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
We the People of the United States can establish responsible human liberty.
The preamble to the U.S. Constitution proposes public discipline to secure responsible human liberty. It wisely does not specify standards for performance, because only the-literal-truth would suffice as the basis for human justice. It also omits religion from the 5 public disciplines for the same reason. No one knows how achievable continuously better future may be under the U.S. Preamble and the-literal-truth.
Unfortunately, the American culture has evolved to preserve colonial-English traditions rather than to benefit from the U.S. Preamble’s public proposition for responsible human liberty.
The U.S. Preamble’s proposition freed “ourselves and our Posterity” from the tyranny of “the founders”; we, the living citizens are “ourselves and our Posterity.” Let’s get started now by encouraging each other to develop and share personal interpretations of the U.S. Preamble.
News
Early into recent impeachment developments, Nancy Pelosi claimed obligation to “we, the people.” In her directive to write articles of impeachment, she claimed obligation to “the founders.” Her arrogance is against the people!
Columns
Replacing politically correct phrases in a glossary (Rich Lowry) (https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2019/11/27/democrats-impeachment-lowry-072350)
Rich Lowry represents himself a nanny-state person on par with James Comey, would-be FBI director. Accepting honesty, perhaps neither Lowry nor Comey encountered and committed-to integrity. The victim of their influential failures is the entity We the People of the United States as defined in the U.S. Preamble. People who discount my statements as ad hominems are free to do so and I disagree. Other readers may consider these ideas from the Democrats’ self-abasement.
Since President Trump prefers strength to defense, he talks with people other presidents shunned as enemies or slighted as allies. Trump loathes giving money from We the People of the United States to people who use the gifts to tread on Americans. Trump learned before running for the presidency that the greatest threat comes from the unworthy liars you unfortunately hire then must fire. Trump promised to discover and fire appointed officials who do not trust-in and commit-to the U.S. Preamble (my interpretation of Make America Great by Draining the Swamp). Aliens to the U.S. Preamble know they work for themselves, and they use whatever they can to preserve their ability to oppose We the People of the United States. Pelosi blames “we, the people” for Pelosi intentions.
In the Ukraine call, President Trump was pursuing suspected corruption by the Obama administration---not only for personal gain but to help Russia defeat Ukrainian victims with U.S. blankets for protection. A former member of the Obama administration who had Trump presidential information chose to oppose the disclosure of Obama-administration-corruption by being a whistleblower. Many Democrats still belong to the Obama administration.
The swamp informed the Democrats of the whistleblower and took all the time the Democrats needed to develop a political slant to Trump’s pursuit of corruption. They tried to make their case using opinions of the swamp-members who adamantly protect their self-interests as aliens to the entity We the People of the United States as defined in the U.S. Preamble. In so doing, the Democrats have exposed their alienation to We the People of the United States as defined in the U.S. Preamble.
Unfortunately, Lowery honestly does not understand. He’s young enough to reform by considering the U.S. Preamble and joining We the People of the United States. Some congress-persons are also young enough to reform. Even then, some are so stained by the swamp the only remedy is to fire them.
Someone who wants to be a writer for the press could research who is paying the legal fees for the Democrats’ congressional-hearing opinion speakers. With balanced research and comprehension, he or she would be taking the first step toward journalism.
Posted on the above site and on FB.
Replacing politically correct phrases in a civic glossary (The Advocate) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_a9294f94-e3f7-11e9-9c0b-3b07c7f30809.html)
The Advocate published a psychology phrase, “fundamental attribution error,” as competition with “hypocrisy.”
For civic meetings at EBRP libraries and elsewhere, we are developing a glossary of civically interesting terms so that fellow citizens may enjoy a long term communication, collaboration, and connection without proprietary jargon. See http://promotethepreamble.blogspot.com/2014/10/glossary-for-december-15-discussion.html, updated November 7, 2019. Help us improve the glossary.
We the People of the United States is elite (George Will) (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/people-are-fine-with-elites-as-long-as-they-arent-politicians/2019/11/19/b749bf7c-0af4-11ea-bd9d-c628fd48b3a0_story.html)
Unfortunately, George Will does not cite the civic integrity that promotes elitism without hypocrisy.
Will asserts “In any modern, complex democracy . . . the perennial political problem is to get popular consent to worthy elites. Americans . . . know that representative government means that “the people” decide who shall decide.”
Will is reputed to be an authority on American exceptionalism. See https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/american-exceptionalism-george-will-book-the-conservative-sensibility/, where Will is quoted, “Americans codified their Founding doctrines as a natural rights republic in an exceptional Constitution.”
In the American dream, the only natural right is the opportunity to develop integrity for statutory human justice rather than dominance under reasonable human constructs.
In the above two references, Will writes to preserve European if not English elitism modified to American freedom of theism rather than Anglican Church dominance. Like so many divided elitists, Will misses the American dream that is expressed in the U.S. Preamble. Eventually, the amended articles of the U.S. Constitution may conform to the U.S. Preamble’s proposition.
The U.S. Preamble was developed by two elite, 5-member committees selected from the 55 delegates who attended the 1787 constitutional convention. The Committee of Detail was appointed on July 24, 1787 to draft a constitution reflecting the discuss results. The Committee of Style and Arrangement was appointed on September, 1787 to create the draft that 39 delegates signed. The two committees had no identical delegates and each had one representative from each of 4 states: PA, VA, MA, and CT; SC lost a seat to NY.
The Committee of Detail drafted a preamble that named 13 states whereas only 12 participated in the convention, retained government by the states rather than discipline of by and for the people, and had no citizens’ proposition. The proposition that the Committee of Style offered for signature is abstract, controversial and representative of the heartfelt issues that caused split decisions: 39 signed and 16 declined. Just how civically the Committee of Style represented the convention’s intentions is hard to fathom and easy to appreciate.
Living citizens like Will may appreciate the U.S. Preamble by considering how to interpret its words so as to argue civic acceptance of his or her individual pursuit of happiness. Citizens may discover controversies. First, the U.S. Preamble proposes 5 public disciplines---Unity, Justice, Tranquility, defense, and Welfare---in order to secure responsible human liberty to living citizens; civic citizens, by example more than by exhortation, encourage dissidents to reform. Second, the 5 disciplines exclude theism and other religions, leaving possible spiritualism to the privacy of the individual rather than an imposition by civic people. Third, standards for performance are not specified. Thus, neither U.S. founding, civilization, reason, nor law limits the statutory human justice the continuum of living people may establish and maintain. No one knows how much better the achievable future may be under We the People of the United States as defined in the U.S. Preamble.
