News

The Advocate bigotry for a special interest group  (John Simerman) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/article_36c5c112-b874-11e8-8859-a384f099e6be.html)

Readers may view this financial-viability conflict in larger scope:  The mounting expenses of Congress’s failure to accept the separation of state from church that the signers of the 1787 U.S. Constitution made possible and left to the integrity of We the People of the United States. Locally, The Advocate may be only trying to protect John Bel Edwards’ papal liabilities.

Once again, The Advocate personnel don’t seem to realize that the age of press-freedom to irresponsibly support special interest groups is over. Press bigotry is advantageous in the minds of the press, but We the People of the United States neither favor nor ultimately tolerate bigotry. Time marches on, responds to no special interests, and demands civic integrity.
 
What’s sorely missing is collaboration by We the People of the United States to accept the 1781 victory over England and stop mimicking English tradition. I write to promote that civic integrity.

In this bigoted article, Simerman (the writer for The Advocate), reports AG Jeff Landry’s position that competing constitutional powers in Louisiana---the district attorneys, police, and grand juries---will need to call on him for any assistance they want in discovering sexual abuses by the Church’s business agents. That is, Landry cannot act on his own.

Simerman reports that Loyola professor Dan Ciolino affirms Landry’s limits due to 1) the district attorneys’ acquired powers and 2) competing police budgets. (It’s all about budget viability: money.)

Then, Simerman-bigotry appears: “Landry [spoke] without . . . much consideration,” moving to favor one of the special interests:  Timothy Lennon, Survivor’s Network of those Abused by Priests; http://www.snapnetwork.org/? It seems headquarters are in St. Louis and Lennon is in San Francisco. Is Simerman, in general, a writer who trained so as to favor national special interest groups in their claims on We the People of the United States?

Simerman baits David Caldwell’s affirmation of Landry’s position then supports Lennon: “David Caldwell and others pointed out that there are ways a Louisiana attorney general could spark a broader investigation if he wanted to.” Lennon, Simerman-slanted Caldwell, and Simerman seem the extent of the special interest “others”.

Yet Simerman reports Claldwell’s direct concurrence with Landry:  “The attorney general can directly investigate complaints, up through an arrest, but can't prosecute or convene a grand jury independently of a local DA, Caldwell said.”

But Simerman counters Caldwell’s concurrence with a Wisconsin poly sci professor’s opinion about Landry’s position, “I would call that a cop-out.

TO BE CONTINUED

CONTINUED

My fellow-citizen message for Wisconsin bigots, other professors who are aliens to Louisiana, and their supporters like Simerman: your opinion about Louisiana’s Attorney General is worthless to We the People of the United States who live in Louisiana. Simerman can do with that message what he wants, but The Advocate personnel have the media power, the media energy, and the media authority (MPEA) to fire writers who favor special interest groups who purpose to pick the people’s pockets in Louisiana.

Victims are only the beginning of the vigilante game the Church plays. In its diabolical planning regarding internal awareness, the Church protected Church wealth, sending the bill to We the People of the United States. Simerman recalls “In 2004 . . . the Diocese of Lafayette disclosed that 123 victims molested by 15 diocesan priests had received $24.4 million, almost all of it paid by insurance companies.” That’s perhaps $120,000 per victim after maybe $10 million for lawyers.

Why do Catholic fellow citizens pay the insurance bills to protect the Catholic business from liability for child abuse? Have they read the alert in Machiavelli, The Prince, Chapter XI; http://www.constitution.org/mac/prince11.htm?

So what happened to the 1787 provision to separate state from church? For 229 years, the press has failed to keep We the People of the United States informed about the Church’s attack on fellow-citizens’ freedom-from oppression to preserve the liberty-to pursue individual integrity. The preamble tacitly offers willing citizens individual happiness with civic integrity.

My words and phrases are foreign to the press and to most readers, because of the diabolical failures of the 1789-1793 Congress. The 1789 U.S. Congress re-instituted English tradition rather than exercising the national power, national energy, and national authority (NPEA) that is provided by the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. In England, the church-state partnership is constitutional, but in America it is a tradition started in April-May, 1789, when Congress unconstitutionally hired congressional chaplains at the expense of the people. Congress made themselves as “divine” as England’s Parliament. However, this tyranny is legalized in America by all three branches of the Union of States. Read Greece v Galloway (2014) and understand that I am niggling to object, in the court’s opinion.
 
Louisiana is a leader in the march toward ultimate justice by We the People of the United States, but The Advocate personnel don’t have a clue and seem to think they are somehow superior to We the People of the United States. Have they thought past the lame “we, the people”?

I am so glad Louisiana elected Jeff Landry attorney general. If Landry would prefer it, I hope someone else steps forward to undo John Bel Edwards’ picking the people’s pockets. (Please excuse me if I erroneously view this opinion “article” by The Advocate personnel as political posturing for Edwards. Due to seeming Vatican partnership Edwards established on January 18, 2016, he is the one who is on a hot spot; https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/politics/article_e0225292-ddb1-11e6-9ae0-97298699949f.html.)

Other fora

https://www.quora.com/May-God-with-integrity-practice-infidelity-and-abuse/answer/Simon-Binks-2/comment/73410777?__nsrc__=4&__snid3__=3250589111  from last week

To Simon Banks: Your post seems to refer to God as god the controller of physics, the object rather than the study. Perhaps you tacitly claim that god controls actual reality but does not respond to praise, worship, or another bargaining. Maybe you will clarify.

If I understood, I agree, trusting that my agreement is important only to me yet may be a show of appreciation for your thoughts.

Gautama seems to decry the typical eastern guru’s claim that god is knowable from within. Correct?

