Sunday, April 28, 2019

Responsible Liberty Day




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 a civic people of the united states, in order to encourage individual responsibility for integrity, justice, peace, defense, and prosperity so as to secure human liberty for now and for the future, pursue statutory justice in the USA..” 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

Our sixth annual celebration of June 21, 1788, the day on which the people of nine states had ratified the U.S. Constitution with its preamble’s proposition, establishing the USA is scheduled for Thursday, June 20, 7:30 PM until 9:30 PM at Goodwood library.

U.S. operations began on March 4, 1789, with eleven member states. There were fourteen states when colonial-British influence was re-established with ratification of the Bill of Rights on December 15, 1791.

The citizens since then have left to our generation the privilege of establishing the civic, civil, and legal powers of the U.S. preamble. Our June 21 celebration titles have changed from Ratification Day, to Personal Independence Day, to Individual Independence Day, and now to Responsible Liberty Day.

The U.S. preamble proposes collaboration for Union, Justice, Tranquility, defense and Welfare in order to secure human liberty for living and future fellow citizens. With 2/3 of fellow citizens adopting the U.S. preamble’s proposition, the USA can have an achievable better future.

Join our sixth annual celebration to learn more and the aid the collaboration.



Columns

A lying caption (Byron York) (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/byron-york-the-personal-cost-of-the-trump-russia-probe)

Byron York seems the exception to this statement:  There are no journalists among American news media. York’s performance seems as impressive on TV as in print.

This reader is constrained to ask: Who is responsible for the caption in my printed newspaper, which I do not even want to name? It reads “Some caught up in Dems’ web, falsely” rather than the Washington Examiner’s online caption and others “The personal cost of the Trump-Russia investigation.”

The former caption annoyingly implies the Dems’ web itself is not false, when it obviously is. The Obama-Clinton-Russia investigation has been underway all the while.

I imagine, perhaps speculate, that both the Dems and my hometown newspaper have invited terminal woe. If so, it won’t bother me at all.

Quora

https://www.quora.com/Is-the-strictly-binary-view-of-politics-and-social-issues-ruining-America

No, but the Democratic Party is ruining its future.

Too many democrats do not understand the U.S. preamble’s proposition: collaborate for responsible, human liberty.

If democratic individuals bone-up on the U.S. preamble, they may grasp that it is this country’s civic, civil, and legal proposition to collaborate for human equity under the pursuit of statutory justice. The U.S. Supreme Court building’s architects were able to fit “Equal Justice Under Law” into the façade, interpreting a 2400 year-old idea from Pericles.

However, it is doubtful that many Supreme Court justices have considered themselves as fellow citizens under the U.S. preamble, because the people have not required it. Democrats who grasp this message may aid the reform the U.S. has needed for 232 years now: widespread, individual adoption of the U.S. preamble’s proposition: responsible, human liberty.

Leadership from the democrats would motivate the conservatives in the GOP to help discover the-objective-truth rather than conflict for a dominant religious opinion.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-something-that-most-people-dont-know-about-the-United-States

The preamble to the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. preamble, is a proposition: willing citizens collaborate to provide Unity, Justice, Tranquility, defense, and Welfare so as to encourage human liberty to living and future fellow citizens. Only the human being can choose to practice responsible liberty. (Citizens of the past obviously do not collaborate for current living.)

Since June 21, 1788, when the people of nine state ratifying conventions established the U.S. preamble, political regimes, beginning with the first Congress, 1789-1793, have preserved colonial English influences, chiefly the traditional church-state partnership that is constitutional in England.

However, anytime they want to, We the People of the United States can practice the responsible human liberty that is proposed and require both elected and appointed officials to either practice the U.S. preamble or be unelected or fired.

If you like this message, aid its proliferation for the sake of the people.



https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-examples-of-civic-issues

When you approach the ticket counter at the airport you get in line and keep your place in line. Same thing at a rock concert or symphony admittance.

When you encounter a stranger, you either look at each other or not and expect silence if not. On the other hand, you do not let earphones prevent your “Hello” if you feel inclined to speak.

No one starts a conversation about Whatever-God-Is, and a civic person does not try to impose God on another person.

A civic person encourages responsible human liberty yet does not deny fellow citizenship when liberty is mistaken for irresponsible freedom.

I hope these examples help.



https://www.quora.com/How-did-America-become-so-divided

America was always divided.

After twelve generations passed the 1787 opportunity, our generation has the privilege of establishing responsible human liberty, the intent of the USA as proposed in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. We dub the U.S. preamble’s proposition, for short, the U.S. preamble. It seems intent on discovering the-objective-truth, which cannot be humanly constructed and had not yet been articulated.

Consider the U.S. preamble; understand its 1787 creation in 4 days by 5 men formalizing the 4 months’ constitutional convention in Philadelphia. Paraphrase it such that you would publicly collaborate for acceptance of your ideas yet return to the original words. Choose to work to secure your liberty and liberty to your children, grandchildren, and beyond as proposed therein.

My preamble-paraphrase today is:  We a civic people of the united states, in order to encourage individual responsibility for integrity, justice, peace, defense, and prosperity so as to secure human liberty for now and for the future, pursue statutory justice in the USA. My paraphrase is a suggestion for fellow citizens but represents what I collaborate for: responsible human liberty.

Only humans have the individual power, energy, and authority (HIPEA) to establish responsible liberty. In my paraphrase, willing people take responsibility for peace so as to enjoy human liberty and encourage future human liberty. Civic peace begins with personal tranquility regarding responsible private hopes and comforts against existing unknowns or whatever has not yet been discovered.

Here are some points about division of this land in 1787. Only 39 of 55 of the delegates from only 12 of 13 eastern seaboard states (former English colonies) signed the 1787 constitution and the U.S. preamble. Less than 80% of former English colonial inhabitants were free among slaves and indigenous Americans also on the land. Among the free persons, 99% were factional American Protestant Christians. Only 5%, men, could vote. The rest of the U.S. was under Spanish, French, Mexican, Russian and other political powers.

Nine states provisionally established the USA by ratifying the U.S. Constitution on June 21, 1788. The fateful provision was that the first congress would mimic the Massachusetts Bill of Rights if not the English Bill of Rights. The First Congress began on March 4, 1789 with eleven of the eastern seaboard states and added 3 before the Bill of Rights was ratified on December 15, 1791. The First Congress re-established many English colonial impositions---for example, initiating legislative prayer to make Congressmen seem divine like members of the English Parliament---instead of upholding the U.S. preamble, which is godless---humbly admits to Whatever-God-Is, whether that be chaos or not.

Today, less than 14% of citizens associate in the original American Protestant factions with 50% either non-believers or Catholic. And 100% of non-criminal adults may vote. Among the Protestant factions is one that developed after 1968: African-American Christianity. To some African-American Christians, Whatever-God-Is prefers black skin if not brown skin. It seems evident that America is and was divided on Whatever-God-Is.

If most fellow citizens adopt and develop the U.S. preamble’s proposition there can be an achievable better future as soon as most people find peace in their beliefs about Whatever-God-Is, whether worship and praise is involved or not. With relief from coercion to claim to know what no one knows, most fellow citizens may appreciate each other as each peaceful person is and wherever they may be on their paths to human maturity.

https://www.quora.com/unanswered/How-could-you-most-simply-phrase-Individual-over-society-vs-society-over-individual-in-terms-of-the-psychologist-philosophers-who-pioneered-the-idea-Ex-Freudian-vs-Jungian?

Taking the liberty to duck scholarly religious debate, each human being is unique yet is connected to humankind through either appreciation or competition. The choice to appreciate fellow citizens is up to the individual. The consequences are delivered by the fellow citizens, who perceive in connections and transactions either appreciation or conflict.

Each human has individual power, energy, and authority (HIPEA) to develop either integrity or infidelity to the-objective-truth. Just as the human who is developing integrity knows he or she may earn the quality of food he or she wants rather than thank bureaucrats for what they deliver, he or she may collaborate to responsibly provide mutual, comprehensive safety and security so that fellow citizens may choose to pursue the happiness they perceive rather than accept the happiness others would impose on them. Individuals collaborate so as to provide civic integrity.

This concept, responsible human liberty, is my articulation after two decades’ study and five-years’ collaboration to understand the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. My current paraphrase is: We a civic people of the united states, in order to encourage individual responsibility for integrity, justice, peace, defense, and prosperity so as to secure human liberty for now and for the future, pursue statutory justice in the USA.

The value of studying past expressions is to discover the-objective-truth through observation rather than experience and to comprehend past errors and neither repeat them or make them traditions.

Let’s each accept HIPEA and collaborate for a better future.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-individual-diffrence

Individual difference refers to the personal psychology that each human being is developing: each human is unique and the psychology he or she is developing will determine his or her life outcome.

Broadly speaking, a person’s choices tend toward either integrity or infidelity respecting the-objective-truth. Integrity is the practice of lessening mistakes by being aware, doing the work to understand the moment, and rejecting false judgement.

Cultures wrong the individual by inculcating the pursuit of higher authority: whatever government is or Whatever-God-Is. Some fortunate persons accept their individual human power, energy, and authority (IHPEA) to develop integrity rather than infidelity.

Michael Polanyi, in his book “Personal Knowledge,” 1958, claims, in my paraphrase, that collaboration to discover the-objective-truth and worshipping the Christian God are equivalent practices of IHPEA. I think Polanyi did not leave to Whatever-God-Is the freedom to appreciate discovery more than worship.

For all I know, Polanyi has it correct, and for all I know, Polanyi and I express the same pursuit with individual difference. I doubt it, but don’t know.

https://www.quora.com/How-can-a-mistake-be-a-mistake-if-no-consequences-occur-from-the-mistake

The dictionary (Merriam-Webster online) informed me that “mistake” (noun) is “a wrong action or statement proceeding from faulty judgment, inadequate knowledge, or inattention.”

For example, it’s common for someone who is attracted to an individual to express the exaggeration “I am in love with him/her.” However, “in love with” is a mutual intimacy, not a mere attraction.

The comment is often ignored, such that there is no observable consequence. Yet the folly, perhaps offense, remains, and anyone who notices may lessen his or her regard for the speaker.

Also, if the speaker learns of or simply realizes the folly he or she spoke, chagrin may be experienced. Perhaps an apology is forthcoming.

 https://www.quora.com/How-can-American-jurors-be-considered-reliable-enough-to-decide-someones-fate-when-jurors-have-no-professional-knowledge-of-the-law

A nation, meaning both a people and their government, need a civic agreement that is considered by each citizen. One way or another, civic citizens may agree to collaborate for equity under statutory justice. In the USA, each citizen is offered the proposition stated in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. It proposes responsible, human liberty to living citizens and future citizens.

Fellow citizens who do not trust-in and commit-to the U.S. preamble’s proposition ought not be allowed to vote, serve on a jury, or hold public office, whether by election or by appointment.

In America as elsewhere, there are degrees of dissidence against civic citizenship. For example, some fellow citizens think crime pays.

U.S. Amendment VI requires states to provide impartial juries. Most states require unanimous criminal-jury verdicts, following English tradition. Unanimous verdicts favor criminals. In 1967, England enacted 10:2 majority verdicts to lessen organized crime’s influence. Oregon uses 10:2 majority verdicts. I propose reinstating Louisiana’s 10:2 or even 9:3 majority verdicts.

  

Law professors

https://www.lawliberty.org/2019/04/19/good-riddance-cultural-christianity-religious-right  from last week

This comment seems to express LGBT the victor over victimization by Christians such that Christians are now on the run. I think it is a misguided way of thinking.



One of the contenders in Plato's "Symposium" claimed that the best eroticism is with a young boy and that the adult must provide for the boy for life. It's a 2400 year-old expression of trust-in and commitment-to another human being.



Human equity is the subject of written law, and its object may be statutory justice rather than bargains that justify subjugation. I doubt that 2019 thinking would approve of a life-long contract with a person too-young to comprehend the consequences of the obligation.



I prefer Agathon's speech, which I interpret as:  Human equity requires that a person neither initiate nor tolerate offense to or from any human or Whatever-God-Is.



Whatever-God-Is controls both the consequences of all action and each individual's expectations respecting the unknowns. As an adolescent, I was offered LGBT fun but turned it down because I thought it could alter my future desires and fulfillment. Additionally, a couple girls offered me sex, but I had the same notion:  My future realization seemed threatened.



After a quarter century and a few rejections of my interest in intimacy I thought a person could dedicate himself or herself to another person's life, and by being faithful for life, create mutual happiness. A couple years later, I met a serene, confident woman. We anticipate our sixth decade of marriage with three children.



Today, I think the key to personal happiness is fidelity to the-objective-truth. If single life is happiness, fine. If intimacy is wanted, fidelity is key to personal success. Mutual fidelity is essential.



When we were courting, I wanted to hold hands, but my date felt some people in public might be intimidated by our expression of mutual interest. I began then to collaborate with her, and nearly two decades later realized her Christian hope for Whatever-God-Is differed from mine. Thereby, I discovered the path toward developing the real Phil Beaver. I knew then how fortunate I was that I had never risked casual intimacy.



The point of my story is that the human individual is not alone and that wayward connections may effect early termination of the hope for self-discovery or perhaps self-realization.  Some seemingly innocent errors lead to early death.



Scripture is an early effort to express the need for fidelity to-the-objective-truth. The ancient writers made mistakes, and the reader has the human, individual power, energy, and authority (HIPEA) to benefit from the good ideas and reject the errors. When a human begin reaches an understanding of a given scripture that empowers him or her to develop fidelity to the-objective-truth despite the errors of the writers, his or her connections will be good, and there is no excuse for objections by other parties. In other words, believers who collaborate for mutual, comprehensive safety and security may appreciate non-believers who collaborate with believers.



When scripture warns against intimacy that can lead to infidelity, it may be making some errors in detail, and the reader may note the errors yet take advantage of the overall message. Infidelity speaks for itself, and it is up to the actor to take advantage of the signals. I am not talking here of "conscience" but rather of HIPEA.



One other comment. The minority groups such as LGBT that today make so much of their victimization by Christianity or any other have religion have no corner on the market. In the cultures that have  developed, children, adolescents, and adults are taught to develop dependency. I do not know of a culture that approves-of and encourages HIPEA rather than higher power: Whatever-God-Is, government, or a tyrant. If there is such a civilization, let's go there. Meanwhile, I think it is offered by the U.S. preamble's proposition, and that is what I work to express.

Second: “He puts you in situations to advance the kingdom, whether in a public or private way. Forceful men and women advance it.”

This claim is uncivic, uncivil, and illegal according to the U.S. preamble’s proposition. I ask, “Mr. Schaefer what civic, civil, and legal agreement authorizes your view ‘Forceful . . .'” Civic, civil, and legal persons collaborate for equity under the rule of law. In equity, each individual has his or her Whatever-God-Is or none.

My interpretation of the U. S. preamble is: We a civic people of the united states, in order to encourage individual responsibility for integrity, justice, peace, defense, and prosperity so as to secure human liberty for now and for the future, pursue statutory justice in the USA.

What’s your interpretation of the U.S. preamble?



Linked, Facebook, and Twitter

America’s outstanding opportunity is to revolt from English influence by adopting the U.S. preamble. We the People of the United States may reform American conservatism so that its English influences are put to rest. America proposes responsible human liberty.

Andy Hamilton* surveys today’s Western competitors---conservatism, liberalism, and socialism.  “Conservatism’s “organic” [English] social vision is inherently [skeptical] of the state and puts faith instead in the family, private property and religion.” According to the U.S. preamble, American conservatism privatizes religion and encourages the people to self-discipline: to discover and use the-objective-truth.

It seems delegates to the 1787 constitutional convention in Philadelphia ineluctably discussed the world’s political evidence that self-discipline of by and for the people was politically promising. Articulating the consequences of the convention was nearly impossible, yet the committee of forms expressed it in the 51-word U.S. preamble. Only 2/3 of delegates signed the document, so dissidence has always existed.

The U.S. preamble civically, civilly, and legally proposes that willing fellow citizens, “We the People of the United States,” collaborate for Union, Justice, Tranquility, defense, and Welfare, so as to secure “the blessings of liberty.” Civic citizens collaborate on five public provisions so as to secure a human condition: liberty. In other words, a civic people approve and encourage human liberty. Since dead people cannot collaborate, the liberty accrues to both living and future citizens as they are and where they are. Dissidents are encouraged to either do-no-harm or reform if they suffer legal constraints.

It seems clear that religion as a civic or civil rather than private practice is divisive if not ruinous. Within religion there’s a major divider: theism. Theism is at best a belief in Whatever-God-Is, which everyone knows no one knows. The individual theist merely wants comfort and hope against the unknown and appreciates Whatever-God-Is. Yet theist associations require their subscribers to claim that they know what they know they do not know, pitting believers against each other and against non-theists in a competition everyone doubts! Religion is a good practice only if it helps the human practice responsible liberty. It seems that responsible liberty requires each human to admit to himself or herself that he or she would not willingly rebuke Whatever-God-Is and therefore would not rebuke a fellow citizen’s religion or none, even if the fellow citizen suffers the law’s constraints.

It seems individual tranquility in the appreciation for Whatever-God-Is offers civic peace, and that assertion can be discovered in the U.S. preamble’s silence on religion and spirituality.

I cannot imagine a group of fellow citizens who could develop these ideas faster than American conservatives. The question is: Do they consider themselves fellow citizens and therefore persons with interest in mutual, comprehensive safety and security so as to encourage human liberty now and tomorrow?

*Hamilton, Andy, "Conservatism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2016 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2016/entries/conservatism/>.





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.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Saturday, April 20, 2019

Responsible, human liberty




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 a civic people of the united states, in order to encourage individual responsibility for integrity, justice, peace, defense, and prosperity so as to secure human liberty for now and for the future, pursue statutory justice in the USA..” 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

On Friday, April 19, 2019, my daughter, Holly was off work, and at breakfast I shared with her a review of my quora dialogue with Greg Bailey. See below. My last idea for Bailey was, “perhaps . . .  my work should emphasize ‘responsible, human liberty’ [by] willing fellow citizens’ more than the U.S. preamble’s proposition.”

On hearing that, Holly said, “I like that.”

Holly has collaborated on my work from the beginning---knows how Plato, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Chekhov, Albert Einstein, and many others---influence me. (Rebekah suggested collaboration rather than cooperation, obligation, or subjugation.)

With Holly’s corroboration, it’s a decision and my gratitude for Greg Bailey’s comments is complete and recorded on my appreciation page.



Columns


Civic integrity is established by a contract for equity under the rule of law and enforcement of justice. In a culture of civic integrity, Williams’s phrase “black vote” would not survive. Let’s collaborate to establish responsible human liberty in the USA.

Equity under the U.S. preamble’s proposition appreciates civic humans of all skin colors, ethnicities and both genders. Politicians and ministers have hidden the civic, civil, and legal power of the U.S. preamble for 231 years. It is time for We the People of the United States to establish responsible human liberty for ourselves and future citizens.

Quora

https://www.quora.com/Has-America-gone-from-a-God-fearing-society-at-its-founding-to-a-Godless-society-now Interesting dialogue with an expert skeptic, perhaps self-professed atheist.

My original post: Not at all. On the contrary, it is becoming evident that spirituality and religion are human endeavors for comfort and hope in the face of a confused world. Confused first because most individuals have differing heartfelt concerns and diverse remedies when concerns are similar.

Some people know they are neither omniscient nor omnipotent and therefore make the best choice they perceive in both their daily lives and in their long term goals. However, many people adopt concerns that are presented to them by the world’s cultures and institutional enterprises. Because the enterprises are competitive the concerns and remedies are competitive.

Each human has the individual power, energy, and authority (HIPEA) to develop either integrity to the-objective-truth or infidelity. Some attempt to consign their HIPEA to an enterprise, whether God-fearing or Godless. The-objective-truth about God is that the possible entity has been neither discovered nor disproven.

 No two believers have the same God. In fact, no two priests have the same God, as we observe daily in competitive Christian sects and between priests within a given sect.

 The observations I express are mine. However, they are available to everyone to assess. Happily, there is an achievable, better future, and I hope we are in the transition. Here’s a possibility.

The U.S. preamble’s proposition is for civic citizens to collaborate on the responsibility for freedom-from oppression so that fellow citizens may secure responsible liberty to both living and future citizens; criminals may reform. The only obligations to past citizens is gratitude for their good and prevention of repeating or traditionalizing their mistakes. The U.S. preamble’s proposition is to collaborate to provide Union, Justice, Tranquility, defense, and Welfare so as to secure liberty to both living citizens and future citizens. No $22 trillion debt, for example.

The U.S. preamble’s words are Godless, not to oppress believers, but to assign to both believers and non-believers the responsibility for both Tranquility and liberty. It is left to the individual to accept his or her HIPEA and collaborate for Tranquility including individual spiritual peace and privacy. With at least 2/3 of citizens joining We the People of the United States as defined by the U.S. preamble’s proposition, every Tranquil religion or none may flourish under collaboration by believers rather than conflict under imposition by government.

 We the People of the United States needs 220 million collaborators for the U.S. preamble’s proposition, so if you like these ideas or better (please share), help make this message go viral.





Mr. Beaver….with all due respect, sir, that dialog was the most stoic, apathetic rhetoric I have read in a while. To rattle on as though the United States Constitution bore such altruistic goals and that those goals have been recognized by the people of the United States is just hogwash, sir. Further, you have failed to understand that there are those in the world who have far less than even the poorest in American culture. Watch the link concerning the men and women, children who are engaged in tearing apart the salvaged ships in India [https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3401&v=5jdEG_ACXLw]. What you write about is naive. I do not say this to be rude but to enlighten you so that you understand that a few million of us in the United States are here by mere accident of birth and by that birth we have great wealth and not by constitutional decree.

Peace to you.


Original Author · Tue

I hope you think more about the particular ideas, for example, “The U.S. preamble’s proposition is to collaborate to provide Union, Justice, Tranquility, defense, and Welfare so as to secure liberty to both living citizens and future citizens. No $22 trillion debt, for example.” I think a future with no debt to U.S. children is a bold challenge to U.S. fellow citizens.

I watched the video and in my view it verifies my objection to “Some [humans] attempt to consign their HIPEA to an enterprise, whether God-fearing or Godless. The-objective-truth about God is that the possible entity has been neither discovered nor disproven.” The boy’s family asked him to get an education rather than counting on God to see him through shipbreaking.

I did not get your point.



Phil, you say you do not get my point and I have to say the same of your dialog.

The Indians God of choice in the shipyards is Kali. I have never seen any mention of a Christian God in any of the videos I have watched concerning the terribleness that is occurring there. I do know there are Christian missionaries who are in India but where are they in this mess of humanity? I wonder where my fellow humanists are? I did see that the Red Cross shows up one day a week with a doctor. I just hope that Indians bleed slowly there.

You mentioned that objective truth about the Abrahamic God has not been discovered nor disproven. I suppose I will have to agree with that statement, as I can not disprove it. However, you must keep in mind that it is not the bailiwick of the non-believer to hold the burden of proof but the one who asserts the belief. Thus, if you believe in the Abrahamic God, it falls to you to prove that assertion. In some 2,000 years now, Christians have been unable to come even microscopically close to proving the existence of their God, ever while, science has made great strides and shown there are more and more reasons not to believe in magic, fantasy and the supernatural.

Peace to you.


Original Author · Wed

Greg, it occurred to me last night that your response to my post wonderfully illustrates the points I was making in specific phrases I collaborate to develop so as to make statements in words that everyone can understand.

It takes two to communicate. We have learned over the last six years conducting civic (which leads to civil and legal) meetings a public libraries to state a heartfelt concern, present a well-grounded solution, and LISTEN for collaboration to either improve or negate the concern. Often, the negative is more collaborative than the positive, and either way, iteration is required to reach a solution that encourages individual happiness with civic integrity (those five words comprise one of our specific expressions).

An important and difficult aspect of the procedure—-express a civic concern, do the work to offer a viable solution, and iteratively LISTEN is that the two parties collaborate on the originally stated concern. In 2006, Harold Weingarten, PhD, chemistry, asked me, “By truth do you mean absolute truth, ultimate truth, God’s truth, or Phil’s truth?” I answered, “None of those, but the objective truth.” I’ve been through many discussions wherein people deny the phrase “the objective truth,” most often by dropping the article. Therefore, I either write “the-objective-truth” or say it along with “including two hyphens to connect the three words into a representation of actual-reality.

I am grateful that you have not allowed writing which is plain to me and a handful of collaborators but difficult for you motivate you to stonewall me. I also appreciated your post and watched the documentary.

I realized after sleeping on the experience that the documentary powerfully supports our work. A young man leaves his village and family who are encouraging him to use education to climb out of poverty. He erroneously applies his HIPEA to depart and join a like-minded crowd who perform rituals and pray to quite contradictory representations of mystery. Respecting poverty and living, the Gods merely delude the worshippers, some of whom are mortally injured. The movie also depicts a ship’s captain whose God goes down with the ship.

Also, the documentary makes the point that the entire enterprise happened because entrepreneurs in a country with less regulation of environmental impacts and worker safety take advantage of poor decisions by the USA and other wealthy countries. The wealthy nations effect the dumping of environmental harm and human abuse onto a poor country with the will to pollute and harm.

By taking the issue global, you both expand beyond the scope of my work and allow me to express my focus on the USA not as an isolationist or exceptionalism but to say: We the People of the United States have willfully neglected our civic, civil, and legal proposition—-the U.S. preamble—-for 231 years. If 2/3 of voters choose to adopt the U.S. preamble's proposition, an achievable better future will be realized.

I already expressed the U.S. preamble’s proposition in its language, and want to express it as I practice it: civic people take responsibility to provide integrity, justice, peace, defense, and prosperity so as to secure human liberty to ourselves and future citizens. Returning to the original U.S. preamble, there is nothing about obligations to either mysteries such as God or none or citizens of the past, who can no longer collaborate.

I appreciate your concerns and want to share a story. My friend said, “No. I’ve been an atheist for decades and don’t care to read another word about it.” I responded, “That’s a leap of faith I cannot take.” He stopped his exit, turned, and said, “That’s interesting.” Then departed. I appreciate you, Greg.

With your advice and consent, I want to add “Greg Bailey, 4/16/19” to our appreciations page. If you do not wish that much ID, I will reduce it to “Greg, 4/16/19” so as to maintain the appreciation. Here’s what you helped me see and it is coincidental with my current reading: groups who do not practice civic integrity as a result of the comfort and hopes they gain by associating with like minded people harm their fellow citizens. First, the fellow citizens in their community and second fellow citizens of the world. Neither Gods nor governments take responsibility for the harms done. In a civic culture, each individual may apply HIPEA to collaborate for civic integrity, keeping any private pursuits private. In the USA, this proposition is offered in the U.S. preamble.



Phil, you speak of objective truth….I know what that is. I think we all know what that is when we see it or hear it. It is hard, cold, with definitive edges. No room for error or debate. Right and wrong.

In the reality of our world, a naturalistic world, we do not live in an objective, moralistic world. Out of all of the animals on Earth, it is only humankind, so far as we know, that has developed this view of morality and most often times, only because of religious influence, a most flawed and ingenious institution, based on lies. Even our criminal laws are not objective. They are subjective. Take any law that you might select and you will find degrees of guilt applied to them.

So, unfortunately for you and me, unless we can find some mid ground, some compromise, I do not see how we can come to a resolution or progress. I hope you see the issue now with what it is to be atheist versus religious. How religious belief corrupts the governing of people. The religious desire objective truth. It is a requirement of their Abrahamic God and the 613 Commandments of Jewry. Atheists demand nothing more than to state a lack of belief in gods; the understanding of morality is left to each and every atheist to ponder on his or her own accord. For me, I see subjective morality as reality and necessary for the common good.


Original Author · 20h ago

Greg, according to both objective truth and subjective truth the sun’ll come up tomorrow, cross the sky, and set again in the evening. But according to the-objective-truth, the earth’s rotation on its axis will unhide the sun in the morning and hide it again in the evening. My statement is somewhat circular, since “morning” and “evening” are defined by the consequences of the daily, axial rotation.

The-objective-truth exists and does not react to reason, revelation, metaphysics, or any other human construct. Neither theist nor atheist can influence the-objective-truth.

Men can influence behavior and set forth consequences. For example, President George W. Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq but the consequences draw humankind to the-objective-truth.



Yes, it is true the certain phenomenon of nature, the Laws of Physics, those things have some temporary, objective truth about the manner in which they exist in our Universe. However, I might point out to you that the Quantum Nature of the Universe is also part of what you speak and I would not care to guess about how it exists or how it works. Not even the most learned of the cosmologists and the physicists among us know exactly how the quantum nature of the Universe functions. Electrons pop into and out of existence…a pair of electrons change at the same time even though one is on the Earth and the other on the space station….electrons behave differently when they are being observed….what is that all about? Some physicist say that understanding what they do know, means that we cannot truly understand anything that we think we might understand. Suddenly, it is not about the atomic nature of the Universe being held together but as many as some 15 or so particle fields that float all about us, adhering to these atoms and keeping everything together in one mass. So, you see, Phil, your accreditation of the natural world being a consummate place of objective truth is flawed thinking, my dear sir. Even your beloved Sun analogy will falter in a mere 5 billion years from now, a speck of time for the Universe, our Sun will swell into a giant and consume Mercury, Venus, and the Earth. Then it will die and become a white dwarf. With the Earth consumed, where will your Sunrise and Sunset be?


And at last, we come to the Iraq War. I think this is a Red Herring fallacious argument, as all of humankind has not agreed on the manner, nor the outcome of that war. Debate still continues as to the nature of George Bush and the need and or the criminality of the invasion.


Original Author · 16h ago

I agree. the-objective-truth about the earth’s rotation will change when it stops, but the facts about its daily rotation on its axis hiding and unhiding the sun during this era will remain.

Also, the-objective-truth about quantum mechanics exists and remains to be discovered.

Before the-objective-truth, objective truth remains a human construct. Perhaps you will think of a term that expresses this point better than the-objective-truth does. I am collaborating for such a term and will jump on it when it is discovered.



But Phil, you never said anything in your previous dialog about the Sunrise and Sunset “in this era”…you only said it was objective truth. Now, when I point out to you your error, you move the goal post. This is a fallacious argument tactic and a dishonest one. You have likewise done the same with the quantum nature issue, but you missed the point of my discourse about quantum nature entirely; because it is a mystery and seems to have no rhyme or reason, and thus, could never be seen as an objective truth.

You say that objective truth is a human construct and this may be correct, but you do not know this for certain. It could be that higher forms of animal life or even plant life, for all we know, has a construct of truths and facts. Plant life on Earth is the most evolve species of all living things on Earth. I hate to keep shooting you in the foot, but your premise is again, flawed.

How do you feel about free will? Do you have it or not? Is it a natural thing or did the Abrahamic God give it to all of humankind?


Original Author · 1h ago

Dear Greg, your innocence is astounding.

I cited the subjective truth “the sun’ll come up tomorrow” to make the case for the-objective-truth that the earth’s rotation on its axis will un-hide the sun tomorrow. You demonstrated weak objective truth by introducing pseudo-metaphysics by “Schroder and Smith, when the Sun becomes a red giant star in 7.59 billion years . . .“ to take my statement beyond tomorrow. I did not and do not allow you to deny my claim about tomorrow versus your mysticism for 7.6 billion years from now. I regret your propensity to write embarrassing statements.

You seem to be innocent of the hearsay that Albert Einstein fell victim to belief. He held conviction about his universe-paradigm and later called it the biggest blunder of his life. In building his mathematical model for the theory of general relativity, he assumed that the universe was static. When his brilliant model informed him that the universe is not only dynamic but expanding, he introduced a “cosmological factor”---a fudge factor---to force his brilliant mathematics into his erroneous paradigm. When Edwin Hubble, ten years later discovered red shifts, evidence that the universe is expanding, Einstein admitted his error to himself and to the world. Humility goes a long way in the research to discover the-objective-truth. Einstein expressed that idea in 1941, in my paraphrase: Civic people don’t lie so as to lessen human misery and loss.

You seem to think Alinsky Rule No. 5---ridicule your fellow citizen---empowers you. I disagree with Alinsky, Alinsky-Marxist organizers, and self-developing skeptics.

 I hope you will join the work to establish the U.S. preamble’s proposition: responsible, human liberty for willing fellow citizens in the USA.



Phil, I do not think that I would fit in with anything that you are involved in, such as this preamble proposition. If you wrap yourself in the flag of patriotism too tightly, it cuts the blood flow off to the brain and turns one into a science denier.

I think we have exhausted about as much ideology as we can both stand so I will bid you a good day and hope you have a great weekend.


Original Author · Just now

Greg, once again, I am grateful for your work—-both time and thought—-on this thread. In your closing for now, goodwill message, which I return, I am most grateful for the suggestion, perhaps unintended, that my work should emphasize “responsible, human liberty for willing fellow citizens” rather than the U.S. preamble’s proposition. Thank you for that, too.




No.

The U.S. Constitution promises a republican form of government. See 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.”

In 1790 perhaps 5% of free citizens could vote. There had to be some evidence of responsibility: gender (male), wealth, and land holding were evidences. Viable candidacy for office erroneously required practice of religion, specifically theism, specifically Christianity, particularly factional-American Protestantism.

The 55 framers of the constitution specified the representative republic, and the 39 signers endorsed the work of the 5-man Committee of Forms, who expressed the consequences of the convention in the U.S. preamble’s proposition: individuals choose to collaborate for Union, Justice, Tranquility, defense, and Welfare so as to secure liberty to both living and future citizens. Fellow citizens who oppose or do not care about the U.S. preamble’s proposition ought not vote or otherwise hold office.

Citizens who want equity know and collaborate for statutory law and its enforcement and continually seek statutory justice. In the U.S. the agreement to collaborate is offered in the U.S. preamble’s proposition. I propose a constitutional amendment to the effect: Fellow citizens who do not collaborate for the U.S. preamble’s proposition cannot vote much less serve jury duty or hold elected or appointed office.




I work to persuade fellow citizens to collaborate for mutual, comprehensive safety and security, the proposition that is expressed in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. With most fellow citizens so collaborating we would be continually developing individual happiness with civic integrity rather than conflicting for dominant opinion. Responsible liberty would establish the-objective-truth as the standard for collaboration rather than resistance. The society of collaborators are civic citizens under the U.S. preamble’s proposition.


When you don’t know something, you are better off admitting to yourself and to the public, “I do not know” then doing the work to comprehend whether you learned or discovered the-objective-truth or must maintain “I do not know.”


The idea “social justice” is erroneous in itself. Merriam-Webster defines the phrase “a state or doctrine of egalitarianism.” Humankind cannot contrive a way to provide equity much less equality.

The question can be examined from the view of the prosperous ovum. For example, during these years, the U.S. has about 800 million viable ova per year and 4 million births per year. That’s an 0.5% survival rate.

If we back up to conceptions, about 9 million were reported, so there was a 44% survival rate. However, how many conceptions failed to attach to the mother’s womb and were thus lost?

Each human has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (HIPEA) to develop either integrity or infidelity to the-objective-truth. Those who make choices that accumulate infidelity probably suffer misery and loss:  No one can restore their chance to develop integrity.


Appreciation for civic fellow citizens increases as an individual psychologically matures, not necessarily as the quarter centuries accumulate. Some people seem adolescent in their fourth quarter-century and beyond.

https://www.quora.com/What-are-a-few-bitter-truths-of-life

The human has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (HIPEA) to develop either integrity to the-objective-truth or infidelity. Unfortunately, most cultures erroneously indoctrinate children to seek higher power, and most individuals live without accepting their HIPEA.

The body does not complete the construction of the wisdom parts of the brain until a quart century has passed, and it takes another quarter century to experience and observe enough to begin to build wisdom. After yet another quarter century, the mature adult realizes he learns more from youth than he or she knows and is humbled. On reflection, I do not consider this one bitter, and I do not want to delete it.

Law professors


Rogers wonderfully touches on major issues and, with a different perspective, outlines the possibility that this is the best of times for Christians who happen to be fellow citizens in the U.S. Christians as well as other fellow citizens may adopt the U.S. preamble’s proposition, which is not offered in other countries.

The U.S. is distinguished by some willing citizens collaborating to provide freedom-from oppression so that living individuals and future citizens may encourage human liberty to pursue the happiness each perceives rather than the dictates of someone else. Many civic citizens live this way, but few would articulate it; I call it civic integrity. Dissident citizens are not aware of a U.S. citizens’ contract that offers responsible human liberty.

The preamble to the U.S. constitution, in my paraphrase, states: Willing fellow citizens civically, civilly, and legally collaborate to provide integrity, justice, peace, defense, and prosperity so that living individuals and future citizens may pursue human liberty. (My daughter, Holly, and I agreed this morning that in future, my work will promote “responsible human liberty” more than the U.S. preamble’s proposition. The thought emerged in a quora.com discussion with Greg Bailey; https://www.quora.com/Has-America-gone-from-a-God-fearing-society-at-its-founding-to-a-Godless-society-now. Incidentally, my daughter Rebekah first called this work “civic collaboration.” No one is asked to cooperate or subjugate---only collaborate.)

For two decades, I have advocated amending the First Amendment to delete the two religion clauses, never realizing as I do now that the U.S. preamble does not invoke religion at all. Gail Fink wrote, “Hence the First Amendment: Government cannot make laws that oblige people to disregard their duties to God, because duties to God come first.” Perhaps she shares that opinion with James Madison’s legacy. However, Fink fails to address Whatever-God-Is: Rogers’ touched on two Gods in “eternity is flitting about heaven like a bodiless angel, instead of a new physical heaven and earth and resurrected bodies.”

More importantly, I now propose:  The First Amendment should relegate religion and spirituality to individual privacy (drop both phrases) and encourage individual civic integrity.

An important element in a civic culture is a proposition to collaborate for human equity under written law with continual improvement toward statutory justice. In this country the U.S. preamble’s proposition is offered to each fellow citizen. That includes elected and appointed officers in local, state, and federal governments and clergypersons. People who consider themselves above the U.S. preamble’s proposition are dissidents against justice.

In human equity, every religious or spiritual association flourishes, provided any institution the believers develop conforms to the proposition for statutory justice. Human equity is evaluated using the-objective-truth. The-objective-truth exists and can be discovered but cannot be constructed by human reason, revelation, mysticism, or any other human construct.

The very articulation of these ideas offers an achievable better future if civic collaboration leads to a super majority of citizens who want mutual, comprehensive safety and security; individual happiness with civic integrity.

I write to learn and would appreciate comments. I learned much from Greg Bailey over a couple days.

Sorry. I omitted a difficult issue I had researched: “hate” in the Old Testament.

In my eighth decade, having spent five decades pursuing two Christianities, Mom and Dad’s So. Baptism and my family’s Louisiana French Catholicism, I have a strong aversion to the use of the word “hate” in all forms. I learned this aversion from Agathon’s speech in Plato’s “Symposium.”

I often use a search engine for “Jesus+hate” or “Old Testament+hate.” I reject the author’s thoughts in every case, and do not suppose that Jesus uttered the word, admitting to myself I could be wrong. However, not one of the search results included John 15:18-24. I reject the argument John makes.

I wonder if Rogers would apply John 15:18-24 to me, a non-Christian.




I think Latecomer’s post misses the actual reality: The standard for domestic peace is neither God nor government but the U.S. preamble’s proposition. On that proposition, fellow citizens are divided: civic citizens vs dissidents.



The representative republic that was created by the 55 framers of the 1787 U.S. Constitution remains the world’s best hope for success: mutual, comprehensive safety and security for most citizens. Hopefully, the nation that was thereby created is at its nadir and restoration is imminent.



If so, we may be grateful to the 1787 committee of 5 who authored the U.S. preamble, which expresses the proposition that was signed by only 39 of the delegates of only 12 states, setting the precedent for a 2/3 majority rather than two-party division. Further, we may be grateful for the 9 states’ citizens whose ratification conventions established the USA as of June 21, 1788.



The stated proposition is: willing citizens take responsibility for Union, Justice, Tranquility, defense, and Welfare so as to secure human liberty to ourselves and to our posterity (including children and grandchildren and beyond). The globally outstanding feature of this political statement is that it leaves discovery, evaluation, and acceptance of the proposition to the individual citizen.



If an individual wants equity under some other proposition, he or she may collaborate for the alternative. For 2020, many people are clamoring for the chaos of social democracy; in other words, different groups compete for attention to “rights” they prefer rather than collaborate to discover statutory justice under the rule of law. Alinsky-Marxist trained organizers falsely claim that coalitions of groups with competing "rights" can rule.



I express the U.S. preamble's proposition as civic people collaborating for integrity, justice, defense, peace, and prosperity so as to secure responsible, individual liberty to current and future citizens. The commitment to past citizens is to benefit from their accomplishments and prevent repeating their mistakes. When fellow citizens deviate from the commitment and cause harm, they may be constrained by statutory law, which a civic people continually improve toward statutory justice.



The standard for statutory justice, or the worthy goal of civic perfection, is the-objective-truth---the actual reality by which truth in all modifications is evaluated. The entities people refer to as “God” do not enjoy the discovery that is needed to employ those entities as standards for statutory justice. Therefore, the U.S. preamble relegates theism, spiritualism, philosophy, metaphysics, and other mysteries to private pursuits by adults.



After 231 years neglecting the U.S. preamble’s proposition, the USA’s representative republic is under attack by social democracy---the notion that groups with their opinion of human rights can organize their way into dominance by negotiating agreements today that they intend to deny tomorrow. They imagine that in time they will dominate. The individual human is too psychologically powerful to cooperate-with, submit-to, or otherwise tolerate chaos from Alinsky-Marxist organizations or any other political scheme. The people demand civic integrity.



We think the year to establish widespread understanding-of, commitment-to, and trust-in the civic, civil, and legal powers of the U.S. preamble has arrived: 2019. We need 220 million people collaborating for the U.S. preamble’s achievable, better future. If you like this message, help it go viral for collaboration, for the peoples’ sake and incidentally for this country and the world's best hope for the rule of law.



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.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)