Fellow citizens who live under the U.S. Preamble’s proposition (whether they articulate it or not) are America’s elites. They come from all walks of life and have maintained hopes for the U.S. Preamble’s American dream since June 21, 1788, when the USA was established as a global nation of by and for We the People of the United States.
Unfortunately, America’s politicians and writers for the press do all they can to suppress the civic, civil, and legal power of the U.S. Preamble. Only We the People of the United States can establish and maintain the U.S. Preamble’s proposition, and an elite few keep the hope alive.
Quora
https://www.quora.com/Which-ideology-do-you-believe-is-the-most-flawed-and-why?
Perhaps most flawed is the idea that whatever-God-is responds to worship, praise, and supplication.
It seems self-evident that civic integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity hinge on self-discipline among fellow citizens and every individual has the opportunity to develop infidelity if they so choose.
https://www.quora.com/What-will-a-society-with-more-equality-have?
Perhaps social scientists will have invented a gene treatment and government will force mothers to use it to render every unique ovum equal.
https://www.quora.com/What-are-your-thoughts-on-the-Trump-administration-declaring-support-for-Venezuela-uprising-against-Maduro?
I listened to and then read President Trump’s inaugural address and got these pertinent messages from him.
First, the entity We the People of the United States has lost power to hold government accountable and that he was going to restore that power; it will not be easy, but we will get the job done. He plans to restore power to the people.
Second, world leaders can no longer look to U.S. citizens for fulfillment of their national goals. Governments who want civic integrity will take charge of serving their people first, and helping political allies second.
Seemingly consistent with these principles, Trump supports the people of Venezuela, but does not intend to spend American well-being for foreign purposes.
https://www.quora.com/Is-knowledge-without-understanding-meaningless?
Knowledge without understanding is both meaningful and dangerous.
The knowledge that perhaps most threatens humankind seems the mystery of whatever-God-is. Does an intelligent being control the unfolding of the universe? Did the control unleash a singularity; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_singularity? Or, interpreting the expansion reasoning in https://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw94.html, perhaps a moment before the big bang, the universe consisted of only potential energy; its decline began the moment mass and kinetic energy emerged.
Humanoids have evolved over perhaps 3 million years, and the human branch perhaps hundreds or tens of thousands of years. Cultures had sun gods perhaps 10 thousand years ago, and monotheism came about 4 thousand years ago. The thousands of Christian religions emerged beginning with Jesus, who some humans deemed the Jewish messiah but intended for all believers that Jesus is the Christ. Not only are Judaism and Christianity divisive, both externally and internally, Islam is a similar, divided branch of monotheism.
Christianity had its origins from writers perhaps 7 decades after Jesus died, and some writer’s opinions were selected for the Catholic canonization of the Old Testament in 382 AD and the New Testament in 692 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon.
The person who reads the Holy Bible may know both 1) that they are reading the word of God according to western historical developments and 2) that whatever-God-is may not agree with some human interpretations of the story.
https://www.quora.com/Do-you-believe-that-it-would-be-better-if-every-citizen-agreed-100-on-politics-Would-the-resulting-absence-of-animosity-tribalism-be-worth-the-lack-of-debate-and-exchange-of-ideas-that-would-occur?
No: there will always be dissidents, passives, and civic citizens.
The human being has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (HIPEA) to develop integrity (or HIEPA, to prioritize energy before power). Integrity is the practice of confirming that a concern or discovery is based on ineluctable evidence (actually-real observation) before developing perhaps beneficial use. For example, statistics informs humankind that there probably is extraterrestrial life, but no one knows the benefit of trying to communicate with extraterrestrials.
Humanity has not the authority to deny HIPEA---to squelch the creativity of a Steve Jobs or a Donald Trump. On the contrary, humankind’s leading edge has accepted a few political principles such as: 1) a person may aid human equity under statutory justice, which is approachable by amending laws to lessen injustice when it is discovered; 2) civic persons neither initiate nor tolerate harm according to the-literal-truth to or from another person or institution; and 3) while an individual may pursue individual hopes and dreams, the aforementioned equity and no-harm disciplines must be observed, whether the individual has considered and accepted them or intentionally denies them. In other words, individuals who employ HIPEA for crime, tyranny, and other breaches of civic integrity risk constraint under statutory law, imperfect as it may be at that time. This discretionary division of humankind: integrity versus infidelity cannot be expected to end, because each human is unique in both chronological maturity, psychological development, and innate ability.
Under possible leading-edge human principles such as the above expressions, a civic culture operates under a majority agreement that does not expect the utopia of 100%. So far, I do not know of a civic culture, but U.S. history has many significant instances when about 2/3 of the people or their representatives agreed on what seems favorable policy. A couple examples will suffice: 1) 39/55 or 2.1/3 of delegates signed the 1787 U.S. Constitution; 2) 724/1086 or 2/3 of delegates in the 9 states that ratified the constitution, established the USA as a global nation on June 21, 1788.
State delegates who subsequently voted to ratify the U.S. Constitution were voting to join the entity We the People of the United States, even though some of them opposed the 1787 Constitution. In other words, they prudently thought it unwise for four states to remain globally free and independent according to the ratification of January 14, 1784. That ratification approved the 1783 Treaty of Paris, which individually names the 13 states.
Incidentally, citizens who recognize any of about 250 18th century Americans dubbed “the founding fathers” often do so to preserve a colonial-English tradition the citizen favors that ought to be obsolete under the U.S. Preamble, the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Preamble proposes 5 public disciplines to encourage responsible human liberty to living citizens. That’s us and our posterity.
Most citizens want mutual, comprehensive safety and security for living, including economic viability to pursue civic integrity. Responsible human liberty springs from public discipline including integrity (Union), justice, peace (Tranquility), strength (defence), and prosperity (Welfare). The standards for performance are unspecified, because much of the-literal-truth is unknown. Citizens who want to pursue religion (excluded from the 5 disciplines) may do so in privacy but not to impose religion on fellow citizens.
