Christianity may consider civic integrity at last

Phil Beaver seeks to collaborate on the-objective-truth, which can only be discovered. The comment box below invites readers to write.

"Civic" refers to citizens who collaborate for individual happiness with civic integrity more than for the city, state, nation, or society.

Consider writing a personal paraphrase of the preamble, which offers fellow citizens mutual equality:  For discussion, I convert the preamble’s predicate phrases to nouns and paraphrase it for my proposal as follows: “We 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.A’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. 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

Christianity may consider civic integrity at last.

The Covington incident was a case of the Catholic Church using a 16-year-old boy to demonstrate for an adult issue. However, the boy, Nick Sandmann, 1) initially smiled and offered ears to an adult, aggressive activist who approached the boy in an incendiary situation, 2) endured about ten minutes of drum beating in his right ear, 3) changed his facial expression from smiling to concern, and 4) turned and walked away. The world has not yet awoken to the lessons Nick Sandmann delivered.

The aggressive redskins, the vile blacks, and the Catholic Church ought to reform. The media ought to move to an island on mars.

What is African-American Christianity? Does it promote trust-in and commitment-to the preamble to the U.S. Constitution?

News

Lakota People’s Law Project proposes that a man’s Alinsky-Marxist behavior toward a boy justifies a meeting with the pope (Jack Jenkins, RNS) (https://religionnews.com/2019/01/22/native-american-man-from-viral-video-offers-to-meet-with-catholic-students-leaders/)

Jack Jenkins expresses either eternal youth, ignorance, or leftist leanings in this report of an Omaha-Nation elder invading the space of high school students being taunted by another AMO (Alinsky-Marxist organized) group present for their typically violent Bible-thumping. The Bible thumpers mocked the elder as an erroneous god, "Gad."

It was an amazing clash of black victims, indigenous victims, Catholic Church victims, and civic integrity expressed by Sanmann. It takes more journalism than the media possesses to perceive it that way. History’s journal knows 1) slavery, 2) the Catholic doctrine of discovery and “authorization” of African-slave trade, 3) the British Empire’s political influences including prolific Atlantic slave trade, and 4) the opportunity for individual happiness with civic integrity that is offered in the civic, civil, and legal agreement that is available to fellow citizens in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution.

It’s a piecemeal story; see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=da1Wy4O2shc for one view of an event that the media despicably distorted. It is not easy to discover that after ten minutes, previously smiling Nick Sandmann grew tired of the drum beat in his ear, motioned to a friend, and eased away from the drum beating AMO activist; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzJU1L-1VrE. Every 16-year old who can demonstrate civic integrity as Nick Sandmann did is among my heroes. His greatest act of courage was thinking for himself during ten minutes of mystery and developing the decision to calmly walk away.

There’s an old saw: Give them enough hanging and they’ll rope themselves. It is unimaginable that the media are so determined to demonstrate the saw. President Trump has confronted them for at least three years, and if the media had Sandmann’s wisdom, the media could reform. Alas, the media's days seem numbered, but I don't know what change is coming.

Posted on the above cite.

Covington Catholic High School news (Jarrett Stepman) (https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/01/22/the-covington-fiasco-is-a-perfect-example-of-why-the-founders-distrusted-democracy/)

Jarrett Stepman’s coverage of the Covington Catholic High School event is an example of writers for the media defying a civic people’s collaboration for ultimate justice under law. The freedom to collaborate for statutory justice creates the U.S. dichotomy: fellow citizens both the willing and the dissident. Stepman illustrates the failure of civic integrity in journalism that led to the well-earned label “lying media.” Journalism records the ineluctable human march toward statutory justice, and writers for the media are either clueless or deceivers.

In sequence, Stepman uses traditional, misunderstood phrases for higher political ground he erroneously hopes the reader will accept. He starts with colonial British phrases in order: self-governing society, the Founding Fathers, governing institutions, [controversially Greek] the rule of law, basic freedoms, the American people, and the perfectibility of man. He quotes John Adams, “Individuals have conquered themselves. Nations and large bodies of men, never.” I disagree with Adams: Some individuals discipline themselves. A majority of at least 2/3 could collectively discipline a nation.

Still later, Stepman uses a common U.S. political trick: interweaving references to “the framers” and “the Founders,” typically overlooking the signers. The 55 framers served from May to September, 1787, and 39 of them signed the U.S. preamble and the articles of the U.S. Constitution on September 17, 1787. Rather than founders, an erroneous First Congress enacted the First and Second Amendments on December 15, 1791. I can’t imagine how Stepman constructed the nonsense “Then, knowing . . . only to the people . . . put guardrails on the people.” The actors in the U.S. preamble are the civic people, We the People of the United States, rather than the Congress or "Founders."

Finally, Stepman attempts to impose his god on the reader citing first “the fallen nature of man” and second Stepman-rights according to his god, which Stepman would impose on fellow citizens. Anytime anyone invokes God to beg political power or influence, he or she has individually denied personal pursuit of civic integrity. The ideas he or she expresses cannot be appreciated as collaboration.

No one wants to collaborate about their god or none. A person’s god or none is a private pursuit. I do not care to consider Stepman's god for evaluation, let alone effect the judgement.

Stepman seems supportive of Trump. I voted for Trump/Pence twice and am on deck to vote for them two more times. However, I never wanted America great again. I want America to become great by accepting the power, the energy, and the authority of the ultimate We the People of the United States.

An achievable better future is possible if 2/3 or more fellow citizens adopt the U.S. preamble---to order the civic, civil, and legal purpose and goals---and collaborate to discover the-objective-truth by which to pursue statutory justice rather than dominant opinion. Impossible as perfection may be, it is the worthy goal.

Columns

On deck for my 3^rd and 4^th votes for Trump/Pence (Rich Lowry) (https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2019/01/19/rich-lowry-trump-is/)

I thought President Trump made a good decision to not insist on a state of the union address when uninvited by the House of Representatives’ majority. Lowry’s column increases my hope that I will actually have the opportunities to vote Trump/Pence the 3^rd and 4^th times. Mind you, I never wanted MAGA. I think America’s promise was alive from June 21, 1788 until March 4, 1789 when the First Congress set it aside. It’s been that way ever since. Without pursuing the promise, greatness cannot be expected.

On June 21, 1788, nine states ratified the U.S. preamble and the articles that follow its agreement. They established a Union of people in their states that legally ended the confederation of states declared in 1774. This event had been made possible by the 39 of 55 delegates from 12 of 13 states who signed the 1787 U.S. Constitution. However, on March 4, 1789, the First Congress, with representatives from only eleven states, began operating like adolescent parents who know no better than to squabble over the four child-rearing ideas they inherited from four families.

The Congress neither trusted-in nor committed-to the civic, civil, and legal agreement that is freely offered to fellow citizens in the U.S. preamble. The First Congress negotiated re-establishment of American-modified Blackstone law with American-factional-Protestantism as surrogate for Canterbury in a legislative partnership that made congressmen feel divine.

American “freedom from religion” has progressed from Protestant theism in a divergent path to Jude-Catholicism. Consider the nine justices who makeup the U.S. Supreme Court. As a person who is committed to the-objective-truth rather than my god, I am in the major majority of non-theists. Perhaps our faction numbers ¼ of fellow citizens or 82 million Americans and growing.

For America to become great, a majority of fellow citizens, perhaps 2/3, may choose to collaborate for statutory justice that is civically ordered according to the purpose and goals offered in the U.S. preamble. It holds pursuit of religion or spiritualism as a private choice by adult fellow citizens.

Statutory justice is perfection, perhaps unattainable yet a necessary and worthy commitment. The fellow citizens who think crime pays need statutory law and enforcement with civic citizens who by example may motivate reform.

Criminals are too psychologically powerful to yield to arbitrary opinion, and they reject equal justice under written law. Statutory justice is measured by the-objective-truth, which can only be discovered rather than constructed by reason, mystery, or any other human coercion/force. Ultimate justice comes from civic, civil, and legal people rather than their governments or gods.

I thought he said it in his first inaugural address and hope at some time President Trump will publicize his intentions to make America great at last. He’ll need most fellow citizens to either perceive or consider a vision of individual discipline by which the nation manages its governments---local, state, and federal.

Posted on the site per the above URL.

Quora
 

https://www.quora.com/unanswered/Why-do-many-people-assume-society-is-the-ultimately-just-moral-or-civilized-faction-of-humankind

Anonymous:  https://www.quora.com/anonymous/a968ad23081947d9b3f98f9dd7369545

 
Why do many people assume "society" is the ultimately just, moral, or civilized faction of humankind?

To Vejay Raj:  The question is distinguished by “humankind” and “the . . . faction.” Also, it does not stipulate the majority. The just, moral or civilized faction may be a minority.

From your perspective, individuals “from a group” to lessen disagreement. But group agreement establishes only group justice, morality, and civilization.

To Vejay Raj again:  In your example, the group agreed to enslave others. Who were just, moral, or civilized: the group or the slaves? And which was the majority: the group or the slaves?

Where do the conclusions for your example leave humankind in a possible quest for ultimate justice? Dependent upon society? What faction of humankind is society?

John S Miller Jr, former Nuclear Operations/Engineering Support

Depends on the society. Some people are just believers in the human capacity for goodness and that is an admirable trait. However, there is no place on earth that fits your standard in the question. Humans are creatures of moral and immoral behavior. There is no perfect place or person alive today nor will there be in the future as we know it. Looking on the bright side has its perks but also the pitfalls of human weakness in all things moral and/or civilized.

To John S Miller Jr:

Might there be an achievable better future if 2/3 or more of fellow citizens in a place like the United States agreed to collaborate for equity under just law, a modification of the phrase that adorns the U.S. Supreme Court building, “Equal justice under law”?

To John S Miller Jr again:

The U.S. is in 50%-plus-one-vote divergent cycling. A super-majority would break the problems—for example, that there will always be people who think crime pays.

I have no problem with “equal” but do not think U.S. law is just.

Accepting your thought, I wonder the consequence of most fellow citizens, say at least 2/3 during the future, collaborating for equality under just law.

https://www.quora.com/What-one-major-change-in-our-society-would-help-most-to-end-the-plutocracy-in-our-society?

I have no idea what you mean by “our society,” but let’s assume you mean fellow citizens of the United States.

Most fellow citizens could read, comprehend, adopt, promote, and practice the civic, civil, and legal agreement that is offered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. After some time, perhaps 2/3 of the inhabitants would perceive that the U.S. preamble offers each individual the free opportunity to collaborate for mutual, comprehensive safety and security during life or not. With widespread example, the 1/3 dissidents to the agreement could be encouraged by a better way of living. Of the dissidents, the faction that believes crime pays might lessen.

With a few years practice, most fellow citizens might imagine that the U.S. preamble ultimately offers the discipline required for individual happiness with civic integrity. With widespread individual discipline, the people would discipline the government.

https://www.quora.com/Will-society-ever-be-able-to-completely-trust-the-media-again?

What is the meaning of “society” in your question?

I have never trusted the media and can’t name a fellow citizen who did.

https://www.quora.com/How-does-individualism-makes-civil-society-stronger?

First, let me object to the oppressive phrase “civil society.” It’s a phrase that purports to speak from a higher ground without the required basis, much like citing god with a capital “G” to express opinion. It attempts the pretense better than humankind. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_society. A couple of examples come to mind: first, the Catholic pope and second the free and irresponsible press.

More importantly, political phrases---“God,” government, and “civil society”---are used by many people to attempt to consign their IPEA. That is, his or her inalienable human opportunity to use their individual power, their individual energy, and their individual authority (IPEA) to develop either infidelity or integrity. Many people admit to IPEA but ignore it so as to nourish existing habits and explore new banal appetites. The pope looks sadly into his mirror and thinks he did it for the Church. A writer for the press looks sadly into the mirror and says, “I did it for journalism.” In either case, IPEA could be used for personal integrity, more importantly civic integrity.

The person who embraces IPEA does not constrict personal, intellectual potential and may become a master criminal until actual harm he or she caused becomes public knowledge. Then, he or she must face statutory law and its enforcement. It is personally advantageous to use IPEA to develop integrity, especially civic integrity---preservation of fellow citizen’s opportunities to develop integrity to the-objective-truth.

The person who commits to integrity discovers and collaborates for the-objective-truth, the basis of statutory justice. Like the-objective-truth, statutory justice can only be discovered and studied so as to understand how to benefit by reforming written law and its enforcement. For example, a civic person never lies, so as to lessen human misery and loss. Statutory justice may not be attainable, yet it is an essential goal.

The human being is so psychologically and physically powerful that he or she will not accept arbitrary, dominant opinion as the basis for statutory justice. Life is so brief, and the individual strains under seeming oppression, so some individuals choose to violently reject injustice, inviting subjugation to statutory law. People who adopt fidelity to the-objective-truth negotiate reform, no matter how difficult the task may seem, rather than use physical or psychological violence.

Societies appeal to the individual to consign IPEA to the association. For example, a religious institution may appeal to fellow citizens to forgo commitment to equity under statutory justice so as to favor the association. The person who commits to his or her society may find himself or herself at odds with the ultimate justice he or she personally perceives. The pope of the Catholic Church maintains the unenviable posture of favoring the wealth institution at the expense of obvious justice before humankind. His “civil society” would appear better than humankind. Fortunately, not all of humankind adopts papal fallacy.

The current or the next papal individual could strengthen humankind by declaring once and for all that the Church will conform to the-objective-truth and collaborate for statutory justice rather than pretend that Catholic Tradition is superior both to the world’s literature and to statutory justice.

Humankind psychologically evolved during perhaps 3 million years. It would be strengthened by the reform from the last 0.01 million years’ cultural developments so as to effect separation of metaphysics from physics, beliefs from the-objective-truth, doctrine from statutory justice, and separation of church from state. One individual, the pope, could effect this improvement of humankind and establishment of his institution as a “civil society,” at last.  

Law professors

https://libertylawsite.staging.wpengine.com/liberty-classic/bringing-natural-law-to-the-nations-vattel-review/

The opinion expressed in “. . . the United States Declaration of Independence . . . unequivocally locates the source of the enumerated rights identified in the document as “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God” and man’s “Creator.”

“Vattel . . .  adhered to a “balance of power” understanding of international relations rather than the type of perpetual peace project advocated by Immanuel Kant in 1795. Hence Vattel sought to delineate principles that self-interested states led by flawed individuals should follow when making political and economic decisions.”

But by what standard do states discover their self-interests and does economics, a progeny of physics, tolerate non-peace by any definition, for example, war? Do economic decisions tolerate political arrogance?

“Hamilton agreed with Hume that it is foolish to ignore human corruptibility when considering how to establish and maintain stable political communities. But reading Vattel’s Law of Nations seems to have helped convince Hamilton of the basic reasonability of core propositions of natural law: that, for instance, there are universal moral truths knowable by reason.”

Universal moral truths is only another vain, proprietary attempt to usurp the-objective-truth, which can only be discovered rather than constructed and does not respond to reason. Justice is judged as fidelity to the-objective-truth, and the scholar who ignores the-objective-truth is erroneously promoting his or her truth. When the-objective-truth has not been discovered, justice requires the posture “I opine but do not know.” For example, I opine that termination of my body, mind, and person will leave nothing beyond appreciation I expressed and my accomplishments: But I do not know that there is no spiritual world.

Alexander Hamilton signed the 1787 U.S. Constitution and was a major influence in its June 21, 1788 ratification, authoring many of the Federalist Papers. In Federalist 84, he asserts that a bill of rights is not needed because of the civic, civil, and legal (I assert) agreement that is stated in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution.

The UN statement of human rights is wrong, unwieldy, and a force for social democracy or socialism. It cannot compare with the freedom-from oppression and liberty-to pursue individual happiness with civic integrity that is offered in the U.S. preamble’s agreement by willing fellow citizens.

https://www.lawliberty.org/2019/01/24/the-woke-and-the-dead-democratic-primary

“The Election of 2016 offered us the spectacle of Republican civil war, one that revealed a huge gap between GOP voters and the party’s leaders.”
 

Why the gap? What if the genes and memes of most fellow citizens adhere to the civic, civil, and legal discipline that is freely offered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution (hereafter U.S. preamble)? By freely offered I mean offered without coercion. That is, the individual may reject the agreement, for example, believe that crime pays.

And what if most elected and appointed officials err---hold themselves above fellow citizenship? Officials forgetting they are fellow citizens creates a gap that begs woe and classes such officials among the criminals---other dissidents to the U.S preamble’s agreement.

Political jargon increases gaps that fellow citizens who focus on responsible individual behavior but passive civic integrity cannot explain or articulate---jargon like party elite, left, party’s soul, liberal, universal equality, progressive policy, white privilege, social justice, identity, voters, revolution, post-liberal, fairness (Rawls), social welfare, social order, and inequality. “Cosmic justice” is over my head. Social justice threatens statutory justice, which seems a tacit goal of the U.S. preamble’s agreement.

The U.S. preamble orders civic justice by specific purpose and goals manifested by current families working to assure that the parents’ grandchildren and beyond (our Posterity) may enter an achievable better future. “Social justice” has saddled posterity with $22 trillion developing debt. Written law and its enforcement are continually reviewed to discover and reform injustices. The worthy goal is statutory justice—that is, written law that has no injustice---unachievable as perfection may be.

It seems President Trump seems aware that ultimate justice comes only from a civic, civil, and legal people (perhaps learning the suggestion from Abraham Lincoln’s first inaugural address). Regardless of appearances, We the People of the United States---those who collaborate for justice using the U.S. preamble’s agreement---perceived candidate Trump intended to accelerate the journey toward statutory justice. He constantly behaves under the U.S. Constitution, which, by purpose and goals ultimately serves the U.S. preamble.

President Trump often confuses me. However, I do not doubt him. He did not make the GOP contenders he defeated weak; they were weak. He did not make fake writers fake; they are fake. He did not make the social democrats ruinous; they are ruinous.

I doubt there exists a member of the Democratic Party who could or would offer civic, civil, and legal fellow citizens hope for an achievable better future. But if a candidate Democrat emerges, I would be reluctant to vote the chance I understood him or her. I do not understand President Trump, but he established the hope that our posterity may enjoy opportunities for individual happiness with civic integrity in the United States. Both major parties are clueless, I guess because the players consider themselves better than fellow citizens.

“To be an advocate for a thoroughgoing social justice demands a radical and ongoing exposure of oppression, injustice, and especially inequality. You can always find another kind of inequality and there’s always another frontier for social justice to conquer. So, last year’s radical position is today’s orthodoxy.”

If fellow citizens ignore the U.S. preamble’s agreement, social justice may end all hope to discover statutory justice under the written rule of law. The viable candidate against Donald R. Trump must admit first that he or she is a fellow citizen.

https://libertylawsite.staging.wpengine.com/2019/01/22/solidarity-true-and-false/

Background I did not address:

“Who, asked [Peter] Bauer, could possibly be opposed to aid to the poor or unfortunate, except the callous and the heartless? Never mind that aid propped up tyrants, destroyed local economic activity, promoted corruption and politicized life. In like fashion, who could possibly be against solidarity?”

“[The] welfare state results in a better society than any other kind of state currently known . . . I concede that it is a respectable point of view.”

Oxford dictionary online defines “welfare state” as “A system whereby the state undertakes to protect the health and well-being of its citizens, especially those in financial or social need, by means of grants, pensions, and other benefits.”

How distant is that from “socialism” as “A political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.” And “social democracy” as “A socialist system of government achieved by democratic means.”

These definitions seem consistent with a Dalrymple view that socialism cannot work; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-SdftH0mfA. “You can only impose theoretical absurdity by force.” Political influence is tyranny; organizing for the benefit of all by an organizer of the organized. Dalrymple rejected the claim that humans are only selfish beasts. “No society has ever been like that.” Recall the opening words of Adam Smith’s “The Moral Sentiment”:  “How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it except the pleasure of seeing it.” http://knarf.english.upenn.edu/Smith/tms111.html. “Socialism requires that all people be altruistic all the time.”

“And in the eternal search for convenience and value for money, or at least low prices (not quite the same thing), most people prefer to patronize commercial centers than to take the trouble, and accept the greater expense, of shopping in a series of small merchants along a main street. In a sense, then, and to an extent, the yellow vests are protesting against the consequences of their own priorities, which had assisted in, if they are not wholly responsible for, the destruction of real, non-state-mediated, solidarity.”

My short comment:

“Curiously enough, few people stop to consider the nature of human solidarity.”

 

Dalrymple did not explicitly explain “the nature of human solidarity.” Perhaps he recommended British conservatism.

Most individuals want mutual, comprehensive safety and security (Security) so that each person may responsibly pursue the happiness he or she perceives rather than the tyranny someone would impose on him or her. They appreciate a fellow citizen’s responsible happiness.

Security is possible when fellow citizens collaborate for statutory justice. But some individuals think crime pays. Justice does not yield to democracy.

Written law and its enforcement are required. The human being is too psychologically powerful to yield to dominant opinion, and therefore statutory law must be grounded in the-objective-truth.

The-objective-truth is the standard that judges truth, Dalrymple’s truth, and his consideration of human solidarity.

https://www.lawliberty.org/2018/11/16/aristotle-and-the-seriousness-of-politics/

Pericles was born more than 2,500 years ago, but Aristotle only 2,400 years ago.
 
Pericles controversially informed a civic people that individuals may demand equity when they collaborate-for and behave-under statutory justice. Since statutory justice is an ultimate quest (perhaps impossible in a changing, diverse world), a civic, civil, and legal citizen observes statutory law as he or she collaborates to reform discovered injustices.

“The talk of politicians reveals the souls of both the politician and those who listen to him and respond. Politics confronts the souls of our kind while they are citizens in the actual polities, in the nation-states of this world. The politician does not govern our individual souls. We do that.”  
Clinging to the mystery of “souls” foments the psychological violence that frustrates human beings unto physical violence. For this reason, the discipline of civic, civil, and legal pursuit of statutory justice requires responsible citizens to reserve imagined-mysteries for private contemplation and to avoid traditionally-imposed-mysteries. Consider the mystic hate imposed on non-believers in John 15:18-24.

The first of the mysteries to be confronted is “soul” itself. My person did not concern itself with soul when my ovum emerged for fertilization, and I speculate that I can trust my ultimate destiny as readily as I commit to my origins. Meanwhile, I accept my individual power, my individual energy, and my individual authority (IPEA) to develop integrity toward the-objective-truth rather than the infidelity of electing my god.

Following the development of Pericles’ suggestion of “equal justice under law,” the framers in 1787 constitutional convention created the arguments that led perhaps Gouverneur Morris (b. 266 years ago) to author the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. It is the civic, civil, and legal agreement by which a U.S. citizen may choose to either collaborate for statutory justice or be a dissident.

It seems self-evident that a “soul” does not discipline a human life: the person has that ineluctable IPEA.

  

Other fora

https://carm.org/submit-research-request

African-American Christianity was mentioned regarding MLK Jr's background in https://www.wsj.com/articles/dr-kings-radical-biblical-vision-1522970778.

I heard Jeremiah Wright speak in Baton Rouge in February, 2015; https://www.nola.com/opinions/index.ssf/2015/02/jeremiah_wright_tells_a_southe.html. He tacitly asserted that God's chosen people have black skins.

Wright attitudes derive perhaps from black power, back liberation theology, and Alinsky-violence to assert arbitrary rights, all latently nourished but emerging after King's death in 1968.

I prefer Frederick Douglass's 1852 assertion that he is a fellow citizen and his claim to the preamble to the U.S. Constitution as well as its articles.

I think it would be helpful for fellow citizens to have an authoritative history that explores the sects within African-American Christianity.

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.

Some political women beg woe

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

Some women’s divergence from civic integrity is shining through. 

News

From Oct 14, 2018 on BRPD (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/crime_police/article_638a747a-d00e-11e8-8d30-23a5c0f4d82b.html)

To WJoe Hicks: I am following your advice.

For example, please read and comment on my essay, “Non-religious Conservative College Women? Really?” on my blog, promotethepreamble.blogspot.com.

Columns

History in the documents (David Shribman) (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/david/shribman123118.php3)

I think biographies are useful but less informative than reading documents in order to form individual opinion about them.

For example, I think the Declaration of Independence became obsolete when the French navy and army with the Continental army, at Yorktown, VA, defeated the British army and navy. The 1783 Treaty of Paris is between England and thirteen free and independent states on the eastern seaboard. The 1787 preamble made it possible for willing people in nine states to establish the USA, and they did so on June 21, 1788. USA operations began on March 4, 1789 with eleven states, two remaining dissidents.

I have studied the preamble to the U.S. Constitution (U.S. preamble) for about two decades, and a paraphrase for my use improves each time I revise it. In other words, I continually paraphrase so as to know what I trust-in and commit-to for the purpose of collaborating for an achievable, better U.S. future. It seems “a more perfect Union” exists by military force that keeps states from seceding. Therefore, I want to collaborate for civic integrity, both as wholeness (most fellow citizens involved) and as reliability: the people’s fidelity to the-objective-truth. Also, “our Posterity” includes grandchildren and beyond, who are being saddled with huge debt for extant adult satisfactions.

I work to persuade fellow citizens to use the U.S. preamble to collaborate for civic integrity. The U.S. preamble tacitly offers individual happiness with civic integrity. If most fellow citizens thought so, American history might inspire reform to the civic discipline that is needed for survival as a people.

Parents for black education (Walter Williams) (https://www.creators.com/read/walter-williams/01/19/black-education-a-glimmer-of-hope)

"The (school) district has shown they just can't do it. ... Now it's time for the community to step in."

That statement misses the point.

We are at the leading edge of 230 years neglect if not repression of the U.S. preamble; that is, the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. It offers each fellow citizen the opportunity to collaborate for individual happiness with civic integrity. Each fellow citizen is free to ignore the opportunity as long as he or she does not cause actually-real harm that is noticed. If so, he or she faces statutory law and its enforcement.

Humankind has learned but not articulated that each person has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (IPEA) to develop either infidelity or integrity. Few people choose integrity, and those who do contend with the unknown. That is, the standard against which integrity is judged, fixed as it may be, is not always known. For example, the possibility that there is no God has not yet been proved, and therefore, individuals are free to adopt or construct any god that appeals to them. Thus, some people claim God looks like them: God is red, yellow, black, or white. That is, God’s people may be characterized first by skin color. I don’t know. When the-objective-truth seems obvious yet is undiscovered, the individual is best served by admitting to self: I do not know.

Additionally, we are at the leading edge of perhaps 10,000 years of psychological evolution that may be ineluctably developing statutory justice, unlikely as its perfection may be. In other words, the law does not always reflect statuary justice. Although murder, even mass murder, is still practiced, genocide seems to approach extinction. Everyone seems to know that slavery is never alright, yet millions enslave people. Civic integrity persists only where most fellow citizens discipline themselves.

We are at the leading edge of humankind’s development of language and grammar by which to collaborate for statutory justice. But many nations, let alone, individuals have not developed collaboration for statutory justice. Therefore, confusion is the only idea the community can offer.

It is time for the individual to step in. Individual adults may accept IPEA and use it to develop civic integrity rather than crime. They may behave with the discipline that does not buy adult satisfactions through borrowing from grandchildren and beyond (the U.S. preamble’s “our Posterity”). Families may discipline themselves so that there may be an achievable better future for posterity. Parents may encourage and coach their children to develop IPEA for integrity rather than for infidelity and crime. Children may develop collaboration to discover the-objective-truth rather than conflict for dominant opinion and thereby have early success as young adults.

Just as some black leaders argue that the U.S. preamble was not intended for them, some leaders may argue that individual happiness with civic integrity is not intended for blacks. Most scholars reject the phrase “the-objective-truth,” many substitution the fungible the “objective truth.” I’d like to meet with conflicting opinion-builders to collaborate for reform, especially if it’s my view that needs to change.

I appreciate Dr. Williams’ work.

Other fora

https://www.quora.com/Does-anyone-think-some-people-are-just-totally-incompatible-with-others?

I think there are people who are totally incompatible in a moment of time, but as both parties progress in psychological maturity, if their paths cross again the may be compatible. By compatible I do not mean intimate.

https://www.quora.com/unanswered/What-are-American-civic-values?

The Athenian Greeks, 2400 years ago, suggested controversial equity under statutory justice. Controversial, because some people think crime pays. Equity because equality is not possible among human beings, each one of whom is unique yet has IPEA. IPEA is the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority to develop either infidelity or integrity. Statutory justice is written justice or perfect law and its enforcement, which seems impossible but is a worthy goal. There are many variations on the Greek idea, and a popular error is that government is responsible for fairness to every person.

In the U.S., the agreement to collaborate for statutory justice, the preamble to the U.S. Constitution, hereafter the U.S. preamble, is a civic, civil, and legal commitment. Fellow citizens may agree to discipline themselves according to written law as they collaborate for statutory justice. The tacit proposal in the U.S. preamble is individual happiness with civic integrity---a uniquely American dream.

Americans seem to conflict for the dominant opinion according to political regimes. But in a fundamental dichotomy fellow U.S. citizens divide on whether they value the purpose and goals of the U.S. preamble or not. A growing faction could not care less. So far, it seems cycling, divergent dominance comes from 50% plus one vote.
 
When at least 2/3 of fellow citizens value the purpose and goals of the U.S. preamble, an achievable better future may emerge. Chaos may drive fellow citizens to civic integrity, and the reform may be underway.

https://www.quora.com/Why-are-so-many-people-opposed-to-globalization-is-it-not-nice-if-countries-grow-together-and-there-is-more-equality-and-justice-in-the-world-and-less-separation?

There are 195 countries in the world. I know of no country that pursues statutory justice. By that I mean ultimate justice in writing, a perhaps impossible achievement yet a necessary purpose and goal.

The U.S. Supreme Court claims to pursue equal justice under law; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_justice_under_law. However, the court is divided between a living U.S. Constitution and one of the forms of originalism. What is needed is deliberate amendment to fulfill the goals that are stated in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution, hereafter, the U.S. preamble. However, there will always be dissidents to the goals. For example, there will always be people who think crime pays.

People who are willing to pursue civic discipline according to the purpose and goals of the U.S. preamble observe statutory law and may ultimately discover statutory justice. However, no one expresses enthusiasm for this achievable, better future. It seems impossible, because it has not been tried before.

If fellow citizens, especially Supreme Court Justices and their trickle-down, in the nation that advertises equal justice under law are not enthusiastic to discipline themselves according to the U.S. preamble, how much less will cosmopolitans collaborate for statutory justice?

https://www.quora.com/Does-increasing-population-numbers-make-democracy-unworkable

Democracy is unworkable. The right to vote is ultimately contingent on an agreement to collaborate for statutory justice.

What may work is individuals transitioning from feral infant to young adult in less than 3 decades and during that time acquiring the personal understanding and intent to live a human life rather than egocentrically pursue banal appetites.

Human beings have the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (IPEA) to develop either infidelity or integrity. The mature human has acquired freedom from ignorance, arbitrary constraint, and fear. The individual who recognizes this human dichotomy and chooses to develop crime is more subject to constraint than the one who chooses integrity.  He or she collaborates to discover and benefit from the-objective-truth. That is, actual reality or the actually indisputable facts rather than someone’s reasonable construct which they promote as the truth, for example, “crime pays.” Civic collaboration pursues statutory justice, an “impossible dream,” which in the meantime is served by written law and its enforcement.

 

Law enforcement is needed because most people, aware or not, use IPEA to develop or at least tolerate infidelity and crime within their culture. The world’s cultures may be likened to feral infants in various paths toward maturity except that the opportunity to learn is not limited to some 120 years or less. Physical evolution over the recent 13.8 billion years, biped evolution over a few million years, language evolution over a couple hundred thousand years, cultural evolution over a few thousand years, and technological evolution over a few decades have created religious diversity that obfuscates the quest for civic integrity. In other words, instead of collaborating to benefit from discovery of statutory justice, societies cluster under their dominant psychological construct. The individual assumes that he or she need not use IPEA to develop civic integrity because their god or their government will force the societies to adopt his or her opinions, at least the major ones.

The Athenian Greeks, about 2400 years ago, cruel masters of slaves, informed humankind there may be equity under the law. Cultures debate the application, but I perceive equity when most fellow citizens consider and observe written law and its enforcement as they collaborate to discover and practice statutory justice. In other words, just as an individual works to pay for the lifestyle he or she wants, he or she collaborates for civic integrity.

The U.S. Constitution authorizes a federal government under a disciplined people. The discipline is specified in the preamble, which I refer to as “the U.S. preamble.” A paraphrase in this context is: We agree to use IPEA to pursue individual happiness with civic integrity and authorize a limited central government to serve us in our states. The articles that follow provide the states a representative republic. Thus, the U.S. preamble is the civic agreement developed some 2200 years after the cruel Greeks thought of “equal justice under law.”

If a majority of fellow citizens become attentive to three considerations: IPEA, the U.S. preamble, and collaboration to discover the-objective-truth rather than conflict for dominant opinion, more infants and children will be coached and encouraged to develop civic integrity. With a supermajority, say 2/3 of fellow citizens choosing discipline according to the-objective-truth, the right to vote will work to elect representatives who uphold the U.S. preamble. Otherwise, an expanding population will continue to cause chaos.

Either way, democracy, or the rule of the majority is ruinous for the person who pursues individual happiness with civic integrity; for example, in a country that is too traditional to accommodate statutory justice. In the U.S., a person may serve in a government capacity without compromising lawful religious practices, yet some fellow citizens think religions other than their own should be restricted. Collaboration for the-objective-truth rather than conflict for dominant opinion may relieve this tension. Specifically metaphysical ideas like “soul” are served by various constructs, like reincarnation, and may serve some individuals and not others, whereas, mutual, comprehensive safety and security is critical to every fellow citizen.

I think under the present chaos increasing population is unworkable---economically divergent, and the pressure for social democracy is the chief villain. The past 230 years’ repression of the U.S. preamble has made the U.S. vulnerable to democracy’s attack. The preamble’s neglect has happened partially because political regimes wanted to repress it, but primarily because too many people attempt to avoid IPEA.  I work to restore the representative republic.

https://www.facebook.com/nutleyhome?eid=ARC92afSoZGXT12yvh6cRPQg74iosAC00D6LN2SGnyXn9hTndKE8RsBSnnhYsstpzOA2qU61XDvxcAaY

Congress has been dysfunctional on protecting U.S. fellow-citizens (and foreign victims of criminal and philanthropic organizations) at our southern border during the five decades I have followed the issue.

I want to see what congressional-neglect stops in the Trump/Pence second term. I speculate that the First Amendment's British influences will be questioned and reforms proposed. I'm thinking of opportunity to pursue integrity rather than freedom of factional theism, currently Judeo-Christianity (check the religious affiliation of the group of nine Supreme Court justices). Also, I'm thinking of the opportunity for a responsible press rather than the extant, unbelievably-irresponsible, free press. But that's just a tip of the iceberg of British influences that need reform.

By 2020, the U.S. Constitution's preamble, the U.S. fellow-citizen's agreement to collaborate for statutory justice rather than conflict for dominant opinion may be promoted by a super majority; I imagine 2/3 of fellow citizens pursuing individual happiness with civic integrity---the U.S. preamble's tacit dream.

The interest is growing, and people who trust-in and commit-to the U.S. preamble may recall the power of acceleration.

https://www.quora.com/What-small-thing-does-your-spouse-do-that-sets-your-teeth-on-edge?

We’ve just begun or 50^th of years during which I constantly woo her.

I’m a geek and she is witty. I’m emotional and she’s practical. I’m searching and she’s serene. I call her MWWW: my wonderful, witty, wife. By witty I mean psychologically quick.

I was born and reared E. Tennessee So. Baptist, and she was born a couple years earlier Louisiana French Catholic. For the first quarter century, I worshiped with her, then with her and our three children at the parish closest to our home but also was active in my local Baptist church---having eight job functions there when I quit. Then, she frustrated me by answering a question before I completed its expression (in my opinion).

After one Sunday school, wherein we discussed the difference between the Father and the Son I recall using John 6:36-40, I cheerfully asked her view. She responded, “There is no difference.”

I responded, “How would you explain that to my class, who just discussed Jesus’ fidelity to God?”

She said, “I do not need to explain it. It is a mystery. However, God is one: Jesus and God are the same.”

My knees buckled and I said, “We have had wonderful religious discussions all these years and I don’t think I ever really listened to you. I hoped to convert you to my faith. I fell in love with my diamond and then always dreamed of changing you. Forgive me. I will make it up to you.”

Now, I write at least once a month that I trust-in and am committed-to the-objective-truth; in other words, I have “faith-in” the-objective-truth. My faith does not exclude Cynthia’s faith, she tells me.

I am convinced that Phil Beaver began to choose faith in the-objective-truth at about ten years old. However, I would never have articulated it if I had not fallen-in-love-with Cynthia and committed to monogamy for life with her. Without Cynthia I would never have discovered Phil.

I could not have articulated monogamy for life on our wedding day. The Church does not explicitly state that spouses share monogamy for life with any children they beget so that the family may prepare for an achievable better future by the grandchildren.

Cynthia’s serene wit set me on edge until the day I embrace it.

https://www.quora.com/Why-do-you-think-that-equality-is-the-central-theme-of-democracy?

Human individuals come from ova, and ova are in the same situation. Most ova do not survive for conception, much less gestation, less delivery as a person, less survival to maturity, and only a few to psychological maturity.

https://www.quora.com/Do-you-think-most-American-citizens-today-are-too-lazy-and-selfish-when-it-comes-to-shouldering-the-responsibilities-of-citizenship?

The question: “Do you think most American citizens today are too lazy and selfish when it comes to shouldering the responsibilities of citizenship?”

Not lazy and selfish in the traditional sense, but woefully ignorant. By woefully I mean that the fruits of fellow citizens’ errant behavior will come to their grandchildren and beyond.

An achievable, better future is being made possible by attention to both the agreement that is offered by the preamble to the U.S. Constitution and collaboration to discover the-objective-truth rather than conflict for dominant opinion.

Two understand these comments better, please see my essay at https://www.quora.com/In-what-scenarios-do-you-believe-government-paternalism-is-a-good-thing? It is copied below:

https://www.quora.com/In-what-scenarios-do-you-believe-government-paternalism-is-a-good-thing?

The question: “In what scenarios do you believe government paternalism is a good thing?”

I envision only one scenario: The majority of people, at least 2/3 of fellow citizens, finally accept that civic integrity is the individual’s opportunity and responsibility; neither government nor gods will surrogate for a civic people. A civic people collaborate for mutual, comprehensive, safety and security more than for social acceptance.

When the majority of fellow citizens adopt the (controversially Greek) principle that the individual who during cognizant life continuously collaborates for statutory justice may enjoy equity in life, both government and gods will have served their purposes: to show that individual happiness with civic integrity comes only from the people. This is a very packed paragraph, so ask about any terms you want to, but I would prefer your thoughts from the words and phrases I used.

Ultimate justice (is that civic perfection?) is not a new idea. The historical precedence was falsely/erroneously stated by Abraham Lincoln during the years 1857, 1861, and 1863.

Especially in 1857, Lincoln used the Declaration of Independence to express that all men were created equal, when he would argue that black-skinned inhabitants should be returned to Africa and there should be no sexual relations between blacks and whites.

In 1861, Lincoln expressed my premise literally, but in phrases that contemporaries could not possibly comprehend. Addressing the Confederate States of America’s threat of war, Lincoln spoke:

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.

My paraphrase is:  The military power of the Union will prevail in the dispute over emancipating the slaves. Lincoln was aware that the slave-states ratio had changed from 8:5 in 1787 to 15:17 in 1858. In 1861, the CSA’s 7 states faced 27 other states with less than 8 candidates to join the CSA.

In 1863, Lincoln misrepresented the purpose and goals of the preamble to the U.S. Constitution when he said, “. . . that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” (My emphasis.) The U.S. preamble offers individuals the opportunity to practice the civic discipline by which statutory justice (ultimate justice) may be discovered. Furthermore, the U.S. preamble (that is, willing people in their states) established and authorized U.S. Article IV Section 4:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

The conforming government is representative under the rule of statutory law, the articles that are authorized in the U.S. preamble. In other words, the U.S. preamble authorized governance by the people’s representatives under the rule of statutory law.

Among U.S. fellow citizens, We the People of the United States, as defined by the U.S. preamble, has never emerged. Not caring to comprehend the U.S. preamble, most people do not realize that “and our Posterity” includes their grandchildren, so 2019 families happily load grandchildren with debt so as to satisfy adult, banal appetites. The primary reason for this unfortunate 230-year-development is that the people are too busy “living” to do the work to assure individual happiness with civic integrity for themselves and their grandchildren and beyond.

Most individuals look to their personal god to deliver them from the U.S. government, never realizing that no two fellow citizens have the same personal god. All the talk of God is babel---confused noise. This too, is not novel, as it was expressed by Nicolo Machiavelli in “The Prince,” Chapter XI, 1513.

An achievable better future seems beginning with this view of the U.S. preamble plus discovery of statutory justice by collaborating under the-objective-truth rather than conflicting for dominant 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.