Senate replace prayer and pledge to recite the U.S. Preamble

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
Replace prayer and pledge to recite the U.S. Preamble


We saw in the U.S. Senate the ceremonial prayer and pledge of allegiance each day, then witnessed the verdict along party lines excepting one person willing to declare he is a dissident to the entity We the People of the United States according to the U.S. Preamble.

Some days the senate prayer seemed more an instruction to whatever-God-is to influence the verdict than an appreciation for mysterious omniscience and omnipotence. But we knew better, because the pledge claimed unity “under God” as though whatever-God-is yields to God as some senators do.

It seems time to drop prayer in order to express humility toward whatever-God-is. It’s alright for an individual to hope-in and gain comfort-from religion, but it is not alright to claim human opinion to which whatever-God-is must conform. And it is not alright to present a personal God for civic, civil, or legal evaluation. It may even be time to admit that whatever-God-is seems to have assigned to humankind the responsibility for integrity, justice, peace, strength, prosperity, and human liberty.

I have not cared for the pledge of allegiance since I considered the divine hubris of “under God.” And I stopped praying for favorable afterdeath once I realized it is more comforting to trust where I am going to where I came from. On both sides, I do not know and am comfortable with serene trust in my origins.

As a civic citizen, what I would like to see is public recitation in unison of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition. Get your immediate family together and start the practice. Then ask each member of the family to notice and explain that “ourselves and our Posterity” is the continuum of living citizens. In other words, the U.S. Preamble civically, civilly, and legally empowers the fellow citizens who accept its proposition. Dissidents invite subjugation to the rule of law.

Then ask each family member to create their personal interpretation of the U.S. Preamble for the way of living each aspires to. Let members share their interpretations or not. Notice if anyone thinks religion is among the listed responsibilities. Then resume the practice of reciting the original U.S. Preamble together.

Imagine the impact of 100 senators reciting the preamble to begin each session, dropping the partnership with religion and either shelving the pledge altogether or revising it to “under whatever-God-is.” It seems egregious to recite the pledge of allegiance and not own a personal interpretation of the U.S. Preamble. It is the willing American’s commitment to pursue human equity under statutory justice.
The U.S. Preamble is hard to accept, as past and present political regimes have shown.


Columns

Write and remove all doubt (The Advocate) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_2116c2f8-4914-11ea-89d1-3b48ebab38ea.html)

The Advocate editors today remind us of an old saw: remain silent and be thought a social democrat or write “Our Views” and remove all doubt. One of the advantages of an absolutely free press is that readers can detect if the operating personnel are deceived into irresponsible ideologies. Thus, the reader who seeks integrity knows where to look for either civic fidelity or dissidence. I rely on the mixed if not balanced views in the quarterly “National Affairs.”

I normally vote Republican but voted against David Duke for Edwin Edwards. I voted for John Bel Edwards against David Vitter, a Senator caught slacking on the job. The Advocate extols Cedric Richmond’s slacking, and I suppose Richmond would like The Advocate to refrain from the attention. I would for Richmond’s constituents’ sake.

The Advocate editors are so naïve as to not accept that personal evaluations like “boorish” (rude and insensitive) are in the eyes of the beholder according to his or her particular civilization (indoctrination). However, the accuser may be boorish in a civic culture, which the entity We the People of the United States as defined in the U.S. Preamble continuously proposes to every citizen. Boorish accusation is much like saying someone is racist: the accuser is unable to look in the mirror. Or condescending when the accuser is serene in pretentious opinion. Many fellow citizens “know” that whatever-God-is answers to their personal God, and unbelieving fellow citizens’ spiritual hopes and comforts count for nothing. For this reason it seems crass for a fellow citizen to claim they accept human responsible liberty according to the U.S. Preamble then cite their personal God to justify infidelity to civic integrity. In other words, it seems disingenuous to live in the USA and claim to know the mystery whatever-God-is.

The Advocate’s juxtaposition of republican government versus democratic government expresses gross opposition to the United States Constitution. Opposition to the rule of law is common among Democrats, socialists, and communists. Through its balance of powers with variations on election to official roles the entity We the People of the United States intentionally prevents democracy and guarantees a republic. The right to vote, a valid expression of democracy in the USA, does not empower the majority to abuse minorities or vice versa. Maybe The Advocate can grasp the importance of our republic and inform readers that “our democracy” is dissident to the entity We the People of the United States.

The Advocate takes economic hubris in urging readers not to “engage [Mike Johnson] in cases involving criminal law.” I’m glad I read that offense against Johnson, but oppose my subscription revenue being used to denigrate duly elected representatives of Louisiana, including both Johnson and Richmond.

President Trump’s inaugural address reached out to every American: “The oath of office I take today is an oath of allegiance to all Americans.” It is up to each citizen to accept that oath, and many Democrats are so opposed to the speaker they cannot consider the oath.

On taking office, the Bible quoting President Trump accepted a challenge to protect the people’s secrets that I cannot fathom. Matthew 7:6, CJB, reads “Don’t give to dogs what is holy, and don’t throw your pearls to the pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, then turn and attack you.” I do not know Trump’s method. If I wanted to deceive the President of the United States. I’d have to wonder if I was a dog or pig among We the People of the United States. Henceforth, I’d have to kill my conscience to try to deceive any President. Without President Trump, America might never have discovered the evident Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff might never have expressed himself.

The Advocate makes itself part of the swamp by extolling “the founders” rather than the 39 signers of the U.S. Preamble and the amendable 1787 U.S. Constitution. Some of the 55 framers so opposed the U.S. Preamble and other features of the document that they refused to sign the document. The Advocate should have taught me these facts beginning 52 years ago when I chose Baton Rouge as my home town. I doubt The Advocate knows much about the entity We the People of the United States.

I encourage The Advocate personnel as well as every fellow citizen to do the work to create their personal interpretation of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition so as to constrain hubris in attacking the opinions or persons of fellow citizens, especially the President of the United States. Candidate Trump promised to drain the swamp. I think The Advocate needs education (as well as I do) and continually encourage The Advocate to reform.

To JR Madden:

JR, I encourage you to write and share your interpretation of the U.S. Preamble in this thread. Note first that today’s “ourselves” is us, the “Posterity” to the 1788 generation under the U.S. Preamble. The preamble is:

“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.”


The U.S. Preamble addresses Union, Justice, Tranquility, defence, Welfare and Liberty to the continuum of living citizens. None of the six public responsibilities involves religion.

Thus, from a civic, civil, and legal viewpoint as offered citizens in the U.S. Preamble, religion is a private interest.

To express humility to both whatever-God-is and to fellow citizens, the U.S. Preamble’s proposition is neutral to religion. Fellow citizens who attempt to impose their God on both whatever-God-is and U.S. citizens is a dissident to the American proposal on which the Articles of the U.S. Constitution are constructed.

For example, the First Amendment, erroneously constructed by the First Congress, protects religion, a business institution, rather than integrity, a human, egocentric obligation. I say “erroneously” because the religion clauses do not conform to the U.S. Preamble.

The reality of the literal U.S. Preamble is shocking and hard to take for someone who relies on the Abraham-Isaac God, or its subset to Jesus God, or the Abraham-Ishmael God, perhaps rebuking whatever-God-is. That is, because a person’s hopes and comforts for his or her afterdeath or none have nothing to do with the civic, civil, and legal proposition that is offered in the U.S. Preamble.

We know the U.S. Preamble is hard to accept, because political regimes have partnered with religion (in particular Christianity, especially Protestantism in the beginning but now expressed as Judeo-Christianity if not Judeo-Catholicism in competition with African-American Christianity) so as to repress the preamble as secular when it is neutral to religion. If whatever-God-is has skin color, I guess it is red but doubt skin is involved.



Quora

https://www.quora.com/What-does-the-term-mandate-mean-in-terms-of-civil-rights-and-liberties?

I am astounded with appreciation for this question.

Merriam-Webster’s second usage for “mandate” is “an authorization to act given to a representative,” and I think it may be the popular usage for your question. First usage is “an authoritative command.” I’ll try to express an application of the first usage so as to oppose the second.

About 2400 years ago a Greek suggested, in my interpretation:  Humans may work for equity under statutory justice, where statutory justice is the perfection of written law. This commitment is so beneficial it seems a public mandate:  Citizens who want human equity improve and enforce written law. The dissident begs subjugation to written law even though statutory justice may not yet be discovered.

Now, a tyrant may falsely claim he or she has discovered statutory justice and promise to deliver if elected. If a majority of the people perceive privilege under the tyrant’s proposal and elect him or her, the tyrant may then claim a mandate granted by the voters. However, it is a mandate under falsity and inequity.

As inequity begins to surface and cost the majority, the mandate for equity under statutory justice will override the tyrant’s mandate obtained from the voters. However, the misery and loss that occurred cannot be restored.

In the U.S., the public proposition to develop human equity under statutory justice (the public mandate) is offered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. The citizen who does not trust-in and commit-to the U.S. Preamble’s proposition is vulnerable to grant a mandate to a tyrant.

For example, the U.S. Civil War was promoted by Christians who thought abolitionists were opposing the will of whatever-God-is according to Bible interpretation. See each https://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Letter_from_Robert_E_Lee_to_Mary_Randolph_Custis_Lee_December_27_1856, the CSA’s declaration of secession, and review 1856’s bloody Kansas. In 1860, citizens who understood the U.S. Preamble might have marched on their state legislatures and said, “Not on my watch will you secede from the USA.”

I encourage every citizen to own and practice a personal interpretation of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition. It is time for the people to accept the civic, civil, and legal power of the U.S. Preamble and hold each other and governments—local, state, and federal---accountable to its proposition.

https://www.quora.com/If-you-could-change-one-thing-about-how-society-works-what-would-you-change?

I would encourage humankind to accept the leading edge of human integrity, whatever that is. In other words, the-literal-truth of human integrity rather than my opinion about it.

In my opinion, the leading edge of human evolution involves individuals who develop personal power, personal energy, and personal authority, or their human individual power, energy, and authority (HIPEA) to establish and maintain integrity during a complete lifetime.

I begin by suggesting that governmental departments of education should be renamed and retooled as departments of encouragement. The basic function would be to combine coaching and encouragement for each student, young and old, to accept HIPEA and use it to acquire comprehension and intention to live a complete human lifetime developing integrity rather than nourishing human appetites.

https://www.quora.com/Should-we-all-fight-for-equity-instead-of-equality?

Yes. Since each human is unique, equality is not possible. Also, while we uphold written law we should collaborate for statutory justice.

That is, we should discover unjust laws and amend them so as to approach perfection. Unjust laws help preserve dissidence against equity under justice. (Always, there will be some people who think crime pays, statutory law enforcement is required.)

https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-basic-human-rights-that-if-taken-away-would-cause-chaos-and-uproar?

May I answer a different question: What human opportunity is being repressed resulting in chaos?

No existing culture coaches and encourages its youth and other living citizens to develop responsible human liberty.

Most cultures advocate attempting to consign to government or whatever-God-is or their partnership human individual power, energy, and authority (HIPEA) to develop responsible human liberty. Consequently, many persons live their lives never considering let alone accepting HIPEA to develop civic integrity.

https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-limitations-of-human-rights-How-can-they-be-explained?

In my view, there’s only one human right: the opportunity to develop integrity. Humans owe each other freedom-from oppression so that each has the liberty-to develop integrity rather than drift into infidelity. The culture that does not encourage and exemplify this principle begs woe.

Humans are unique, so equality is not possible. Each human has the individual power, energy, and authority (HIPEA) to develop integrity. It takes 20 to 30 years or more for an infant human to transition to adult with comprehension and intention to live a complete human lifetime.

In existing cultures, it is unlikely that a person will ever accept his or her HIPEA, let alone appreciate integrity. However, by spreading these principles, adult education and child education can be reformed quickly and an achievable better future can become apparent soon.

https://www.quora.com/Did-the-idea-of-human-rights-come-from-Western-civilization?

According to Rights (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) the scholarly answer seems, controversially, no.

A 2400 year old idea stands out: Agathon, in Plato’s “Symposium” suggests, in my view, that a civic citizen neither initiates nor tolerates harm to or from any person or institution. And Pericles suggested that civic citizens behave for equity under statutory justice, again in my interpretation.

Expressing these principles as “human rights” is a matter of words more than ideas. Also, both Agathon and Pericles expressed opinions about earlier observations.

https://www.quora.com/I-know-this-is-somewhat-opinion-based-but-Id-like-some-thoughts-What-country-has-citizens-that-enjoy-the-most-freedom-are-best-represented-by-their-government-and-are-best-enabled-to-focus-on-living-a-good-life?

I write opinion because I do not know the-literal-truth.

In perhaps 3 million years of evolution, humanoids developed a group known as humans. Humans are distinguished by the awareness with which to discover and accept the-literal-truth. Discovery requires observation and exploration of ineluctable evidence or the-objective-truth. With ever improving instruments for observation, the-objective-truth leads to human discovery of the-literal-truth.

Discovery is the process by which both physical and psychological realities may be understood. The laws of psychology are a subset of the laws of physics, much like cosmology, mathematics, chemistry, and biology are progeny of physics. Psychology differs in that humans may imagine what has not been discovered, construct a theory for how to benefit from what was imagined, and act on the theory without proving discovery.

Persons in the leading edge of human development are influenced not only by genes but by memes, the packets of information they acquire from their cultures. However, the leading persons in the totality of human cultures have some common characteristics I call “civic” meaning practicing responsible human liberty: The civic citizen, aware or not, practices the following:

1.    Accept human individual power, energy, and authority (HIPEA) to practice responsible human liberty.

2.    Continually develop integrity rather than drift into infidelity.

3.    Behave for equity under statutory justice.

4.    Neither initiate nor tolerate harm to or from any person or institution.

5.    Accepts whatever-God-is.

I know of a proposal to live this way. It was available for development during six months in 1788-1789, but the First U.S. Congress suppressed it by labeling it “secular” whereas it is neutral to religion and a lot of other candidates for political division.

The preamble to the U.S. Constitution is abstract and must be interpreted by the individual citizen so as to guide his or her civic agreement, accepted or not. In other words, like speeders, claiming ignorance does not pay the fine. I would like to know your interpretation. Here’s mine:  We the People of the United States self-interestedly communicate, collaborate, and connect to establish and maintain 5 personal and cooperate disciplines---integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity---in order to benefit from the liberty-to develop human responsibility to living citizens.

It is especially important to note that “ourselves” is the living families and individuals who are citizens and “our posterity” is the citizens to be born and to immigrate. Also, the U.S. Preamble does not specify norms of achievement, perhaps indicating that the depth and quality of participation is the standard by which progress may be measured.

Perhaps we live at the beginning of the American revolution for responsible human liberty that was proposed upon ratification of the U.S. Preamble on June 21, 1788.

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.