In the USA, civic citizens commit-to and trust-in the U.S. Preamble’s proposition. After 231 years of citizens’ neglect and political regimes’ repressions, it seems U.S. citizens are split 1/3 dissident, 1/3 passive, and 1/3 civic. We have a long way to go to establish a civic culture using the U.S. Preamble’s proposition under the-literal-truth for justice, but is a worthy project as it promises an achievable better future to living people including dissident fellow citizens.
If you think this message suggests an achievable better future, please share it. Inspire citizens to write their personal interpretation of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition for civic integrity in the USA.
https://www.quora.com/Do-you-think-Libertarianism-could-flourish-in-the-US-To-me-it-does-not-seem-to-account-for-Human-Nature-in-at-least-a-significant-portion-of-the-population?
For brevity, I refer to the Merriam-Webster online definition: an advocate of the doctrine of free will, or a person who upholds the principles of individual liberty especially of thought and action.
According to physics, the object of human discovery, humanoids are a product of evolution. Branches of the species with awareness sufficient to develop grammar are known as humans. Whether some lesser branches will develop grammar may be imagined. The unknowns respecting physics and its progeny such as biology and psychology facilitate imagination and curiosity that may lead to either discovery of ineluctable evidence or fiction and speculation: objectivity versus subjectivity.
Discovery of the-objective-truth is followed by comprehension of how to benefit, and perceptions may be refined by development of new instruments of perception. Eventually, the-objective-truth may approach the-literal-truth.
It seems self-evident that a human being is subject to physics and thus cannot achieve individual liberty. However, by mastering benefits from the-objective-truth a person may approach integrity in pursuit of the-literal-truth.
Among the human species, attainment of integrity is divergent. Some cultures have not accepted that humans may develop equity under statutory justice. In other words, discover inequities under statutory law and amend for justice. Some cultures do not teach that a civic person neither initiates nor tolerates harm to or from any person or institution.
These two principles, statutory justice and no harm, cannot be inculcated in the human, even if the culture would like to do so. It takes 2 to 3 decades for the human being to acquire by experience and observation more than inculcation the basic understanding to choose integrity in a complete human life. It takes another few decades for the human to develop the liberty-to manage external constraints and discipline appetites. The human challenge is acute because no culture encourages development of integrity.
Persons in the leading edge of human development have the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (HIPEA) to develop either integrity to the-literal-truth or infidelity. The infidel can reform anytime it seems individually preferable. However, some humans think crime, tyranny, and other habits pay.
Thus, among humankind there are individuals who are too young to behave as their mature person would prefer and others who tend to reject integrity for reasons they may or may not understand.
The fellow citizens who develop integrity respecting the statutory justice and no harm principles work to encourage dissidents to reform and constrain those who prefer crime, tyranny, or otherwise reject the constraints of physics.
Belief in free will or un-civic liberty seems contrary to physics. Most fellow citizens aid responsible human liberty, whether they articulate it or not. In the USA, such citizens understand and interpret the U.S. Preamble’s proposition: 5 public disciplines to encourage responsible human liberty.
https://www.quora.com/Is-the-difference-between-a-democracy-and-a-republic-significant-and-vital-or-is-it-just-a-minor-distinction?
Political scientists keep the people confused by writing about democracy the right to vote as democracy the rule of the majority. The USA, which should be held accountable by the entity We the People of the United States as defined in the U.S. Preamble, guarantees the states a republican form of government, or the constitutional rule of law.
The U.S. Constitution has an intricate scheme to foil democracy and provide a republic. Dissidents to the U.S. Preamble constantly scheme to defeat the rule of law. A recurring proposal by dissident to the U.S. Preamble is to end the Electoral College for electing the U.S. President. Donald Trump’s landslide electoral college defeat of Hillary Clinton made this proposal vital to dissidents.
In all aspects, a democracy promises the ruin of chaos, because there is no principle by which a civic culture may be developed. The U.S. Preamble is a proposal for responsible human liberty; in other words, individual human happiness with civic integrity. It proposes 5 public disciplines to encourage mutual, comprehensive safety and security. Dissident fellow citizens are encouraged to reform by civic example more than by exhortation and punishment.
In a democracy, any ruin the majority elects may happen. Under the rule of law, relief from tyranny is certain in a matter of time.
https://www.quora.com/Would-it-be-better-from-a-business-perspective-to-express-your-political-beliefs-to-bond-better-with-the-50-of-America-with-similar-beliefs-or-stay-neutral-to-have-a-shot-at-everyone-in-what-appears-to-be-an-evenly?
There is no culture that promotes the proposition that is offered fellow citizens in the U.S. Preamble. Therefore, the civic citizen must discover the U.S. Preamble’s promise of an achievable better future.
In my 8th decade (late 70’s by age), 5th decade independently studying responsible human liberty, 2nd decade on the preamble to the U.S. Constitution (the U.S. Preamble), and 7th year making statements about the U.S. Preamble at public library meetings then listening to fellow citizens who choose to attend, I have a personal interpretation by which I order my civic life.
I have yet to express my interpretation of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition and get negative feedback. Today it is: We the People of the United States consider, converse, collaborate, and connect to maintain 5 public disciplines---integrity (Unity), justice (Justice), peace (Tranquility), strength (defence), and prosperity (Welfare)---in order to encourage responsible human liberty to living citizens. There are no standards for performance so that the continuum of living people may discover the-literal-truth rather than cling to “the founders’” traditions. I suspect I get few comments because the concepts are complicated, so I often express it as behaving for mutual, comprehensive safety and security.
Some U.S. citizens think crime or tyranny pays: They risk civic, civil, and legal restraint. Once a citizen has established his or her interpretation of the U.S. Preamble, I doubt any fellow citizen could influence compromise. The American dream is freedom-from both external tyranny and internal hypocrisy so as to practice the liberty-to develop integrity to the-literal-truth. The ultimate liberty is (responsible) individual happiness with civic integrity.
I encourage each fellow citizen to do the work to establish his or her interpretation of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition so as to order his or her civic integrity with responsible human privacy. A personal interpretation seems necessary to join We the People of the United States as defined therein.
