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 fellow citizens and future citizens to take advantage of responsible
human independence.” I want to improve my interpretation by listening to other
citizens and their interpretations yet would preserve the original, 1787, text,
unless it is amended by the people.
It seems the
Supreme Court occasionally refers to it, and 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
Domestic aliens to We the People of the United States
Neither “the founders” nor “the framers” nor the 12 states
who sent delegates to the 1787 constitutional convention in Philadelphia
established the U.S. that is abstractly proposed in the preamble to the U.S.
Constitution (the U.S. Preamble). It was ratified by citizens’ representatives
of 9/12 states under amendment obligations of June 21, 1788. Two states joined
the U.S. before operations began on March 4, 1789. Congress with ten of 14
states ratified the negotiated amendments, the Bill of Rights in 1791,
activating a system of government that conflicts with the U.S. Preamble.
The First Amendment’s religion clauses protect a business
enterprise instead of encouraging civic, civil, and legal integrity. The U.S.
Preamble proposes 5 public disciplines---in my view, integrity, justice, peace,
strength, and prosperity---in order to encourage responsible human independence
to living citizens. Past political regimes erroneously/falsely described the U.S.
Preamble as “secular”: the preamble, by excluding religion/spirituality from
the 5 public disciplines assigns them to individual-citizen privacy. Civic,
civil, and legal religious-businesses may thrive because believers want the
services rather than by imposing on fellow citizens who do not believe in the
services.
The First Congress imposed the tyranny of Chapter XI
Machiavellianism, in other words church-state partnership when it hired
Congressional chaplains at citizens’ expense in 1789 and with ratification of
the First Amendment in 1791. Congresses, administrations, and the Supreme Court
have increased the tyranny since then. See Greece v Galloway (2014), which
calls my objections niggling.
Government officials at all levels who do not practice and
encourage the civic, civil, and legal proposition that is abstractly offered in
the U.S. Preamble are aliens to We the People of the United States. Citizens
who ignore the tyranny invite the loss of their opportunity for responsible
human independence or civic, civil, and legal integrity.
Columns
Aliens to the entity/society
We the People of the United States? (David J. Mitchell and Andrea Gallo and
Terry Robinson) (. . . and https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/entertainment_life/terry_robinson/article_18b012c0-997a-11ea-92bb-c3a08a22dacb.html)
Only yesterday, I published on my blog, cipbr@blogspot.com,
“The Advocate may [could discover reason to] publish its interpretation of the
U.S. Constitution’s preamble.” The Advocate writers’ coverage of the U.S.-alien
ministers who insist on imposing whatever-God-is as civic, civil, and legal
public discipline is itself wayward to the nation; the reporting is divergent
to We the People of the United States.
Citizens may consider this nation’s statement of civic,
civil, and legal trust and commitment: the preamble to the U.S. Constitution.
Past generations, continuously influenced by erroneous Congress and other
faulty leadership, granted our generation the opportunity/privilege to
interpret the preamble in individual self-interest in order to secure a
collective better future.
Individual ownership of civic integrity would aid
accumulation of a supermajority of citizens who are practicing RESPONSIBLE
HUMAN INDEPENDENCE more than freedom and liberty---words of alien war. We the
People of the United States prefer public discipline for private happiness to
fellow citizens; mutual, comprehensive safety and security for serenely
confident living: private, spiritual pursuits flourishing within human,
statutory justice.
On first consideration, notice that the preamble’s subject
is circular to its subordinate object: “ourselves and our Posterity.” Our
generation is both “our Posterity” to the signing-ratifying generation of
1787-1788 and “ourselves” to 2020’s coming generation. This point was
articulated in a letter of September 6, 1789; http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/presidents/thomas-jefferson/letters-of-thomas-jefferson/jefl81.php:
“. . . I suppose to be self evident, ‘that the earth belongs in usufruct to the
living;’ that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it.” The letter is
secondary to the fact that the 5-person Committee of Style. Its chair wrote the
preamble’s abstract sentence that invites each individual’s interpretation so
as to order his or her civic, civil, and legal life while pursuing private
spirituality/religion.
The Advocate writers
David J. Mitchell and Andrea Gallo quote Rev. Tony Spell saying that
his church member who does not contribute at least 10 percent is “a thief.” Writer
Terry Robinson tolerates The Advocate’s domestically divisive caption “. . .
'lock and load' for spiritual warfare” to speak for several local pastors and
quote scripture. Writers never quote John 15:18-23 or Luke 14:26 or other
domestic-hate passages, for example Genesis 22:2, which for me excludes the
Bible as witness to whatever-God-is. Any phantom that would address me with such
ideas cannot influence me.
How much more is a U.S. citizen, especially a writer for the
press, cheating when he or she lives here but does not aid responsible human independence
or their better interpretation of the preamble’s proposition?
I assert that it is The Advocate’s duty to consider the
preamble and train their writers to continuously encourage the entity/society
We the People of the United States according to the writer’s interpretation of
the preamble.
Quora
I only know my opinion and do not know the-literal-truth let
alone the-objective-truth.
What I think to start is that the human infant takes about 3
decades to acquire the comprehension and intention to live a complete human
life. He or she takes another 3 decades to accumulate enough experience and
observations to accept human individuality.
The human being has the individual power, the individual
energy, and the individual authority (HIPEA) to choose between integrity to
the-literal-truth, unknown as it may be, and infidelity. After another decade
the self-interest to develop integrity may activate, and the lifetime begins to
seem well lived. The mature adult is quick to say, “I don’t know” when that is
so.
When a baby begins to talk, a frequent utterance is “What’s
that?” It’s the baby’s equivalent to, “I don’t know.” The reliable parent
answers and thereby the baby learns. Unfortunately, sometimes, the parent
suffers reluctance to answer, especially, “I don’t know.” Then, the baby’s
learning is diverted.
Every ovum a fertile woman produces is unique. It may be
inseminated by a unique spermatozoon to become a unique, single-celled embryo.
None of the subsequent events on the way to a young adult reduce the
individuality of the person.
If encouraged and coached to do so, the infant accepts being
human, having HIPEA, preferring integrity, and developing the self-discipline
of integrity. However, he or she is born into a conflicted world wherein most
cultures inculcate a quest for higher power. Few accept that physics and its
progeny---including mathematics, chemistry, biology, psychology, and
imagination---may be the human being’s only constraining power other than human
oppression (coercion and force).
However, many individuals accept and practice all the above
principles or better by their experiences, observations, and choices. Their
unique perfection may come at the last moment. Such people have fulfilled their
role as a human being---the most powerful living species.
The perfection each achieved was as unique as his or her
person, and humankind is well pleased. Yet, if asked to judge, others would
have to say, “I don’t know.”
After January 6, 1941, FDR had no peace-time credibility, and I will not
waste my time speculating about his statements.On that date, he said America was at war for “the freedom of speech, the freedom of worship, the freedom from want, and the freedom from fear.” See FDR and the Four Freedoms Speech - FDR Presidential Library & Museum.
All four freedoms pale before the human opportunity to develop integrity to the-literal-truth. Not only FDR, but the First Congress erred when they unconstitutionally codified freedom of worship’s kin, “freedom of religion.” The First Amendment needs amendment so as to encourage citizens to develop integrity rather than to civilly and legally support business institutions that promote religions. No government should encourage neglect of whatever-God-is.
But I think FDRs most egregious error is “the freedom from want.” Without want of integrity, self-discipline has less incentive if any. Second is “the freedom from fear,” without which people might not evacuate the path of a Category 5 hurricane.
I
appreciate your question, Mr. Alfonso, and would like to know your
response to it. Not to delay, I will answer your question: Yes, there is a proposal I want to share.
Observing its subordinate subject, “ourselves and our Posterity,” I hope every living citizen will consider the preamble to the U.S. Constitution, which is an abstract sentence. After due consideration, create a personal interpretation by which to guide civic, civil, and legal living, reserving religion/spirituality for private practice.
Observing its subordinate subject, “ourselves and our Posterity,” I hope every living citizen will consider the preamble to the U.S. Constitution, which is an abstract sentence. After due consideration, create a personal interpretation by which to guide civic, civil, and legal living, reserving religion/spirituality for private practice.
The
civic citizen can develop a personal God that provides him or her personal hope
and comfort in a conflicted world AND aid an achievable better future by
reserving sufficient humility toward whatever-God-is. I assert that that is the
salient point of the U.S. Preamble.
Accepting
that I am of the year 2020 “ourselves” to the coming generations of citizens, I
nourish an existing interpretation of the U.S. Preamble and share it in hopes
of receiving criticism that inspires me to change my civic, civil, and legal
living. Today, my interpretation is: We
the People of the United States maintain 5 public disciplines---integrity,
justice, peace, strength, and prosperity---in order to encourage responsible
human independence to living citizens.
I
share this promotion of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition with the hope that in a
few months I will begin to see evidence that fellow citizens are working on it
and writing about it on all media. I hope interest will accelerate so that in a
matter of months political polls show significant interest, and in a couple
years most citizens are participating in the 5 disciplines of by and for the
people.
Please comment, Mr. Alfonso, 2) if you like this idea and 2) perhaps share the U.S. Preamble’s proposition as you interpret it.
Please comment, Mr. Alfonso, 2) if you like this idea and 2) perhaps share the U.S. Preamble’s proposition as you interpret it.
Maybe
so. There’s hubris in being able to say, “I never lied.” But managing liars may
require extreme humility. President Trump likes to say, “We’ll see how it turns
out.”
I
agree with you, Mr. Martin, if you think this is a puzzle for voters and other
concerned fellow citizens. I haven’t drawn many conclusions. Let me start with
a quote: 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; Matthew 7-6, CJB. I consider this a suggestion for protecting vital
information in the presence of liars. It seems clear that whatever-God-is
leaves it to men to deal with liars, and diplomats are unlikely to negotiate
with the statement, “You are a liar.” How does the President of the United
States manage liars? (If you are in a hurry, please skip to the last two
paragraphs.)
For
your question, consider that this advice is directed to the U.S. civic society:
We the People of the United States. That is, fellow citizens who aid the civic,
civil, legal, and private disciplines that seem proposed in the preamble to the
U.S. Constitution (the U.S. Preamble and its articles). Dissidents to the U.S.
Preamble’s proposition are like renters---borrowing the work of civic citizens.
Further, to my comment, Twitter is like dogs, pigs, and donkeys more than
elephants, perhaps excepting mormon-saint-elephants.
We
can see that despite humankind’s individual, noble motives there remain in this
world persons who practice diverse evils. Lying can produce severe
consequences. For example, were it not for the majority of the U.S. Senate’s
GOP majority, Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff would have unconstitutionally
removed President Donald Trump, advancing Pelosi a step closer to the
Presidency. Swearing to uphold the U.S. Preamble’s articles yet harboring
alien-allegiance invites misery and loss to all U.S. citizens. Lying makes
defending the U.S. Preamble’s proposition interesting and challenging yet
expensive.
Perhaps
Pelosi’s strategy came from some-journalism-schools’ theory: Political
“science” falsehoods can be press-promoted as statistically designed “public”
opinion. A politically designed poll of perhaps 10 thousand strategically
chosen citizens will influence some of perhaps 155 million registered voters.
In other words, public policy is set by public opinion, and statistics, a study
tool, can be manipulated so as to direct public policy. Similarly, press
mendacity about Pelosi’s false impeachment of President Trump would sway public
opinion against Trump. However, Pelosi grossly ignored the rule of law and the
predictability of Schiff-failure.
I
doubt many politicians own a personal interpretation of the U.S. Preamble’s
abstract proposition for 2020 living. I share mine for constructive criticism
by fellow citizens including government officials: We the People of the United
States practice and promote 5 public disciplines---integrity, justice, peace,
strength, and prosperity---so as to encourage responsible human independence to
living citizens. Its civic, civil, and legal disciplines tacitly consign
religion/spirituality to personal privacy. Independence empowers the civic
citizen to walk away when the mob takes the license to harm property and people
for the sake of “liberty” as their faction sees it. The society of civic
citizens encourages dissident citizens by example and the benefits of constraint
under the disciplines.
Civic
citizens may conduct open-minded discussion of the 5 disciplines for
responsible human independence or better. However, dissidents, for their
reasons, may oppose the discussions. People who never thought past “we, the people,”
a propaganda, may be mostly harmless. However, people who oppose statutory
justice may employ mendacity such as
designed-political-science-press-promoted-polls to attempt political advantage.
The
President of the United States is obligated to We the People of the United
States, no matter how small their faction may be, to uphold the law during his
or her term. President Trump has shown canny practices in managing mendacity
intended to constrain him. I think part of his skill is alacrity on countering
lies presented by Democrats and the biased press. When someone reports that he
lied, I doubt and don’t convict President Trump on his opponent’s opinions.
Trump’s speed at countering lies against him is one of his political skills,
and I give him the benefit of the doubt. How he handles Matthew 7:6 requires
humility, and I am glad he does not jeopardize the people.
Facebook
is there. It would not bother me if Twitter went bankrupt.
Assuming
that you are referring to civic citizens as “our society,” no culture has yet
accepted two essential proposals: discipline of by and for the people under
responsible human independence to living citizens and discovery of justice
according to ineluctable evidence.
These
two principles may be approached through a nest of acceptances, including the
following or better equivalents:
An
infant may accept being a human being.
The
child may accept that it takes about a quarter century to acquire the
self-interest to live a complete human life.
The
young adult may accept that comprehension and intent are required to choose and
develop integrity rather than to tolerate or nourish infidelity.
The
adult may accept that integrity and hope is in his or her best-self-interest;
That
reserving sufficient appreciation and humility for whatever-God-is is prudent
That
fellow citizens with differing religious/spiritual beliefs may also be humble
to actual-reality.
That
each human is unique and therefore cannot be equal.
That
most citizens accept voluntary, civic order under equity with statutory
justice. Those who for their reasons do not contribute to justice may be
constrained according to written-law-enforcement as it exists.
That
accepting current obligations to descendants and legal immigrants in the coming generation is
essential to the current generation.
In
the U.S., these principles may be developed from the abstract U.S. Preamble’s
proposition relating to a 1787 vision: developing civic integrity as a nation.
Every citizen who engages the U.S. Preamble may develop his or her
interpretation for current living, accepting that in the phrase “ourselves and
our Posterity,” the coming generation views us as “ourselves.” This principle
has been obfuscated since 1787, when the 5-persons Committee of Style authored
it, I think to reflect the controversial consequence of the 1787 Constitutional
convention in Philadelphia.
With
2/3 of fellow citizens developing the practice of the U.S. Preamble’s
proposition (or better), as they interpret it for their responsible
independence, and applying the-objective-truth to develop statutory justice, an
achievable, better world may unfold.
The
global-society that follows these principles is not necessarily in the U.S.,
but I am dedicated to us as we each interpret responsible human happiness with
civic integrity.
I think so.
I appreciate your phrases and words: valid knowledge or
certitude as truth. “Truth” isn’t easy, as witnessed by 1679 documents found at
https://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=truth.
I think a posteriori means “derived
by reasoning from observed facts,” from Merriam-Webster online. I prefer the
phrase “ineluctable evidence.”
I found even “truth” problematic when after my 2006 speech,
“Faith in the Truth.” While the article “the” seems to clarify that I refer to
actual reality, a notable fellow citizen asked, “Phil, were you speaking
absolute, ultimate, God’s, or Phil’s truth?” I answered “The Truth” without
communicating.
Today, I write that humankind works to discover
the-objective-truth based on ineluctable evidence. Humans invent new
instruments for perception and continually improve the-objective-truth in order
to ultimately approach the-literal-truth. The laws of physics extend through
chemistry, math, biology, and psychology to determine integrity, from which
ethics is derived.
Of course, these are a few of my thoughts. I do not know the-literal-truth.
Of course, these are a few of my thoughts. I do not know the-literal-truth.
Your
question’s constraints are, in my view, unacceptable for a civic culture. I
will answer with my choice for political thinking: responsible human
independence.
Responsible
humans personally accept the constraints of physics and its progeny, including
mathematics, chemistry, biology, psychology, and imagination. If they develop
religion/spirituality to provide hope and comfort with actually-real
uncertainty, they do so in private with a reserve of humility toward
whatever-God-is or what may control the unfolding of events. Thereby, they may
appreciate and encourage responsible fellow citizens as well as dissidents, as
they are and where they are in their quests for integrity.
Public
disciplines are required to encourage and coach people who accept that they are
human and may develop responsible independence. I view the preamble to the U.S.
Constitution as a proposal under the constraints of physics for responsible human
independence to living citizens. The cited public disciplines are, in my view
for 2020’s “ourselves” and the coming generation, integrity, justice, peace,
strength, and prosperity.
The
English, American, and French revolutions of 1689, 1774, and 1789,
respectively, illustrate that liberty is too often taken as license to kill
fellow citizens. When the crowd feels licensed for liberty, I want the
independence to walk away so as not to tolerate harm to domestic property and
fellow citizens or visitors.
A
conservative human being neither initiates nor tolerates harm to or from fellow
citizens or their associations and reserves enough humility to discover
whatever-God-is.
Readers
who think my claims are overbearing or condescending may accept that I am writing
my opinion with the public assertion that I do not know the-literal-truth.
After over 2 decades of study, I own a personal
interpretation of the abstract preamble to the U.S. Constitution. Politicians
and government officials may earn and practice their personal interpretations
of the U.S. Preamble and solicit public approval based on performance.
An identity politic from the 1774 colonial British-American
revolution for independence from England, resulted in 13 globally free and
independent states. The new global status of each of the 13 states was accepted
by the 1784 ratification of the 1783 Treaty of Paris. However, after nearly
four years of effort, it became evident that the confederation would not
succeed. The 1777 Articles of Confederation were too weak for domestic
integrity let alone global power.
The 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, with
representatives from only 12 states, one taking a rebel position, used
closed-door debates to protect identity politics in order to explore the
world’s political systems in the search for civic integrity. The subject of the
first draft of the preamble was the named, 13 states; https://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/the-committee-of-detail-report/.
It included no proposition. The proposition for discipline of by and for the
people was written by the Committee of Style and issued as the abstract
preamble to the U.S. Constitution on September 12, 1787. Sixteen delegates
refused to sign it, leaving 39 signers of 55 framers.
With its discipline of by and for citizens, the preamble
terminated the colonial English-American obsession with self-governance. But
the dominant identity politics restored Anglo-American tradition when the First
Congress unconstitutionally hired chaplains at the people’s expense. Congress
wanted to be competitive with Parliament, which has constitutionally specified
seats for officials of the Church of England. The goals and purpose specified
in the U.S. Preamble, by not including religion or spirituality as civic,
civil, or legal disciplines effect their consignment to privacy.
Every U.S. citizen may own a personal interpretation of the
U.S. Preamble’s proposition, and government officials at all levels should
practice their personal interpretation. With at least 2/3 of citizens actively
developing integrity by practicing the proposition, the U.S. would begin to
perceive a better future. Neglect by politicians is egregious.
Minimally, earn the way of living you want plus save and
invest for retirement.
To be at the leading edge, learn Maslow’s hierarchy of needs
in its latest form. Convert it to a hierarchy of responsibility and use it to
order your life.
I
think it’s because of three evolutionary developments---a macro development
involving millions of years and diverse cultures civilizing at different rates,
an intermediate collaboration by the 3 to 5 living generations, and the micro
developments by the living individuals.
The
living generations evolved over at least 3 million years; but most civic
practices are no more than 0.080 million years old. In other words, most
inhabitants are relatively advanced.
This
evolution involves some 8 trillion human-years of experiences and observations
from inventing tools for substance on the land to planning to colonize another
planet. The currently living peoples span aboriginal cultures nearly unchanged
after 80,000 years to the leading edge, for example, humans who are exploring
space.
The
individuals within the various cultures are each at some point on his or her
path toward achieving his or her unique level of integrity to the-literal-truth
if not succumbing to infidelity. In other words, at the same time, some
citizens of the world invite death while others foster life.
If
this was interesting, I write elsewhere about nested acceptances, and essays
can be found with Google Chrome and the searches “"Phil
Beaver"+"civic people"+"nested acceptances." Results
can be increased by successive omissions of the first 2 phrases or by changing
the third to “nest of acceptances.” The first is accepting that you are a human
being, the most powerful of the known species.
I consider freedom an external provision: an individual
cannot acquire it. Humankind is limited. The limit is physics and its progeny,
such as mathematics, chemistry, psychology, plus fiction, civics, law, and so
on.
People often write about freedom and liberty in the same
essay. Often, I cannot discern their reasoning, because they don’t define those
special terms. For example, https://lawliberty.org/time-to-disobey-religious-liberty/.
Consequently, I write freedom-from and liberty-to and express an American dream
I envision.
Merriam-Webster online (MW) might help. “Freedom” means “the
absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action.” “Liberty”
is diversely applied, starting with 3 major distinctions: being free,
perceiving privilege, and risk-taking. Within “being free” there’s as you
please, sans physics, without despots, human privilege, and “the power of
choice.” I leave MW with the notion that freedom is not attainable due to the
limits imposed by physics or the necessity to benefit from physics, and liberty
is the choice within the constraints of physic. Constrained by physics, freedom
implies absence of coercion or arbitrary force.
Now enters an associated term, “independence.” MW informs us
“dependent” means determined, conditioned, or supported by another or by drugs,
and MW follows with “independent.”
These considerations lead me to a better statement of an
American dream: a culture wherein citizens develop responsible human
independence as freedom-from oppression and the liberty-to develop integrity
according to physics rather than tolerate infidelity.
I celebrate Davis Prather’s stimulating question and assert
that my response is spontaneous and sincere; I would appreciate criticism.
Readers who would like to consider my previous uses of terms herein may search
on Google Chrome using, for example, "Phil Beaver"+"civic
people"+"tolerate infidelity" for 3 results. In this particular
case, the search is enhanced by omitting “civic people.” Omitting “Phil Beaver”
gives results about spousal infidelity more than infidelity to physics and it
progeny, especially psychology.
Many if not most parents don’t treat children as unique
persons and, second, humankind does not encourage appreciation and dignity of
the human ovum.
Hypocrisy?
I recall in the 1950s the mantra was “the Christian thing to
do.”
Maybe 10,000 years ago, parents took great pride if a son or daughter was so excellent as to be chosen for human sacrifice.
Maybe 10,000 years ago, parents took great pride if a son or daughter was so excellent as to be chosen for human sacrifice.
I think (and have the evidence) that the Civil War was
fought because white, Christian abolitionists were consider evil.
I do not favor modern political correctness, but think it is
not new.
I like the idea and wonder how to apply it.
I have not experienced much empowerment from exhortation,
coercion, or force. I especially oppose governance---local, state, and
national.
I try to promote trust-in and commitment-to the preamble to
the U.S. Constitution but can’t tell much support for accepting its civic,
civil, and legal powers.
I think we are now collaborating for an achievable better
future and am encouraged by your informative questions.
First, I think after the preamble to the U.S. Constitution
was written on September 8-12 by 5 delegates and signed on September 17 by 39
delegates, the 16 dissident delegates used factional American Protestantism to
reinstate the church-state tradition they were accustomed to as
British-American colonists. Just as the Declaration of Independence reference
to “Nature’s God” was war propaganda against England’s reformed-Catholic God, Congress
hired chaplains so as to claim “divinity” on par with Parliament and its
constitutional-seats for members of the Church of England. The consequence has
been repression of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition as “secular” whereas it is
neutral to religion, assigning it to privacy rather than a civic discipline.
Past generations, influenced by Congress and other errant
officials, have neglected the civic, civil, and legal powers of the U.S.
Preamble. It is an abstract sentence, and every citizens should own his or her
interpretation and share it with others so as to discover mutual improvements.
Mine today is: We the People of the
United States develop 5 public disciplines---integrity, justice, peace,
strength, and prosperity---in order to encourage responsible human independence
to living citizens.
As individual citizens develop their own interpretation of
the U.S. Preamble so as to order their civic life and their private life, a
supermajority of civic citizens will emerge, and We the People of the United
States will be established after neglect since September 17, 1787.
If you like this idea, help make it happen by sharing the present message so as to develop a better one.
If you like this idea, help make it happen by sharing the present message so as to develop a better one.
I like to read/listen then write my response; speak then
LISTEN and re-iterate with better mutual comprehension.
My special interest is comprehending the proposition that is
offered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution, and choosing how I want to
order my civic life so as to accommodate my inspiration and motivation. Collaborating
with fellow citizens helps me discover the happiness I prefer within civic
integrity.
I am able to read, write, speak, and listen using 4 blogs,
primarily 2, substantially 1: cipbr.blogspot.com, and more slowly
promotethepreamble.blogspot.com. Also, I write on some public forums such as
this one. I speak in public and at 2 annual library meetings, celebrating each
June 21, commemorating 1788s’ ratification of the 1787 draft U.S. Constitution
and September 17, commemorating the 1787 signing, leaving 16 delegates
dissident to the consequence of the Philadelphia convention. This year, the 7th
annual June 21 celebration is titled “Responsible Human Independence Day,” for
the first time. We discovered that “liberty” is too often taken as civic, civil,
or legal license.
I rely on Google Chrome searches to empower interested
readers to find my essays. For example, a reader can search "Phil
Beaver"+"civic people"+"civic integrity" and find my
essays on several forums. Changing the third selector to “Responsible Human
Independence” yields other essays.
Law professors
To Nancy:
The 1784 ratification of the Treaty of Paris reads “this fourteenth day of January, in the year of our Lord one
thousand seven hundred and eighty-four, and in the eighth year of the
sovereignty and independence of the United States of America.”
The 1776 Declaration of
Independence grounds its claims on “the laws of nature and of nature's God” and
closes “with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence” and a
mutual pledge of lives, fortunes, and honor.
It seems to me the Americans did
all they could to avoid Christian doctrine, Catholic doctrine in particular.
More importantly, the 1774
confederation of 13 former British colonies, self-styled states, with
confirmation of the states by name in the 1784 ratification, did not hold
together. Nine states replaced the confederation of 12 (1 of the 13 was not
present on September 17, 1787) with a union of the 9 on June 21, 1788, agreeing
that the first Congress would amend the U.S. Preamble’s 1787 Articles. Two
states joined the globally established nation, and operations began on March 4,
1789. The negotiated U.S. Constitution was ratified on December 15, 1791 by
representatives of the required 10 of 14 states.
The U.S. Preamble proposes 5 public
disciplines so as to encourage responsible human independence. Since
religion/spirituality is excluded, practice is a private decision rather than a
civic, civil, or legal collaboration of by and for fellow citizens.
Getting from “nature’s God” to the
Trinity seems at best an exercise in futility and at worst an attempt to impose
Catholicism, reformed or not, on civic citizens.
To Nancy:
ON MAY 28, 2020 AT 13:15:45 PM
It seems to me any theist
is prudent to reserve sufficient humility and appreciation toward
whatever-God-is.
It seems to me Agathon (d.
400 BC) describes Jesus in Plato's "Symposium." We do not know that
Jesus of "I am" did not talk to Agathon.
What if Jesus presented
the Agathon "I am" in 2020. Would the Church be humbled to
whatever-God-is?
Karen Taliaferro generously shares her vast knowledge as a
few specific definitions: religious liberty, liberalism, natural law,
“tethering” human [statutory justice] to divine law.
I would put her book on my reading list if I wanted another
5 decades to consider adopting a doctrine. In my 8th decade of
living and 6th of marriage with 3 children, I do not want
liberty/license to oppose the constraints of physics and its progeny, such as
mathematics, chemistry, biology, psychology, imagination, and everything. I
think physics requires responsible human independence. In my view, that
voluntary proposition is implied in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution.
I share only my opinion and the consequential power, energy,
and authority of my person to pursue the happiness I perceive rather than the
constraints someone would impose. I do not write the-literal-truth and want
readers to accept my viewpoint for me: it is alright for me to pursue
responsible human independence even though I do not know the-objective-truths
by which humankind may approach the-literal-truth.
The “problem with religious liberty” is the hubris to impose
civic, civil, or legal religion as statutory justice. Religion is restricted to
the individual person’s private pursuits, based on heartfelt concerns only the
individual may develop or submit-to. The human being has this characteristic,
and fellow citizens may take advantage of mutual integrity, justice, peace,
strength, and prosperity---5 public disciplines.
The person who trusts-in and commits-to a theological
doctrine self-enslaves to bemusing-hubris fellow citizens do not appreciate and
the potential for conflict with whatever-God-is. Frequently, on hearing that I
trust-in and commit-to the-literal-truth unknown as it may be opines that my
soul doomed. I ask, “Are you certain?” I learned this provocative civic-defense
from my friend, Hector.
I speculate that “God” is the source of physics and its
progeny, and could be something as basic as potential-energy and its cosmic,
incompletely-reversible conversion to kinetic energy and mass.
However, I reserve the humility to accept Jesus or the
Trinity or the Universal Soul if the mystery of soul is resolved to me. I do
not want anyone to follow my principles, but would like criticism by which I my
improve my civic integrity yet maintain my quest for happiness.
I agree with Grosby’s tacit indictment of liberalism as a
doctrine of un-constraint. Mankind ultimately conforms to physics and it
progeny. Try reason or revelation as the authority to control a Category 5
Hurricane. Without the means, you can’t reach the end.
The fellow citizen who says my afterdeath is doomed fails to
consider why I painfully acquire the humility I need.
I do not wish to alienate Taliaferro, Grosby, or fellow
readers. I hope my ideas, gained from decades studying the U.S. Preamble’s
proposition, will inspire fellow citizens to engage its abstract 5 disciplines
needed to encourage responsible human independence to living citizens and
reserving religious pursuits for personal privacy.
This fellow-citizen trusts-in and commits-to whatever-God-is
rather than any human construct. I hope the Supreme Court will examine the
religion clauses of the First Amendment and judge them unconstitutional based
on the civic, civil, and legal power of the preamble to the U.S. Constitution.
The authors, the 5-person Committee of Style, chaired by
Governeur Morris, wrote a 5-discipline, 1-purpose proposal that living citizens
may either interpret or neglect. I work to encourage citizens to own their
interpretation, which may become one of their prized possessions, especially
respecting their posterity.
My interpretation today is:
We the People of the United States develop 5 public
disciplines---integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity---in order to
encourage responsible human independence to living citizens. I share it for
comments that might improve my civic life. I hold my person’s motivation and
inspiration private yet voluntarily shareable and likewise appreciate other
citizens’ legal privacy.
Consistent with these principles, the First Amendment should
be reformed to encourage civic integrity rather than spiritual/religious
mystery and division. It matters not which branch of government effects the
reform, but the text holds Congress accountable.
On 5/25/20 I added a paragraph and posted on https://www.facebook.com/lawandliberty1.
Readers may
find more with Google Chrome search on the interesting phrase, for example,
"integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity." Searches can
be narrowed with +"Phil Beaver" and, further, by adding "civic
people."
Rachal Lu’s essay, like Peggy Orenstein’s book addresses
evidence of a problem without suggesting an achievable, new, perhaps promising
rearing-approach. “There may be some [revanchist] truth.” However, reform has
to boldly consider the-objective-truth, which, on continually improved
perspective might eventually approach the-literal-truth.
Constrained by physics and its progeny---mathematics,
chemistry, biology, psychology, and imagination, for examples, mankind labors
to take advantage of discovery, based on ineluctable evidence rather than
rational constructs. I think an ascension toward acceptance-of and fidelity-to
the-literal-truth is underway.
Human life begins with the ovum and the spermatozoon, each
of which is due the dignity and appreciation for itself on par with the body,
mind, and person who is carrying it. In integrity, the female intends physical
and psychotically healthy ova and the male cares for his spermatozoa.
Each ovum and each spermatozoon is unique (as far as I know)
and neither conception nor gestation, nor delivery, nor rearing, nor the
person’s acquisition of comprehension and intention to live a complete human
life reduces his or her individuality.
Through the spouses, the conception has four family lines,
and the four may evince exponential diversity in genes and memes as ancestry is
traced back.
If a new generation comes every 19 years, the infant, at the
leading edge of evolution, may develop integrity for a way of living the
parents cannot imagine---the infant may develop, say by age 76, wisdom to coach a 3rd generation of
adolescents and young adults and encourage the 4th generation of infants.
Aware parents encourage and coach their children in nested
acceptances: being human; having
individual power, energy, and authority to choose integrity rather than
tolerated infidelity; using sufficient discipline to develop responsible human
independence; comprehending the constraints of physics so as to advance the
edge of human constraints without inviting misery and loss. I might add:
humility toward whatever-God-is as a reserve for self-interest, no matter what
hopes and comforts a person may develop.
Under these principles, which can be encouraged and coached,
but can only be acquired by experience and observation, the authentic woman
attends her ova and the autonomous man protects both the woman and her viable
ova. The person who chooses an alternate lifestyle accepts physics’ constraints
so as to lessen human woe.
Articulating these principles in my words emerged from
reading, writing, speaking, and LISTENING in order to promote widespread
personal interpretation and practice of the U.S. Preamble: proposition the
authors abstractly created in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. Readers
who want to consider more ideas may find them with Google Chrome using, for
example, “Phil Beaver”+”civic people”+”nest of acceptances.” Omitting “civic
people” gains more results. “Nested acceptances” also works, especially after
today.
Speaking of “liberty,” the 1789 French usage was license to
kill fellow citizens. I prefer responsible human independence, especially to
understand the, so far, neglected American hope.
It’s never too late to consider the Greek journal
(Heraclitus, d. 475 BC) of a phrase like the one on the U.S. Great Seal: Out of
many one. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_pluribus_unum. It was
U.S.-officially used in 1776 and may have represented the confederation of the
13 eastern seaboard, British colonies, self-styled “states” for global
discussion.
Today, E_pluribus_unum may represent the purpose of the
entity/society We the People of the United States. It is the subject of the
abstract political sentence that proposes the U.S. public disciplines: the
preamble to the U.S. Constitution. The sentence is so contentious that most
humans do not accept it. However, every human being who can owes it to his or
her person to do the work to own a personal interpretation by which civic,
civil, and legal living may be ordered, leaving private happiness to privacy.
I share my interpretation so as to learn from fellow
citizens who are kind enough to share criticism. It is, “We the people of the
United States develop 5 public disciplines---integrity, justice, peace,
strength, and prosperity---in order to encourage responsible human independence
to living citizens.” Civic discipline is a far cry from Lockean
“self-governance” or Lincoln's governance of by and for the people.
In short, the preamble’s society pursues as standard the
integrity to be developed by posterity’s posterity. How I rationalize the
importance of the U.S. Preamble is developed on my blog,
promotethepreamble.blogspot.com, best read from the last post to the first, or
wherever the reader loses interest in chronological unraveling of such
complexity.
I’d like to read Dalrymple’s interpretation of the U.S.
Preamble’s abstract proposition.
“Your comment have been
automatically approved and posted.” Posted at https://www.facebook.com/lawandliberty1/posts/3284803551530759.
It seems to me any theist is prudent to reserve sufficient
humility and appreciation toward whatever-God-is.
It seems to me Agathon (d. 400 BC) describes Jesus in
Plato's "Symposium." We do not know that Jesus of "I am"
did not talk to Agathon.
What if Jesus presented the Agathon "I am" in
2020. Would the Church be humbled to whatever-God-is?
“Your comment have been automatically
approved and posted.” Posted at https://www.facebook.com/lawandliberty1/posts/3284803551530759.
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