Worthy speech in Louisiana

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

Worthy speech in Louisiana: not found in state government.

Letters

A dissident fellow citizen speaks for a business that promotes human failure (Dr. Rebekah Gee) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/letters/article_969064ee-f3f7-11e8-bbc2-5381cf61d32a.html)

Dr. Gee would do well to acknowledge to herself that Gov. Edwards’ Medicaid expansion is not the victim of critics but is accused of fiscal negligence by Legislative Auditor Daryl Purpera's office; https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/politics/article_17bcacea-e76d-11e8-bf9e-bf3f226dd0f9.html .

As a growing faction of Louisiana inhabitants develop trust-in and commitment-to the agreement for civic, civil, and legal collaboration that is offered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution, politicians like Gov. Edwards and appointed officials like Dr.Gee will habitually look in the mirror and ask the individual they see, “Are you collaborating for civic integrity?” If the person answers “No,” he or she will perceive that at least 2/3 of concerned citizens will want them removed from office.

In this letter, Dr. Gee extolls the health-care industry. It takes at least 4 times more health care than personal wellness to keep citizens healthy. In other words, people who attend to CDC advice (https://www.cdc.gov/hrqol/wellbeing.htm) so as to maintain personal health need less than ¼ the health-care services. One caring person providing for self plus three careless persons is not an economically viable proposition. In other words, expansion of the health care industry threatens the economic viability of the people in this state.

Is Dr. Gee ignorant or cunning? More importantly, does she think of herself first as a fellow citizen who collaborates for equal justice under law or is she first an appointee of Gov. Edwards?

I will vote to replace Gov. Edwards and Dr. Gee, not on Sadow’s kind work, but on the work of Purpera and the CDC and for civic integrity.

Time for each fellow citizen to know where he or she stands (Jesse Pitre) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/letters/article_35b25d6a-f3f9-11e8-9af4-fb12648c7e82.html)

I support Jesse Pitre’s concern and expressions of it:  Many elected officials are part of the problem.

Pitre’s “everyday hardworking people of Louisiana” may consider that just as they work hard for the lifestyle they want, they may dedicate some time to individual happiness with civic integrity.

Here’s a list of civic, civil, and legal concerns fellow citizens could consider.

First, statutory justice can only come under an agreement. A general goal is “equal justice under law.” I hope every fellow citizen will read the article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_justice_under_law.

Second, past and present U.S. political regimes hide the civic, civil, and legal agreement that is offered U.S. citizens in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. Please read the introduction and text of the U.S. preamble at https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/preamble. Compare the accurate capitalization at https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_preamble.html. 

Then, paraphrase the preamble to consider whether or not you want to discipline your civic conduct so as to collaborate under its purpose and goals. Note that “prefect Union” needs interpretation and mine is “mutual, comprehensive safety and security, in other words civic integrity.”  Also, “our Posterity” includes grandchildren and beyond. For example, it is not civic discipline to saddle them with debt imposed by local, state, and federal governments.

The American religion promoted by political regimes instructs that each individual’s god will eventually deliver justice. However, history instructs that Abraham Lincoln seemed correct in 1861 when he said that ultimate justice comes from the people.

The U.S. preamble is the world’s greatest political sentence because its seven goals are neutral to religion as well as gender, race, ethnicity, wealth, responsible pursuit of happiness, and civic integrity. With at least 2/3 of citizens conducting civic connections according to the U.S. preamble, there would exist the widespread discipline required to manage elected and appointed officials in local, state, and federal governments so as to be first fellow citizens according to the agreement.

I think most fellow citizens behave this way, but not with the fidelity that is needed and without the consideration required to articulate the agreement. Pitre chose to constructively express his views and that is the first step toward collaborating for the goals.

“Do you truly represent the everyday hardworking people of Louisiana or do you side with the left-wing radical socialist agenda being pushed by the west and east coasts of our country? Since Louisiana’s only national representative to Congress has chosen to remain silent, one can only assume that U.S. Rep. Cedric Richmond condones what is going on in Washington as well. In that case, he needs to publicly denounce socialism or resign from the Democrat Party as well. Handwerk should know that the Democrats in Louisiana need someone to stand up for their party and fight off socialism by calling it out. Is he part of the solution or part of the problem facing our country? Will he step up to the plate and try to save his party and country from socialism or will he stay silent like so many other Democrats seeking to quench their thirst for power regardless of the consequences? The hardworking people of the Democratic Party in this state deserve to know where its leadership stands.