I speculate that a business that express their better version of such principles and encourage by example responsible human liberty thrive in the USA. I cannot name one such business. Too many business un-civically bring religion, a private choice, into the public discussion, unconstitutionally (according to the U.S. Preamble) influenced by the American political regimes.
https://www.quora.com/unanswered/What-are-social-physical-forces?
If this is a sociology-text question I have no idea. If it addresses human psychological development, I have my opinion and will share it.
Among the humanoids, about 3 million years’ evolution has developed human beings. The leading-edge members have principles, some egocentric and some civic. Civic principles include the following.
First, the civic person neither initiates nor tolerates harm to or from any person or institution. Intolerance of harm is normally expressed verbally, but may become physical under attack.
Second, the civic person practices human equity to develop statutory justice. Statutory justice is approached by discovering and amending erroneous law and its enforcement.
Statutory justice is judged by the-literal-truth, which is often unknown. Honesty can mislead people, and only integrity empowers discovery of the-objective-truth. As instruments of perception improve, comprehension of the-objective-truth increases and may approach the-literal-truth. For example, we know that the earth’s daily rotation on its axis will un-hide the sun again tomorrow.
Likewise, lies are discovered by physical phenomena. For example, infidelity can be revealed by DNA from a blue dress. Godlessness may be discovered by blood in the person’s body or by the person’s death.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-greatest-destroyer-of-democracies?
Human integrity defeats democracy’s chaos, misery, and loss.
The USA is a republic under the rule of law. It has many constitutional provisions to defeat the popular vote. First, We the People of the United States divides inhabitants into civic citizens and un-committed fellow citizens. Second, three equal branches of government have various laws for selecting representatives---some are elected by popular vote in their states either per state or per population, the U.S. president by electoral college, cabinet members, judges, and other federal officials by nomination and approval.
U.S. citizens are bemused by “democracy” as voting against “democracy” as rebellion against republican rule of law, specified by the U.S. Constitution.
Citizens who are concerned about Russian or Ukrainian interference in U.S. elections would do well to consider that Barack Obama solicited European, British and other foreign favor in his first presidential campaign. “It is unusual for a candidate to spend time overseas in an election year”; https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/jul/18/barackobama.uselections2008. Obama solicited foreign election aid and Democrats pretend to impeach President Trump. If We the People of the United States allow it, European democracy will destroy the U.S. republic.
https://www.quora.com/Are-there-any-other-species-as-behaviorally-diverse-as-human-beings?
The leading species among the humanoids of some 3 million years’ evolution we refer to as human beings. Human beings are distinguished by the awareness and grammar by which to develop integrity.
It is doubtful than any other species can catch up with the exponentially-developing leading-edge human integrity.
The standard for human integrity is conformance to the-literal-truth. The-literal-truth is approached by discovering the-objective-truth, which improves with new instruments of perception.
Leading-edge human integrity derives from acceptance of the-literal-truth.
https://www.quora.com/Who-is-the-real-hero-in-a-human-society?
Acceptance of personal humanity is the key to developing a civic lifestyle. The human species exclusively develops the awareness and grammar by which to discover civic integrity.
The fellow citizen who practices two principles: 1) neither initiate nor tolerate harm to or from any person and 2) individually practice and publicly develop human equity under statutory justice; that is, help amend unjust laws so the culture ultimately approaches civic integrity.
A culture that understands these principle offers a civic agreement that fellow citizens may voluntarily practice.
In the USA, a citizen may ignore the U.S. Preamble. Citizens who do not consider and accept the U.S. Preamble’s proposition are not of We the People of the United States as defined therein.
https://www.quora.com/What-matters-the-most-in-politics-honesty-or-trust?
Neither honesty nor trust is sufficient. Honesty must yield to integrity, and trust must be accompanied by commitment.
Consider the U.S. Preamble, which each citizen may consider and interpret. My interpretation today is We the People of the United States consider, communicate, collaborate, and connect to maintain 5 public disciplines---integrity (Union), justice (Justice), peace (Tranquility), strength (defense), and prosperity (Welfare)---in order to encourage responsible human liberty to living citizens.
The U.S. Preamble does not set standards of performance, allowing the evolution of the proposition to correct unjust laws so that statutory justice ultimately approaches the-literal-truth.
The citizen who trusts-in and commits-to the U.S. Preamble’s proposition develops integrity rather than honest infidelity. Integrity is the process of discovering ineluctable evidence a concern is not imaginary, doing the work to understand how to benefit from the discovery, behaving according to understanding, sharing the understanding with fellow citizens and responding to their constructive views so as to adjust to more benefit, seeking new instruments by which to perceive the evidence, and changing when new discovery requires change.
The U.S. citizen who has not established his or her interpretation of the U.S. Preamble to help order his or her civic integrity has not joined We the People of the United States.
https://www.quora.com/Which-two-or-three-occurrences-of-any-sort-are-most-responsible-for-our-country-s-extreme-and-palpable-political-divisiveness?
First, the Federalist Papers did not emphasize the possible irony in Machiavelli’s “The Prince,” 1513, Chapter XI so as to support the separation of church from state that is proposed in the 1787, draft, U.S. Constitution and its preamble, the U.S. Preamble.
Second, many delegates to the 1787 constitutional convention in Philadelphia did not want government founded on discipline of by and for the people. The draft U.S. Preamble received by the Committee of Style on September 8, 1787 reads:
We the people of
the states of New-Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode-Island and Providence
Plantations, Connecticut, New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware,
Maryland, Virginia, North-Carolina, South-Carolina, and Georgia, do ordain,
declare and establish the following constitution for the government of
ourselves and our posterity.
This draft names 13 states when only 12 states sent delegates to the convention. It does not establish the United States of America as a global nation. Moreover, it absolves the people of any obligation beyond their state. Finally, it contains no people’s proposition for mutual, comprehensive, safety and security.
By September 12, 1787, the Committee of Style, led by Gouverneur Morris (https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the-man-who-wrote-the-preamble-of-the-constitution), produced the existing U.S. Preamble:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more
perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of
Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this
Constitution for the United States of America.
This proposal to each living citizen has astonishing potential to create an achievable better future; possible ultimate civic integrity is unknown. The U.S. Preamble names 5 public disciplines: Union, Justice, Tranquility, defence, and Welfare. It approves and encourages responsible human liberty. It is specifically for living citizens rather than “the founders” or any other people from the past. It would establish the entity We the People of the United States, who would hold government officials accountable to the proposition. It does not specify standards of achievement, leaving accomplishments unlimited.
