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 willing citizens of the United States collaborate for civic, civil, and legal self-discipline to provide integrity, justice, goodwill, defense, prosperity, liberty, for ourselves and for the nation’s grandchildren and beyond and by this amendable constitution authorize and 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.
Selected theme from this week
Significant attention to Christian civility, which if considered in appreciation of the squabbles between the Jewish, Catholic, Eastern, and Protestant branches and sects, is a private rather than civic, civil, and legal issue, calls attention to civic civility. Civic civility is responsible living and letting live using equal justice under law as determined by the U.S. preamble’s agreement and collaboration to discover the-objective-truth by which to develop statutory justice and civic integrity. I may write an essay on this but may consider this statement adequate to inspire consideration and perhaps collaboration.
Our Views (The Advocate, local press in Baton Rouge, LA)
The Advocate laments absolutism December 13 (A false budget battle for Christmas, not yet posted online)
The Advocate laments absolutism December 13 (A false budget battle for Christmas, not yet posted online)
I appreciate House Speaker Taylor Barras for preventing Gov. Edwards from freely abusing the people’s extraordinary sales taxes through spending increases.
The Advocate personnel embraced if not led the local push to support the long-standing national AMO movement for criminal advantages. They coerced voters to end Louisiana’s impartial 10:2 unanimous-majority felony jury verdicts and institute absolutism with 12:0 verdicts. The 10:2 verdicts protect felony victims from organized crime’s influence on juries.
Additionally, they favor a verdict by impartial peers who want justice, by limiting the power of jury members who do not want justice. In other words, equal justice under statutory law comes only from people who responsibly collaborate. Louisiana had that provision but lost it substantially because The Advocate would not publish an opposing opinion.
Now The Advocate personnel bemoan absolutism in a legislative committee.
“Changes in the revenue forecast are supposed to be unanimous to empower Richardson, who is highly respected, to prevent the three political figures from inflating the budget. Instead, [absolutism] has empowered Barras to cut spending that the majority of lawmakers wanted and economists say is justified.”
Confirm Kavanaugh October 15 (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_d2693f70-b2cc-11e8-bc27-0b8506ba4bd9.html)
MWW
Letters
Christianity dissents against equal justice under law (Bo Bienvenu) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/letters/article_cfc54bdc-fd69-11e8-9657-43479c577fd6.html)
My friend and neighbor Bo Bienvenu overlooks that some fellow citizens, even some Christians, practice “honesty, dignity, integrity. service, humility, compassion, kindness, loyalty, fidelity, and concern for others,” because they want those practices and achievements more than the characterizations. The Christian claim to human error is an insufficient individual consideration in the quest for civic fidelity that is offered by the U.S. preamble.
Many fellow citizens, including some Christians, appreciate equal justice under law, which came to us from the Athenian Greeks 2,400 years ago; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_justice_under_law#Following_ancient_tradition. Bible writers did not know about copyright laws, and some freely used Greek ideas without citation of the source. Read, for example, Agathon’s speech in Plato’s “Symposium.”
James Madison was a despot when he tacitly said fellow citizens must first be considered God’s property: “Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe,” https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-08-02-0163.
I don’t think Madison liked the U.S. civic, civil, and legal agreement that is offered fellow citizens in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. However, the U.S. preamble is the agreement by which to develop individual happiness with civic integrity. It is neutral to religion as well as gender, race, skin color, ethnicity, wealth, and heritage.
R.E. Lee was wrongful more than erroneous to, on Bible beliefs, oppose abolitionists including some Christians: “[E]mancipation will sooner result from the mild & melting influence of Christianity, than the storms & tempests of fiery Controversy,” https://leefamilyarchive.org/9-family-papers/339-robert-e-lee-to-mary-anna-randolph-custis-lee-1856-december-27.