The Farley Scots-Irish in this fellow citizen (Randy Hayden) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/letters/article_1015a25a-f193-11e8-a235-936183659840.html)

Civic integrity is acquired with intentions of being a fellow citizen rather than joining a radical group that would trash things and institutions. Each human being has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (IPEA) to either develop integrity or invite infidelity.

My grandmother was Nettie Farley, a Scots Irish woman from Harlan County, KY. I was reared to be fiercely independent and staunchly law abiding. My dad spoke his opinion and kept the peace.

Developing my own independence, I never respected activist organizations, always suspected political parties, and sought fiscal conservatism in my governance.

I consider myself a fellow citizen but could not articulate it until I learned that phrase from Frederick Douglass (1852) while considering Robert E. Lee’s (1850s) opportunities to avoid civic, civil, legal, and military ruin. Bleeding Kansas (1856) was another clue that Lee overlooked for erroneous religious zeal.

But I acquired a strong dislike for activist organizations when, opposing Together Baton Rouge’s local interferences, I studied about Saul Alinsky, the self-styled Marxist who felt violence is necessary if his rights are at stake. His presence, brought out skillfully by W. F. Buckley, Jr (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsfxnaFaHW)  , seemed suitable for organizing Hell; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfAyNrEsqic. I frustrated an acquaintance who wanted me to read Alinsky’s books.

Alinsky founded the IAF in 1940; http://www.industrialareasfoundation.org/. Its local affiliate is Together Baton Rouge; https://www.togetherbr.org/about.

As Haden’s letter shows, fellow citizens who want to feel they individually represent civic integrity will avoid groups that trash whatever they touch.

Freedom of religion yielding to civic integrity (Peter Hebert) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/letters/article_853d4618-f194-11e8-8fe3-1b6ccf873f73.html)

Note that The Advocate editors used “good priests” in the caption rather than Hebert’s “honorable religious.”

There is an achievable better future.

This reader is constrained to ask, ‘What, in The Advocate lexicon, is a “good priest?’” I prefer Hebert’s evaluation, in context: religious servant to honorable members of the church. In other words, church members who collaborate for civic integrity expect priests to behave as civil, lawful fellow-citizens. I doubt even one priest considers himself first a civic citizen then a religious servant.

Members of an organization ought to get what they pay for. I can’t speak as a believer, but Hebert, despite the interference from The Advocate personnel, delivered a message: Hebert is among the religious who feel the burden of illegal behavior in the Catholic Church.

I am not a praying person, but I want Peter Hebert and all the honorable religious to know they have my fellow-citizen’s empathy.

Also, I want believers to consider my proposals for an achievable, better future. First, recognize that a civil people collaborate for equal justice under law (EJUL); https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_justice_under_law. In this country, the agreement to collaborate for EJUL is offered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution (U.S. preamble), established June 21,1788.

Second, amend the First Amendment so as to promote civic integrity rather than beliefs.

Some scholars falsely label the 1787 Constitution a “godless constitution”; https://wallbuilders.com/godless-constitution-response-kramnick-moore/. “. . . there was a consensus that, despite the framer’s personal beliefs, religion was a matter best left to the individual citizens . . .”, as tacitly claimed by the omission of religion in the U.S. preamble.

However, only 2/3 of framers signed the 1787 Constitution, and the 1789-1793 Congress re-established British common law with factional-American-church partnership, mimicking Parliament’s constitutional partnership with Canterbury. They codified the unconstitutional U.S. partnership using legislative prayer and the religion clauses in the First Amendment, ratified on December 15, 1791.

The U.S. Supreme Court advanced the tyranny in Greece v Galloway (2014). In effect, legislative prayer was rendered ceremonial---without meaning.

Under the 1788 EJUL or the U.S. preamble, U.S. fellow citizens may develop civic integrity. I appeal to the religious who feel the burden of civic integrity to aid amendment of the First Amendment so as to promote civic integrity, an obligation under EJUL, rather than religion, a business that should serve believing fellow citizens.

Returning to The Advocate personnel’s “good priests,” as I understand the journal of history, the Church does all it can to defeat EJUL under the U.S. preamble, and therefore there are no good priests among U.S. fellow citizens. Priests remain fellow citizens and may reform.

News

A Louisiana vision from a Mississippi federal-court ruling (Elizabeth Crisp) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/politics/legislature/article_fe8052ea-ed0c-11e8-98f5-ab7ae02dd70c.html)

This report on a Mississippi legislative fiasco inspired a vision for the Louisiana legislature’s recent tyranny over the people. What follows is my fiction:

U.S. District Judge [let’s learn or DJLL] in the order called Louisiana's referendum on impartial unanimous-majority felony jury verdicts "a facially unconstitutional" act. He granted a permanent injunction that bars the state from enforcing the referendum, which DJLL called "unequivocally" unconstitutional.

Louisiana lawmakers earlier this year passed [and] Gov. John Bel Edwards, a Democrat endorsed, a referendum to end Louisiana’s U.S. Amendment VI provision of impartial jury verdicts (10:2) and use absolute verdicts (12:0) that are well known be influenced by organized crime. 

If Louisiana's law were to go into effect Louisiana would join 48 other states that erroneously require jury absolutism, or 12:0 verdicts. This colonial-British tradition was reversed in in 1967, when England enacted 10:2 verdicts to lessen the influence of organized crime.

"The State chose to pass an act it knew was unconstitutional to endorse a decades-long campaign, fueled by national interest groups, to end Louisiana’s exemplary law," DJLL wrote. "This Court follows the commands of the Supreme Court and the dictates of the United States Constitution, rather than the disingenuous calculations of the Louisiana Legislature."

He also lamented the influence of the Louisiana State Bar Association, whose resolution for action by the Louisiana Legislature, on failure, influenced lawmakers to take the issue to the uninformed voters.

"The State, of course, has the right to pass legislation that represents the interests of its citizens," DJLL wrote. "The Court’s frustration, in part, is that Louisiana, in 1972, successfully litigated the unanimous-majority verdict before the U.S. Supreme Court and the State is aware 1) that this type of litigation costs the taxpayers a tremendous amount of money and 2) both LSBA lawyers and state legislators swore to uphold both the state and the federal constitutions."

To Phil Stanley:

I think that the Supreme Court defends integrity.

Civic integrity conforms to the-objective-truth. According to actual reality the basic equality and dignity in question starts with the ova a fertile woman carries.

About 4 million live births per year started among 800 million viable ova, 5 million of which were spontaneously aborted to correct physics errors. And perhaps 0.15 million were subjects of abortion for fun (MWW’s term for it).

Nobody knows how many conceptions failed to attach to the womb. The Church strains under its own abuses, and I want no part of it.

The ovum, which contains the nutrients necessary to sustain a conception for the eight day trip to possible attachment to the womb represents a potential human being. The ova ought to be appreciated by the mom enough to physically and psychologically care for her body. Her care for her ova includes not only her healthy body and mind but also protection from unwanted fertilization.

An authentic man is aware and does not threaten a woman and her viable ovum.

Intimacy is for bonding and a couple does not consider procreation until their bond has matured and they are committed for life. Part of family appreciation is preparation for the parents’ grandchildren (the children’s children) so that they may develop an even better life. The Church has no say in human bonding yet has failed to promote the authenticity of family life.

In a civic culture, most people would be aware to develop civic integrity. However, the Church developed on the subjugation of women and abuse of children. Until their barbaric dictums, like “life begins at conception” are relegated to the heap of other mendacities, women must resist subjugating to men in order to keep “the faith”.

District Judge Reeves spoke to the Church, too: "The fact that men, myself included, are determining how women may choose to manage their reproductive health is a sad irony not lost on the Court."

People who do not think so as to discover the-objective-truth risk representing themselves with unworthy free speech. A civic people do not elect politicians who express unworthy thoughts.

Columns

Speech on free speech uses obsolete, erroneous political correctness (Walter Williams) (https://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2018/11/21/fruits-of-college-indoctrination-n2536168)

I have no clue as to the intentions of the 1789-1793 Congress when they ratified the First Amendment’s “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.”

It seems well established that some colonists resisted British sedition laws. However, “A series of laws known collectively as the ALIEN AND SEDITION ACTS were passed by the Federalist Congress in 1798 and signed into law by President Adams.” (http://www.ushistory.org/us...) Adams seems to me the closest to British loyalist of any of the five persons who signed both the Declaration of Independence and the 1787 U.S. Constitution.

What’s ignored in 2018 writing about free speech is the U.S. preamble. It offers to fellow citizens a civic, civil, and legal agreement to collaborate for individual happiness with civic morality. “Civic” refers to fellow citizens who communicate so as to responsibly accommodate each other’s pursuit of happiness without encouraging harm, either immediate or predictable. (That’s the integrity part of the agreement.) Fellow citizens are free to dissent from the U.S. preamble’s civic agreement but are wise to observe both civility and legality in behavior.

Viewed from the agreement offered in the U.S. preamble, free speech is a fellow citizens’ mutual practice, and it is up to the individual to do the work to make certain his or her thoughts are worthy of expression. If an erroneous thought is expressed in civic collaboration, the listener’s duty is to respond with well-grounded argument for other opinion. However, if unworthy expression is arrogant, the listener has no obligation to invite escalation of the arrogance unto violence.

“Colleges once taught and promoted an understanding of Western culture” does not clarify that they once were all factional-American-Protestant institutions and many of them are still oppressed by colonial British impositions. For example, the 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights is still incorporated in the Virginia State Constitution. After 230 years under the U.S. preamble, the U.S. is yet a long way from psychological enslavement to British colonialism.

Until a civic people of the U.S. hold politicians, appointed officials such as judges, writers for the press, college professors, and economists to be fellow citizens who are responsible for worthy speech according to the agreement that is offered in the U.S. preamble the dissidents to civic order will continue to disrupt progress toward individual happiness with civic integrity.

Consider the U.S. preamble-agreement goal “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” This is a statement of collaboration for living and for families to prepare for a better life for the parents' grandchildren and beyond. Meanwhile, this nation’s demands for adult entertainment and satisfaction continuously increases the federal debt. It stands at $21.8 trillion; http://www.usdebtclock.org/. Since the debt is increasing, each newborn faces $5.5 million in federal debt.

Self-righteous social democrats want their demands met now, and the financial elites manipulate GDP so as to pay for the loss and misery at their high incomes and wealth. After 229 years under British colonial-influence a better U.S. future can begin now: Each individual may study the U.S. preamble, paraphrase it so as to preserve its essence, collaborate with fellow citizens for civic discipline, and manage politicians so as to establish civic integrity.

I appreciate Walter Williams’s creative columns that motivate my responses.

(Posted on the website.)

Also, to gigi:

Both you and Yancey may want to consider Jesus's expressed hate for those of us Jesus did not choose. See John 15:15-23. I reject Jesus's hatred.

A study of Jesus's expressions of hate is worthwhile toward helping a Christian understand the objections of fellow citizens who are not Christians yet do not deserve Jesus's expressed hate (free speech? or the work of writers and canonizers?).

By considering that the U.S. preamble has been falsely labeled "secular" whereas it is in actual reality neutral to religion as well as gender, race, economic class, and ethnicity, there might be a break toward separation of church from state.

Christians might help collaborate for civic integrity, keeping religious preference a private pursuit for adults only.

Other fora

https://www.quora.com/What-can-be-your-greatest-contribution-to-your-community

A human being’s greatest contribution may be to fully, personally develop his or her individual.

Each human being has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (IPEA) to develop his or her person to his or her perfection. Few people discover this opportunity and effect personal perfection merely because societies do not encourage and coach their young to accept IPEA and use it to develop integrity to the-objective-truth.

To understand the-objective-truth, consider that to every unknown, whether already imagined or merely existing, there exists an actual reality which is the-objective-truth. For example, consider the question of souls, a mystery to believers or not. However, the actual reality about souls exists and may be discovered. In another example, the sun will not come up tomorrow, but the earth’s rotation on its axis will hide the sun again this evening and unhide it tomorrow. That’s an example of discovered-objective-truth, one element in the interconnected, existing whole: the-objective-truth.

The individual who accepts and uses their IPEA may develop integrity regarding the-objective-truth and if so will probably develop fidelity. Fidelity extends to self and to other people regardless of the other’s behavior. For example, criminals are constrained yet as fellow citizens rather than aliens. In other words, fidelity to the-objective-truth is not possible in personal isolation. That is, an individual learns from experiences and observations more than from instruction. However, instruction aids the pursuit of integrity.

In the absence of guidance from existing education systems, the young person may learn on their own, wisely using the Internet and a few principle leads. For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developmental_psychology, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_liberalism, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_justice_under_law. Next, increase the quality of reading with references like https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/. As personal development matures, use these study experiences to debate the authors in order to develop integrity. In other words, the practice of referring to obsolete thinkers to justify erroneous opinion is not integrity.

My idea of how things go is this: in the first three decades, acquire basic understanding with intent to live a full human life. During the next 3-4 decades, serve humankind at your fullest capability and during the experience focus on self-development with continuous study. During retirement, continue to serve and learn.

This has been necessarily brief, because it did not try to address the individual’s personal preferences. Only the individual can make choices, yet the opportunity is to always choose your preference, such that the destiny of your life is the summation of your preferences, which turned out to be both well-informed and good.

I write to learn and would appreciate comments or questions.

https://www.lawliberty.org/2018/11/28/the-right-after-fusionism-part-2-whittaker-chambers-and-the-economic-temptation/

Greg Forster does not seem to understand his own statement, “His primary scholarly interest is . . . to equip the church to be good citizens of both the Kingdom of God and our human communities.” See https://graduate.tiu.edu/academics/faculty/greg-forster/. However, in this article, he seems to demand God in control.

I think there is an achievable, better future under civic integrity.

Turning to Forster’s post, I’d like to understand the evidence for “economic liberalism can be justified on its own, without depending on general cosmologies that subordinate economics to larger moral concerns. This approach has long predominated among libertarians but has not been not widely shared among conservatives.”

I doubt one libertarian would agree with the above statement. Libertarians seem to think 1) a person should earn the way of living he or she wants and 2) government should stay out of the individual’s way as much as possible.

Since spiritualism is a human construct from mystery, the claim that there’s a vacuum is untenable.

Individuals earn worth, and economic viability is the “higher power upon which [worth] can be grounded.”
“Economic liberals must allow everyone to disagree about God, within the limits of civilized coexistence.” Really? Must? Why is anyone’s god or none anyone else’s business?

“. . . the only thing that can rebuke the pride of the human mind is the profound reality of the human soul, and its dependence upon” physics, the object of discovery rather than the study. Physics informs humans that lying causes loss and misery.
“Economic liberalism need not . . . begin with the assumption that human beings are religious creatures.” The choice to be religious is private.
Forster is a believer and seems to feel the U.S. Constitution should require Christian representation in Congress much as Canterbury representation in Parliament is constitutionally specified.
I encourage believers to consider A Civic People’s proposals for an achievable, better future.

First, recognize that civic people and civil people collaborate for equal justice under law (EJUL); https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_justice_under_law. In this country, the agreement to collaborate for EJUL is offered by the civic, civil, and legal agreement that is offered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution (U.S. preamble), established June 21, 1788.

Second, help to amend the First Amendment so as to promote civic integrity rather than religious beliefs, a private pursuit.

Some scholars falsely label the 1787 Constitution a “godless constitution”; https://wallbuilders.com/godless-constitution-response-kramnick-moore/. “. . . there was a consensus that, despite the framer’s personal beliefs, religion was a matter best left to the individual citizens . . .” as tacitly claimed by the omission of religion in the U.S. preamble’s offered agreement.

Under the 1788 U.S. EJUL or the U.S. preamble, U.S. fellow citizens may develop civic integrity. I appeal to believers who feel the burden of civic integrity to aid amendment of the First Amendment so as to promote civic integrity, an obligation under EJUL, rather than religion, a private business that should serve believing fellow citizens and appreciate non-believing fellow citizens.

If believers simply do not want EJUL (equal justice under law), I don’t know how to collaborate with them for a better future yet still consider them fellow citizens.

https://www.lawliberty.org/2018/11/20/the-right-after-fusionism-part-1-whittaker-chambers-and-the-nationalist-temptation/

It’s time to recall history only to avoid its mistakes, such as the U.S. establishing freedom of religion rather than support for civic integrity. It is time not to go back to before but to establish local civic integrity under local republicanism.

“Real freedom and virtue demand that we limit local loyalties in the name of the higher power that is the real source of moral obligation.”

Forster leaves this profound sentence without authority: why?

I suggest that Forster and other scholars, cognitively or not, would suppress the message Albert Einstein delivered in 1941 at a conference on science and religion. The speech is entitled “The Laws of Science and the Laws of Ethics.”

Now that confirmation of gravitational waves elevated Einstein’s general theory of relativity to a law, Einstein’s message could be paraphrased: Physics, the object of discovery, continually proves that lies beg human loss and misery. In other words, Einstein's speech appreciates physics as the source of integrity, with no need for ethics. (Integrity defines ethics.)

From the actual reality of physics, the object of study, humankind continually discovers the-objective-truth. Social scholars neglect the-objective-truth at their own peril.

Yet, some students imagine a concern and construct a confirming doctrine plus a remedy, never allowing the unproven possibility that the concern was a mirage. According to their scholarship, it is sufficient to wait an eternity for disproof of an eternal mystery.

We seemingly reached the age when scholars, politicians, the clergy, and all local inhabitants may admit they are first fellow citizens and collaborate to discover statutory justice based on the-objective-truth rather than conflict for a dominant opinion. Fellow citizens may reserve spiritual pursuits, responsible or not, as private practices for mature believers.

History shows that there will always be dissidents to equal justice under law (EJUL). Most families are not aware of this principle, and therefore members may develop internal enmity rather than mutual appreciation. Fellow citizens are mostly unaware of EJUL. Therefore, few U.S. citizens trust-in and commit-to the civic, civil, and legal agreement that is offered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. This 230-year old habit could change.

 A substantial responsibility for this civic, civil, and legal tyranny is that the U.S. preamble was labeled “secular” whereas it is neutral to religion as well as gender, race, wealth, ethnicity, hopes and many other characteristics that make a person an individual. The U.S. preamble was established on June 21, 1788, and the 1789-1793 Congress obfuscated the agreement by May 1789.

The U.S. preamble tacitly proposes civic self-discipline by willing citizens, who may use the articles that follow to limit their local, state, and federal governance. The consequence of widespread use of the U.S. preamble might be individual happiness with civic integrity. However, until a culture of civic integrity is established by this nation, it makes no sense for the U.S. to pretend to offer the good beyond its own borders: Republican nationality by the U.S. is good for the world.

https://www.quora.com/In-order-to-achieve-gender-and-racial-equality-in-big-organisations-other-than-setting-a-hard-target-such-as-hiring-30-of-woman-in-managerial-level-by-year-2020-are-there-any-other-pragmatic-ways-that-can-also?

The email I received claims someone, perhaps James Bond, asked me, “In order to achieve gender and racial equality in big organisations, other than setting a hard target (such as hiring 30% of woman in managerial level by year 2020), are there any other pragmatic ways that can also achieve this goal?”

The question is born of unworthy assumptions and could be reformed by focus on the-objective-truth. To start with, gender and racial equality in big organizations implies both all functions in the organization and all races. The suggested hard target, 30% female in managerial level by 2020, omits race and may discourage females who choose jobs other than management.

Some people do not want to be managers, and 85% of organizational failures come from management. In other words, the non-management portion of an organization is essential. For example, I proudly helped two people load my dead, cut-up meyer-lemon-tree into the dumpster this morning, cautioning them to avoid the 2” thorns. Although there were no women present, it was a good experience.

Addressing “racial equality,” a remedy as effective as the Bond question might be to announce the demand that 30% of women of every minority race must qualify for management positions by the year 2020.

Social politics grounded in false assumptions derives from honest failure to develop integrity. By “honest” I mean the social thinker never developed the practice of integrity and may not even be aware of the need to develop civic integrity.

Civic integrity is a process wherein the thinker perceives a concern, examines the concern to discover whether it is real or a mirage, examines options to discern the best remedy, expresses the discovery and the remedy, personally practices the remedy within the constraints of statutory law, publicizes the remedy and listens to fellow citizens for opportunities to collaborate for even better remedy, and remains open minded to new discovery regarding the-objective-truth. Through civic integrity, statutory justice continually accrues.

The individual who speaks without practicing civic integrity described above or better is free to express unworthy thoughts. In other words, civic integrity is in the individual’s best interest. However, social democrats seem careless about unworthy thoughts. In fact, the world seems inundated by unworthy speech.

Awareness of integrity respecting the-objective-truth can empower the individual to develop fidelity to actual reality and spend his or her brief lifetime pursuing individual happiness with civic morality rather than conflicting for dominant opinion. So far, mankind has not widely encouraged and coached infants and youth to develop integrity, but widespread attention to the-objective-truth may develop soon.

I hope my response helps and would appreciate collaborative (including corrective) comments.

 

 https://www.lawliberty.org/2018/11/26/to-sustain-the-anglo-american-tradition-conversation-is-not-enough

“. . . modern progressives understand “science”–as narrative; not, as Popper insisted, as trial-and-error empiricism.” I think “progressives” are only one faction and comprehension is constrained by 17th-century political correctness and scholarly surrogates such as “trial-and-error empiricism.”

“Natural law” and “nature’s God” are on the same scale in the Google books Ngram viewer from 1800 until about 1960, when “pseudoscience” displaces “nature’s God.” “Nature” drives the other three phrases to zero.

In 1941 at a symposium on science and religion, Albert Einstein delivered the speech “The Laws of Science and the Laws of Ethics.” Perhaps Einstein informed humankind that physics (the object of discovery) is the source of integrity, and when fellow humans collaborate to discover the-objective-truth, ethics is lame. Pseudoscience has no place in Einstein’s message. In other words, all of the 1941 terms---science, religion, and ethics---obfuscated physics as the authority to which every human may choose to pursue integrity or not.

Christianity’s participation/partnership in Parliament is constitutionally specified in England. The 1789-1793 Congress unconstitutionally imposed factional-American Protestantism as an official tradition. The U.S. Supreme Court erroneously codified merely ceremonial prayer in Greece v Galloway (2014), rendering legislative prayer unworthy speech. Yet they told me I am niggling to object to their folly. The U.S. psychological independence from British colonialism has not yet begun.

Going forward, a better future is achievable by most fellow citizens adopting the agreement for the civic, the civil, and the legal self-discipline that is offered in the U.S. preamble and managing governments so as to constrain Christian principles to private, adult pursuit, allowing unrestricted collaboration to discover civic integrity.

Once the people of the U.S. end Christian dominance, the First Amendment may be revised to protect the development of integrity rather than establish the un-disestablish-able freedom of religion.

https://www.quora.com/Who-needs-to-lead-the-effort-for-society-to-act-for-the-common-good?

I know of no society that would follow the lead to the common good and do not think one ever existed.

Furthermore, a common good cannot be discovered by a society. Societies form out of common wants, and a society that wants mutual, comprehensive safety and security is not possible. Societies are comprised of some members who demand civic integrity and other members who accept infidelities, especially lying.

Therefore, the individual who wants civic integrity must lead. Call her or him a civic citizen. A majority of civic citizens, say 2/3 of fellow citizens collaborating for statutory justice, could establish a culture with comprehensive safety and security.

The consequence could be a culture that collaborates for individual happiness with civic integrity. Therein, civic citizens continually discover statutory justice and authorize law enforcement so as to constrain dissidents. Often, dissidents, perceiving the opportunity for personal happiness, become attracted to comprehensive safety and security and reform. Thereby, the population gradually approaches a totalitarian civic nation. However, because physics (the object of discovery) is not perfect, there may always be master dissidents and the continual discovery of statutory justice may never end.

Every human being has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (IPEA) to either develop integrity or invite infidelity to the-objective-truth. Integrity is a practice that leads to fidelity to the-objective-truth. The choice to develop infidelity does not lessen IPEA, so some individuals develop, for example, master criminality. As long as the consequences due to the individual go unassociated, the criminal flourishes.

The preamble to the U.S. Constitution tacitly offers a civic culture. Each individual who chooses to trust-in and commit-to the civic, civil, and legal agreement that is offered in the U.S. preamble helps establish an achievable future with the possibility for individual happiness with civic integrity.

If a common good is ever achieved, it will be because the majority of individuals chose individual happiness with civic integrity and made it happen.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/classicalsociologicaltheory/?multi_permalinks=2164587623868119&comment_id=2164797530513795&notif_id=1543133395594321&notif_t=feedback_reaction_generic 

(continuation from last week)

To  Kah Hoe Cheng:

“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.

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.