Third, the first Congress, 1789-1793, like adolescent couples who know nothing about parenting, re-established colonial-English tradition to the extent they could overcall the U.S. Preamble and the articles that follow. Falsely regarding the U.S. Preamble as “secular” whereas it is neutral to religion (also gender, race, and ethnicity), they established factional-American Protestantism whereby they could dub themselves “divine” on par with the English Parliament with its members from Canterbury. Under James Madison’s misguidance, they established “freedom of religion” to be practiced as theism, especially factional-American Protestantism, evolving to Judeo-Christianity today. Perhaps they intended Chapter XI Machiavellianism to control the people. Citizens need encouragement to develop civic integrity whether each has particular hopes for favorable afterdeath or not.
Since the Bill of Rights was ratified, political regimes have continued to impose religion as the standard for civic integrity, ruining the U.S. Preamble’s intentions to encourage responsible human liberty. It seems self-evident that whatever-God-is leaves it to human beings to establish peace. Only We the People of the United States, as defined in the U.S. Preamble, can end the palpable departure from achievable better future. Each citizen needs the opportunity to develop civic integrity rather than yield to a regime’s plan for the citizen’s life.
The so-called founding fathers were merely humans whose errors we may avoid by knowing their stories. Writers for the press may become journalists with accurate reporting of progress toward establishing the U.S. Preamble’s proposition. The living citizens need to consider, communicate, collaborate, and connect with each other so as to establish the USA as a global nation under the U.S. Preamble’s proposition for responsible human liberty. The consequence will be a civic culture with benefits we cannot imagine.
https://www.quora.com/unanswered/Is-a-constitutionalist-somehow-anathema-in-the-US-civil-society-If-so-how-why?
Yes. A constitutionalist has no political friends. He or she proposes the rule of law according to the-literal-truth rather than under dominant opinion. Since dominant opinion is stubbornly erroneous, the constitutionalist seeks amendment to justice according to the-literal-truth. This is a civic, civil, and legal discipline that is anathema to the individual, because he or she does not live in a culture of integrity.
Every citizen may consider the U.S. Preamble’s proposition and either adopt it to order civic behavior or strive to live independently. The independent person risks subjugation to the law if her or she initiates or tolerates harm to or from fellow citizens.
The U.S. Preamble’s proposition, in my interpretation: We the People of the United States consider, communicate, collaborate, and connect to maintain 5 public disciplines---integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity---in order to secure responsible human liberty to living citizens. The U.S. Preamble does not specify standards of performance, and therefore, no one knows how good the future may be with a majority of citizens accepting the U.S. Preamble’s individual disciplines.
To William Hoffman:
Considering the U.S. Preamble’s proposition is not easy. Using it to order individual civic living requires discipline.
The U.S. citizen who disrespects a civic citizen’s interpretation of the U.S. Preamble may, on consideration, discover that he or she, although a citizen, is a dissident to the entity We the People of the United States as defined in the U.S. Preamble.
Please share your interpretation of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition.
https://www.quora.com/Should-the-whistleblowers-identity-be-revealed-if-he-is-proven-to-be-lying?
If the whistleblower lied, I think he or she is guilty of treason and should be hung until dead.
I think he or she should be identified so that perhaps erroneous witness may be shown to be poor grounded in judgment or other human error. Without a doubt, no one can read Trump’s mind, and I think he was pursuing proof of Obama-administration corruption. The idea that verbally weak Biden could win the presidency seems preposterous to me.
Lie? The world is waiting for the-literal-truth, and maliciously stopping life for nothing is worthy of treason.
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-we-have-to-be-so-politically-correct-with-things-we-don-t-believe-in?
We need the majority to collaborate for mutual, comprehensive safety and security.
The entity We the People of the United States was proposed on September 17, 1787. The people’s representatives of 9 of 13 eastern seaboard states, former British colonies, ratified the proposal by June 21, 1788. The First Congress, 1789, beginning with 11 states and increasing to 14 states by December 15, 1791, as much as possible restored colonial-British tradition.
My state, Louisiana, admitted in 1812, has French influence the other 49 states would do well to mimic if not copy. For example, England, in 1967, adopted 10:2 non-unanimous criminal-jury verdicts to lessen organized crime’s influence on trials. Louisiana adopted a 9:3 rule in 1880, 87 years earlier. Also, Louisiana had the code noir, which protected black marriage and families.
The American tradition does not exist, but is proposed in the U.S. Preamble for individual citizens to interpret and develop according to collaborative personal interpretation. In other words, a civic citizen’s interpretation neither initiates nor tolerates harm to or from fellow citizens or their societies.
In other words, if the majority citizens established and maintained the U.S. Preamble, civic citizens would consider, communicate, collaborate, and connect to aid and encourage mutual, comprehensive safety and security so that every citizen, including dissident fellow citizens, would have the opportunity to develop integrity rather than pursue or drift into infidelity.
America has physical independence from England. However, We the People of the United States has not yet established the 5 disciplines and psychological maturity of responsible human liberty that is proposed in the U.S. Preamble.
The USA has an achievable better future that only the civic people can practice. Dissident fellow citizens may reform on example more than on exhortation and statutory law enforcement.
https://www.quora.com/Does-crime-really-exist-or-is-it-just-another-social-construct?
The human being, a branch of the humanoids, seems the species with the awareness to create grammar, by which to develop integrity.
Each human has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (HIPEA) to develop integrity to the-literal-truth. Usually, the human may respond, “I don’t know,” when he or she does not know the-literal-truth. Often, a human informed about ineluctable evidence comprehended with limited instruments of perception may respond “I think . . . but am not certain.” For example, statistics informs us there is probably extraterrestrial life, but probability is not reliable. On the other hand, when someone says “The sun’ll come out tomorrow,” a person may reliably respond, “I prefer ‘the earth’s rotation on its axis and clear skies will unhide the sun tomorrow.’”
Ancient thinkers suggested, in my interpretations, these civic ideas. Humans may develop equity under statutory justice. Civic humans neither initiate nor tolerate harm to or from any person or institution. Civic citizens observe written law and abide unjust consequences until statutory justice is effected. So far, humankind has not resolved an ancient mystery: can anyone constrain whatever God is?
These ideas are expressed in the U.S. Preamble, in my interpretation: We the People of the United States consider, communicate, collaborate, and connect to maintain 5 public disciplines---integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity---in order to secure responsible human liberty to living citizens.
The U.S. Preamble does not specify standards of performance, and therefore is not a “social construct”. Once the USA that was initiated under the U.S. Preamble on June 21, 1788 is practiced by a majority of citizens, an achievable better future will emerge.
People who live in America with civic offense such as attempts to impose their religion on fellow citizens are dissident to the U.S. Preamble’s proposition. People who civilly or legally harm others are criminal and risk subjugation to statutory law.
https://www.quora.com/Do-you-feel-the-concepts-of-fairness-and-honesty-have-lost-their-value-in-American-society?
My email had “loyalty” in the place of “fairness” in this question.
The three concepts “fairness”, “loyalty”, and “honesty” are each insufficient, because they have no standards. Each is subjective.
What each responsible human needs-to and can develop is, respectively, justice, fidelity, and integrity---to the-literal-truth, the standard by which the-objective-truth is judged. The-objective-truth is discovered on ineluctable evidence, which may be increasingly perceived as humans invent new instruments or observations. Ultimately, the-objective-truth approaches the-literal-truth.
Every human has the potential to develop justice, fidelity, and integrity, but few try, because, so far, no culture encourages such development.
The U.S. Preamble offers a civic culture, but few citizens consider its proposition and choose to trust-in and commit-to the voluntary entity We the People of the United States. It would establish and maintain 5 public institutions in order to secure responsible human liberty to living citizens.
Law professors
https://www.lawliberty.org/liberty-classic/reconsidering-the-sources-of-american-liberty/
To EK:
I agree. And “strains of history, political philosophy, and religion,” only help “ourselves and our Posterity” avoid the mistakes of the past. Just as civic citizens don’t want to assemble for prayerful protection from contagion, we don’t want to submit human, individual power, energy, and authority (HIPEA) to a person or institution who will impose on us their view of our happiness.
The idea I write about is this: When most citizens consider, communicate, collaborate, and connect to accept, trust-in, and commit to their particular interpretation of U.S. Preamble’s proposition, an achievable better future will begin. Meanwhile, the USA is enslaved to colonial-English American debate. Members of the U.S. Congress are especially adolescent as members of We the People of the United States as defined in the U.S. Preamble.
People say American exceptionalism began in 1776. However, it was made possible by 9 of 13 former English colonies on June 21, 1788 and repressed by the First Congress, 1789-93. Establishment is up to We the People of the United States: “ourselves and our Posterity” who do not oppose the U.S. Preamble’s proposition.
https://www.lawliberty.org/2019/11/29/incorporating-the-establishment-clause-wrongly
Professor Rogers continually writes to preserve British impositions against the American civic proposition, which is stated in the U.S. Preamble.
The USA did not exist as a global nation before 9 of 13 former British colonies ratified the U.S. Constitution predicated on its U.S. Preamble on June 21, 1788. At the time, my state, Louisiana, was a former French colony under Spanish rule with a more inclusive citizens’ joy of life. For example, black slaves could marry and form families. See https://www.blackpast.org/african-american-history/louisianas-code-noir-1724/. To this day, civic integrity in Louisiana is a national treasure in so far as it favors statutory justice according to the U.S. Preamble rather than Blackstone common law.
Rogers, intentionally or not, writes to preserve colonial-American British thinking:
“The Establishment Clause serves two purposes: it both prohibits Congress from Establishing a religion but it also prohibits Congress from meddling with state religious establishments.
This is clear from the otherwise curious wording of the Clause, which states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . .” If the only purpose of the Clause were to prohibit Congress from adopting a national religious establishment, there is more direct language that would have accomplished this. Something like, “Congress shall not establish a religion.” Sweet and simple.”
Rogers overlooks the essential point of U.S. Amendment XIV.1, “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”
The literal effect is that no state may impose religion on its citizens. This 1868 provision is not new to the wording of the 1791 Amendment I establishment clause. Rogers’ interpretation is negated by both Amendment 1 and Amendment XIV. And each amendment affirms the U.S. Preamble.
Also, Rogers’ limitation “prohibits Congress from even making laws concerning religious establishments that existed at the time in the states” is not consistent with the U.S. Preamble, which is a proposition for the continuum of living citizens.
The U.S. Preamble proposes 5 disciplines of by and for voluntary citizens---integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity---in order to secure responsible human liberty to living citizens. The U.S. Preamble does not specify standards of discipline, leaving it to the continuum of living citizens to develop integrity with the unfolding of the universe. In other words, the entity We the People of the United States does not brook imposed human-construct of whatever-God-is.
Religion is a natural human hope some people adopt in particular ways against the uncertainties of death. Some hold particular hopes---salvation of a soul, or return to God, or attainment of integrity in life. No one knows anyone’s afterdeath. But no one has the prerogative to impose fear of death on fellow citizens.
The best outcome of the current angst over “freedom of religion” may be to amend the 1st Amendment so as to promote human integrity rather than institutionalize religion. That way philosophy, non-theism, and other approaches to consider the unknown would be held on par with religion in all its forms. Either way, let’s codify encouragement to develop and practice civic integrity!
Rogers seems too bold in “This structural protection cannot be incorporated against the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. It makes no logical sense to do so given the structural guarantee protects state governments from national-level intrusion, not individuals.”
The U.S. Preamble is a proposition for individuals to voluntarily aid 5 public disciplines in order to secure responsible human liberty. Religion is excluded from the 5 disciplines because pursuit of religion is an individual choice no other fellow citizen can question let alone dispute, unless the believer breaks a law to express religious doctrine. Law enforcement has no obligation to consider the offender’s religious beliefs.
To Dont Alienate:
I feel you also speak for me. I tried to be a Christian for 5 decades and then realized that whatever-God-is or may be may not like my work. At that very moment, I dropped out of religion, but it took me another seven to ten years to overcome my indoctrination.
Now, a quarter-century later, I feel I can say to every civic Christian: Your hopes for your afterdeath are OK with me. To the un-civic Christian I say, “Please consider the proposition that is offered in the U.S. Preamble. It offers fellow citizens indivdiual happiness with civic integrity.”