I like to consider the individual from both the physical and the psychological existences. Physically, each ovum is an individual cell at ovulation. Chances are, it will exit it’s mom’s womb and perish. If he or she is fertilized, the conception remains a unique single cell, again most likely to perish.

If the conception survives gestation, delivery and his or her first month as a newborn person, the experiences, observations, and choices the person lives diversify his or her unique existence.

This person may develop both integrity and fidelity during the course of his or her lifetime, humbly pursuing personal perfection.

Whether perfection is achieved or not, such a person seems a god facing death. Rare is the person who achieves that high level of self-discovery, but it may happen. Perhaps Mother Teresa discovered her individual.

https://www.quora.com/Should-men-and-women-share-equal-rights-when-they-re-complete-opposites-or-should-their-rights-be-the-same-when-it-comes-to-their-opinion-not-their-needs?

Most cultures do not teach 1) how psychologically and physically powerful the human being is---the individual is, 2) human reproduction and the chemistry of attraction for mating, 3) bonding to prepare for mating, 4) how to discover a monogamous, heterosexual spouse, and 5) the difference between honesty (opinion) and integrity (understanding the-objective-truth and behaving so as to benefit).

With this broad guidance, a human may avoid the complications of exploratory family building that involves technology, monogamy-breaking contracts, potential for biologically harmless romance with a person in child-care, rights, and other human inventions. In other words, pursuing egocentric preferences and assumed rights takes much more effort than monogamous, heterosexual family building, whether childless or not. Marriage, whether civil or religious, need not be an issue if the state honors civil contracts partners create.

I think (don’t know) that a woman is psychologically prone to be caring. That psychology is compatible with the fact that she has the physicality for generation of new persons. The male is prone to be supportive, because the human person needs about three decades to develop into young adulthood with both understanding and intent to live a complete human life. In other words, in a family, the woman may dedicate her prime responsibility to her child or children, and the man may earn the money the family needs for humane living. The woman seems to have powerful intuition, while the man seems prone to analysis, so the pair may have advantages in absolute collaboration. By absolute I mean trust-in and commitment-to the spouse’s role-conduct. See Maslow’s Needs.

With these considerations and beyond, an ideal family might have four children. Ideally, each girl has a sister and each boy has a brother. If the spouses married when he was 25 and she was 23, their maturities are about matched, and they might use the next five years to increase their established bond. If the first child is born at his age 30, and another child is born each 2 years, family building is complete at his age 36. About then, experiences and observations have happened with for ten years with the complete brain, so perhaps wisdom-building is underway when the first child is 6 years old. And the fourth child is ready for college when the mom is 52.

If, during motherhood, she developed herself for an income-producing career, it should get underway as a full time occupation.

Authentic women are aware that during their fertile years they may produce 400 ova, each of which may become a person. Therefore, she is serenely protective of herself and her viable ova. Authentic men would never threaten a woman and her live ova. Also, he would not compete with her execution of her caring role and she would not compete with him in his supporting role.

I was reared by a great, lower-middle class Southern Baptist couple and am grateful for what they did with what they “knew” and learned. However, there are a few things I wish they had made clear to me. First, the people in the world are confused and conflicted, because humankind has not yet accepted that every human being has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (IPEA) to either establish integrity or not. Second, the religion they each practiced, or each of their gods was for hope and comfort, rather than integrity; mankind’s failure to accept that each person worships their god, God being as yet undiscovered, is a major source of the world’s misery and loss. Third, my purpose under their coaching and encouragement is to develop my person so as to enter young adulthood with the understanding and intent to live a complete life, thereby giving me the chance to discover my individual. Fourth, as a family, we recognize that our goal is to assure the opportunity for my parents grandchildren to enjoy better opportunity than ours to achieve individual happiness with civic integrity.

In such a way of living, there is appreciation but no gender competition. I learned these ideas by collaborating with MWW for five decades, now in our 48^th year of marriage. A couple days ago, she said, “Fidelity takes two minds.”

While I do not know, I have shared experience and observations more than opinion and hope I have answered your question. I write and speak to learn and hope you will comment, especially if you feel I have left a question without response.

https://www.quora.com/Why-do-you-like-politics?

With me to define politics, I prefer to respond regarding Merriam-Webster, online, 5.a. “the total complex of relations between people living in society.” I’d like to call this politics “civic relations” and drop the “in society” so as to include everyone.

Every human being has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (IPEA) to either develop integrity or not. When a person, intentionally or not, uses his or her IPEA for crime, the IPEA is not diminished, unless his or her actual harm is discovered, proven, and constraint is imposed.

However, civic relations are lessened, because someone was a victim of the crime.

Having suffered ample misery and loss, I work to think of ways to improve civic relations and to make people aware of the methods.

I think a better future is immediately available if at least 2/3 of fellow citizens adopt the civic agreement that is offered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution, collaborate to discover the-objective-truth and how to benefit from it and behave accordingly, and develop fidelity to the-objective-truth (develop integrity).

Movie review: “Sparrows Dance” (https://www.amazon.com/review/R2KTZNRAYFQUUQ/ref=pe_1098610_137716200_cm_rv_eml_rv0_rv )

Every man ought to appreciate dance enough to offer the needed lead.

It seems to me most humans suffer social pressures, and when withdrawal from society becomes severe, it takes extraordinary human appreciation for another person to help.

At some point in human evolution, perhaps about 2400 years ago, love became an obsession yet had at least five meanings. Plato's "Symposium" is perhaps the classic essay on Eros.

However, Agathon's speech is overlooked as too poetic. My paraphrase: In appreciation for life, a human being neither initiates nor tolerates actual harm either to or from anyone. The key to the paraphrase is deleting the word "love" so as to express "appreciation."

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.