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: This
appreciative citizen practices and promotes the 5 U.S. public
disciplines---integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity, "in
order to” enjoy responsible human independence among “ourselves” and encourage
“our Posterity.” 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
Introduction to cant
I had not encountered the word “cant” until I read Theodore
Dalrymple’s essay at https://lawliberty.org/book-review/the-expanding-tyranny-of-cant .
Merriam-Webster online informs us it means “the expression
or repetition of conventional or trite opinions or sentiments especially: the
insincere use of pious words.” Interestingly, the third usage is “the private
language of the underworld.”
With sufficient humility toward whatever-God-is, the first
usage brings to mind “In God We Trust.” Thinking of Nancy Pelosi, it’s “we, the
people.” With attention to Portland vigilantism and Chicago murders, its “black
lives matter.”
When will public intentions turn to “We the People of the United
States in order to [develop responsible human independence]“?
Quora
First, it is essential that the parties mutually understand
integrity.
Integrity is a practice:
research a heartfelt concern so as to establish that it’s actually-real
rather than a mirage; research actual-reality so as to comprehend how to
benefit; behave so as to benefit; share with the other party your reasons for
your behavior and LISTEN to their response for possible improvement of your understanding;
remain open minded to ineluctable evidence that demands change. (With this
process, humankind uses the-objective-truth and new instruments of perception
to approach the-literal-truth.)
If one party is merely honest, the person who practices integrity
is powerless to resolve the difference, and it is better to seek re-assurance
from a third party professional that you are not imposing your baggage into the
conflict.
The professional is at a disadvantage, because they hear
only your side. However, if you are careful to describe the other party’s
behavior with integrity, you may establish well-informed patience for relief
rather than dissociating from the other party altogether.
https://www.quora.com/Is-human-life-insignificant?
Is human life
insignificant?
I think each person answers that question for himself or
herself on a 2,400 year old Greek suggestion: Willingly civic citizens behave
to develop statutory justice. In statutory justice, most citizens connect to
constrain chaos and encourage dissidents to reform in self-interest.
It is a culture’s obligation to promote these principles (or
better) to living and future citizens, but that does not relieve the individual
from his or her obligations to reform an errant culture.
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-ethical-to-use-someones-work-without-citing?
No.
However,
who’s to say you did that? I think only you know. Use of exact wording is
strong but not ineluctable evidence. Accusation is insufficient to integrity.
Does
freedom of speech allow a publisher or media to censor your expression they
vaguely associate with prior thought? I think it’s a question for Congress more
than the Court to answer.
Powered
by the Internet, I can discover ideas expressed in the past. Consequently, if I
name a writer I’m reminded of as I express myself, I perceive I have fulfilled
integrity, whether particular civilization or not.
For
example, when I use my phrase “the-objective-truth,” sometimes Flannery
O’Conner comes to mind. If so, I say so. But my thought emerged before I read
her, and she did not express my thought. I feel no obligation to cite her.
Recently,
someone blocked my essay perhaps saying I did not cite previous use of my own
words. That’s a case of unethical censorship that publishers practice according
to their rules.
It’s
easy to discover who’s credited with thinking democracy is the best form of
government. However, I doubt Churchill was the first to say so.
Anyway,
you pose an interesting question I view addressing censorship more than
ownership.
Do past events carry
an inherent meaning that philosophers could objectively discern?
I think so.
For example, starting in 1991, I participated in the
original Great Books Reading and Discussion Program. We read Plato’s
“Symposium,” and I liked it so much I went to the library to read the section
that was replaced by a row of asterisks, identifying the omission. It was
Agathon’s speech; see https://platosymposium.wordpress.com/2009/04/26/agathon%E2%80%99s-speech/.
I read it and was so impressed that I re-read it often, and
usually edit my writing about it. Here is my update tonight:
Mutual Appreciation
Appreciation is first an
intellectual activity. Not every person participates, for where there is
inflexibility or egocentrism appreciation departs. Appreciation’s greatest
power is that it can neither impose nor tolerate wrong to or from any person. Appreciation
shuns force, for people earn appreciation in mutual free will. Where there is mutual
appreciation, there is justice. Where persons are treated as objects there is
harm.
Appreciation inspired by Plato, “Agathon’s speech,” Symposium,
about 385 BCE.
prb, 08/28/2020
[Also posted the above,
perhaps unsuccessfully at https://platosymposium.wordpress.com/2009/04/26/agathon%E2%80%99s-speech/]
Similarly, I read and re-read Ralph Waldo Emerson’s
“Divinity School Address,” 1838, and interpret it to mean that I can perfect my
unique human being, low as I may be at this point in my path toward the
termination of my functioning body, mind, and person.
More important to me, my interpretation of the proffered
preamble to the U.S. Constitution is: This appreciative citizen practices
and promotes the 5 U.S. public disciplines---integrity, justice, peace,
strength, and prosperity, "in order to” enjoy responsible human
independence among “ourselves” and encourage “our Posterity.”
https://www.quora.com/How-can-a-person-be-empathetic-and-not-sympathetic-or-visa-versa?
Merriam-Webster online under “empathy” gives a short essay
on its difference v. “sympathy.”
I interpret “empathy” as a projection of your perception on
the circumstances before you, whereas “sympathy” is accepting the
actual-reality.
For example, a beggar sees you escorting two women to an
urban wedding and crosses the street to solicit you. In stride, you open your
wallet and hand him a dollar.
He says, “Awgh. it takes $3 to check into the shelter for a
night.”
You ask the ladies to quicken the pace with you, and they do.
In empathy, you gave a dollar; in sympathy you hurried on to
the wedding. .
I write to learn and welcome comments.
The principle: neither initiate nor tolerate harm to or from
anyone is about 2,400 years old.
Speech that can harm someone ought not be uttered. That is
why falsely yelling “Fire” in a crowded place can bring the speaker subjugation
to the law. The parent who handles poisonous snakes to express religious faith
with children present may lose the children to law enforcement.
https://www.quora.com/Is-privacy-really-important-if-you-possess-integrity?
I think so.