Abraham Lincoln incidentally rebuked Lee’s erroneous beliefs: “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.” http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/lincoln1.asp
Albert Einstein tacitly informed us that fellow citizens develop civic integrity so that “Pain and sorrow shall be lessened as much as possible.” https://samharris.org/my-friend-einstein/
Physics and its progeny, the objects of study rather than the research, has informed humankind for millennia that the inspiration and motivation for civic integrity is fidelity to the-objective-truth rather than logical constructs, such as religion, political theory, or reason. Both governments and gods dissent against discovering the-objective-truth to develop statutory justice. (The existence of God has not been disproved but seems doubtful.)
Most readers won’t do the work to understand this response to Bo, and some will waste their time on Phil Beaver, who claims neither to perceive the whole of the-objective-truth nor to have developed civic integrity. Meanwhile, the U.S. preamble’s agreement lies fallow, substantially due to Christianity.
To Paul Spillman: About six months after I dropped out of Southern Baptism because my Sunday school class continually trashed the Christianity followed by MWW and children, the convention announced the institution of a mission to convert the Jews. I told MWW how happy it felt not to be part of such folly.
Now, 2&1/2 decades later I am happy to be an advocate for civic integrity rather than competition over private pursuits such as religious beliefs.
Two decades ago, The Advocate published, as a feature, my essay on amending the First Amendment so as to protect individual thought, a human duty, rather than religion, an institutional business.
Today, I recognize that not all thought is worthy. I want to amend the First Amendment so as to protect the development of civic integrity.
News
The Vatican is bemusing the U.S. with obsolete incidents (Staff Report) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/crime_police/article_5b65d66c-fa35-11e8-97b4-1fee13e103e0.html)
The Church is a private institution, rather than a civic, civil, and legal responsibility, as long as there is no actual harm.
I, a civic citizen who collaborates for statutory justice, request The Advocate personnel to publish the list of living accusers, the priest(s) they are accusing, and the date and place of the abuse.
Humankind was informed at least 2400 years ago that civic citizens collaborate for equal justice under law, the motto on the U.S. Supreme Court building. The Church had the chance to canonize a Bible that advocates equal justice under law. We have only one Holy Bible---the one they canonized. But that was Rome, and Rome did not agree with the Athenian Greeks’ respect for statutory law.
But this is the U.S., and our agreement under which fellow citizens undertake equal justice under law is stated in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. Fellow citizens have the option to collaborate according to the purpose and goals state in the preamble or not. If not, and their behavior conflicts with statutory law, the U.S. preamble requires that they suffer the law, whether their religious institution agrees or not.
Thus fundamental reform regarding unconstitutional favor to religious institutions is at the crux of this nation’s if not the world’s conundrum.
When a fellow citizen is raped, and a suspect is identified, the suspect takes the status of innocent until proven guilty. Accused priests, bishops, and cardinals ought to be known and considered innocent.
From the victims’ perspective, what are the names of the living priests, bishops, and cardinals who are accused in the U.S.? When will their victims receive speedy justice under U.S. Amendment VI?
From the victims’ perspective, what are the names of the living priests, bishops, and cardinals who are accused in the U.S.? When will their victims receive speedy justice under U.S. Amendment VI?
If there will be jury trials, will the jurors be confirmed to both want and behave according to equal justice under law?
Writers for the press ought to be journaling the path by We the People of the United States toward civic integrity (Joe Gyan Jr.) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/courts/article_9e59400c-f8ba-11e8-a35c-8f69e22b6ba9.html)
The Advocate personnel publish sheer ignorance about statutory justice. Why? My guess is that promoting black justice is a lucrative business plan not only for The Advocate and its freedom-of-irresponsible-press but for attorneys who are mysteriously free to challenge the U.S. Constitution.
Discrimination on black color was outlawed in 1964.
“Black people are underrepresented on pools from which grand jurors and trial jurors are selected in East Baton Rouge Parish, attorneys argue . . . “
Are the attorneys making this claim on the principle that black justice only comes for black skins; in other words, humans think and speak with their skin? Are these attorneys upholding the United States Constitution? Are their arguments consistent with the 1964 Civil Rights Act regarding discrimination? Can a black victim expect justice from a black court when the offender is black?