To Pukka Luftmensch:
speaking of unanimously accepting findings, the First Congress, 1789-1793, imposed on the U.S. Preamble the idea that it is secular, at best meaning arelgious. However, the U.S. Preamble is neutral to religion . . . and gender, and race, and national origins.
And the U.S. Preamble does not include James Madison or other erroneous politicians in the standards by which fellow citizens strive for 5 public disciplines so as to secure responsible human liberty “to ourselves and our Posterity.” All the dead thinkers are excluded from America’s quest for civic integrity except to the extent that we may know and avoid their erroneous ideas.
Living citizens have the opportunity to discover and practice civic integrity.
To Jonathan Rowe:
Leonard W. Levy in his book, “The Establishment Clause,” (1986) asserts that it is unconsitutional.
I think the fact that the 5 public disciplines listed in the U.S. Preamble to secure responsible human liberty does not include religion affirms Levy’s claim.
The preamble’s proposition seems consistent with the smattering of American history I know before June 21, 1788. It is attributed to the Committee of Style, who received a draft with no proposition on September 8, 1787 and presented their product on September 12. On September 17, 16 of 55 delegates did not sign.
Some delegates did not like the U.S. Preamble’s neutrality to religion and promotion of the people above the states in regard to holding the nation accountable.
To Charleston Carolina:
The U.S. has “freedom of religion” but promotes freedom of theism, in particular Christianity, mostly Protestantism, but officially Judeo-Christianity under a Supreme Court comprised of 3 Jews and 6 Catholics or reformed Catholic.
What human beings demand is integrity. The U.S. Preamble proposes integrity, but so far, an apathetic people have allowed the political regimes to impose a sequence of factional-American objection to the Church of England (reformed Catholicism), factional-American Protestantism, and Judeo-Christianity. (Is that the oxymoron it seems?)
The entity We the Poeple of the United States proposes integrity rather than the imposition of religion.
To Oft:
“By not enumerating Christ into the legal structure of the founding documents, the founding fathers destroyed the nation at the start and left no authority except wicked sinners.”
“Christ” is a title some people substitute as a name, Jesus. The delegates to the 1787 convention debated your point but were turned off by Bible passages that may have misquoted Jesus. For example, the acusations of hate by the Abostle John in John 15:18-23. I place my trust and commitment in the-liberal-truth, which I do not know. For all I know, Jesus is God, as my dear wife trusts.
My wife tells me I am a better person since I dropped religious beliefs in order to respresent the-literal-truth. With that posture, I firmly stand by her beliefs for her and my trust and commitment for me.
I appreciate every civic citizens hopes and dreams for his or her afterdeath, whether it be resurrection of the body to heaven, salvation of a soul, reincarnation, rejoining a world soul, or what. However, I consider your implication that the-literal-truth is a wicked authority as rare arrogance.
I don’t know but suspect that whatever-God-is strongly opposes your opinion.
To Oft again:
You express your opinion that I am a sinner on the certainty that I will die and without knowledge of even one actually-real soul in its person’s afterdeath.
According to Merriam-Webster, a sin is estrangement from some doctrine, the last item in the list being, “a vitiated state of human nature in which the self is estranged from God.” In my seventh decade I realized that during my life I develop trust-in and commitment-to whatever-God-is rather than a reasonable doctrine.
Since I do not know the-literal-truth, your Christ doctrine is alright with me for you. Also, you can erroneously claim I am a sinner by being humble toward whatever-God-is.
However, by not observing the U.S. Preamble’s proposition as you interpret it for your life, you are a dissident of We the People of the United States. Examine your interpretation of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition if you want the chance to reform before you die.
To Pukka Luftmensch 12/4/19:
Dear PL et.al.,
I click on my notices about Upham’s essay hoping for subjective responses from which I can learn. Lately, I have been inundated by nanny-state, immature whining typical of artificially intelligent anonymity and would like to share my experience with this blog.
I am a chemical engineer with exposure to perhaps 40 ethnicities and perhaps 4 decades ago started reading, writing, meeting, and talking to discover 1) with so many wonderful people in the world, why aren’t most people civic or at least civil or perhaps legal and 2) with such a wonderful U.S. Preamble, why are so many Americans in ideological conflict? I could not have been that expressive then.
Four decades later, I interpret the U.S. Preamble as a proposition to individuals to work for 5 public disciplines in order to approve-of and encourage responsible human liberty, as discovered by the-objective-truth. The-objective-truth is understanding of the ineluctable evidence, which improves as instruments of perception are refined. Eventually, the-objective-truth may approach the-literal-truth.
My civic learning increased exponentially when in 2014 I started hosting local public library meetings and then founded the Louisiana corporation, A Civic People of the United States (2015). My civil learning step up when I started following titles of Law and Liberty blog posts and thinking about each essay. My posts started, it seems, on August 16, 2016, and number 193. (Search “Phil Beaver” on the blog.)
I have some experience with blogs and understand they have rules, but mainly caution myself not to express personal angst or enmity in sharing my civic opinion. A couple times, I doubted acceptability of my post and reposted with fewer ideas. Eventually, I learned there is a diverse time lag in publication of a submittal. Therefore, my re-posts have dropped, I imagine, close to none.
Contrary from customary teaching, I perceive that “writing for the audience” means expressing what you mean as plainly and un-aggressively as your ability allows and leaving rejection of your opinion to the reader. Some people ridicule my posts and a few perhaps observed that arrogance can backfire: I’ve experienced that reality. I am grateful that a couple people expressed surprise that my ideas are not debated. I especially hope my interpretation of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition inspires fellow citizens to develop their individual interpretations for their civic living. What matters to me is the exponential civic and civil learning I glean from the few essays I respond to. I wish I could dedicate more of my life to this trove of information, insight, heartfelt opinion, opposition to my ideas, and overall civic excellence.
I regret that this message became so long, so I will stop short of the rest of the story. I hope I shared my path to accepting and appreciating the communications excellence I experienced in this blog: Here, I am free to gain as much as my abilities and intentions support my hopes.
To gabe:
I write and converse a lot and often encounter artificial intelligence (AI), sometimes programmed to seem in my age group.
AI whose programmer was not at the leading edge of political jargon mistake phrases like “political correctness” or “identity politics” as products of Alinsky-Marxist organizations (AMO). However, in my youth and community where I was born, “the Christian thing to do” identified a group that intended to inculcate me with their code. I did not know it then, but my psychological leaning was toward the-literal-truth. Today, I consider “the Christian thing to do” as un-civic as “the fear of God.”
Most AI I encounter has the humility to extrapolate from the appreciation I hold for my Louisiana-French-Catholic wife’s spiritual beliefs for her as evidence that I hold the same regard for the AI’s beliefs for it. Alas, again AI is enslaved by its programmer.
A more subtle point is that I pursue the-literal-truth through the ineluctable evidence that humankind works to discover, understand. Humankind refines comprehension by inventing new instruments of perception. The hope is that eventually, the-objective-truth will approach the-literal-truth.
A couple observations fall out of this way of thinking. First, a human liar takes no responsibility for civic integrity. Second, humility requires the human adult to admit that his or her God may not be appreciated by whatever-God-is. This civic humility seems to distinguish the Louisiana French Catholic from the Roman Catholic. Third, no human has introduced me to a soul: It seems probably souls are unlikely.
Christianity encourages the disciple to convince humans that they are doomed to an afterdeath in eternal misery unless they accept Christ as their soul’s savior. Some Christians arrogantly reason that ridiculing a civic citizen is effective. It matters not whether the Christian, in life, developed civic integrity: the believer lives for his or her afterdeath. On the other hand, some believers develop both civic integrity and private religious hopes. I know a handful and think they are of the entity We the People of the United States, whether they witness to it or not.
I have so much doubt about proposing that another human’s spiritual hopes are wrong and their soul is doomed that I chose to drop out of Christianity, indeed all religion, in order to pursue personal integrity according to my preferences: I accept that I don’t know what I don’t know and behave accordingly.
If there is such an entity as a soul, I want my wife’s soul to enjoy her hopes: She is the purest, dearest person I ever met, and I now know I was attracted to her for her serene confidence. However, she knows and is not disturbed by my faith in the-literal-truth, even though I do not know much of the-objective-truth. I share that not to invite you to speculate about someone you do not know, but to hint that a person’s soul is theirs, and I have no desire to influence their spiritual hopes. That includes every human being.
I often encounter AI that was programmed by an immature adult or irresponsible institution.
If, to my delight and surprise, we met, I’d offer you a beer as confirmation while I ordered an orange juice, sarsaparilla, or French-roast coffee.
To z9z99:
First, civic objection to the premise: “Now the Judeo-Christian values assumed by the founders would not be questioned as to whether they were worthy values, but rather if they were religious.”
It seems the term Judeo-Christian was not debated by “the founders.” “Theologian and author Arthur A. Cohen, in The Myth of the Judeo-Christian Tradition, [1969] questioned the theological validity of the Judeo-Christian concept and suggested that it was essentially an invention of American politics.”; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judeo-Christian. I certainly have no desire for the Judeo-Christianity doctrine, because I trust-in and commit to whatever-God-is, which I do not know.
Second, your idea of an open discussion by the people interested enough to comment on Professor Rogers’ essay is wonderful. I suggest lessening the constraints by opening to possibilities that spring from the September 17, 1787 signers of the U.S. Constitution more than both the spirit of 1776’s rebellion against American-colonial taxation to pay England’s French-war debts and Congress’s 1791 Bill of Rights to restore colonial-English tradition to erroneously override the U.S. Preamble.
Thus, your commenters apply to themselves the phrase “Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” As such, the issues Professor Rogers raises may be addressed as though we, fellow citizens, may write a U.S. Constitution that provides more justice than “the founders” may have imagined for us. The consequence may be ideas that accommodate each of our civic motivations and inspirations, whether religion is a personal pursuit or not.
https://www.lawliberty.org/2019/02/14/the-court-should-tear-down-everson-not-the-maryland-cross/
Professor Upham's essay thoroughly illustrates the economic harm done by the First Congress, 1789-1793, when it restored some colonial-English traditions despite the U.S. Preamble.
The U.S. Preamble is a proposition for individuals to voluntarily aid 5 public disciplines in order to secure responsible human liberty. Religion is excluded from the 5 disciplines because pursuit of religion is an individual choice no other fellow citizen can question let alone dispute, unless the believer breaks a law to express religious doctrine. Law enforcement has no obligation to consider the offender’s religious beliefs.
On the other hand, under the U.S. Preamble the civic believer is practicing responsible human liberty in pursuing personally, privately favorable afterdeath he or she does not attempt to impose on his or her fellow citizens.
In other words, the U.S. Preamble is not secular but is neutral to religion. The First Congress imposed English tradition in the Bill of Right’s religion clauses, and “ourselves and our Posterity” need not tolerate the tyranny and harm. The entity We the People of the United States as defined in the U.S. Preamble has the duty to amend the religion clauses so as to approve of and encourage responsible human liberty or civic integrity.
Yesterday, a fellow citizen called these ideas bizarre. I hope participants in this forum have enough doubt to write their own interpretation of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition and share it in the forum.
https://www.facebook.com/pg/acivicpeopleoftheus/posts/?ref=page_internal
I have yet to express my interpretation of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition and get negative feedback. Today it is: We the People of the United States consider, converse, collaborate, and connect to maintain 5 public disciplines---integrity (Unity), justice (Justice), peace (Tranquility), strength (defence), and prosperity (Welfare)---in order to encourage responsible human liberty to living citizens. There are no standards for performance so that the continuum of living people may discover the-literal-truth rather than cling to “the founders’” traditions. I suspect I get few comments because the concepts are complicated, so I often express it as behaving for mutual, comprehensive safety and security.
Some U.S. citizens think crime or tyranny pays: They risk civic, civil, and legal restraint. Once a citizen has established his or her interpretation of the U.S. Preamble, I doubt any fellow citizen could influence compromise. The American dream is freedom-from both external tyranny and internal hypocrisy so as to practice the liberty-to develop integrity to the-literal-truth. The ultimate liberty is (responsible) individual happiness with civic integrity.
I encourage each fellow citizen to do the work to establish his or her interpretation of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition so as to order his or her civic integrity with responsible human privacy. A personal interpretation seems necessary to join We the People of the United States as defined therein.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment