Individuals separate state and church so as to protect both life and afterdeath

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 interpretation of its proposal as follows: “We the People of the United States consider, communicate, collaborate, and connect to practice 5 public disciplines: integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity so as to encourage both living citizens and future citizens to practice responsible human independence.” I want to collaborate with the other citizens on this interpretation 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

Individuals separate state and church so as to protect both life and afterdeath

I hope it is plain to readers that I find political excellence in the disciplines I perceive in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution (the U.S. Preamble). My efforts to communicate with elected and appointed officials are met with silence. I speculate that few of them take the preamble seriously, blind to the fact that neglect makes them aliens to We the People of the United States.

I answer many public-forum inquiries as to what to do about U.S. divisions, the chaos of social democracy in Europe, the disrespect currently felt by the Christian right, and the unconstitutional movements to convert the U.S. into a socialist government. I often comment that the U.S. has not begun to establish psychological independence from colonial-American English law. Especially egregious is the assigned seats for the Church of England in Parliament.

I felt this week’s essays tended to highlight a necessity I perceive: The individuals who want the We the People of the United States that is proposed in the preamble can individually separate state and church so as to protect responsible human independence while privately pursuing personal hopes and comforts in whatever-God-is.

For fellow citizens to effect this reform, it is necessary to amend the First Amendment so as to promote civic, civil, and legal integrity rather than religion. Religions emerge from physics and its progeny, psychology and imagination. Humans imagine an unknown, assume an explanation, then develop the explanation into doctrine, never discovering whether there is ineluctable evidence for the explanation.

An ancient Greek asked colleagues, in my interpretation:  Can we encourage and coach fellow citizens that responsible human independence is in their self-interest expressing “good” rather than “God”?

I charge the individuals who are members of the U.S. Congress to consider the public goals that are stated in the U.S. Preamble and immediately stop conducting the two prayers, one by a clergyman and the other as the coercive pledge of allegiance and instead recite the U.S. Preamble in unison.

Quora

https://www.quora.com/How-can-we-take-advantage-of-the-current-crisis-to-reform-our-society-economy-and-government?

The ancients discovered many elements of the-literal-truth that are hidden in scholastic, propriety debate. Interpretations of some 2,400 year old Greek comments follow:

Human individuals may develop equity under statutory justice.

Statutory justice is approached by amending written law as soon as injustice is discovered and resolved.

A civic individual neither initiates nor tolerates wrong to or from a person or association.

Civic citizens privately pursue spirituality and civically maintain a reserve for whatever-God-is.

In the U.S., these ideas are expressed in the people’s proposition that is offered to the continuum of living citizens in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. Every citizen may develop his or her interpretation of the preamble.

To its object, “ourselves and our Posterity” the living generation is both 1) “posterity” to generations since the 1787 framer’s generation and 2) “ourselves” to the coming generation. The preamble proposes 5 public disciplines to encourage responsible human independence to living citizens.

The sooner a majority of citizens, say 2/3, are in some stage of developing individual civic, civil, and legal living according to the preamble’s proposition as each of them interprets it, the sooner an achievable better future will become evident.

Fellow citizens can promote the U.S. Preamble by using their personal interpretation in civic, civil, and legal discipline with any spirituality kept private. As far as I can tell, the fellow citizens who can least imagine or support this reform are the citizens who pretend separation of church and state yet impose “freedom of religion” when civic integrity is what the nation of people need. The problem starts in Congress, as usual, where many members are not likely to regard themselves as We the People of the United States according to the preamble or anything less than divinity. It was not that way on September 17, 1787, but it’s been that way since March 4, 1789. Both chambers of Congress should start sessions with recitation of the U.S. Preamble and discontinue the prayers by a clergyman and in the pledge of allegiance.

Only the individual citizen can separate church and state. With a 2/3 majority of citizens, government officials would reform.

https://www.quora.com/How-powerful-is-political-correctness-Can-you-give-a-messed-up-example?

I’m only familiar with civic integrity in the U.S., even though I have visited some European countries, the longest duration being Greece for 16 months.

Here are a few examples of political error.

The 1787 U.S. Preamble’s proposition for public discipline so as to establish responsible human independence yielded to the 1791 First Amendment’s “freedom of religion.” We the People of the United States must replace the religion clauses with civic, civil, and legal encouragement of integrity.

Thomas Paine’s suggestion that religion unnecessarily divides fellow citizens (The Age of Reason, 1794, 1795, and 1807) yielded to “the Christian thing to do.”

Congress’s 1782 motto, “out of many, one” fell in 1954 to “In God We Trust.” The change seems unconstitutional under both the First Amendment and the U.S. Preamble, which excludes religion from the public disciplines.

It’s also good to consider egregious political offenses. Mitt Romney declared “I am a religious man,” to defend his unconstitutional vote to find President Trump guilty of the House Democrats’ partisan accusation. Nancy Pelosi expressed alienation to We the People of the United States when she cited a pope as her authority.

Many individual U.S. citizens erroneously deem separation of church and state the responsibility of someone else. They reject their individual responsibility for developing human equity under statutory justice. They don’t realize they beg woe, and invited woe is certain to act on its schedule.



https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-meaning-of-the-price-of-freedom-is-eternal-vigilance?

I suspect that the statement does not aid your pursuit of civic integrity.

If so, I agree and suggest three contentions. Ineluctable evidence prevents human freedom; humans must comprehend physics and its progeny in order to benefit if not survive. Vigilance implies defense more that strength. Lastly, price seems a lazy stab at commitment. What statement might support integrity?

I suggest that the self-interest of responsible human independence requires trust-in and commitment-to comprehending and taking advantage-of physics and its progeny, which are the objects of research-to discover rather than constructs-to imagine. That’s a close-packed sentence for discussion.

To get to your point, I think in a meaningful life the civic citizen develops human equity under statutory justice.

I read, write, and speak to learn and hope to learn from you.

https://www.quora.com/Do-you-ever-feel-like-morality-and-integrity-never-work-in-your-favor-or-that-you-are-expected-to-abide-by-good-morals-even-though-society-in-general-does-not?

I wondered about this in my mid-forties, knowing that I struggled miserably against the religions Mom and Dad conflicted on me. By this I mean, despite both of them teaching Southern Baptist Sunday school classes the each had their own personal God. They were such good material providers in a family of 5 that I continued to indoctrinate Phil Beaver to be their factional Christian person and could not discover myself.

However, in my late forties, I realized that my wife’s Louisiana French-Catholic confidence and serenity was important to me for her, and that helped me realize that integrity to the ineluctable evidence is important to me for me. I chose to stop pursuing social morality so as to develop integrity to the-literal-truth, most of which I do not know. After another quarter century I feel private happiness with civic integrity is good enough for me.

I share daily the principles I trust-in and commit-to, leaving it to readers to take interest or not.

https://www.quora.com/People-against-the-government-helping-out-in-any-for-those-negatively-affected-by-the-current-situation-why?

Your question is too vague to be answered. President Trump is doing all the U.S. Constitution allows him to do to fight the Chinese virus and has a 60% approval. Congress is trying to advance diversity, racial preference, and open borders among other outrages and has 23% approval. What are you calling “government”? And what “situation” are you concerned about. Is it diversity, gender choice, abortion, or some other focus of the DNC? Is it the Chinese virus?

It seems to me most people accept the U.S. Preamble’s civic, civil, and legal proposition, even though no political regime has ever promoted it. Each citizen should own a personal interpretation of the U.S. Preamble. If so, he or she will regard the interpretation as precious personal property.

My interpretation is: We the People of the United States discipline for Unity, Justice, Tranquility, defence, and Welfare in order to encourage responsible human independence to the continuum of living citizens. Thus, the U.S. proposition is discipline of by and for the people so as to promote human independence.

The civic citizens who are helping fellow citizens do so with responsible human independence. Otherwise, they are helping the virus spread.

https://www.quora.com/Is-it-right-that-the-governments-use-coronavirus-as-a-tool-for-forcing-people-to-accept-all-measures-for-the-common-good?

Some psychological adolescents (perhaps absent from this forum) think that because they exist, a greater power should take care of them: Mom&Dad or one parent, a government, whatever-God-is, or UNESCO human rights enforcers.

On the other hand, some adolescents discover individual power, individual energy, and individual authority (HIPEA) by which to either develop integrity or tolerate/nourish infidelity to the ineluctable evidence. Some people perceive that using HIPEA to develop integrity is in their best interest.

As a consequence, many people, a civic people, perceive that fellow citizens can develop human equity under statutory justice. Among a faction of fellows who accept neither HIPEA nor integrity, the civic citizens create written law so as to encourage everyone to develop responsible human independence. Additionally, they pay for written law-enforcement so as to coerce or force fellow citizens who prove themselves dissident to statutory justice to consider reform.

The phrase “the common good” is an unfortunate political correctness from the 18th century English enthusiasm for John Locke’s thinking. Locke died in 1704, and neglected wisdom from American writers/events offers correction. For example, George Washington's “four things” spoken on June 8, 1783 and found at Library of Congress. Political activist Thomas Paine urged humility toward whatever-God-is in The Age of Reason. Ralph Waldo Emerson urged religious reform in Divinity School Address - Ralph Waldo Emerson (1838) and personal reform in Self-Reliance - Ralph Waldo Emerson (1841).

Unfortunately, so far, the U.S. has not reformed from English psychology to the proposition that is offered in the U.S. Preamble. It is a 52-word sentence that proposes discipline of by and for the people so as to encourage responsible human independence. I’d love an opportunity to learn John Locke’s defense of responsible human liberty, which I consider an oxymoron.

Locke’s common good is served better by human independence than by liberalism. I’m breaking my younger daughter’s caution when I delete the modifier to assert that human independence, by definition, requires coercion and force if responsibility is not practiced.

https://www.quora.com/Would-you-agree-that-in-today-s-world-there-is-too-much-emphasis-on-statistics?

Yes, but moreover there is an awful partnership between social scientists and the media, and their money-making tool is opinion-designed statistics. For the study of physics and its progeny, mathematics, chemistry, biology, psychology, and fiction, statistics is an arduous, valuable tool. But social science is at best a pseudo-science and at worst human shamelessness.

The social scientist has an idea that could help influence public policy to his or her preference or that of the entity that pays him or her. The group designs questions and chooses respondents so as to favor the opinion they want to promote. Survey takers are instructed to ignore respondent’s comments to modify the question to respondent’s preferences. Statistical methods are used to evaluate the survey so as to favor the group’s objectives. In this way, they have used pseudo-science to report a public opinion that may not be true.

The reality is that when the social scientist and the media get away with the tyranny, the false “public opinion” they produced, influences public expectations, and thereby enables harmful public policy.

The impeachment of President Trump by Nancy Pelosi was supposed to work under the advice of some social scientists and the media. The totally unconstitutional procedures conducted by Adam Schiff and that other guy were supposed to generate so much public opinion against Trump that conviction would be inevitable if not in the Senate in the 2020 election. We’ll see how Trump’s second election turns out.

https://www.quora.com/How-does-the-world-cope-now-that-democracy-is-dead-and-buried?

Individuals who want equity under statutory justice will turn to written law-enforcement as the means of encouraging responsible human independence. In the USA, the proposition for discipline of by and for the people is offered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. Every citizen show own an individual interpretation of the abstract 52 words. Ones who do will regard it as precious personal property to be continually improved, much like a home.

https://www.quora.com/Is-the-left-actually-destroying-freedom-within-universities?

The left is the current, dominant offender as noted in the recent impeachment of President Trump. But they are not fellow citizens and dissidents in a vacuum. They have fellow citizens and dissidents on the right. The right is dominated by fellow citizens who never reformed from British tradition to the American proposition that is offered fellow citizens in the U.S. Preamble.

It is not uncommon for rightists to erroneously refer to “the founders” (maybe 1763 to 1787) and “the framers” (May-September, 1787) interchangeably, neglecting the signers (September 17, 1787) and the ratifiers as of June 21, 1788. Just as the authors of the First Virginia Charter, 1607, did not conceive the declaration of independence from England, 1776, “the founders” did not frame the U.S. Constitution, 1787. Unfortunately some founders influenced the First Congress and the Bill of Rights, 1791. 

On June 21, 1788, 9 of 13 former British colonies in this country established a global nation under the 1787 Constitution to be amended by Congress, leaving the four dissident states free and independent. Two joined before operations began on March 4, 1789. The other 2 and a 14^th joined before December 15, 1791, when Congress enacted the promised amendments as the British-mimicking Bill of Rights.

The First Congress, 1789-1793, egregiously restored all the British-American colonialism they could. Most egregiously, they established factional-American-Protestantism-Congressional-partnership to elect themselves as “divine” as the Church-of-England-Parliament-membership. It is not uncommon for American jurists to cite Blackstone as the authority for originalism, negating the reforms from English influence that are offered in the U.S. Preamble’s proposition.

The literal interpretation of the U.S. Preamble proposes 5 public and 1 individual discipline: Unity, Justice, Tranquility, defence, Welfare, and Liberty to living and future citizens. Religion is not included in these disciplines: the signers expressed humility to whatever-God-is and therefore made the choice to be religious or not and if so how to be religious to the individual citizen.

The U.S. Preamble’s goals express the civic integrity living citizens may ultimately develop to approach statutory justice---perfect written-law enforcement.

To unlock an achievable better future, the First Amendment must be amended so as to protect integrity, a civic self-interest, rather than civil religion, a business.

With this amendment alone, the moderates on both the left and the right might have a better future. Moderates might approach the 2/3 supermajority of citizens who trust-in and commit-to the U.S. Preamble for civic living, meanwhile practicing their personal religion for spiritual hopes and comforts.

I agree that social democrats have hurt the minds of students for the past 50 years. Reform is on the way. However, I hope part of the consequence is the end of civil religion so as to favor civic integrity with private spiritual salvation in the USA.

https://www.quora.com/Are-you-willing-to-give-up-your-liberties-to-slow-coronavirus?

Yes.

However, I do not condone liberty, which many passionate dissidents, for example, many social democrats, far rightists, and anarchists exercise as license to disrupt civic living, damage property, injure people, and take fellow citizens’ lives. The revolutionary man who is famous for liberty or death discounted integrity to his wife and six children. A decade later, a nation suffered a reign of terror for bloody liberty and other claims.

I daily forego many liberties to maintain the self-interest of responsible human independence. I gained such commitments by considering both the-literal-truth and the preamble to the U.S. Constitution, interpreting it so as to guide my civic, civil, and legal conduct. Indeed, I interpret responsible human independence as more civic than responsible human liberty. As I view it, only one of those options encourages integrity.

https://www.quora.com/unanswered/Why-is-the-Universal-Declaration-of-Human-Rights-not-included-as-a-statement-on-the-AI?

I normally pass questions that seem to burden me with stating the question. I take full responsibility for my folly.

I guess “AI” means “artificial intelligence” but am bemused by the article. I write and propose “the-literal-truth” as a statement of existence; that is, the-literal-truth exists. Human work to discover the-objective-truth and invent new tools for perceiving it hopes to approach the-literal-truth. Perhaps there is an ultimate AI which could be referred to as “the AI” rather than unconventional “the-AI”, and I doubt it is suggested at 2020s leading edge AI programming.

I refute the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. What people could use is reassessment of Maslow’s hierarchy of human needs as a hierarchy of duty to self-interest.

Each human begin begins as a unique ovum in a unique woman’s body. The ovum may be inseminated with the spermatozoon of a unique man. Gestation, delivery, rearing, and the youth’s choices do not lessen the person’s individuality. Every human individual has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (HIPEA) to develop either integrity to the-literal-truth or toleration of infidelity.

Humankind has no idea how excellent the available future may be if most persons are so encouraged and self-interestedly accept both HIPEA and personal development of integrity.

AI programmers and UN officials have no idea how good humankind may become.

https://www.quora.com/Considering-advances-in-technology-and-an-evolution-of-societal-laws-standards-and-ethics-does-the-U-S-Constitution-still-reflect-our-nations-values-and-evolution-or-do-you-believe-it-should-be-re-written-to-better?

The U.S. is on a path to develop public discipline according to the people’s proposition that is offered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution (the U.S. Preamble). Being a fellow citizen and not owning an individual interpretation of the U.S. Preamble invites misfortune more commonly dreadful than driving without knowing traffic laws and signals. The fellow citizens who use the U.S. Preamble’s civic, civil, and legal integrity consider their interpretation precious personal property, and they continually improve the interpretation.

The recent unconstitutional impeachment of President Donald R. Trump by the Democrats in the House of Representatives is evidence that the U.S. Preamble’s (Article IV) guarantee to the states that the national government will be a republic under written law is sufficient to cause more than casual consideration to the standards under which We the People of the United States develop integrity. From my view, the nanny state has almost erased public appreciation of integrity. Is that the “societal laws” you speak of? I think nanny-state people ought to consider self-discipline. Also, discovery of integrity writes rules of ethics, and fairness is no surrogate for justice.

That’s not to say the U.S. Constitution does not need amendment. I have been writing for two decades to promote revision of the First Amendment to promote civic integrity, a citizen’s self-interest, rather than religion, a business enterprise. The U.S. Preamble recognizes religion and other forms of human motivation and inspiration as private pursuits by not including religion in its listed goals.

We know from over 230 years of their opportunities that political regimes will not terminate the U.S. church-state partnership: it is up to We the People of the United States to individually separate civic, civil, and legal living from devout pursuit of a preferred afterdeath or other religious hope.

Working from a principle commented on by Greeks 2,400 years ago, citizens may develop human equity under statutory justice. In the U.S., the civic, civil, and legal commitment to such citizenship is stated in the U.S. Preamble. A second constitutional amendment I propose is to require candidates for elected or appointed office to present a resume of practices and accomplishments in conformance to his or her interpretation of the preamble. The amendment would also stipulate that qualified citizens must present their interpretation of the preamble in order to register to vote.

In summary, the U.S. Constitution provides citizens written law---a luxury many citizens of the world do not have. It provides for amendment when injustice is discovered. People from all over the world want to come here. I promote establishing a supermajority of citizens who own a personal interpretation of the U.S. Preamble, live by it, and share with fellow citizens, listening for possible improvements in the interpretation.

https://www.quora.com/As-America-was-never-a-democracy-and-the-Gods-willing-we-never-will-be-one-what-form-of-government-are-we-and-why?

Your question is by no means trivial. I sicken each time I read “our democracy” in the writings of elected or appointed officials in the US.

The U.S. Constitution, Article IV, guarantees to the states a republican form of government, a commitment in the states-national federalism. Most states have popular elections, but the national government is prudently designed to ruin popular elections. Through many, intricate provisions, the national government persists under the rule of written law, even though regressions are constantly pursued by various factions. The Articles exist under the preamble to the U.S. Constitution (the U.S. Preamble) and therefore should comport to its goal: civic discipline of by and for the majority of the people. In writing this, I consider myself more proponent than dreamer/fool.

The U.S. Preamble legally terminated the 1774 Confederation of States, established in 1788 a Union of people in their states, and offers fellow citizens a proposition for mutual self-interest even though the First Congress erroneously imposed the Bill of Rights in 1791. Citizens may ignore the U.S. proposition, and that, to me, establishes the democracy so many people lamely refer to. The hope is that a majority of fellow citizens will consider, trust-in, and commit-to We the People of the United States’ proposition.

More trivial is the fruitless colloquialism “we, the people.” The U.S. Preamble divides “we, the people” into two groups: fellow citizens who accept its proposition and dissidents. As the U.S. Preamble’s proposition is practiced or not, so goes the achievements of We the People of the United States as defined therein. Historically, a 2/3 majority needs to be developing integrity to the U.S. Preamble for things to go well in the USA. As the generations have drifted further and further from the responsible human independence it took to settle America, the elected and appointed officials, especially in the national government drift more toward a nanny state psychology.

Under the lame “we, the people” Congress begins its sessions with two prayers: one by a minister who symbolizes the “divinity” of Congress on par with the English Parliament’s faction from the Church of England and the arbitrary pledge of allegiance to the flag with its prayer “under God” as though Congress is aware of whatever-God-is. It is up to We the People of the United States to require Congress to drop both prayers and recite the U.S. Preamble as a statement of each congressperson’s acceptance-of and appreciation-for membership in We the People of the United States. America’s federal republicanism was ruined by the First Amendment’s protection of religion (a business), instead of integrity, a duty in each citizen’s self-interest.

We are the 1787 generation’s recent “our Posterity” and the coming generation’s “ourselves”. Therefore, each fellow citizen may consider the abstract U.S. Preamble and interpret it for his or her civic, civil, and legal use, meanwhile pursuing the private good he or she perceives. He or she may make an interpretation of the U.S. Preamble his or her precious property or not. Under that democratic choice, each citizen invites good or woe.

People cite “God” without appreciating whatever-God-is. Respecting civic integrity, perhaps God is the ultimate law enforcement “our Posterity” might approach under the U.S. Preamble’s proposition. Without a supermajority if participants, the U.S. Preamble’s proposition will continue to languish.

Addressing your “why?” I suggest that only through integrity can humankind be all it can be. Integrity comes only because the individual discovers self-interest in its practice. Integrity is so demanding it is unlikely that the newborn will discover it without encouragement and coaching. Fortunately, the 1787 Constitutional Convention’s Committee of Style formulated the proposition in 52 abstract words that got it through an unlikely political debate. Now, over 230 years later, this generation has enough ineluctable evidence to commit-to and trust-in the U.S. Preamble’s proposition for civic integrity as each of us interprets the abstract sentence.

https://www.quora.com/Do-you-think-there-is-equality-between-people-in-the-world-today?

The response is so obviously no that I feel like responding with two queries to your question: do you think each human being is unique? And, if so, what experience, observation, or persuasion caused you to perceive the unique may be equal?

To me, President Donald Trump has exemplified inordinate appreciation of fellow citizens---until one proves they prefer alienation to pursuit of the-literal-truth. Trump confronts such fellow citizens by labeling them “fake” and waiting for their response or reform. I perceive Nancy Pelosi is alien to Mr. President’s prompts for reform, especially when she appeals to a pope for civic integrity. I am learning from Trump to be patient in civic dialogue, because I might learn something from a fellow citizen even if they intend to be uncivil, as in Democrats lobbying for diversity when the nation is at war with a pandemic.

Do you agree with me that each of a woman’s viable ova is unique and has the potential to transition into a human being? With this logic, the woman is herself unique, which means without equal. In other words, the woman survived the arduous path from ovum to human: insemination, gestation, delivery, rearing by typically controversial parents from four potentially conflicted grandparents in a bemused and warring world, acceptance of being human, and commitment to responsible human independence.

But the woman is, after all, a human being, and in that view she is both unequal and superior to a porpoise. By ineluctable evidence, while the porpoise has sonar abilities the human does not have, on an overall basis the human species is superior to whales and all other species. The elevating qualities are 1) more complete awareness of the-literal-truth respecting both physics and psychology and 2) grammar by which to pursue discovery and to practice advantages of the ineluctable evidence respecting the-literal-truth.

Because her path was fraught with human error perhaps habit, the will to be neighborly, and fear of the unknown, her achievement of the excellence she had as a newborn depends upon her childhood choice to pursue integrity or to tolerate infidelity, more or less. Thus, the consequence of her unique being is all it could have been or less, depending upon her choices as her life unfolds. The case for the man is similar but evolves to support the crowd of the woman, her ova, and the man himself. In no way would an authentic woman and an authentic man threaten the lives of her ova and their family. In no way would authentic singles---men and women---threaten families. These experiences and observations have nothing to do with religions like equality, gender identity, or glory/reincarnation in afterdeath.

These principles may be expressed comprehensively as a nest of acceptances: being human; the self-interested advantage of human, individual power, energy, and authority (HIPEA) to pursue civic equity under statutory justice rather than infidelity; obligation to neither initiate nor tolerate harm to or from any person or association; physics and psychology from one source; developing personal happiness with sufficient reserve for whatever-God-is. Each of these principles need unpacking, and the process can begin with consideration.

I suggest the consideration begin with the proposition that is offered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution (the U.S. Preamble). It’s object is “ourselves”---the 12th generation of fellow citizens since 1787. Thus, the 2020 “our Posterity” is the coming generation---future children, grandchildren, and further descendants plus future immigrant fellow citizens.

This reality can motivate each citizen to develop his or her interpretation of the U.S. Preamble for use in managing his or her civic, civil, and legal life, meanwhile pursuing in privacy any spirituality the individual chooses. In other words, separation of church and state is an individual opportunity that is being denied by the likes of Pelosi’s papal allegiance and Mitch Romney’s assumed sainthood. So far, I do not perceive that President Trump has a similar alienation and therefore expect more surprising good from him.

I often share my interpretation of the U.S. Preamble hoping that a fellow citizen or an alien will grant me a suggestion for improvement. My interpretation is: We the People of the United States consider, communicate, collaborate, and connect to practice 5 public disciplines: integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity so as to encourage both living citizens and future citizens to practice responsible human independence. This interpretation is among my most precious properties, and I want to improve my way of living. To improve my property, the fellow citizen may first own his or hers.

Back to your question, its seems there is ineluctable evidence that each person in the world is unique. Millennia ago, people discussed principles I interpret as: persons may develop human equity under statutory justice. The latter is the perfection of written law, which is necessary because not every human being participates in equity, let alone law.

Perhaps the eventual approach to statutory justice will demonstrate that the human will to practice integrity may be God. Such appreciation for whatever-God-is is expressed by the omission of religion, let alone a religion, among the goals in the U.S. Preamble.

I did not expect such an outpouring of my opinions when I first read your question, but I appreciate the question and hope to learn your reaction.

https://www.quora.com/How-would-you-define-an-everyday-hero?

The everyday hero is the person who accepts being human and takes responsibility for his or her personal happiness with civic integrity. Human errors neither discourage them nor become habits.

https://www.quora.com/What-makes-for-a-good-educational-experience?

The experience or observation that convinces the student to accept human individual power, energy, and authority (HIPEA) and use it to practice integrity to the-objective-truth if not the-literal-truth.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-worst-societal-stigma-the-world-faces-right-now?

Most disgraceful is freedom of theism/atheism rather than human encouragement and coaching to appreciate whatever-God-is.

https://www.quora.com/unanswered/What-is-civil-discourse?

I recommend civic discourse. Therein fellow citizens pursue equity under statutory justice. Statutory justice is the consequence of continually improving written law each time injustice is discovered. It is a perfection that may not be attained as evolution unfolds, yet statutory justice is a worthy, approachable goal.

Civil discourse is another phrase, like “the common good,” that tolerant people use to attempt to demonstrate that they own the integrity in a civic debate. When I suspect that a fellow citizen is exercising tolerance of my civic opinion or my person, I change the subject to LSU sports, the weather, the other party’s favorite music or other chit chat. In other words, I am intolerant of tolerance. If LSU sports, I can tell if the other party has interest in me if he or she discovers that I graduated from UT Knoxville.

There is no human being who has individual power, individual energy, and individual authority (HIPEA) higher than mine in my pursuit of integrity to the-objective-truth perhaps to approach to the-literal-truth. You could say that by changing the conversation, I am signaling the other party to reform from civility to open-mindedness or that I am arbitrary in my demand for appreciation of my psychology, mind, and person. That goes to show that my opinion is more important to me than the other party’s opinion is important to me.

I operate on my authority in pursuit of the-literal-truth. I am also informed by some ancient thinkers. A Greek, 2,400 years ago, suggested that humans can develop equity under statutory justice. Someone who offers to be heard but has not the openness to listen has not accepted the Greek proposition. Also, as a boy, I read and appreciated RW Emerson’s “Self Reliance.”

Conforming to civil discourse is like submitting to a tyrant. Moreover, it avoids the opportunity to encourage the tyrant to reform, for example, to accept HIPEA and use it to develop integrity.  

https://www.quora.com/How-would-a-citizen-determine-in-a-present-moment-that-a-law-enforcement-officer-is-acting-tyrannically-and-thus-justly-revolting-in-the-preservation-of-ones-or-anothers-life-or-liberty?

Your question assumes that a citizen has the duty to control an errant law enforcement officer, and I do not accept that premise. When a citizen sees a law-enforcement badge and the officer taking action, his or her duty is to come to attention for the officer’s instructions and with none, stand clear.

One other point. Despite the emphasis on “liberty” in my most precious United States of America, I prefer “independence” and your question provides a forum to consider the preference.

One of the wonderful freedoms the U.S. citizen has is to own a personal interpretation of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition as a precious personal property or none (in which case woe may be invited). In my interpretation, the objective is public discipline that secures living citizens the opportunity to practice responsible human independence. The replacement phrase “responsible human liberty” seems an oxymoron. Too often liberty is taken as license to anarchy; for example, interfering with an officer in the performance of duty, erroneous or not.

https://www.quora.com/Does-a-person-first-need-to-change-in-order-for-society-to-or-is-it-the-other-way-around?

Change to what? If to pursue the-literal-truth as the object of change, I think individuals must personally practice in order to form a supermajority who pursue the-literal-truth in order for humankind to manage the division of the people into those who do and those who don’t develop integrity. In other words, humankind will never be pure in integrity, even if the supermajority actively develops integrity. The principle works for a society, too. About 2/3 of the members must develop integrity in order to manage the society with dissident members who may reform.

I think it is rare for a person to be psychologically mature enough to always act with integrity, and would suspect that if it’s no longer possible for the person to err he or she is near death.

The human being has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (HIPEA) to develop either integrity to the-literal-truth or infidelity. However, few persons accept HIPEA, because no culture/society so encourages and coaches their youth.

It takes about 3 decades for a feral infant to transition to young adult with comprehension and intention to live a complete adult life. Lots of mistakes are possible during that time and if the person makes habits of the mistakes, chances of discovering HIPEA are small, and choosing to develop integrity is also unlikely.

I don’t like the term “society”, because it seems divisive: inclusive for the civilized or subjugated. I like to focus on humankind or fellow citizens, and in that light think a supermajority is required to establish a standard, and I suggest the standard for reform is the-literal-truth.

Back to your question, humankind cannot change the individual, so the individual must take on the dream of developing by personal practice and promotion a supermajority of fellow citizens who are developing integrity under the-literal-truth. A culture/society that encourages and coaches its youth to both accept HIPEA and to develop integrity might influence a better future for humankind.

https://www.quora.com/Why-do-so-many-Americans-believe-they-have-the-best-constitution-in-the-world-when-they-havent-actually-lived-anywhere-else?

I think U.S. resiliency comes from a written constitution with a stated purpose (the U.S. Preamble) that is so abstract that each fellow citizen may interpret it so as to accommodate his or her unique pursuit of happiness with the hope that fellow citizens will not interrupt his or her pursuit of comprehensive safety and security. Even the criminal somehow feels justified and expects toleration until that day that independence is temporarily or permanently terminated by a jury of peers or less.

I am an unusual citizen in that I promote trust-in and commitment-to the U.S. Preamble’s proposition. I share it daily in hopes that fellow citizens who read my interpretation will improve my way of living, and they do. My interpretation today is:  We the People of the United States consider, communicate, collaborate, and connect to practice 5 public disciplines: integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity so as to encourage both living and future fellow citizens to practice responsible human independence.” Two words deserve elaboration: responsible and independence.

First, “responsible” means disciplined by the-objective-truth if not the-literal-truth, both discovered using the ineluctable evidence. Thus, U.S. Supreme Court Justices interpret the U.S. Constitution in its original word usages according to citizens of the 1774 Confederation of States, the former loyal subjects in the English colonies on the eastern seaboard of N. America, but not according to their oppressors, the English Parliament. And, if the Justices deem the U.S. Constitution in conflict with We the People of the United States as defined in the U.S. Preamble, they communicate to Congress that constitutional amendment is recommended, but the Justices do not try to either legislate or administrate.

Second, “independence” replaces responsible human “liberty” in my former interpretation. Liberty can mean license to disrupt, damage, injure, or even kill to express demand for an arbitrary “right”, for example, to know mathematics. Liberty can be its own passion. Liberty is not feasible if the plan would arbitrarily defy physics, as in equip to fly like a bird rather than with well-designed aerodynamics or jet propulsion. When the passions of liberty are motivating the majority to offense against integrity, it is better for the individual to practice independence.

One other point is essential: my phrase “to encourage both living and future fellow citizens” interprets the original “to ourselves and our Posterity.” Our generation is about the 12^th since the framer’s generation of 1787; we are the “our Posterity” to their “ourselves.” Thus, each of us may earn a personal intention regarding the U.S. Preamble’s proposition and hold it as one of our prized possessions.

I think the opportunity to interpret the U.S. Preamble with either the empty “we, the people” or with trust-in We the People of the United States as the individual develops it is the reason most U.S. citizens feel freedom they would not feel anywhere else.

Since the U.S. is so civic, civil, and legal---a guaranteed republic under written law, I cannot fathom We the People of the United States referring to “our democracy.”

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.