When a black father is charged with beating his son, is the son a person who is protected by the U.S. Constitution or is the son’s statutory justice subject to black override?
“Robertson's attorneys note that the U.S. Constitution's Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant the right to a jury that represents a fair cross-section of the community in both trial and grand juries. East Baton Rouge Parish District Attorney Hillar Moore III agrees race cannot play a role in jury selection. ‘We do not believe the defendant's challenges will be successful and look forward to presenting our case at a hearing on these motions.’"
In the above statements, is Joe Gyan Jr. advocating the defense attorney’s false interpretation of Amendment VI in Gyan’s attempt to convert a disagreement between defense attorneys and the DA into the assertion that they agree? In other words, is Gyan using writing skills to misrepresent Hillar Moore?
Amendment VI requires “. . . a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed . . .“
The 1964 act, TITLE II. SEC. 201. (a) states, “All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of . . . public accommodation . . . without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.” Is there an exception that requires a black boy to receive black justice?
The Louisiana State Bar Association (https://www.lsba.org/Public/MembershipDirectory.aspx) issued a resolution constructed from falsehoods to pressure the Louisiana Legislature to amend the Louisiana Constitution to terminate unanimous-majority felony verdicts (10:2) and institute absolute verdicts (12:0). The Legislature could not get the required 2/3 votes in both chambers to amend the constitution, but with collegial cunning created the legislative votes for a public referendum.
National advocates for absolutism convinced voters to focus on offenders rather than victims, using ignorance to dupe most voters to approve the change. This case emphasizes the harm done: Zzayvion Robertson, a person who was beaten to death, is being subjected to further abuse by insistence on a jury comprised of 47% black skins. Can a black victim expect justice from a black jury under absolutism regarding verdicts?
I hope someone brings a lawsuit claiming that the LSBA action was unconstitutional based on U.S. Amendment VI (1791), U.S. Amendment XIV.1. (1868), and Johnson v Louisiana (1972).
In the meantime, I urge the Louisiana Legislature to respond to this case by initiating action to require candidates for the jury pools to demonstrate that they collaborate for statutory justice. Maybe call it The Zzayvion Robertson Bill.
The principle of civic responsibility is at least 2400 years old and is represented on the U.S. Supreme Court building as “Equal justice under law.” But the phrase is controversial and is abused by some interpreters.
Agreement to collaborate for justice is freely offered to fellow citizens in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. However, fellow citizens are free to dissent, even to oppose statutory justice. Therefore, willing people collaborate to continually improve statutory justice while providing the means to enforce statutory law.
I want fellow citizens to have the freedom to vote because voting against your own interests and suffering the consequences is instructive. It makes no difference if the vote was from persuasion or the person’s will to act in sheer ignorance: actual harm is actual harm. However, it makes no sense to trust people who think with black skin to affect injustice for black victims of black offenders. It makes no sense for people who want injustice to have a role in the determination of justice. And, maintaining such a system is unconstitutional. Only citizens who want statutory justice can comprise a jury of peers.
Jury duty should be requested only from people who both collaborate for statutory justice and observe statutory law. Attorneys and judges who strive for injustice should be disbarred with alacrity.
To Andrea Dragna: I hope you and the people who like your message read my post, above, and forward it or better to their state representatives in both chambers, the house and the senate.
Fellow citizens who are invited to serve on juries should be able to demonstrate that they collaborate for statutory justice. Statutory justice excludes vigilantism whether perpetrated by lawyers, judges, or legislators, all of whom are foremost fellow citizens, whether civic or not.
To James Giardina I wrote in this forum several times that I want Kennedy to stay in the office I helped elect him to.
I also expressed my dismay with his unconstitutional questions for Judge Kavanaugh; https://www.nbcnews.com/video/kennedy-to-kavanaugh-on-allegations-do-you-swear-to-god-1331090499875.
That does not imply that I want Senator Kennedy to resign.
That does not imply that I want Senator Kennedy to resign.
I want fellow citizens to reform so as to collaborate for equal justice under law using both the U.S. preamble and the-objective-truth rather than competing for a dominant opinion.
Other fora
https://www.quora.com/unanswered/Can-equality-and-freedom-coexist?
The question: Can equality and freedom coexist?
A personally preferred answer: It depends on the chosen use of the words presented and other similar words, especially liberty. Regarding “equality” I want to take the viewpoint of the ovum, the cell from which a human person may develop. The ovum, upon fertilization, may become male or female and have equality within his or her gender based on all the other factors involved. In the U.S. in the recent past, about 800 million ova per year emerged as 4 million live births with a wide range of both physical and psychological potentials. Most ova that experienced ovulation perished, most that were fertilized perished, and the fetuses that survived gestation were born unequal, some perishing after delivery.
I prefer to consider freedom as the minimization of external constraints, as in freedom-from oppression. Again, every ovum is subject to physics, the object rather than the study, and its progeny, biology and psychology. Further, the fertilized ovum or the conception is subject to the genes and perhaps memes passed on from the mom and dad, whether the conception is accomplished with technology or not. The fetus is subject to the care the mom took with her body before conception and the attention she grants during gestation and delivery.
The delivered infant is subject to both local politics and the qualifications of his or her caretakers. Most caretakers are not qualified to encourage and coach a child to develop the understanding and intent to live a complete human life. By “complete” I mean both chronologically and psychologically.
No matter what happened before, the human infant has the potential to develop his or her individual power, individual energy, and individual authority (IPEA) so as to make choices that either develop integrity or invite infidelity. The infant is awesome in his or her potential to discover IPEA, and if so, he or she may decide whether to use it to develop integrity or to satisfy appetites. I never met a newborn person who was not worthy of awe. If caretakers encourage his or her IPEA, he or she may develop integrity so assiduously that he or she will experience freedom-from both external and internal constraints and take the liberty-to achieve the perfection of his or her person.
These ideas are strange to this world because they have never before been articulated as a proposal for a widespread, better future and therefore have never been attempted. Perhaps that is changing as I write.
I write to learn and would appreciate comments and collaboration.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/classicalsociologicaltheory/?multi_permalinks=2164587623868119&comment_id=2164797530513795¬if_id=1544854868953393¬if_t=feedback_reaction_generic
I've been reading the chapters assigned for week 4 on Tocquville's thoughts and I think that his insights on the role of newspapers in a democracy could very easily be extended to mass and social media in our time. Social media especially make it possible for like-minded actors far apart geographically to join forces for a common cause.
Phil Beaver I think the only common cause is individual happiness with civic integrity. I do not think today's media and "journalism" schools are legitimate forces. The best way to read or listen is to count the lies as discerned from either the-objective-truth or the interconnected theory of existing discoveries.
Kah Hoe Cheng Adding to your point, I think journalism is important if it is used as a tool to bring the issues on the ground under the spotlight. Investigative Journalism/Research is a stream where it focuses on the violation of rights, justice and unfairness. Bringing this issues will help the decision makers and the public to make an informed decision. Of course, it also relies on the mindset of the population. Democracy is now abused as a way to oppress the minorities. "The majority wins", they say. It is vital for everyone, including the public to know that the concept of democracy should not override the values of equality and equity.
Phil Beaver "Investigative Journalism/Research is a stream where it focuses on the violation of rights, justice and unfairness."
"Justice" is an opinionated, moving target in the civic evolution toward statutory justice. You describe a statistically-manipulated policy-driven research with opinionated goals rather than the common good: civic integrity.
In a culture of collaboration for civic integrity, research is directed at discovering the-objective-truth rather than producing statistical surveys that support an arbitrary opinion. Readers who read "objective truth" or "truth" don't yet comprehend the-objective-truth.
Responsible journalism helps maintain the record of discovery in civic morality. Consider, for example, the case of the ovum eventually caught in abortion for fun. That ovum had lost the right to its mom's appreciation and ova-protection from unwanted conception. You won't learn that from the press, probably because it focuses on its opinion.
"Justice" is an opinionated, moving target in the civic evolution toward statutory justice. You describe a statistically-manipulated policy-driven research with opinionated goals rather than the common good: civic integrity.
In a culture of collaboration for civic integrity, research is directed at discovering the-objective-truth rather than producing statistical surveys that support an arbitrary opinion. Readers who read "objective truth" or "truth" don't yet comprehend the-objective-truth.
Responsible journalism helps maintain the record of discovery in civic morality. Consider, for example, the case of the ovum eventually caught in abortion for fun. That ovum had lost the right to its mom's appreciation and ova-protection from unwanted conception. You won't learn that from the press, probably because it focuses on its opinion.
Phil Beaver You are welcome, and it would not have happened without your collaboration. Thank you for your worthy expressions.
Oscar Garcia Sauret and what do you undrestand by civic integrity? And how is that concept not subjective?
Phil Beaver In civic integrity at least 2/3 of fellow citizens agree to develop statutory justice. The 1/3 dissidents may live in peace provided they do not cause actually-real harm. With harm, dissidents may be subjected to enforcement under statutory law, which is sometimes unjust because it is based on a dominant opinion. The object of civic integrity is statutory justice, which is discovered using the-objective-truth.
In the USA, the agreement to equal justice under statutory law is offered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. The political regimes have, so far (230 years) bemused the people from using the civic, civil, and legal power of the U.S. preamble. The key distraction is "self-governance" rather than the self-discipline the U.S. preamble proposes. One of the unfortunate consequences is that many Americans do not realize that "our Posterity" refers to parents' grandchildren and beyond. Consequently, each newborn or legal immigrant faces $5.6 million federal debt. That figure could be divided by ten, by distribution to children rather than newborns alone, if debt payment began.
The-objective-truth exists and can only be discovered, often in an iterative process. Integrity is the practice of discovery, which includes the following actions: perceive a discovery; do the work to confirm the perception is not a mirage; do the work to understand how to benefit from the discovery without causing misery and loss; behave according to the understanding; publically share the understanding and your behavior and LISTEN to public responses for opportunities to improve; and quickly react to new discovery that requires change in behavior.
I use "the-objective-truth" to be more explicit than "truth" or any of the common alternatives like ultimate truth, absolute truth, objective truth, and God's truth. I do not know the whole of the-objective-truth, but feel confident in some facts. For example, the earth is like a globe. Civic citizens do not lie so as to lessen misery and loss rather than to follow some rule; also, a liar begs lies.
In the USA, the agreement to equal justice under statutory law is offered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. The political regimes have, so far (230 years) bemused the people from using the civic, civil, and legal power of the U.S. preamble. The key distraction is "self-governance" rather than the self-discipline the U.S. preamble proposes. One of the unfortunate consequences is that many Americans do not realize that "our Posterity" refers to parents' grandchildren and beyond. Consequently, each newborn or legal immigrant faces $5.6 million federal debt. That figure could be divided by ten, by distribution to children rather than newborns alone, if debt payment began.
The-objective-truth exists and can only be discovered, often in an iterative process. Integrity is the practice of discovery, which includes the following actions: perceive a discovery; do the work to confirm the perception is not a mirage; do the work to understand how to benefit from the discovery without causing misery and loss; behave according to the understanding; publically share the understanding and your behavior and LISTEN to public responses for opportunities to improve; and quickly react to new discovery that requires change in behavior.
I use "the-objective-truth" to be more explicit than "truth" or any of the common alternatives like ultimate truth, absolute truth, objective truth, and God's truth. I do not know the whole of the-objective-truth, but feel confident in some facts. For example, the earth is like a globe. Civic citizens do not lie so as to lessen misery and loss rather than to follow some rule; also, a liar begs lies.
https://www.quora.com/Is-there-equal-justice-under-the-law?
So far, I cannot find the question that led to the essay below:
Whether you include the article “the” or not, the answer is no. Justice comes from the people who develop civic integrity. In other words, from civic citizens.
There are two aspects: the development of statutory law and self-discipline by the individual.
For equal justice, first, statutory law would need to be fully developed, currently perfect, and adjust to a new discovery of the-objective-truth with alacrity.
Second, there must be an education system that, for each newborn person, inculcates human authenticity and encourages responsible development of civic integrity. By civic integrity, I mean living for equal justice under a responsible agreement. The family collaborates for a good life and provides the best chance for the parent’s grandchildren and beyond to have better lives. In the U.S., the civic, civil, and legal agreement to develop civic integrity is the preamble to the U.S. Constitution.
The phrase written on the Supreme Court building in Washington is “equal justice under law,” a work in progress. However, the Court, like the rest of federal government and every state constitution is bemused and entangled in “freedom of religion.” The U.S. cannot begin to develop civic integrity as long as that British imposition prevails.
In England, the church-state Parliament is constitutionally fixed, with Canterbury the religious partner. In the U.S., the church-state partnership has evolved into a Judeo-Christian tradition. The U.S., 230 years old now (established June 21, 1788), may begin to responsibly separate itself from British impositions in order to establish civic integrity.
Considering the Court, the U.S. seems Judeo-Catholic. My minority, non-believers, started at under 1% of the population in 1788, but in 2018 is perhaps 25% of the nation; Religion in America: U.S. Religious Data, Demographics and Statistics. Equal justice requires 2 Supreme Court Justices who are non-believers and 1 justice who is a non-Judeo-Christian believer. Yet there are 5 Catholic justices, 3 Jewish justices, and 1 justice who is either Catholic or Episcopalian.
Civic integrity doesn’t stand a chance when justices don’t accept that they were undeniably human before they acquired a religion. Believers remain fellow-citizens and equally subject to physics, the object of discovery rather than the study process. Every human has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (IIPEA) to either develop integrity or invite infidelity. IPEA is inalienable and cannot be consigned, for example, to a government or a god.
Consider, for example, the question of abortion. Physics and its progenies biology and psychology hold both the woman responsible to nourish her viable ova and the man to protect the woman and her viable ova. An authentic man is aware that he could fertilize an ovum and would not threaten the woman or her ova. Authentic couples bond. People with the self-discipline to use their IPEA to develop civic integrity will not defer to reason, such as religion, to propose forcing a woman to remain pregnant.
If these arguments establish motivation to reform governance for equal justice under law, how can the law be improved? My suggestion is to educate the people.
First, a human being cannot expect justice if he or she does not consider civic citizenship and acquire the necessary self-discipline. In the U.S., the civic citizen’s agreement is stated in the U.S. preamble. Fellow citizens may freely adopt the agreement or dissent against it. Dissenters may observe statutory law without objection, but if they cause actual-real harm may face law enforcement. Second, civic citizens may develop statutory justice by collaborating to discover and benefit from the-objective-truth rather than compete for a dominant opinion. The consequence may be a culture of individual happiness with civic integrity. Responsible religions flourish in privacy.
In equal justice under law, citizens who are concerned for their afterdeath or other mystery responsibly pursue hopes for relief without attempting to impose their concerns on fellow citizens. For example, if someone fears their soul will miss eternity in heaven, they may in religious integrity pursue hope for soul-salvation yet maintain civic integrity. Choosing a religion that opposes civic integrity guarantees conflict.
Equating religious disagreement to civic infidelity assures enmity. No citizen wants to debate or evaluate a fellow citizen’s god or none. However, civic integrity ultimately prevails.
Returning to the 230 years that the U.S. preamble has been available to fellow citizens, the colonial British imposition of common law and the American-Canterbury partnership have prevented attention to equal justice under civic integrity. Perhaps reform can occur in a couple decades with willing citizens developing mutual discipline under the U.S. preamble and managing the three governments---local, state, and federal---according to the-objective-truth. Perhaps U.S. psychological independence from colonial British influence can begin.
I write to learn and hope you will comment, even collaborate, on these ideas.
I appreciate Ms. Hudson’s post for two reasons.
First, I share, below, Carter’s aid in my path to “civic integrity” to promote widespread use of the preamble to the U.S. Constitution (U.S. preamble).
Second, it empowered my attention to the-objective-truth as the standard for integrity. Wondering what philosophers have to say about “civility,” I reduced my ignorance of “public reason.”
Taking the second point first, Jonathan Quong, in "Public Reason", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2018 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2018/entries/public-reason/> wrote, “Because we make moral and political demands of each other, if we are to comply with the ideal of public reason, we must refrain from advocating or supporting rules that cannot be justified to those on whom the rules would be imposed. We should instead, some insist, only support those rules we sincerely believe can be justified by appeal to suitably shared or public considerations—for example, widely endorsed political values such as freedom and equality—and abstain from appealing to religious arguments, or other controversial views over which reasonable people are assumed to disagree.” I will study Quong's article.
Regarding my first mentioned appreciation, readers might enjoy Stephen L. Carter’s 1996 article, “The Insufficiency of Honesty,” online at https://learning.hccs.edu/faculty/bruce.brogdon/engl1301/bruce.brogdon/201cthe-insufficiency-of-honesty201d-by-stephen-carter/view. I quote it often, but have modified his formula so extensively I often do not credit Carter.
I assert that integrity is a process that includes the following: a heartfelt concern, the work to discover that the concern is motivated by actual reality rather than a mirage, the work to understand how to benefit from the discovery, behaving according to the resulting understanding, publicly sharing the reasons for your behavior and listening to public responses so as to collaborate for possible improvement, and being alert for new discovery that demands change. If most fellow citizens practice this process, civic integrity prevails and gradually discover the-objective-truth. The U.S. preamble tacitly offers fellow citizens individual happiness with civic integrity and citizens are free to dissent.
One other point: Sadly, on December 7, Dr. P.M. Forni, co-founder of the Johns Hopkins Civility Project (http://krieger2.jhu.edu/civility/), passed away. See https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/07/obituaries/pm-forni-dies.html.
To Anthony: The classical scholarship is made difficult by the mingling of semantics and mystery (for example, religious beliefs).
From https://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/politics/section3/, "Aristotle begins with an inquiry into the nature of citizenship. It is not enough to say a citizen is someone who lives in the city or has access to the courts of law, since these rights are open to resident aliens and even slaves. Rather, Aristotle suggests that a citizen is someone who shares in the administration of justice and the holding of public office. Aristotle then broadens this definition, which is limited to individuals in democracies, by stating that a citizen is anyone who is entitled to share in deliberative or judicial office."
In the U.S., fellow citizens agree to equal justice under law by the collaboration to achieve the purpose and goals stated in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution (the U.S. preamble). Under the U.S. preamble, civic discipline of, by, and for the people may be developed, and the civic people (Aristotle) may use the rest of the U.S. Constitution to manage the officials and institutions fellow citizens authorize and constraint. Fellow citizens may freely dissent, but if one causes actual harm may face statutory justice.
Willing citizens collaborate to discover the-objective-truth rather than conflict for a dominant opinion and thereby develop a culture of individual happiness with civic integrity.
To Pukka Leftmensch: I agree with your statement, "we need more leaders in politics, religion, education, business, culture and law who are prepared to walk the hard walk and dispense with the nice talk."
But this is not possible when "walk the hard walk" remains a matter of opinion, a human construct, or sheer mystery.
I'm reading the enlightening book, "Scalia Speaks," and in the chapter "Being Different," Scalia quotes John 15:18-19 ASV, “If the world hates you, realize that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, the world would love its own; but because you do not belong to the world, and I have chosen you out of the world, the world hates you."
It's bad enough to justify being different by assuming and asserting that non-believers are guilty of hate. However, it becomes worse at Verse 23: "Whoever hates me also hates my Father."
It's bad enough that some Christians do not think, as some Catholics do, that the Eucharistic host is God since Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are the same. But to me, the entire passage is psychological violence because of the use of the word "hate" as an assumption about non-believers. There's no excuse for the word "hate" to express human connections.
Maybe there's a place for John 15:18-25 in the privacy of an individual's mind, but I doubt it. I certainly deny that I hate Christians, Jesus, God, or the Holy Ghost. I just have not accepted the formula of fear and salvation of believing.
However, I do accept that my body, mind, and person will stop functioning. I am prepared for my death, but do not wish anyone to mimic my preparation for my afterdeath. Let each person responsibly pursue private happiness.
However, I do want fellow citizens to use the U.S. preamble and collaboration to discover the-objective-truth in order to develop statutory justice and practice civic integrity.
To gabe: I agree with your statement, “Sharp or blunt, the retort is still a retort and neither more nor less civil NOR inappropriate than the other.”
Buckley’s mean passion was merely misunderstood by the English ignorance in 1965 at Cambridge (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFeoS41xe7w&t=22s) but it became a matter of terminal pity in 1968 Chicago (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZY_nq4tfi24). (Incidentally, Vidal mentions Mailer.) View especially from 9’45” until the end, where Vidal says with a smile, there’s no more to say after we experienced Mr. Buckley’s passions. In 1967, a student question at the end disclosed Alinsky’s propensity for violence Buckley’s adversarial style could not bring out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsfxnaFaHWI&t=4s.
Buckley’s mean passion was merely misunderstood by the English ignorance in 1965 at Cambridge (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFeoS41xe7w&t=22s) but it became a matter of terminal pity in 1968 Chicago (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZY_nq4tfi24). (Incidentally, Vidal mentions Mailer.) View especially from 9’45” until the end, where Vidal says with a smile, there’s no more to say after we experienced Mr. Buckley’s passions. In 1967, a student question at the end disclosed Alinsky’s propensity for violence Buckley’s adversarial style could not bring out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsfxnaFaHWI&t=4s.
To QET: “Christian civility is rooted in a shared understanding of God as supreme and omniscient judge of a person’s thought and deeds.”
Christian civility is a private pursuit and squabble among believers, and only by a lack of integrity can believers insist on involving non-believers. For example, the Civil War was started over erroneous Bible beliefs held in the South (see the CSA Declaration of Secession and R.E. Lee’s December 1856 letter to his wife). Those same Christian beliefs kept the South opposed to fellow citizens for a century. Black church was instrumental in the passage of the 1964 act against discrimination on race or color, and beginning in 1968 black civility combined to form African American Christianity. Black Christian civility accuses white Christian civility. Non-believers, like me, unjustly share in the costs, especially the failure of civic integrity in this nation.
It is time for fellow citizens who squabble over Christian civility to admit to themselves the need for equal justice under law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_justice_under_law#Following_ancient_tradition), a recognition that predates Christianity.
In the U.S., the agreement for civic, civil, and legal civility is offered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. When combined with collaboration to discover and use the-objective-truth rather than conflict for a dominant opinion, the agreement offers willing citizens individual happiness with civic integrity. Believers in their individual, responsible motivations and inspirations may pursue their religious civility or no religion in mutual safety and security. Dissidents against statutory justice invite subjugation to law enforcement if they cause actually real harm.
I appreciate Gregg’s timely analysis. It seems the paragraph, “France consequently faces . . . mutually exclusive,” could easily end a similar analysis of the U.S., and I hope someone will point me to the analysis or write one.
It seems the mid-term elections started an economic decline that could end with U.S. bankruptcy. Washington D.C. executes Russia collusion while the U.S. dissipates.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment