whatever-God-is

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

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

Consider writing a personal paraphrase of the preamble, which offers fellow citizens mutual equality:  For discussion, I convert the preamble’s predicate phrases to nouns and paraphrase it for my proposal as follows: “We the civic people of the united states in order to develop individual discipline, civic integrity, justice, defense, and prosperity so as to perpetually preserve liberty, maintain statutory law for the USA.”

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

A confluences of experiences perhaps dated from 2008 led to the discovery of a hyphenated expression, whatever-God-is, that may empower public collaboration for individual happiness with civic morality. In other words, for individual responsible liberty in conformance with the U.S. preamble. Much of the conversation is included below under “quora.”

Columns

One U.S. journalist, in my opinion (Byron York) (https://www.joplinglobe.com/opinion/columns/byron-york-trump-is-target-of-harassment/article_2ad2cffa-a7d3-5a33-8cc4-be6dfd8c694a.html)

“Democrats, in Congress and in some key blue states, saw investigation as a way to weaken a president they never thought would be elected and want to ensure is not re-elected in 2020. And Trump, with the most extensive business history ever brought to the presidency, presented a lot of avenues of investigation. When he complains about harassment, he has a legitimate case to make.”

Moreover, all Democrats and some Republicans work to defeat the U.S. preamble’s proposition. We the People of the United States, the subject of the U.S. preamble, takes responsibility for five collaborative provisions---Union, Justice, Tranquility, defense and Welfare---so as to secure human liberty. This is the actually real reform that voters need, and I think President Trump, in his words expressed intentions for that reform in his inaugural address. I hope to vote for his second inauguration.

York, I think intentionally, journals events with a view toward responsible liberty.

Comment posted at the above URL.

Quora

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-most-fundamental-belief-that-the-United-States-of-America-was-founded-on

Civic people founded the USA on individual responsible liberty. Civic people of nine states established the USA on June 21, 1788, leaving four dissident states still free and independent. So divided according to their ratifications of the 1783 Treaty of Paris for thirteen eastern seaboard states. Now there are 50 states, sea to sea, and under the U.S. preamble, an achievable better future may be developing after 231 years’ preservation of eastern-seaboard repression. The 50 states and six territories owe the 13 eastern-seaboard states nothing but to reform from erroneous traditions.

The 51 word U.S. preamble expresses a commitment in perpetuity to five political responsibilities (Union, Justice, Tranquility, defense, and Welfare) so as to approve and encourage human liberty for citizens both living and future. Past citizens don’t collaborate. The idea of each generation collaborating for its own body of law in order to comport to the U.S. preamble and the-objective-truth rather than obsolete opinion is more valid today than ever before. “Founding fathers” is used to preserve proprietary powers promoted for past tyranny: It’s tyranny by tradition. Some of the people who refused to sign the 1787 U.S. Constitution are labeled “founding fathers” to preserve the tyrannies they promoted.

Individuals who choose “We the People of the United States” agree to take the responsibility to provide freedom-from oppression so that each individual citizen may take the human liberty-to pursue personal preferences during their lifetime. In other words, the human being is too psychologically powerful to compromise liberty and cannot consign it and therefore may choose to collaborate to preserve equity among fellow citizens. Again, responsible liberty is an individual goal that can only be collectively empowered.

 Some fellow citizens decline both the U.S. preamble’s proposition and human liberty. Dissidents to the five responsibilities may find themselves subject to statutory law and ultimately statutory justice. In other words, part of the commitment is to amend unjust laws upon discovery. Hopefully, the mere existence of statutory law approves and encourages responsible liberty and reform when error is realized. In other words, even the condemned criminal remains a fellow citizen.

Among the 51 words, “Tranquility” is a key responsibility, especially regarding domestic violence, both physical and psychological. Merriam-Webster Dictionary offered “free from agitation of mind or spirit” or “free from disturbance or turmoil.” Cambridge Dictionary offers “a peaceful, calm state, without noise, violence, worry, etc.:” and lists the synonym “peace.”

 I know of no greater offense than for one human to publicly exhort another, “Your view about whatever-God-is is wrong.” The very idea of assessing, evaluating, or judging another human’s view about whatever-God-is is an affront. Therefore, civic fellow citizens do not interject spirituality, soul, and other mystery into civic collaboration. However, the civically offended-citizen must respond to spiritual affront, because appreciative fellow citizens neither initiate nor tolerate wrong. In other words, passivity toward offense or civic stonewalling discourages reform. In civic integrity, the privacy of opinion about whatever-God-is is appreciated and honored. The old saw, “never discuss religion,” may be reformed to “plainly discourage religious imposition into civic collaboration so as to approve and encourage responsible liberty in the USA.”

Peace comes from the peaceful person, hopefully most of the people, and We the People of the United States in the achievable future. Peace can be consigned to neither government nor whatever-God-is. The human being is too powerful to exchange liberty for peace. The framers of the 1787 U.S. Constitution were well aware that prior political documents that referred to whatever-God-is prevented peace and omitted it from the U.S. preamble.

It was well known in 1787 that government officials who partner with whatever-God-is can live high off the hog and believers will neither rebel nor leave the country. This principle may be labeled “Chapter XI Machiavellianism,” referencing “The Prince,” 1513. We the People of the United States, the body of people who order civic integrity under the U.S. preamble, claim responsibility for tranquility rather than consigning it to whatever-God-is. Conforming to this principle requires major, achievable reform.

Many citizens are aware of the U.S. preamble. Some choose infidelity rather than responsible liberty. Some, aware or not, promote Chapter XI Machiavellianism. I write “or not,” because some fine scholars have not the propriety to recognize Chapter XI Machiavellianism in American life so far.

Theists work to impose whatever-God-is into the 51-word U.S. preamble, not admitting to the actual reality that is plain to civic people. Some think Chapter XI Machiavellian crime pays. Some of America’s slogans promote Chapter XI Machiavellianism. Consider “[Whatever-God-is] bless America,” or “In [whatever-God-is] we trust” or we pledge allegiance under whatever-God-is. Who cares who initiated the tyranny against We the People of the United States” that developed Judeo-Christianity? We the People of the United States rejects that tyranny in writing: the U.S. preamble. The sooner each Supreme Court justice, who are first fellow citizens (civic or not--by choice like all the rest of us) get this message the better.

Civic fellow citizens may make certain that politicians and officials who do not conform to the U.S. preamble’s proposition leave office. First, the individual voter must understand the U.S. preamble’s proposition: responsible liberty.

We develop words and phrases that empower brotherhood among living citizens and facilitate an achievable better future for “our Posterity”: children, grandchildren, and beyond. For example, instead of “separation of church and state,” an impersonal political quest, we promote “individual happiness with civic integrity.” We celebrate each June 21 as Responsible Liberty Day.”
  “Whatever-God-is” seems a phrase that may promote civic brotherhood for the USA. It originated from the late Bob Dorroh’s get-well wish in 2008; March 2019 meetings with Penny Landry’s aid for A Civic People of the United States with collaboration by Carolyn Lowe, Janie Ewing, Bob McBride and David White; related conversation with Diana Dorroh; responses to Mike Rappaport’s essay on the U.S. preamble’s influence on Law&Liberty’s blog; and reactions to this quora question. Some of the people I list might not accept the appreciation I express, and if so, I will accept their wishes.

We think the USA is currently transforming to the U.S. preamble’s 1787 proposition. I know this essay is detailed, but I hope you will be personally excited to help establish the civic, civil, and legal powers of the U.S. preamble’s proposition: individual responsible liberty.

Facebook 

Thread after revision:

Jim Robertson The coup Phil has launched against our unalienable rights graciously endowed to all men by our Creator and the Constitution is religious in nature and is as old as the hills. It is his holy war so to speak. To bad he was not there when the Constitution was signed and dated. Maybe he would have convinced the founders to write “the seventeenth day of September in the year of whatever-God-is seventeenth hundred and eighty seven.” Not me.

To Jim Robertson: Jim, while I appreciate your return, that's pretty weak, and I think off topic.

Alas, there's no reform toward individual happiness with civic integrity. Just as "whatever-God-is" does not overpower "whatever-god-is, "whatever-Creator-is" does not overpower "whatever-creator-is." And "our Creator" does not equate to Jesus except to Jesus-believers (perhaps not me, but I can't judge). And opinions of men on September 17, 1787 are important to living citizens in any year only to empower their posterity (including us) to avoid obsolete errors and tyranny.

To get on topic, you could bloviate on the U.S. preamble's words "and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." Let us hear it from you.

Jim Robertson Hi Phil: Again, Jesus loves you and thank you for publicly avoiding my point and desparately attempting to prove a negative. You seem to treat the Constitution and founding principals as predominantly a human invention. In reality they are an inheritance from tried principals and truths proven through blood over course of about seven hundred years of struggle from reoccuring tyranny. I encourage you to check that out and again to consider holding to the Truth that our Creator endows all men with certain unalienable rights. Peace.

Phil Beaver Jim, your beliefs deny the historical events that led to the U.S. preamble.

Your first denial is that Magna Carta, 1215, a partnership by priests and Lords to force the king to yield to their partnership, dividing the British empire into classes, with the majority of inhabitants in poverty.

Second, the Declaration of Independence has no global import beyond the self-styled states on the eastern seaboard declaring independence from the British empire. The perpetrators would have lost everything had France, already at war with England, not come to their rescue.

Third, the thirteen states ratified their global status as "free and independent states," each one named in the 1783 Treaty of Paris. The next four years proved they could not survive without forming a nation.

Fourth, in the highly informed and contentious convention that produce the 1787 U.S. Constitution, the formerly usual conduct under prayer was proposed but did not receive a second. They had not the articulation "whatever-God-is," but each one knew he would neither yield to nor adopt another delegate's personal pursuits such as salvation of whatever-soul-is. They had experienced human liberty, free from England's constitutional church-state partnership. When it came time to summarize the consequence of the 1787 conference, they did so in the 51-word U.S. preamble that condensed and eliminated the imposition of whatever-God-is imperiously on display in the Massachusetts preamble.

Fifth, the First Congress, seated on March 4, 1789 with eleven U.S. states, two remaining free and independent in dissidence, had not accepted the U.S. preamble's proposition: individual citizen's responsible liberty. Like adolescent parents, who know no more than to debate the four parenting philosophies they inherited, abuse their children with falsehoods, the First Congress reinstated colonial British American traditions rather than adopt to freedom-from oppression the U.S. preamble proposes.

Thereby, property owners continued to oppress the rest of inhabitants. Slave-holding states refused to follow the end of the slave trade in 20 years and negotiate emancipation of the slaves. They used false Bible influence for master-slave relationships to continue a practice that every individual knew was alright as long as he or she was not the slave. On that falsehood, the claimed the North had political influenced based on a more erroneous religious opinion. Since their churches claimed the same whatever-God-is, they illustrated the principle: Aggression founded on whatever-God-is begs woe. The woe was family, friends, and neighbors killing each other at a rate equivalent to 8 million Americans at todays population.

Jim, your refrain "peace" seems insincere. I urge you to take the time to consider the historical facts I have shared with you. They did not occur to me overnight, but are the accumulation of almost seven decades' work to understand why Mom and Dad wanted me to adopt a religion that is so weak its method is to persuade me to fear my afterdeath or destiny of whatever-soul-is for me. I do not choose to either live life or encourage responsible liberty based on mysteries.

The U.S. facts I have cited did not come from university, whose scholars have competitive agenda. I learned them by my own initiative and ability to ignore major works whose biases I perceived so as to explore thinkers I had never imagined studying. Because of that, I am a fellow citizen who appreciates you and hope you will learn to appreciate me. I appreciate the time you have spent so far.

Talking to me about Jesus is not productive, because the Jesus I might trust is not represented by Bible writers and interpreters. When it comes to scripture, I deny whatever-the-Word-is when it disagrees with civic integrity. I collaborate to discover civic integrity. I hope this helps us out of the whatever-Jesus-is do loop.

Jim Robertson Hi Phil: Thank you again for avoiding all my points, which I have discovered must be kept simple. I also counted about ten desperate attempts to prove negatives. It demonstrates the intensity of your battle, which is clearly not against tyranny.

The hope in people driven legally enforced conformity more accurately describes your religion. It will not work Phil. Possibly in a public school or University class room where students are forced into subjection through authoritarian tactics, but not in the public domain. We see through it and are tried of it.

Please consider that our founders understood that history was dated and centered on the person of Jesus Christ, which they identified as “our Lord”. I encourage you to check that out. Peace.

Phil Beaver Jim, I agree that your points are simple. You don't seem to recognize that "founders" who "understood that history was dated and centered on the person of Jesus Christ," were wrong.

The 1787 signers of the U.S. preamble left it to wrong-minded fellow citizens to reform from personal errors by not referring to religion at all. The preamble's proposition for equity under statutory justice is for you as for all U.S. citizens. It does not require you to deny Jesus but encourages you to collaborate for responsible liberty.

You seem to want liberty without responsibility. You somehow impose Jesus into the preamble's proposition and expect me to subjugate to your arbitrary stipulation. Your imposition has not worked in 231 years and won't work now.

Original Thread:

Jim Robertson Learn from His Story.

Phil Beaver I think you refer to liars like John, in John 15:18-23. I reject hate no matter the source. I especially reject John's idea that I hate believers. I expect believers to develop fidelity to the-objective-truth as reliably as non-believers do.

Nevertheless, I appreciate John for expressing his nested-hate opinion. Too bad he is not alive to collaborate for human peace.

Jim Robertson Hi Phil: Jesus loves you. It is good to hear from you. I hope you are having nice day and thanks for posting a great question. Peace.

Phil Beaver Jim Robertson We live in the best of times. Fellow citizens may come to admit to their mirrors that your statements are too weak to influence a fellow human being. Each human being has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (IPEA) to develop either integrity or infidelity.

Some people try to consign their IPEA to another entity, but it cannot be done. That is IPEA, is one of the fortunate characteristics of the human being.

In 2019, a growing number of fellow citizens are aware of these issues and are patient with fellow citizens who rely more on their conversations with dead people than on collaboration with fellow citizens who are worthy of appreciation for comprehensive safety and security regardless of private, spiritual pursuits.

I, for one such fellow citizen, consider your sequence "Jesus loves you. . . . Peace," as a weak withdrawal from collaboration for peace. Those who do not collaborate for peace for living may never appreciate living with fellow citizens.

Lastly, more than love, I sense Jesus appreciates me for standing up against ancient writer's claims that he would utter the word "hate" regarding human relationships. Of course, I know nothing about Jesus' opinions. He may be a hater, after all.

Jim Robertson Hi Phil: I urge you to hold to the Truth that our Creator graciously endows all men with certain unalienable rights. Peace.

Phil Beaver Sorry, Jim: I do not hold to the Truth. I collaborate with willing fellow citizens to discover the-objective-truth and apply it for responsible liberty. I approve of and encourage fellow citizens to develop responsible liberty for living and pursue religious beliefs in privacy.

To make my point, I invite you to characterize your God so as to persuade me to turn my back on the-objective-truth. I caution you that you will be attempting to draw me into a God competition from which I withdrew 1/4 century ago after a half century trying to force my IPEA to accept what Mom and Dad each wanted: Me to accept Mom's Southern Baptist God in competition with Dad's Southern Baptist God. MWWW, Cynthia, aided my rejection of Christian conflict.

To me, each time you write to me, you turn your back on whatever is in control in order to promote your God, for reasons I'm not certain you understand. But it will not work.

I suggest a decade of thought might help you accept my thinking for me as well as find a peace regarding your thinking for you. Perhaps you will discover the serenity MWWW lives and from which I benefit.

Jim Robertson That’s sad. Neither did Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, and Mao. And neither does Kim, XI, and the Iranian Imams. But thank you for your honesty. Peace.

Phil Beaver Jim, for a Thursday flashback, recall my Thursday post you commented on.

"The U.S. preamble’s proposition is that individuals may collaborate for equity by discovering statutory justice that approves and encourages responsible liberty. Many citizens adopt this principle, but some choose infidelity. First, the individual voter must understand the U.S. preamble’s proposition: responsible liberty."

The U.S. preamble put religion in its proper, private place---in the believer's heart, closet, home, and church. However, many dissident citizens want to impose their God on fellow citizens. The federal government worked to impose American, factional Protestantism, through some variations and on to Judeo-Christianity. Now, there's African-American Christianity. Fellow citizens who work to impose religion on the people are dissidents to the U.S. preamble's proposition: responsible liberty.

From such dissidence you attempt to label me with your lie (error is quite different from bold lie), classing me with global tyrants.

Jim, you place too much emphasis on honesty. Please discover integrity. Perhaps some day you will want to be of We the People of the United States and to encourage responsible liberty. As it is, you are merely a dissident.

You are not alone. Dissidents have bemused the U.S. preamble for 231 years, or beyond eleven generations. Our generation has the privilege of restoring the U.S. preamble's civic, civil, and legal power, and I hope you will collaborate for the reform.

An offer of peace may be either sincere or not.

Jim Robertson Hi Phil: What part of unalienable do you not understand? That explains why you hate the Bundys victory stand for their unalienable rights to their land so much. How about Jews. I suppose now, according to you, Jews do not have an unalienable right to their land. Interesting coup you are attempting—against our Creator and the gracious endowment of his unalienable rights.

Phil Beaver Jim, I hope you understand that some readers interpret your silly impositions like "why you hate the Bundys victory . . . " not unlike asking me, "Phil, when did you stop beating Cynthia?" (That's the person in the Facebook pic with me.)

You could look in the mirror and ask, "Do I honestly misunderstand integrity?" or "Will I learn to express myself rather than attack a peaceful fellow-citizen like Phil Beaver?"

Jim Robertson Hi Phil: Please keep your comments coming. I love this and am giving you a golden opportunity to prove me a liar. Simply clarify whether you support the unalienable right the Bundys have to the land endowed to them by their Creator. While you are at it tell us whether the Jews have an unalienable right to their land also endowed by the same Creator. I will publicly apologize. Peace.

Phil Beaver Jim, you seem to think you can comment on my post with pretense and deceit, lie some more, and then present a hypothetical that challenges me. I disagree and find your tactics childish.

You remind me of a Democrat who still sheds tears over my two votes for Donald Trump and Mike Pence.

You present yourself as necessary for peace. Your religion promotes hate rather than peace (again, John 15:18-23). I am satisfied to ignore your civic ideas for the rest of my life yet hope you'll reform.

Based on my recovery from Christian fear and violence, I estimate it will take a quarter century. So I suggest a few years of silence between us.

On the other hand, if you would like to share your paraphrase of the U.S. preamble as a means of collaborating for individual happiness with civic integrity during our lifetimes (I hope for another 46 years), I will be thrilled to converse.

Jim Robertson I agree, your only option is censorship, if you fear the opportunities handed to you on a silver platter to prove the Truths held by the founders false.

My suggestion is that you preface your public requests for input. When asking, for example, what the founding principles of our country concisely means to us, you add something. Simply say that the Truths learned through blood and peril and held by the founders frighten me and asking me to prove why they are false makes me even more afraid. Something like that. Peace.

Phil Beaver. That exhausted the value of that thread, so I do not plan to respond.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-something-that-you-should-have-done-when-you-had-the-chance-and-now-cant-because-the-opportunity-has-left-the-building?

I failed to suggest to the clergyman to resign, become a social worker or other civic influencer and try to persuade people to be faithful to both the U.S. preamble’s proposition, individual responsible liberty and the-objective-truth.

Fellow citizens who choose civic integrity rather than infidelity discover that while they have human individual power, individual energy, and individual authority (IPEA) they have not the omniscience and omnipotence to select a god or God to impose on other humans.

https://www.quora.com/Do-you-support-the-idea-of-team-work-Why-or-why-not?

Yes, because collaboration is essential for responsible liberty in human living. Human individuals are too physically and psychologically powerful to adopt thinking they oppose, so parties must converse to establish and maintain responsible liberty.

In my eighth decade, I lead work to promote widespread use of the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. After introduction, I shorten the label to “the U.S. preamble.” Its subject or actor is “We the People of the United States.”

Perhaps the special font “We the People,” reflects the struggle by some framers of the 1787 Constitution to preserve the 1774 confederation of states and have the U.S. preamble’s actor be “We the United States” or equal. I do not know the-objective-truth about the font and do not think I can learn it from either the framers (55 delegates) or the signers (39 delegates). Nor would I accept the claims of a scholar who asserts authority about the opinions of the 1787 delegates.

Much as the 1787 framers had to address the unknown future hopes, we, the fellow citizens of this time may collaborate for responsible liberty. We live 231 years after willing people in nine states established the USA on June 21, 1788, leaving four dissidents among the 13 free and independent states enumerated in the the 1783 Treaty of Paris.

Two states joined before the USA began operations in 1789. By 1861, territories had applied for statehood and were admitted, increasing the USA to 34 states. That year, at first 7 and then 13 states denied their prior commitments to the U.S. preamble’s proposition and declared secession from the USA.

Citizens of the 7 organizing states could have collaborated to tell their legislatures: not on our watch will you secede from my nation of people. But none of them were aware of the U.S. preamble’s proposition: statutory coercion and force for Union, Justice, Tranquility, defense and Welfare so as to secure human liberty.

Past generations have left our generation the duty and privilege to establish living for “ourselves and our Posterity” under the civic, civil, and legal agreement that is offered in the U.S. preamble. Just yesterday before a meeting about the U.S. preamble, a fellow citizen asked me, “Phil, are you a Christian?” to which I responded, “Not according to the Bible, and I cannot judge myself,” to which I heard, “Then you and I have nothing in common.” I responded, “We may each pursue in privacy the religious concerns we perceive while publically collaborating for responsible liberty.” I feel the conversation will resume, and I will converse.

Whether or not the propositions of the U.S. preamble will prevail for us two depends on team-work by both parties.

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.