The tolerant feeling

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: “Willing citizens collaborate, communicate, and connect to provide 5 public institutions—integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity—so as to encourage responsible human liberty to living people.” I want to collaborate with the other citizens on this paraphrase and theirs yet would preserve the original, 1787, text, unless it is amended by the people.

It seems no one has challenged whether or not the preamble is a legal statement. The fact that it changed this independent country from a confederation of states to a union of states deliberately managed by disciplined fellow citizens convinces me the preamble is legal. Equity in opportunity and outcome is shared by the people who collaborate for human justice.

Every citizen has equal opportunity to either trust-in and collaborate-on the goals stated in the preamble or be dissident to the agreement. I think 2/3 of citizens try somewhat to use the preamble but many do not articulate commitment to the goals. However, it seems less than 2/3 understand that “posterity” implies grandchildren. “Freedom of religion,” which fellow citizens have no means to discipline, oppresses freedom to develop integrity.



Selected theme from this week

The tolerant feeling


Tolerance is a feeling promoted by social democrats and theists. Intolerance is useful. Having been the target of tolerance most of my life, I have learned to avoid the practice and rebuke its sting: I am intolerant of tolerance.


In most matters, the tolerant person assumes he or she owns the better opinion, never considering the other party’s statements. For example, the Christian who does not consider my Jesus also does not take seriously my response to his or her unbelief: I respond that I will also pray for him or her. A Muslim associate said, “Phil, you are sincere, but sooner or later you will submit to Allah.” After trying to learn an explanation, I assume it means I will die.


I’m intolerant of civil imposition of whatever-God-is under any theism and am strengthened by the absence of religion as a civic discipline in the U.S. Preamble.



Columns

Citing a black-racist writer for The Advocate (Michael McGrath Duran Sr.) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/letters/article_f608d5dc-20f1-11ea-a3e1-4f0358073afb.html)

Mr. Duran’s letter-to-the-editor offers welcome civic clarity within The Advocate’s confusing social bias. Working with Duran’s premise and clues, I want to develop a view of the American dream as proposed in the U.S. Preamble.

Mr. Duran addresses bigotry, its judicial defeat, and implied white-Christian bias. What’s missing is a people’s proposition that can overcome most individual or institutional harm. A culture of responsible human liberty as proposed in the U.S. Preamble.

Some 2400 years ago, the Greeks suggested 3 principles which I bet Mr. Duran interprets his way more than mine. First, human individuals may ultimately develop equity under statutory justice, the perfection of statutory law. Second, the civic citizen neither initiates nor tolerates harm to or from any person or institution. Third, humans with humility accept the mystery of whatever-God-is, whether it’s ultimate purpose is responsible control of everything or chaos.

Addressing discrimination, Mr. Duran points out that no one can express another person’s intentions without the person’s admission. However, employment courts developed a 4 part method to perhaps detect an employer’s intent to discriminate against an applicant. The McDonnell Douglass test addresses the initial burdens of the employment-applicant complainant, as follows:

1. that he belongs to a racial minority;

2. that he applied and was qualified for a job for which the employer was seeking applicants;

3. that, despite his qualifications, he was rejected; and

4. that, after his rejection, the position remained open and the employer continued to seek applicants from persons of complainant's qualifications.

These employment-application criteria can be modified to address an individual’s qualifications as a civic U.S. citizen, as follows in my view:

1. that he pursues equity under statutory justice;

2. that he considered, interpreted, adopted, and promoted the U.S. Preamble to order individual pursuit of civic, civil, and legal human liberty;

3. that, despite his civic integrity, We the People of the United States has not delivered justice; and

4. that, some fellow citizens received the justice he was denied.

This application comes from interpretation of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition for my practices today, as follows: We the People of the United States consider, communicate, collaborate, and connect to maintain 5 public disciplines in order to encourage responsible human liberty to the continuum of living citizens. The 5 disciplines are integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity (interpreting the original Union, Justice, Tranquillity, defence, and Welfare, respectively). The 5 disciplines does not include religion. The "founding fathers" have no vote since they could not then provide statutory justice for 2019 living.

Incidentally, Duran seemed to assume white-Christianity as a standard by excluding it from "black, Arab, Jew, etc.". Duran may not have considered African-American Christianity. Interestingly, the U.S. Supreme court seems Judeo-Christian in membership.

The U.S. Preamble is neutral to religion, race, gender, and ethnicity. The U.S. Constitution ought to conform to the U.S. Preamble but doesn't. The fellow citizen who falsely accuses another of bias has not joined We the People of the United States. He may reform any time the entity We the People of the United States seems attractive to him.





“[What] is going to police every person’s preference of one over another?” The people’s pursuit of human equity under statutory justice---in the USA, the U.S. Preamble.

Quora

https://www.quora.com/How-can-the-U-S-Senate-address-with-civic-integrity-the-arrogant-impeachment-most-of-the-Democrats-in-the-House-of-Representatives-rendered? (My question)

“arrogant impeachment”? Well that does signify your rage, which I interpret (on this thin evidence that you provided) to be your rage that your god on earth DJ Trump has been disrespected, and so your deification of him has been contradicted.

But from the viewpoint of the majority of us, IF Senate wants to address it with civic integrity then they can call as witnesses the people that DJ Trump told not to testify.

To Ian Straus:  Civic integrity is a practice: discover whether a heartfelt concern is a actual reality or imagination; understand how to benefit from the discovery; behave for the benefit; share with fellow citizens your understanding; consider constructive response from fellow citizens and change if civic integrity so demands; remain open minded to new instruments of observation that would change the understanding. Act accordingly.

It seems to me most Democrats and one Independent in the House of Representatives did not practice civic integrity in developing their impeachment. If the Senate joined the House’s cause, it would be a travesty of justice under the proposition that is offered in the U.S. Preamble, in my interpretation, responsible human liberty.

I have been accused of using un-natural and insincere language in my question. I assert that the accusation derives from widespread civic failure to consider, comprehend, collaborate, and connect using the U.S. Preamble’s proposition. Developing a personal interpretation of the U.S. Preamble feels civic rather than un-natural. Further, I have developed since 1996 and my introduction to Stephen L. Carter’s work and his book, “Integrity”, my view of the practice of integrity. To accuse me of insincerity is questionable.



https://www.quora.com/What-is-a-belief-philosophy-in-which-you-highly-disagree-with-yet-are-afraid-could-be-correct?

Humankind cannot develop civic integrity sufficient for 2/3 of global inhabitants to hold their spiritual inspirations and motivations private so as to publicly appreciate fellow citizens who practice the pursuit of mutual, comprehensive safety and security so that each human may develop the liberty to pursue preferred happiness rather than submit to someone else’s idea for him or her.

Law professors

https://www.lawliberty.org/2019/12/20/divided-loyalty-liberal-toleration-in-the-new-locke-manuscript

Professor Simmons provides an excellent analysis to support my suggestion that America’s most urgent reform is to accept the U.S. Preamble’s psychological independence from colonial-British tradition, especially the belief in taking “higher ground” so as to feel tolerant. An achievable American dream—equity under statutory justice—is proposed in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. Preamble. Its proposition is continuous national freedom-from past errors, such as those of the “founding fathers,” so that the continuum of living citizens (“ourselves and our Posterity,” quoting the U.S. Preamble) may practice the liberty-to develop integrity.

Integrity is the repetitive practice of discovering whether a heartfelt concern reflects ineluctable evidence or a mirage; doing the work to comprehend how to benefit from the discovery; behaving so as to represent the ineluctable evidence as understood; publicly sharing the discovery; understanding a fellow-citizens’ constructive response; helping to develop new instruments by which understanding may be improved; and being open-minded to needed change. Thus, the standard for integrity is pursuit of the-objective-truth based on ineluctable evidence and the hope that resulting interrelated discoveries reflect the-literal-truth. Integrity uses but does not conform to reason or natural law.

Simmons’s essay poses profound Locke & Simmons questions which I think can be utilized in conformity to the U.S. Preamble’s proposition. Each and every citizen may interpret the U.S. Preamble so as to order his or her individual development of either integrity or infidelity to the-literal-truth.

The interpretation I use to order my conduct (my wife and children discover their own standards) is: We the People of the United States consider, communicate, collaborate, and connect to establish and maintain 5 public disciplines so as to encourage responsible human liberty to the continuum of living citizens. My disciplines are integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity, corresponding to the original sentence’s “Union . . . Justice . . . Tranquillity . . . defence . . . Welfare”, respectively. My interpretation perceives no standards for either the 5 disciplines or the individual’s innate liberty. The proposition is neutral to religion, race, gender, ethnicity, wealth and many other human divisions, both innate and constructed.

I address some of Simmons’ words and considerations so as to support my view of We the People of the United States. First, among civic citizens, intolerance seems an objective practice, whereas tolerance seems subjective. The civic citizen neither initiates nor tolerates harm to or from any person or institution.
Second, licentious can mean “disregarding accepted rules” and liberal can mean “willing to discard traditional values.” These usages seem practically synonymous. Responsible human liberty is neither licentious nor liberal, because responsibility to the-literal-truth is accepted.
Third, living people have the benefit of new instruments of discovery including history such as John Locke’s brilliantly expressed errors.
Fourth, in a culture of civic integrity, no one’s private pursuit of religious beliefs would be interpreted as allegiance to a foreign power. Civic, civil, and legal powers encourage responsible human liberty. A citizen may vacation every year in a foreign country without objection and likewise may pursue individual, spiritual inspiration and motivation that goes beyond the civics of body, mind, and person, perhaps to soul or other hope and comfort, no matter the source of the spiritualism.
Fifth, “that toleration only requires men to accept political principles” emerges from the false notion that eventually all humans will evolve to the same religious doctrine. Written law and its enforcement does and must develop statutory justice, a perfect goal, and the fellow citizen who does not conform begs subjugation to the law.
Sixth, “the well-being of the commonwealth” is incidental to individual human responsibility; that is, the civic proposition, such as that of the U.S. Preamble, is for the individual, and one measure of accomplishment is the distribution of individual happiness with civic integrity within the population.
Seventh, separation of church from state is separation of responsible human liberty from hope to discover whatever-God-is or other religious goal. Therefore, the U.S. Preamble leaves the pursuit of religion a private interest rather than civic, civil, or legal concern.
Eighth, controversy over supreme court decisions such as Scalia’ in Smith, derives from the First Congress’s unconstitutional imposition of factional-American churches on the U.S. Preamble’s proposition. The religion clauses may be reformed to protect individual development of integrity rather than impose institutional religion.
Ninth, “the self-enforcing principle of the wished-for natural law” erroneously asserts that reason is the standard for achievement of the U.S. Preamble’s 5 public disciplines. The-objective-truth, which humankind discovers so as to approach the-literal-truth is the standard of performance.
Tenth, the notion that all Americans must approve “organized religion” is false and obfuscates the civic integrity of responsible human liberty with privacy regarding pursuit of spirituality. “Decent citizens” represents judgmental toleration whereas “civic citizens” discipline to practice the U.S. Preamble’s proposition.
Eleventh, it matters not to me “what toleration really meant for Locke.” I’ve experienced tolerance enough to know that I do not want to share my hard-earned opinion with someone who deems themselves looking down. As soon as I feel tolerance I change the subject to LSU sports or the weather. I could care less about those topics but can discuss them.

It is no surprise that 17th century British philosophers and political scientists did not grasp the principles that are tacitly expressed in the U.S. Preamble. The U.S. Preamble, which addresses the Greek notion that humans may develop equity under statutory justice, was written by 5 republican oligarchs during September 8-12, 1787. What’s surprising is that the 9 members of the U.S. Supreme Court do not continually each share their latest interpretations so as to encourage the U.S. Congress, the administration, the press, state governments, and local governments to join We the People of the United States as defined in the U.S. Preamble.

I am grateful to both Cole Simmons for such thorough scholarship on which to base intolerance of tolerance as I view the U.S. Preamble and to Law & Liberty for the opportunity to develop my 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.