"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: “Willing citizens collaborate, communicate, and connect to provide 5 public institutions—integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity—so as to encourage responsible human liberty to living people.” I want to collaborate with the other citizens on this paraphrase and theirs yet 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. Equity 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
I commend the 2020 Louisiana Legislature to restore Louisiana’s 9:3 criminal jury verdicts
The Louisiana State Bar Association issued a resolution for the 2018 Louisiana Legislature to replace Louisiana’s 10:2 criminal jury verdicts with 12:0, unanimous verdicts. Unable to attain the required 2/3 votes in both chambers, the Legislature devised a popular vote promoted on the idea that if a citizen was accused of a crime they’d want a unanimous jury. It’s a false argument, because civic fellow citizens have little chance of being accused of crime but some chance of being the victim of crime. Furthermore, the entity We the People of the United States is the chief victim of crime.
The U.S. Amendment XIV.1 tyranny the Louisiana Legislature devised is becoming clear as thousands of past convictions are likely to be contested. Once again, emotional legislation produces unintended bad consequences.
In this case, surprising as the-objective-truth may be, Louisiana’s 1880 establishment of 9:3 criminal jury verdicts was brilliant, both from statistical theory and from trial experience. For example, England changed to 10:2 criminal verdicts instead of unanimity in 1967 to lessen organized crime’s influence on trial results.
News
The Advocate’s Pulitzer Prize predicated on lies (Joe Gyan Jr.) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/courts/article_6888a524-1616-11ea-8486-b31ba4e16188.html)
The print caption is “Case on hold as justices ponder split verdicts” and the online caption is “If Louisiana's old split jury verdict law falls, so could convictions like Jimeelah Crockett's.” In the article The Advocate brags about its part in the tip of a glacier more than iceberg of windfall to the Louisiana State Bar Association members (all judges and lawyers in the state).
I understand as many as 37,000 prior convictions might be challenged under direction of Louisiana judges, the most egregious tyrants in this sad injustice.
The Advocate continually associates Louisiana’s 1880 legislation enacting 9:3 criminal jury verdicts with its 1898 constitutional convention and some legislators’ inflammatory racial statements then. A Louisiana treasure in jury impartiality is thus 139 years old but in its 1st year of termination by unconstitutional popular vote. U.S. Amendment XIV.1 starts “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” We the People of the United States who live in Louisiana had a criminal-jury-verdict law that provided impartiality according to U.S. Amendments VI and XIV.
Furthermore, Louisiana, with its French-colonial background, is the only state to voluntarily fulfill U.S. Amendment VI requirement that states provide impartial juries. Unlike states with variations on controversial colonial-British traditions, Louisiana’s 1812 statehood did not forego French influence. And no member of the Confederate States of America mimicked Louisiana’s 9:3 jury verdicts.
The 1880 Louisiana act may be read at https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=iau.31858018319800&view=image&seq=147. Scroll down to No. 116 to amend Article 527 of the Code of Practice to: “After the reading of the verdict he shall ask the jury if the verdict has been agreed to; [any juror may require asking] and if it appears that nine or more of the jurors have agreed to the verdict, the same shall be recorded.”
It is well known that non-unanimous juries favor justice. Most former British possessions and England itself have adopted 10:2 criminal jury verdicts in order to lessen organized crime’s influence on jury trials. The chief victim of trial-injustice is the civic citizens who fund the justice system. In the USA, civic citizens comprise the entity We the People of the United States who accept the U.S. Preamble’s proposition to establish 5 public disciplines so as to encourage responsible human liberty to living citizens.
The statistics favoring non-unanimous jury verdicts is well known, and we may expect the USA to follow England’s 1967 change to 10:2 verdicts, or better Louisiana’s 1880 change to 9:3 verdicts.
As The Advocate continues to express pride in the damage they did in contributing to an unconstitutional proposal for popular referendum, they might begin to dribble out confessions of truths that were obvious to many people when The Advocate promoted Amendment XIV.1 tyranny.
The “justices” referred to in The Advocate’s print caption are the members of the U.S. Supreme Court. Perhaps they will indicate that Congress should enact non-unanimous jury verdicts in the USA.
Meanwhile, I want relief from the Louisiana Legislature's tyranny and commend them to take action in the 2020 session to undo their U.S. Amendment XIV.1 offense against the entity We the People of the United States as defined in the U.S. Preamble.
Also, the 2020 Louisiana Legislature could start amending Louisiana's free expression provision so as to hold the press responsible when they harm We the People of the United States.
The Vatican seems diverging from Washington in appreciating whatever-God-is (Nicole Winfield versus Andrew L. Seidel) (https://thebrunswicknews.com/ap/international/pope-denounces-rigidity-as-he-warns-of-christian-decline/article_a2ae1a7c-bd1e-59ba-82f0-b41dc6cdea25.htm and https://rewire.news/religion-dispatches/2019/08/28/the-religious-motto-that-isnt-religious-how-in-god-we-trust-remains-constitutional-part-2/)
Pope Francis could easily avoid civic nonsense like “Tradition is . . . dynamic” and his “emphasis on mercy” by admitting to himself the need for separation of state from church. Responsible human liberty is advantageous for all living citizens and salvation of the soul is hope for chosen believers. To open his forum to civic citizens and express personal humility, the Pope could refer to whatever controls the unfolding of the universe(s) as “whatever-God-is.”
The Pope and all theists might find themselves more aware of responsible human liberty as well as the omniscience and omnipotence of whatever-God-is. Maybe “In God We Trust” should be civically retired for “Human Equity Under Statutory Justice.” I have little interest in the Vatican except insofar as it imposes its errors on the USA.
An invitation to civic integrity is offered in the U.S. Preamble’s people’s proposition. Each individual may interpret the U.S. Preamble’s words so as to order his or her behavior. My interpretation for me is: We the People of the United States consider, communicate, collaborate, and connect to establish and develop 5 public disciplines in order to encourage fellow citizens to behave in responsible human liberty to the continuum of living people. Perhaps the standard for performance is the quality and quantity of responsible liberty being practiced as the people expand statutory justice. The five disciplines are integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity. Responsible human liberty develops individual happiness with civic integrity.
Perhaps the USA is at a civic low point with potential for an achievable better future under an agreement for responsible human liberty like the U.S. Preamble under the-literal-truth, which may require most humans to accept humility toward whatever-God-is.
Posted on the Brunswick news URL. Also, at https://www.yourvalley.net/stories/pope-denounces-rigidity-as-he-warns-of-christian-decline,124599 and at https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/world/2019/12/21/pope-denounces-rigidity-christian-decline/40868623/.
Columns
Distraction from a vital investigation (Lanny Keller) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/lanny_keller/article_6d55224e-22af-11ea-87be-8fb312c37a2c.html)
Keller seems writing for the irresponsible press when he neglects the interesting criminal probe into past federal officials who may face responsibility for abuse of We the People of the United States. See https://www.joplinglobe.com/.../article_ff6b934a-a06e....
Louisiana recognizes that draining the swamp is resisted by the people in the swamp, who seem more than anxious to express bias toward social democracy rather than the rule of law.
We the People of the United States encourage responsible human liberty and therefore need to constrain "freedom of the press." For example, if a writer for the press cannot show what he or she has done to advance the U.S. Preamble's proposition, he or she may not claim the title "reporter" much less "writer." Writers who record the path toward statutory justice under the U.S. Preamble's proposition's quest for the-literal-truth may qualify as "journalists."
For that matter, We the People of the United States, by accepting the U.S. Preamble's proposition, can prevent politicians who oppose the U.S. Preamble from being elected to office.
Misleading language (Mark Ballard) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/mark_ballard/article_b421c004-2351-11ea-be76-635361891922.html)
Irresponsible writers for the press give little thought to the words they choose to promote their hopes yet record unreliability. In this case, Ballard uses Louisiana’s executions-stall to segue to the death penalty “up in the air.” (It prompts the image of hanging.)
Ballard’s possible bias seems innocent enough, but parallels with recent attention to that most rebellious U.S. citizen, Sister Prejean, who could preach improvement of the defense of murder victims. And he sites Senator Claitor’s late public allegiance to the foreign power at the Vatican. Governor Edwards expresses the same arrogance against We the People of the United States as defined in the U.S. Preamble.
This is a pivotal time in American history. Citizens who consider themselves traditionalists may review the negative habits they try to preserve. For example, freedom of religionists think nothing of claiming they know God and have the authority to impose it on fellow citizens. Meanwhile, most citizens admit to themselves that they are humble to whatever-God-is and would never attempt to impose their God on whatever-God-is. Some fellow citizens would welcome amendment of the First Amendment so as to protect human integrity, a public duty, rather than religion, a private pursuit.
Despite the Vatican’s God, it seems clear that whatever-God-is assigned human justice to humankind and holds living citizens accountable for injustice. In other words, humankind has the energy, power, and authority to establish and maintain statutory law and its enforcement. Fellow citizens who claim their personal God is in control defy not only the preamble to the U.S. Constitution, which proposes responsible human liberty, but may also be rebuking whatever-God-is.
Public discourse about whatever-God-is offers inclusiveness, understanding, integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity. The proposal to pledge allegiance “under whatever-God-is” makes it clear that allegiance to the flag invokes civic integrity rather than spiritual hopes. The motto “In Whatever-God-is We Trust” seems an attempt to impose what nobody knows to bemuse the integrity everyone needs.
This is a time for every citizen to consider the U.S. Preamble, interpret it so as to support his or her pursuit of individual happiness with civic integrity, and practice their interpretation as he or she works to improve it. It seems to me the people most in need of a personal interpretation of the U.S. Preamble are politicians, appointed public officials, and writers for the press. If there is a living journalist, I want to learn from his or her interpretation of the U.S. Preamble.
Misleading language (Walter Williams) (https://patriotpost.us/opinion/67410-corrupting-our-social-norms-2019-12-18)
Much as I like Walter Williams' opinions, his word choices are constrained by erroneous, scholarly propriety.
The problem is that in the world of scholars, honestly neglecting integrity is, unfortunately, an accepted practice. Scholars use the propriety of past thinkers to justify maintenance of erroneous influence. Williams, wonderfully, does not reference “the founding fathers” or “Western thought.”
Integrity is the practice of doing the work to discover whether a heartfelt concern is either 1) actual-reality verified by ineluctable evidence or 2) imagination. People of integrity follow the discovery with the work to learn how to benefit; personally behave for the benefit; publicly share the understanding so gained; remaining open minded to constructive public comments; amending behavior according to improved understanding; and remaining alert for new instruments that improve public understanding. The awareness that many people honestly neglect integrity prompts the opportunity to improve more than reprove. On this principle, I do not berate myself.
Just a few examples will illustrate the principle. The standard of human performance is conformity to physics and its progeny, the objects of discovery. By default, actual-reality that has not been discovered is subject to imagination. Religion is human pursuit of hopes and comforts that individuals imagine regardless of un-discovered physics. Physics’ standards do not respond to religion. The laws of physics hold regardless of religious beliefs, so religion often begs woe. Gender is determined by physics. To assert that physics can be changed by personal opinion is a choice. The choice is to risk woe regardless of physics’ facts.
The people who encourage humans to believe they can use technology to overcome physics my invite justice they won't like.
Posted at the above URL and at https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/walter-e-williams/corrupting-our-social-norms and at http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams121819.php3.
To Joe: Joe, my comments flowed from extensive concerns I express daily. Perhaps if you share the one phrase you'd like to understand or most oppose I could write more about it and would be glad to. Phil
Making money by honestly expressing absence of civic integrity (E.J. Dionne) (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/impeaching-trump-is-just-the-end-of-the-beginning/2019/12/18/3abd7090-21d1-11ea-bed5-880264cc91a9_story.html#comments-wrapper)
My irresponsible free-press carried the caption “The House taking a stand for truth,” instead of “Impeaching Trump is just the end of the beginning.” It seems evident that Dionne, in his seventh decade, has neither honestly considered integrity nor attempted to discipline his truth to the-objective-truth. Ineluctable evidence, through instruments of improved perception, gradually discovers the-literal-truth.
Fortunately for my person, in my late eighth decade, I pursue integrity and the-literal-truth. I adopted those intentions when I considered, developed, and accepted my interpretation of an American dream---widespread practice of the civic, civil, and legal proposition that is offered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution (the U.S. Preamble).
The U.S. Preamble proposes a culture of responsible human liberty for citizens who want national integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity instead of infidelities to living people.
Quora
https://www.quora.com/How-would-you-describe-social-justice?
First, I don’t like the word “social” because it connotes civilization under some doctrine. Today, an American society has evolved from factional-American Protestantism to more diverse Protestantism to Judeo-Christianity with developing civil Judeo-Catholicism opposed by African-American Christianity. In these experiences, social justice conforms to a theistic pretense, since nobody knows whatever-God-is.
I choose to describe civic justice. Civic justice is practiced by a human culture whose majority neither initiates nor tolerates harm to or from any person or institution. The practitioners are “civic citizens” and the other fellow citizens are dissidents and either aliens or traitors to statutory justice. Dissidents and aliens are encouraged to reform and may be constrained, and traitors are either deported or executed. Statutory law is gradually amended to reform discovered injustice so as to approach perfect law and its enforcement.
Civic justice is delivered by statutory law and its enforcement based on the-objective-truth, which is the ineluctable evidence on which justice and truth are measured. As instruments for perception are refined, the-objective-truth approaches the-literal-truth.
Civic justice is responsible human liberty based on the-objective-truth if not the-literal-truth.
https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-examples-of-hypocrisy-taking-place-in-modern-American-society?
Two related hypocrisies are of immediate concern and have been ever since the ratification of the U.S. Preamble and the articles that specify the USA as a global nation, codified on June 21, 1788 and yet to be effected.
First, there’s common reference to “we, the people” by people who could not care less about the entity We the People of the United States as defined by the U.S. Preamble. Every living citizen should develop a personal interpretation of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition so as to develop responsible human liberty.
Second the pretense by some theist’s that their personal or institutional God conforms to whatever-God-is. That pretense misleads believers to ignore the ineluctable evidence that whatever-God-is assigned to humankind the responsibility to develop statutory human justice.
Careful consideration of the U.S. Preamble reveals a citizen’s agreement to 5 public disciplines to encourage responsible human liberty to living people. Neither religion, race, nor ethnicity is among the public disciplines, so they are protected by individual privacy. Remarkably, no standards for performance are specified, which implies that future We the People of the United States has the freedom to approach statutory justice---develop perfect rules of law.
It is past time for We the People of the United States to accept and practice the U.S. Preamble’s proposition.
https://www.quora.com/How-should-scholars-conceptualize-and-measure-representation-government-performance-material-well-being-societal-development-culture-identity-accountability-and-so-on
The U.S. Preamble proposes 5 public disciplines in order to encourage responsible human liberty to living citizens. For the proposal to broadly succeed, individual citizens accept and practice the Preamble’s proposition so as to develop civic integrity. As the number of individual citizens who accept and practice the proposition increases, the collective fidelity to responsible human liberty increases in both quantity and in quality. Thus, measuring the collective, responsible human liberty in the USA would allow We the People of the United States to develop statutory justice.
Law professors
https://www.lawliberty.org/2019/03/01/the-relevance-of-the-preamble-to-constitutional-interpretation/#comment-1795265 (March 2019)
To Dan Schoonover:
Schoonover’s comment in its thread invokes several thoughts.
First, Schoonover is kind to be specific in “Founding Father, John Marshall.” Referring to the Wikipedia article, “Marshall favored the ratification of the United States Constitution, and he played a major role in Virginia's” union with the USA, established June 21, 1788. He became the 4th Chief Justice, serving from 1801 until 1835. Respecting the literal U.S. Preamble, Marshall is just another opinionated scholar, complete with errors.
Five republican oligarchs, the Committee of Style, created the U.S. Preamble’s proposition during September 8-12, 1787, and 39 of 55 delegates to the Philadelphia constitutional convention signed the 1787 U.S. Constitution on September 17. Civic, civil, and legal opinions before and after 9 states ratified the U.S. Constitution (perhaps 4 of 9 on James Madison’s promise to run for Congress and negotiate a British-like Bill of Rights). Federalist 84 opposed the Bill of Rights as contrary to the U.S. Preamble.
In the instance of “beware of ‘opinions which confound liberty with an exemption from legal control’” Marshall did not specify the legal standard. Hopefully, he thought beyond the amendable Constitution. However, the U.S. Preamble infers that human liberty “to ourselves and our Posterity” is the standard of national achievement. In other words, the future width and depth of responsible human liberty judges the ultimate attainment of the U.S. Preamble. I can’t explain how they performed such a political feat, but I assert that the 5-member Committee of Style accomplished that amazing inference.
Most politicians, the Bill of Rights, and the clergy want us to think whatever-God-is provides legal control. However, it seems evident that whatever-God-is assigns to civic citizens the responsibility to develop statutory justice. The 5 republican oligarchs captured that possibility in the U.S. Preamble by leaving religion, gender, race, and ethnicity as private considerations rather than public standards.
Second, as presented by the U.S. Preamble, freedom rather than liberty is subject to legal control. The 5 republican oligarchs used grammar to specify 5 public disciplines for freedom to encourage 1 human acceptance: responsible liberty.
In my interpretation, We the People of the United States consider, communicate, collaborate, and connect to establish and maintain 5 public disciplines by which to encourage responsible human liberty to the continuum of living citizens. Since “founding fathers” are not living citizens, we owe them nothing beyond comprehending and avoiding their errors. However, responsible human liberty is my duty to We the People of the United States, the civic citizens who accept the U.S. Preamble’s proposition. Dissidents invite subjugation to the law or loss of freedom but do not forfeit the human liberty to reform.
The 5 public disciplines I try to live by are integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity. If I am unfaithful to these disciplines, I expect subjugation to the law. Otherwise, I expect freedom from external oppression and work hard to develop and maintain freedom-from internal oppressions, especially fear.
I write daily to share my interpretation of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition, not to express the opinions of the 5 republican oligarchs, but to encourage living citizens to interpret the U.S. Preamble and suggest ways I may improve my interpretation. It won’t be easy, because my interpretation already has the benefit of 6-years’ public library meetings with constructive comments from over 70 participants plus my 2-decade study of the 52 word sentence. Yet, I change often. I don’t know the 5 republican oligarchs’ thoughts, but their words, “ourselves and our Posterity” require me to pursue civic integrity.
Third, what kept the 5 republican oligarchs from specifying whatever-God-is as the source of standards for acceptance? I don’t know.
Perhaps one convinced the other 4 that the American experience taught the world that responsible human liberty requires freedom-from oppression so that the individual may accept and develop the liberty-to practice integrity. In other words, the 5 accepted that religious doctrine is developed by human culture and therefore not reliable as the basis of statutory justice. The American experience was that the few people who came here seeking freedom from religious oppression established repressive religions according to their preferences. Some people came here and accepted responsible human liberty.
Over 230 years later, living citizens may observe that physics and its progeny---cosmic chemistry, mathematics, organic chemistry, biology, psychology, fiction, speculation, beliefs, cultures---exist and may be discovered and developed by human individuals. Physics, the object rather than the study, seems to control the unfolding of the universe(s) and human events can only augment the direction of the mass and energy interchange. Physics does not respond to reason or any other human construct.
Discovery of the-objective-truth by studying the ineluctable facts with ever improving instruments gradually approaches the-literal-truth. The 5 republican oligarchs might have referred to this approach as “nature” and less powerful than reason. They cannot be held responsible for discovery after their time.
Fourth, why did people like John Marshall slight the civic, civil, and legal power of the U.S. Preamble? I assert that the 5 republican oligarchs did not persuade the people that the proposition was neutral to religion so as to encourage responsible human liberty. Moreover, the First Congress felt compelled to establish a church-state partnership and followed James Madison’s influence to codify “freedom of religion” instead of freedom to develop both individual integrity and corporate integrity. Furthermore, congressmen wanted to establish “divinity” on par with Parliament’s constitutional partnership with Canterbury. I speculate that Madison and others knew they were establishing Chapter XI Machiavellianism. John Marshall may have accepted the erroneous characterization of the U.S. Preamble as “secular” whereas it assigns religion to privacy as responsible human liberty.
Fifth, it does living citizens no good to debate the opinions of dead thinkers. They could not imagine living in the USA in 2020. And they have no stake in the 5 public disciplines to encourage responsible human liberty to living citizens. On the other hand, the abandoned duty of the press is to journal the mistakes of the past so that the living citizens do not repeat them.
For readers who prefer dead horses, let them continue the proprieties that pay their bills.
Meanwhile, let’s civic citizens bring into urgent public responsibility We the People of the United States as proposed in the U.S. Preamble. Unbelievable as the importance of We the People of the United States may be, public awareness and intentions could accelerate overnight. Progress could be observed as presidential politicians establish what they have done for responsible human liberty under the U.S. Preamble in the 2020 campaign.
To John Schmeeckle:
I like your assessment and wonder if it is earned opinion or scholarly citation.
I doubt your assessment can be supported by reference to either John Locke or James Madison. Maybe David Hume but not Adam Smith. Possibly George Washington, but I doubt it. Most Western thought is tethered to speculation about the mystery of whatever-God-is or may be and perhaps misguided objections to public imposition of the question. For example, Leibniz’s “why” question—why isn’t there nothing?—assumes there is a why, which may not be so. Three hundred years ago, they could not write plainly about physics (the object of study rather than the study) or evolution, and some speculated that reason was more powerful than “nature,” their substitute for physics and its progeny.
I understand Thomas Paine could not accept his own integrity so wound up an alcoholically ruined man. I understand Albert Einstein did not accept his mathematical brilliance so introduced a fudge factor into his model of the universe. His math informed him the universe is dynamic and he insisted that it was static for a decade, calling dynamic theorists “religious.” What if each human newborn was taught the he or she has the power, energy, and authority to develop integrity rather than drift into infidelity for the sake of human appetites and that it takes 2 to 3 decades of intentional acquisition of human knowledge for a human being to establish the intent and discipline to live a complete human life? How extensively and intensively might human achievement be amplified and accelerated?
Please tell us more about liberty meaning freedom from both internal constraints and external forces before the U.S. Preamble was written.
To Standing Fast:
Mr. Fast, was Paul arbitrary if he freed himself from Exodus 20:7? Was he mistaken to encourage others to take such liberty?
Here are Paul's statements followed by the Exodus quote, all CJB:
Now, "ADONAI" in this text means the Spirit. And where the Spirit of ADONAI is, there is freedom.
What the Messiah has freed us for is freedom! Therefore, stand firm, and don’t let yourselves be tied up again to a yoke of slavery.
You are not to use lightly the name of Adonai your God, because Adonai will not leave unpunished someone who uses his name lightly.
What civic integrity can be gained by imposing the mystery of Adonai onto political discourse? What's weak about human humility toward whatever-God-is? What's strong about trying to impose God on whatever-God-is?
https://www.lawliberty.org/2019/12/23/please-wish-me-a-merry-christmas/
Weiner wrote, “In a diverse world, to say, “I believe this,” or at least to do so with conviction, is also to declare, “I do not believe that.” Let’s try this worldliness on a couple American principles.
I understand the Greeks suggested humans may establish equity under statutory justice. I think that refutes “Equal justice under law,” since law often needs amendment.
Does “In God We Trust” defy whatever-God-is?
Does anyone’s personal God defy whatever-God-is?
Can “Merry Christmas” or “Happy Holidays” negate “greetings”? I look gentile; why should I learn how to respond to “L’shanah Tovah”? Is “greetings” insufficient in Jewish neighborhoods?
I am a member of We the People of the United States as defined in the U.S. Preamble. I consider, collaborate, communicate, and connect for 5 public disciplines---integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity---so as to encourage responsible human liberty to living citizens. As such, I consider it my duty to appreciate the cultural differences among civic fellow citizens and not pretend to know their ethnic practices, religious or not.
For example, I have never attended communion, because I do not believe in transubstantiation. I was reared Protestant. I worshiped as a Protestant in Catholic Churches for 2 decades before learning transubstantiation. I thought "Christian" meant "Christian" but attest to a myriad of doctrinal differences.
A Protestant coach told my son he would burn in hell because he was Catholic. My son told me he hated to face that coach, and I told him to pray for the coach.
I do not object to Weiner’s plea, but doubt he sincerely wants me to learn Hebrew so as to say “Hello” if I am in his neighborhood. I hope Weiner has a personal interpretation of the U.S. Preamble’s people’s proposition so that I could learn from him how to be a better member of We the People of the United States. However, I expect neutral greetings from fellow citizens I have not met. If not, I will not understand "hello".
Second Post: I thought of more tests of "I believe" as "I don't believe":
Does "season's greetings" negate "greetings"?
Does belief in church doctrine prevent acceptance of the-literal-truth?
Does the characterization "secular" prevent consideration, let alone acceptance, of the U.S. Preamble's neutrality to religion?
Is ridiculing "the horse Phil Beaver rides" more beneficial to citizens than considering the U.S. Preamble's proposition and developing a personal interpretation for living in the USA?
https://www.lawliberty.org/2019/12/24/a-christmas-card-scene-encompassing-the-world/#comment-1794909 (from 2015)
Thank you, Bill78749, for refreshing my appreciation of and for this paining. Your comments suggest that the church is a ruinous imposition onto actual-reality. Your comments connect RWE's "Divinity School Address," 1838.
Emerson wrote about Jesus "One man was true to what is in you and me. He saw that God incarnates himself in man, and evermore goes forth anew to take possession of his world. He said, in this jubilee of sublime emotion, 'I am divine. Through me, God acts, through me, speaks. Would you see God, see me; or, see thee, when thou also thinkest as I now think.'"
And ". . . churches are not built on his principles, but on his tropes. Christianity became a Mythus, as the poetic teaching of Greece and of Egypt, before. He spoke of miracles; for he felt that man's life was a miracle, and all that man doth, and he knew that this daily miracle shines, as the man is diviner. But the very word Miracle, as pronounced by Christian churches, gives a false impression, it is Monster."
From these observations and experiences I suggest that every human has the individual energy, power, and authority (HIPEA) to develop integrity to the-literal-truth rather than infidelity.
To Guttenburgs Press and Brewery: GP&B brought me back to discover my typo “paining” instead of “painting.” Sorry about that yet I find it ironic.
People are pained not by my attention to the U.S. Preamble’s proposition, but by its message: five public disciplines can empower responsible human liberty. It’s akin to equity under statutory justice, a noble goal.
I accept my interpretation of the U.S. Preamble and am glad I have one. Many fellow citizens have not discovered “ourselves and our Posterity.”
Also, for readers other than misleading Guttenburgs Press and Brewery, Emerson wrote “Christianity became a Mythus.”
To BrianB: I like your “true spirit” point and the fun you had with a silly post. Harvard banned Emerson for 30 years following Divinity School Address.
Speaking of spirit, years ago I published an answer to the Santa myth some parents impose on their children. My Christian friends liked my essay, and it is accessible at Google Chrome search ""santa" means goodwill toward everyone." I also think it’s erroneous to teach children to think the sun’ll come out tomorrow when it is as easy to say the earth’s rotation will un-hide the sun tomorrow.
Some Christians, unaware of John 15:18-23, practice civic integrity with non-Christian fellow citizens. They share the people’s proposition offered in the U.S. Preamble. It exclude religion from the 5 civic disciplines, perhaps leaving spiritualism as a private, adult pursuit according to responsible human liberty. These American principles are un-British, and that may be the challenge: freedom from colonial-British psychology.
Other Christians hate non-believers even though they have not read John 15. I am not among the elect and reject John’s hate. There’s no excuse for “scripture” of hate. I doubt John represented Jesus and think John rebuked whatever-God-is.
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.