For example, the father whose daughter has regurgitated 17
times, is 300 miles away, and whose friend has called to say emergency room is
in order but there’s no credit card available gives the credit card information,
asks a couple questions, gets out of the way by saying “good luck”, then feels
his knees collapse for prayer needs the silence of relying on whatever-God-is
to know what’s needed.
The couple who shared spontaneous, monogamous love for 50
years, each time experiencing new, mutual rewards, need no interruptions during
discoveries that are in progress.
Consider this nest of acceptances:
I am a human being with the ability to develop responsible
human independence.
I will make mistakes but not turn them into habits, by
exercising discipline.
It takes about 3 decades to acquire basic human knowledge
and intent to live a complete human life.
It takes another 3-4 decades service to fellow citizens to
undergo the experiences and observations that empower an individual to practice
integrity rather than tolerate infidelity.
The human being has the individual power, the individual
energy, and the individual authority (HIPEA) to perfect his or her human
person.
A life of responsible human independence is worth sharing
with children and grandchildren.
The order of these acceptances is not critical; a human can
develop integrity to his or her unique person from the moment he or she decides
to do so. There is no opportunity for fear, provided he or she reserves
sufficient humility toward whatever-God-is rather than adopting/creating a
doctrinal God.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-your-biggest-liability?
When my body and mind stop functioning my opportunity to
develop and practice integrity by my unique person will end.
https://www.quora.com/Do-you-have-a-good-example-of-a-circular-argument?
Love
God, because God is love.
(On
this doctrine, churches encourage individuals to neglect whatever-God-is.)
If you pay someone for something, and they refuse to give it
to you, are you morally entitled to take it?
In general, Agathon, 2,400 years ago suggested a willingly
good (civic) person neither initiates nor tolerates harm to or from any person
or institution. The civic citizen develops the strength to avoid harm in daily
living.
To negotiate or practice payment before service or item is
rendered invites harm. When the harm comes, it ought to be reported to a third
party, embarrassing as the disclosure of imprudence will be. However,
vigilantism is a harm in in itself. The other party is due the chance to defend
his or her side of the issue.
If the other party is somehow innocent of an offense---erred
in completion of the service, for example, the report to the third party
creates a chance for discovery and restitution.
Agathon pointed out that mutual appreciation is not for
every person, because some people choose to take advantage of civic people.
Reporting to the third party can inform the offender of the opportunity to
reform. In no case is vigilantism responsible human independence.
Our lives are the sum of
our choices and our choices a balance between value and cognition, do we really
have free choice?
Beyond accepting the constraints of physics and its progeny,
I think we can pursue our motivations and inspirations.
Human beings are constrained
by physics and is progeny---mathematics, chemistry, biochemistry, and
perceptions. On perceptions, an individual discovers preferences: blue color,
dark-chocolate taste, opera sounds, velvet touch, baked almond aroma, and
appreciation.
On such perceptions an
individual chooses lines of vocation and avocations. As he or she
psychologically matures, certain lines of pursuit inspire and motivate him or
her. For example, I long ago, chose piano over violin, then voice over piano,
then expression over voice. Also, science over liberal arts, engineering over
physics or chemistry, chemical engineering over mechanical engineering. Stories
from my 35-year chemical engineering service to one company thrill me when they
flashback. Some stories recall a fellow engineer’s correction of my error: our
company worked to conform to physics’ constraints.
Late in my career,
opportunities I observed from the privilege of working with people from perhaps
40 ethnic backgrounds excited me to read, write, talk, and study to answer two
questions: what does it mean to be a human being and what does it mean to have
been born in the U.S.?
I am excited and driven to
pursue these two questions as much as time allows. At this moment it seems the
answer is: accepting these two provisions offers individual opportunity to
develop integrity to the-literal-truth while pursuing individual happiness.
That requires expressing the humility “I don’t know” when that is so.
What is
the best objective means by which society should determine normative and
epistemological values?
“Normative” as behavior seems
civilized excuse for not practicing integrity. For example, Congress would
impose on U.S. citizens the civil appeal “In God We Trust” as a substitute for
“E Pluribus Unum” when prudent people have too much humility to turn their
backs on whatever-God-is.
“Epistemological values”
seems like “known values” or “valuable values.” What do you mean by it?
I think the-literal-truth
exists. Humankind works to discover the-objective-truth then invent new
instruments by which to improve perception so as to approach if not acquire
the-literal-truth. Living citizens practice integrity in research for
ineluctable evidence of the-objective-truth, so that posterity may reliable
invent needed instruments. Error is inevitable, and its determination helps
related future research.
Thus, a reliable journal of
the achievements that approach the-literal-truth establishes ethics based on
integrity rather than on civilization.
Are civil
Western societies starting to break down as third world behaviours are more
evident on their streets?
Who
are the civil Western societies? What does “civil” mean? Is an alternative to
civil society and to civil Western society offered?
Is
third-world behavior novel?
I
appreciate people as they are, where they are and take a lot of abuse, speaking
my opposition and letting them react as they will. When my wonderful wife
begins to resist one of my contacts, I’ll forgive a couple more times, then
withdraw if the abuse continues.
If
the offending party ever shares remorse for the past, I ask my wife’s opinion,
and if possible resume the contact.
As
I see it, I never intended harm to anyone yet regret some past losses. If
contact is potentially resumed, I explore my possible offense, and if the other
party was offended, I ask forgiveness.
https://www.quora.com/unanswered/Is-sympathy-a-symbol-of-humanity?
I
don’t think so. Perhaps civil sympathy is an intellectual construct intended to
control people’s emotions.
Merriam-Webster
online tells us “sympathy” means “an affinity, association, or relationship
between persons or things wherein whatever affects one similarly affects the
other.” I have empathy for the innocent victims of crime. I have sympathy for
other citizens who behave for statutory justice. I have contempt for criminals.
Consider
a hypothetical case, wherein I cannot relate to any of the players, except
those of us who are charged with the expenses.
An
AMO group wants to draw negative attention to first-responders. They consult
with pastors to identify local people with long-standing drugs, guns, illicit
sales, brawn, and community acceptance. From there, they wait and plan to act
independently.
They
befriend a selected person, then drug him up and place a gun in his clothing.
They call 911 and report a man was waving a gun.
The
police arrive, and the drugged man, passionate that he is being mistreated,
gets physical. The police can’t control him and suddenly discover the gun. One
shoots him dead. The police chief retires to save his pension.
Accustomed
to incidents like this that generate $5-6 million law-suit settlements, my
first question is; who called 911 and why?
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-purpose-of-reflective-listening?
I suppose reflective listening is like an echo. You speak or
write your mind then listen to your person either agree or object. If there’s
any distortion, you have a chance to reconsider.
If you’re in Sunday school and the class agrees you are a heretic, you’ve
discovered the chance to seek an open door.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-so-hard-about-taking-responsibility-for-one-s-actions?
Responsible
human independence seems in our DNA and in our family memes, and the U.S. has
special opportunity to encourage willing integrity.
However,
civilizations evolved from abject ignorance, much as a newborn baby is totally
uninformed.
Erroneous
belief that the sun is a god was shared by many extinct civilizations and
cultures, and humankind had to discover that the sun is a
natural nuclear reactor. However, many cultures have not accepted sufficient humility
toward whatever-God-is. As a consequence, seemingly civilized peoples do not
encourage their youth to take responsibility to control chaos. The results we
can observe in 2020 is that chaos controls humankind. Prudent individuals will
want change.
Humankind
is aware of some basic acceptances, but extant cultures are too young to accept
them. The list includes:
Accept
being a human being and develop your person.
Accept
human, individual power, individual energy, and individual authority (HIPEA) to
practice integrity rather than tolerate infidelity to self.
Accept
that some humans either neglect HIPEA or use it for dependency, for example on
family, bureaucrats, drugs, abuse, etc. The willing citizens must constrain
dependent inhabitants by developing statutory justice.
Accept
the mandate: neither initiate nor tolerate harm to or from any person or
institution.
Accept
that termination of body, mind, and person ceases individual human
accomplishment.
These
principles have not been accepted because no culture has ever coached and
encouraged their youth to consider them.
I
think these proposals or better are proffered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution.
I recommend that every citizen develop their independent opinions about the
U.S. Preamble’s people’s proposition.
I dropped out of commonly competitive Christianity and
Chapter XI Machiavellianism “in order to” accept my humility
toward whatever-God-is. That empowered me to accept Genesis
1:28 as literature on par with Ralph Waldo Emerson’s “Divinity School Address.”
Then, I accepted my responsible-human independence to practice
integrity.
I am glad I voted for Trump/Pence a third time. With his
alacrity, wit, willingness to subsequently re-consider a question, and fidelity
to secrets that are vital to each U.S. citizen, President Trump,
V.P. Pence, and their administration-members who practice integrity, express
Matthew 7:6 CJB, as I interpret it for the situation: Don’t give to [enemies] what is [vital to the willing U.S. citizen],
and don’t throw your [strengths] to the [media]. If you do, they may trample
them under their feet, then turn and attack you.
Listening to my family members, friends, fellow
citizens, and other inhabitants, I accepted the proffered U.S.
Preamble as: 1) documentation of the amendable laws and systems for the global
nation styled the United States of America and 2) declaration of willing-citizens’
5 public disciplines “in order to” enjoy responsible
human independence among “ourselves” and encourage “our Posterity.”
No standards
for each of civic, civil, legal, or spiritual constraints are
specified, implying that disciplinary improvements “ourselves” exemplifies “our
Posterity” can improve. We ought to pay our debts.
Dissidents to the U.S. Preamble’s proposition (for whatever
reasons---ignorance, opposition, alienation, insufficient humility toward
whatever-God-is) invite subjugation. I assert that many willing citizens assume
other preamble-citizens accept “God bless America” as a humble statement; however,
whatever-God-is may not accept it. Intentionally, the
preamble does not address theism as a public discipline.
Dissidents invite constraint if accusation and discovered
ineluctable-evidence shows 1) they caused injury to any person or 2) they
tolerate/abet harm from any person or institution. In the summer of 2020,
dissidents have shown once and for all that the 1688-1789 slogan “liberty” as
license to vigilantism invites woe; when a mob invites woe, the
willing citizen who is not a first-responder exercises the
responsible human independence to leave the scene. Mayors and governors who
support dissidents invite civil constraint.
I read, write, and converse to practice these principles.
Comments are invited for this continuously achievable U.S. proposition.
It was abstractly articulated by the signers of the U.S.
Constitution for themselves and their Posterity, for whom they could not speak.
Our generation has the opportunity to effect it.
Please improve and share this message according to your
preferences: for or against.
Little to none; the person with high intelligence and no
cognitive work seems a dunce.
I do not accept the premise that justice can be discerned by
reason.
Justice can only come from the-literal-truth, which
humankind may discover by examining/researching the ineluctable evidence.
The-literal-truth is perfect knowledge, which may be approached by continually
improving instruments of perception of the-objective-truth about the
ineluctable evidence.
For example, some ancient seafarers perceived the earth was
like a ball, because 1) the ocean’s horizon seems to have reliable, slight
curvature and 2) no how matter how long they sailed into the horizon, they
never fell off an edge. Land lubbers argued a flat earth until observers viewed
the planets with telescope. Today, satellite-photos convince us that the earth
is globe-like.
The-objective-truth does not respond to emotions. For
example, the sun does not rise, poetic as that may be; rather the earth’s
rotation on its axis hides the sun each evening and un-hides it each day. If
anything, the awe and romance can be greater with actual-reality more than with
erroneous perception.
On local emotions, many Americans in the summer of 2020 are
trashing cities they visit for that purpose. They express the license to
vigilantism on egocentric “rights.” However, most of them are not willing to
accept the U.S. purpose, or even consider it. They claim citizenship because
they exist.
However, the U.S. has a purpose that each citizen considers
for self-interest---or not. Willing citizens trust-in and commit-to the
preamble to the U.S. Constitution, and dissidents neglect or reject its
proposition.
My interpretation is:
This appreciative citizen practices the 5 U.S. disciplines---integrity,
justice, peace, strength, and prosperity, “in order to” enjoy responsible human
independence among “ourselves” and to encourage “our Posterity.”
The citizen who neglects this proposition may find himself
or herself having harmed others and facing statutory law-enforcement.
Adjudication of the case will focus on the ineluctable evidence and will not
respond to emotions. The judge or jury will respond to the evidence presented
in choosing guilt or innocence.
Engaging to connect as a human being is essential to civic,
civil, legal, and spiritual living.
So far, no culture or civilization has developed this
principle, because human-evolution had to go through physical-survival stages
before psychological maturity could seem in the individual’s self-interest.
Fortunately, I live in the U.S., where exploration then
exploitation of the land developed regardless of indigenous people.
Scandinavian, Portuguese, Spanish, French, British, Russian, Dutch, Swedish,
and Dane explorers considered colonization. Portugal and Spain had papal
“authorization” to colonize the Americas and buy African slaves to provide
agrarian labor. Later, England, France, Holland, and Denmark competed.
By 1763, loyal colonial subjects began to realize their
homeland fellows were enslaving them to be overlords for the agrarian commerce,
with long-term responsibility for the African slaves. In 1784, 13 free and
independent global states were recognized by England in the 1783 Treaty of
Paris. They were the former British colonies on the eastern seaboard and
occupying about 13% of N. American land. Louisiana, for example was a French
colony.
In 1787, 12 of 13 states debated in Philadelphia and
proposed a global nation predicated on discipline by the people so as to hold
both their states and a union of states accountable. Under the preamble to the
U.S. Constitution, engaged citizens managed their state constitutions and
assigned specific, limited responsibilities to officers, some elected and some
appointed, in 3 branches of central government. The states could elect officers
by popular vote, and the Union guaranteed the states a representative republic.
There was no political unity. Only 12 states had sent
delegates. Of 70 delegates only 55 agreed to serve, and 16 did not sign the
document. The required 9 states ratified the Constitution under the agreement
that the First Congress would amend it, at least to include an English-mimic: a
Bill of Rights. Two more states joined before Congress was seated with 11 states.
Ten of 14 states ratified the Bill of Rights. Congress, as much as possible,
re-established Anglo-American tradition. Most egregiously, Congress established
Protestant-American, Chapter XI Machiavellianism---church partners with state
to pick the people’s pockets and the people neither rebel nor emigrate,
expecting their personal God to eventually relieve their descendants of the
loss and misery. As typical of nations, no citizens’ faction within the urges
fellow inhabitants to reserve sufficient humility toward whatever-God-is in
order to take responsibility for constraining civic chaos.
By not specifying standards of integrity, the U.S. Preamble
offers continual discovery of statutory justice such that posterity’s posterity
may approach political perfection. The objective may be expressed as mutual,
comprehensive safety and security, which implies not a utopia, but a system
that applies the constraints of physics and its progeny to establish
responsible human independence rather than infidelity to self. It is in every
citizen’s self interest to develop an interpretation of the U.S. preamble’s
people’s proposition so as to manage his or her civic, civil, legal, and
private-spiritual living.
Here’s my interpretation today, offered for criticism so
that I might improve: This
appreciative citizen practices the 5 U.S. disciplines---integrity, justice,
peace, strength, and prosperity, “in order to” enjoy responsible human
independence among “ourselves” and to encourage “our Posterity.”
https://www.quora.com/How-is-freedom-from-related-to-freedom-for-Answer-with-conviction?
At first thought, it seems misused prepositions confuse a noun. But worse,
it neglects physics and its progeny.
It seems to me Merriam-Webster online’s 1.a. “the absence of necessity,
coercion, or constraint in choice or action” works well.
Accepting that definition, MW goes on to consider freedom-from slavery,
power of another or released, unrestricted, and such. Thus, freedom-from seems
to express absence of external constraint. Another list includes “freedom of
speech,” “freedom from want,” and other human constructs.
It seems to me, though, there is one constraint humans cannot escape:
physics and its progeny---such as mathematics, chemistry, biology, psychology,
economic viability, and imagination. In life, it is critical to discern
imagination from actual-reality.
An essay on freedom-from and freedom-to is posted at Freedom
From & Freedom To | The Art of Manliness, and the author
suggests Positive
and Negative Liberty. Also, see https://www.jstor.org/stable/24721049?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
and Freedom
“to” vs. Freedom “from” | SPH | Boston University. Thus, these four
sources suggest “freedom-to” or “liberty-to” as perhaps synonyms to
“freedom-for.” Indeed the literature on “liberty” is replete with confusion
over liberty vs. freedom. “Civil-rightists” seem to portray freedom as
arrogance against physics: Fifteen
Definitions of Freedom from #OccupyWallStreet. It seems “liberty”
cannot be taken as license to harm others without risking woe.
I resolved the freedom/liberty dilemma for my use with “freedom-from”
oppression so as to have the “liberty-to” develop integrity rather than
tolerate infidelity. In the first, there’s external constraint, and in the
second, there’s individually chosen action. When we re-consider physics and its
progeny, we perceive that both freedom and liberty ought to conform to physics.
Both external constraints and internal desires ought to conform to physics.
Thereby, we independently discover that physics and integrity conform to the
same laws. Thus informed, we want freedom-from liberty so as to develop
integrity to physics and its progeny. That is to say that both external
integrity and internal pursuits ought to conform to physics rather than human
constructs such as reason and mystery.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-connection-between-self-knowledge-and-freedom?
The human individual has the power, the energy, and the
authority (HIPEA) to choose to develop integrity rather than
tolerate infidelity. The path to this discovery is so difficult that few people
would articulate it.
The newborn is totally uniformed about a confused and
conflicted human society. Most members want mutual, comprehensive safety and
security in order to responsibly pursue happiness rather than submit to the
happiness bureaucrats choose for him or her. The evolution of cultures and
civilizations produced conflicted sub-societies, and parents tend to inculcate
their social jealousies to their children.
The only culture I am aware of that proffered a proposal to
end this travesty is repressed by “freedom of religion” rather than
encouragement to human integrity. An achievable better future is possible if
2/3 of one nation’s inhabitants adopt their individual interpretation of the
U.S. Preamble’s proposition for civic, civil, and legal living in responsible
human independence with privacy in spiritual pursuits.
Application of HIPEA to develop integrity positions the
individual to hold government officials accountable to the U.S. Preamble’s
proposition or better; individually behave for civic, civil, and legal living;
and privately pursue his or her motivation and inspiration with sufficient
humility to whatever-God-is. Such citizens enjoy responsible freedom from
external constraints and internal fears. Borrowing words from Mark Twain, they
have replaced their conscience with integrity.
The seeds to the above principles were given to me by H.A.
Overstreet (d. 1970) in his book, “The Mature Mind,” 1949. If anyone knows of a
better book on development of psychological human maturity, I’d like to read
it.
Your premise imposes dependency, which I cannot practice. The
human individual has the power, the energy, and the authority (HIPEA) to
develop integrity to self rather than infidelity such as allowing government to
decide his or her happiness. The individual cannot consign his or her HIPEA,
and upon the acceptance or neglect he or she chooses objective independence or
subjective dependence.
I think good government encourages self-discipline, and such
a government is proffered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. It is in
every citizen’s self-interest to develop his or her personal interpretation of
the preamble’s people’s proposition in order to manage his or her civic, civil,
legal, and spiritual living, accepting the mystery of “souls.”
Here’s my interpretation today, offered for criticism so
that I might improve: This
appreciative citizen practices the 5 U.S. disciplines---integrity, justice,
peace, strength, and prosperity, “in order to” enjoy responsible human independence
among “ourselves” and to encourage “our Posterity.” Both civil liberty
and private spirituality are expressed in the phrase “human independence.”
Non-civil liberty, or license, or vigilantism, is observed
nightly in Portland Oregon’s 2020 August. Failure to express sufficient
humility toward whatever-God-is is expressed in the 1954 pledge of allegiance.
Defying the rule of law was expressed by Congressional
Democrats and a “religious man” in the impeachment and trial of President
Donald J. Trump. Denying the U.S. Preamble was expressed by the U.S. Supreme
Court in both Ramos v Louisiana (2020) and in Greece v Galloway (2014), both of
which also defied the U.S. Constitution.
I hold elected and appointed officials accountable to the
U.S. Preamble and the-objective-truth and vote in my self-interest.
https://www.quora.com/What-should-we-do-to-contribute-something-to-the-needy?
You
live in the Anglo-American
Chapter XI Machivellianism
that was restored by Congress under 11 U.S. states in 1789. That is to say a
religion-government-partnership wherein the bosses live high on the hog by
picking most people’s pockets. Most people accept this religion-government
tyranny. And pray to their personal God to relieve their children and
grandchildren while they indoctrinate youth into the faith. Religion, like a
professional sport, is to attract adult spending.
It
seems human to retain sufficient humility toward whatever-God-is, and
institutional religions continually demonstrate that doctrinal God too often
opposes whatever-God-is. In 2020 it seems self-evident that human individual is
charged to either constrain chaos or suffer rather than achieve human living.
By
working for the lifestyle you want, you are paying enough taxes to both
maintain civil religion and take care of the needy. Anything else you pay
detracts from your accumulation of wealth for old age if not retirement.
Retirement is that time when a person’s labors are rendered and he or she can
take time to explore his or her person. However, it’s also a time when the body
starts falling apart, the mind soon follows, and the person begins to accept
death. It comes at an inflationary time, and you can prepare now to not be
needy.
Thus,
you can take care of the needy by continuing to pay for and prepare for a human
lifestyle. Don’t allow Chapter XI Machiavellianism pick your pocket more than
it does. Individually engage in politics and make certain your votes are in
your self-interest and with civic integrity.
Also,
develop your own interpretation of the preamble to the U.S. Constitution so as
to discern the people’s proposition therein. To me, the preamble proffers the
agreement to nurture 5 public disciplines “in order to” make possible responsible
human independence to “ourselves and our Posterity.” The U.S. Chapter XI
Machiavellianism has amassed nearly $30 trillion debt to “our Posterity.” Don’t
add to your descendants’ misery. Work, live a human life, and accumulate wealth
for your old age.
I think being human requires the acceptance of individual
power, individual energy, and individual authority (HIPEA) to develop
integrity. It is a commitment to perfect your unique person as your life
develops psychological maturity, in other words, freedom from both external and
internal constraints.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-moral-integrity-Write-on-its-significance-in-Civil-Engineering?
Please search using “Phil Beaver”+”integrity” to see my
expressions that integrity is a practice.
The-literal-truth exists and humankind researches to
discover the-objective-truth then invent new instruments for perceiving it so
as to approach the-literal-truth. The-literal-truth conforms to the same laws
that control physics and its progeny---such as chemistry, biology, psychology,
and imagination.
Use of the above principles is the practice of integrity.
The journal of research and discovery is ethics. Civilizations, cultures, and societies
whose ethics conflict with integrity are immoral and may use discovery to
reform.
People of integrity neither initiate nor tolerate harm to or
from any person or institution. Of the engineering profession, the most
reliable to my knowledge is civil engineering.
“Doing the right thing” does not inform integrity: the
practitioner can mistake heartfelt conviction for integrity. Also, supervision,
reason, emotions, beliefs, and other human constructs have no impact on
integrity since the-literal-truth exists independently.
Reared Southern Baptist, I fell in love with my Louisiana
French-Catholic wife. In our first quarter-century of marriage I came to
realize her religion is more important to me for her than Mom and Dad’s
religion is important to me, even though I cannot accept transubstantiation for
me. After another decade, I accepted that from adolescence, I had developed
trust-in and commitment-to whatever-God-is rather than any doctrinal God.
I recognize that my story is one of self-discovery more than
allowing Christian competition drive me away from my bride. Nevertheless, I am
glad the Protestant women I dated rejected me before any chance of falling in
love. I might never have discovered my person if I had not met a serenely
confident young woman who accepted my proposal of marriage.
Once I realized how complex my person is, I stopped trying
to understand more than what a person says. If the statement does not seem
reliable, I say so as kindly as my person is, and continue the conversation to
conclusion if possible.
For example, this afternoon, my usually reliable daughter
said a particular agency is a state provision when I know it to be a parish
(county) tax-supported non-profit. I asked her to check her cell-phone-search
to be certain. She was annoyed with the inconvenience and challenge, but left
more informed.
To me, I practice something I learned by re-reading and
re-writing about Agathon’s speech to describe Ero’s character rather than effect
on men and gods. (Plato’s “Symposium”). My interpretation: a civic citizen
neither initiates nor tolerates harm to or from any person or institution.
It is worthwhile to offer and receive understanding.
Fortunately, my daughter is resilient. But Agathon’s speech is not for
everyone, and he said so.
https://www.quora.com/How-do-you-get-over-knowing-you-might-not-be-important-at-all-to-history?
At
age 77, my greatest reward is developing integrity, low as I may be. I know so
little that much of my wit is expended on creative search for the facts.
For
example, I can almost explain the conclusion in the declaration of secession
under which 7 slave states chose to cause war with the 34-state USA (27 states
on the defensive side): “[A]ll hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact
that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the
sanction of more erroneous religious belief.” It was a Christian debate over
whatever-God-is punishing black people for their ancestors’ sins at a pace
white, Christian abolitionists ought not accelerate, and I admit I cannot
explain the modifier “more.” However, the USA’s military might approved the
abolitionists’ opinion. Once again, Genesis 1:28 is born out: whatever-God-is
charges humankind to constrain chaos on earth.
In
2020, we have the exclusive African-American Christianity, with Bible canon
more complete than its third-century competition. U.S. elites may accept that
the Orthodox Tewahedo canon adds to DNA evidence that Africa seems the seat of
whatever-God-is. Once again, humankind is prudent to accept the responsibility
to constrain chaos on earth, no matter who first imagined that charge from a
mysterious entity.
I
do not seek appreciation for discovering such observations about history: the
discovery is reward enough. On the other hand, I appreciate every “thumbs up” I
ever received and moreover appreciate a few followers. (BTW: appreciation seems
un-objectionable, whereas love can be unwanted.) Finally, it does not bother me
that some people dislike my dream: mutual, comprehensive safety and security
wherever I need to go on earth or beyond.
Absolutely not.
In fact, American citizens who have no sincere
interpretation of the preamble to the U.S. Constitution should not be allowed
to vote. The preamble has two thoughts: maintenance of the amendable U.S.
Constitution’s republic and expression of the proffered purpose, whereby
inhabitants can divide themselves as the willing and the dissidents.
My interpretation today of the U.S. Preamble’s proffered
purpose is: This appreciative citizen
practices the 5 U.S. disciplines---integrity, justice, peace, strength, and
prosperity, “in order to” enjoy responsible human independence among
“ourselves” and to encourage “our Posterity.” Both civil liberty and
private spirituality are expressed in the phrase “human independence.”
Non-civil liberty, or license, or vigilantism, is observed
nightly in Portland Oregon’s 2020 August. Failure to express sufficient
humility toward whatever-God-is is expressed in the 1954 pledge of allegiance.
Defying the rule of law was expressed by Congressional
Democrats and a “religious man” in the impeachment and trial of President
Donald J. Trump. Denying the U.S. Preamble was expressed by the U.S. Supreme
Court in both Ramos v Louisiana (2020) and in Greece v Galloway (2014), both of
which also defied the U.S. Constitution.
I hold elected and appointed officials accountable to the
U.S. Preamble and the-objective-truth and vote in my self-interest. That is to say,
integrity is in a person’s self-interest.
https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-actions-that-take-great-courage?
Foremost is to accept that you are a human being with the
opportunity to develop your unique person.
Second is to accept human, individual power, individual
energy, and individual authority (HIPEA) to develop integrity rather than
tolerate infidelity to your person.
Third is to self-discipline in order to practice the
responsible human independence whereby you may perfect your unique person as
dying approaches.
Fourth is to encourage fellow citizens no matter where they
are on their paths to HIPEA for integrity.
I write to learn and would appreciate comments.
Perhaps two acts would get the job done.
First, accept that the Holy Bible is merely literature with
ancient quests to perceive whatever-God-is collected as a canon that promotes
the mystery for business purposes, and that Genesis 1:28 means what is says to
you. To me it’s: the human individual is charged to constrain chaos in his or
her life.
Second, accept your interpretation of the U.S. Preamble’s
people’s proposition. Mine is: This
appreciative citizen practices the 5 U.S. disciplines---integrity, justice,
peace, strength, and prosperity, “in order to” enjoy responsible human
independence among “ourselves” and to encourage “our Posterity.” Both
civil liberty and private spirituality are expressed in the phrase “human
independence.” Non-civil liberty, or license, is observed nightly in
Portland Oregon’s 2020 August.
I hold elected and appointed officials accountable to the
U.S. Preamble and the-objective-truth and vote in my self-interest.
The presidential candidate who offers best hope for the U.S.
Preamble’s proposition under the-objective-truth is Donald J. Trump, and his
administration seems to agree. In the future, I will continue to promote
government accountability under the U.S. Preamble’s proposition as each civic
citizen interprets it “in order to” constrain dissidents.
I think so; congratulations on expressing the suggestion. For
example, several cultures among humankind once thought the sun was a God. The
sun is now known as a natural nuclear reactor. Yet human competition over
whatever-God-is rages on! So far, humankind fails its duty to constrain chaos.
A culture that encourages personal discipline has not yet
flourished. One was proposed in 1787 and so far has not caught on. It is
suppressed by Chapter XI Machiavellianism; in the U.S., Anglo-American freedom
of religion rather than opportunity to develop integrity.
So far, U.S. citizens have allowed Congress to repress the
proffered U.S. Preamble, which proposes responsible human independence or
better. The proposal to accept the U.S. Preamble can be accelerated by inspired
citizens, using the Internet.
Pew Research and other sources inform us that religion is
losing its hostage hold on public integrity. So far, religious decline seems to
foster chaos. However, most people want mutual, comprehensive safety and security,
so perhaps we approach the abyss and an achievable better future will begin.
In 1941, the unheralded political philosopher, Albert
Einstein, informed fellow citizens of his suggestion, in my interpretation:
physics and its progeny such as biology and psychology conform to the same laws.
His only example was that people of integrity don’t lie in order to lessen
human misery and loss rather than to follow some divine law, such as, “Thou
shalt not lie.” The essay is reprinted in https://samharris.org/my-friend-einstein/.
The discovery of integrity is journaled as ethics, but writers for the press
neither accept nor develop the required discipline. Freedom of the press is an
abject failure.
I suggest that Einstein expressed the validity of the-literal-truth
and that the framers of the 1787 U.S. Constitution imagined a system that
continually discovers the-objective-truth and invents new
perceptions of it “in order to” approach the-literal-truth. The September 1787
Committee of Style perceived the framers’ accomplishment and wrote a 52-word
sentence, the U.S. Preamble that abstractly specifies the requirements. But Anglo-American
traditionalists, beginning in 1789 falsely labeled the sentence “secular” and
repress it to this day. They opine about “the founders” in a scheme to detract
from the signers if not framers, who proposed to terminate dependency on
colonial-British tradition.
It is in every citizen’s self-interest to develop a personal
interpretation of the U.S. Preamble by which to guide his or her civic, civil,
legal, and spiritual lives. I share my interpretation seeking criticism from
fellow citizens, and improvements accrue. My interpretation this moment
is: This appreciative citizen practices the 5
U.S. disciplines---integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity, “in
order to” enjoy responsible human independence among “ourselves” and to
encourage “our Posterity.” Both civil liberty and private spirituality
are expressed in the phrase “human independence.” Non-civil liberty, or license,
is observed nightly in Portland Oregon’s 2020 August.
Not only does the U.S. Preamble not mention religion as a
discipline, it offers no standards for either the 5 public
disciplines or for human independence. The framers accepted that children
improve human integrity when their parents cannot imagine the practice. For
example, the framers specified ending the slave trade 20 years after
ratification of the preamble, but could not imagine termination of domestic
slavery. In 1852 (fourth generation after ratification), Frederick Douglass
railed against the framers’ first progeny (1808) for leaving termination of
domestic slavery to their progeny’s progeny.
The role of religion in the ongoing failure to accept U.S.
integrity is expressed both in the CSA’s 7:27 (states) erroneous-will to
challenge U.S. military might and in their woeful Declaration of Secession: “[A]ll
hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion
at the North has invested a great political error with the sanction of more
erroneous religious belief.” Our generation foolishly, stubbornly leaves to our
progeny the resolution of erroneous religious belief.
However, it is not too late for
ours, the twelfth generation, to accept the privilege of establishing the U.S.
under the U.S. Preamble’s proposition and the-objective-truth if not the
literal-truth. With the power of the Internet, this message can go viral and
the needed reform can begin during the coming year.
The task ahead seems formidable,
but responsible human independence is in mutual self-interest and can be the
destiny for “ourselves and our Posterity” if our generation accelerates the
reform.
I’d need to know the history you are talking about.
I think history itself revises the facts. Consider the
example of an automobile accident with 10 witnesses, no two of whom have the
same recollections as to how the accident occurred, and each driver blaming the
other for the cause.
And consider the 1781 battle at Yorktown, VA. History
informs us that it was America’s victory for independence from England, since
Cornwallis surrendered to Washington. However, Cornwallis also surrendered to
Rochambeu. England negotiated a treaty with France before negotiating one with
the 13 states, formerly British colonies. The 13 free and independent states
ratified the 1783 Treaty of Paris.
The 13 states could not survive that way, and 9 states
ratified the U.S. Constitution on June 21, 1788, establishing the USA as a
global nation. The ratification was conditional on Congress (seated in 1789
with 11 states) amending the Constitution, at least to include a 1688-British-style
Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was ratified under 14 states in December,
1791. The First Amendment, in its religion clauses, negates the U.S. Preamble’s
proposition, which seems essential to responsible human independence.
By this factual account, the USA has not yet been
established as intended in 1787, nor as ratified in 1789, nor as contradicted
in 1791. Thus, the intended USA may be 0 to 229 years old, but most certainly
cannot count 1776 as its birthday as a global nation.
No. I appreciate the words and phrases you use in your
question.
The chaos we are experiencing is the consequence of the 1791
U.S. codification “freedom of religion” instead of the 1787 proffered U.S.
purpose: promoting the discipline required for responsible human independence.
Dependence on whatever-God-is to relieve the people from political
pocket-picking has prevailed in the 12 generations beforehand, leaving us the
privilege to establish the intended U.S. humility that is proffered in the preamble
to the U.S. Constitution (the U.S. Preamble).
The popularity of AMO---Alinsky-Marxist organization, during
the past 5 decades along, with an increase in adult infidelity to their
“Posterity” has increased American dependency at the expense of U.S.
independence. AMO has American church origins; see https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=OsfxnaFaHWI,
especially 1) the introduction by Buckley with the church reference and 2) the
student Q&A during the last 2 of 46 minutes, wherein Alinsky expresses his
right to vigilantism (my interpretation). I understand that both Barack Obama (b.1961)
and Hillary Clinton (b.1947) studied Alinsky (d.1972) and Alinsky (b.1909) once
worked for Al Capone (d.1947).
Since the 1965 Great Society, American dependency on
government has exponentially increased. Business benefit from consumption, so
they try to keep the masses satisfied to settle for the provisions bureaucrats
offer. Meanwhile, judges and lawyers help keep the elites accumulating enough
wealth to protect them from lower and middle-class poverty. It’s OK that many
men are reared so unreliably that women get pregnant so as to hope someone will
love them for life. In other words, psychologically adolescent women have
children to care for them instead of having children to care for them. It’s a
ruinous spiral that ought to be reversed.
In political integrity, an authentic woman is aware that she
may produce about 400 viable ova during her fertile years, and she attends to
her well-being for both herself and her ova. An authentic man knows that
attraction between him and a woman ought to lead to familiarity on which to
pursue bonding or not. He attends to his well-being so as to be a good choice
for an authentic woman. Consideration of bonding should lead to platonic
intimacy on which to decide dedication for life or not. With mutual
appreciation that justifies bonding for life, a couple experience joy they
would like to extend to children and beyond. With mutual trust and commitment,
sexual intimacy is justified, and the couple may want to codify their monogamy
for life including their children by civil marriage, perhaps with religious
ceremony. Thereby, the spouses codify their appreciation of the dignity and
equity due their conceptions.
The evolution of the cultures we know of does not include
the viable ova and the spermatozoon as objects of civic appreciation and
potential personhood that demand equity and dignity before conception
if not upon conception. No governments seem to be arguing ovulation as the
moment human life is possible or the mystery of soul waits opportunity to
become a person. If they did, human discipline rather than
abortion would be a dominant political topic. No authentic man or authentic
woman risks the future of a couple and her viable ova for egocentric
satisfaction. Nevertheless, every person has the potential to reform, no matter
how depressed their integrity may be. Thus, an achievable better culture is the
one that encourages public discipline “in order to” enact responsible human
independence “to ourselves and our Posterity.”
The American individualism you may be referring to seems a
consequence of neglecting if not repressing the U.S. proposition. Scholarship
on 17th and 18th century Western though preserves British
psychological hold on the U.S. independence proposed in the U.S. Preamble. Scholars
cite “the Founders” of 1774, who inspired the 1776 Declaration of Independence.
The U.S. was framed by 1787 delegates from 12 states, formerly British-American
colonies. Only 39 of 55 framers signed the 1787 U.S. Preamble and its
supporting Articles (the amendable 1787 U.S. Constitution). Some of the 16
dissidents wanted to preserve states’ rights instead of establishing the public
discipline that is required for responsible human independence.
In 1789, Congress restored as much as possible
colonial-British tradition, especially Anglo-American, Chapter XI
Machiavellianism, or clergy-politician-partnership that picks the people’s
pockets with immunity because the people wait for whatever-God-is to relieve
the misery and loss. Our generation has the privilege of ending this tyranny so
as to establish the U.S. as psychologically independent after dependency on
“freedom of religion” since 1789.
This cultural reform seems complicated but is not. U.S.
citizens may 1) do the work to consider the self-interest of the civic, civil,
legal, and spiritual integrity proposed by the U.S. Preamble’s 52 abstract
words, 2) require amendment of the First Amendment so as to promote integrity,
a civic duty, rather than defend religion, a business enterprise, and 3)
require reliable practice of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition as a condition for
holding office in the U.S., including the office of voter.
The first step toward U.S. political independence is for
most citizens to acquire a personal interpretation of the U.S. Preamble to
guide their civic, civil, legal, and spiritual living. My interpretation
implies that my practice is grounded in the-literal-truth. Very often, that
trust and commitment takes me back to my childhood admissions: I don’t know. It also reforms my mid-life
arrogance: My personal God saves us, and
I need no humility toward whatever-God-is. I came to accept that
whatever-God-is knows my thoughts, so it is prudent to practice humility.
I write to learn, so please comment.
Law professors
https://lawliberty.org/book-review/the-theological-roots-of-the-secular-world-order
Peters, like many Bible scholars, can’t seem to resolve its
particulars. He asks, “How does one reconcile the omnipotent will of God with a
rationally planned universe whose order might seem to limit that will in some
way?”
The author of Genesis 1:28 seems to claim that
[whatever-God-is] charges humankind to constrain chaos on earth.
Whatever-God-is won’t usurp humankind’s charge: responsible human independence.
Peters reasons, “[I]nternational order . . . cannot abandon
God and carry on. They need to replace God with something else, in this case
human beings or “. . . a quasi-religious faith.” But . . . human beings are not
absolutely good like the Christian God, and “humanity” turns out to be a weaker
concept than [whatever-God-is].”
This seems a double indictment of the Christian God as both
1) weaker than Genesis:1’s whatever-God-is and 2) contradicting humankind's
sufficiency to constrain chaos. Perhaps the author of Genesis 1 had it wrong:
only chaos appeals to humankind for control. In other words, humankind
independently responds to chaos by discovering and applying constraints.
Peters resolves this dilemma in “This makes politics not a
means of ordering the world according to God’s inherent design, but an outward
discipline of order on an otherwise chaotic and sinful world.” But he
misdirects with “The validity of his law depends not on its coherence with a
natural law embedded in the universe, but with its enactment by the sovereign.”
Chaos is an artifact of physics and its progeny. Therefore,
to constrain chaos, humankind researches the laws of physics in order to
discover integrity.
Failure to consider the laws of physics as the same as the
laws of integrity invites Peters to choose “secular justifications for moral
limits on power lack teeth because they lack substance.”
Peters shares Bain’s notion, “the American founders’ focus
on equal rights and the legitimacy of power coming from consent is ultimately
derived from Ockham and the Council of Constance.”
The ideas “equal rights,” “political consent,” and “common
good” seem Anglo-American propaganda that the signers of the U.S. Constitution
proposed to retire so as to promote public discipline. The signers’ proposal is
in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution, which I interpret today as
follows: This appreciative citizen
practices and promotes the 5 U.S. public disciplines---integrity, justice,
peace, strength, and prosperity, "in order to” enjoy responsible human
independence among “ourselves” and encourage “our Posterity.”
I would like to consider fellow citizens’ interpretations of
the proffered-preamble’s people’s-proposition. I think the proposition mimics
Genesis 1:28: citizens are charged to
constrain chaos in the U.S.
[Approved and posted.]
https://lawliberty.org/repent-the-end-is-at-hand
Rarely is the reader treated to humor in the thesis of an
essay: “A
great deal more could be said
about harnessing human creativity and goodwill toward prosperity and
environmental stability.”
However, Schwennesen did
not offer a remedy. I suggest activation of the preamble to the U.S.
Constitution (the U.S. Preamble). It is in every citizen’s self-interest to
develop his or her individual interpretation of the people’s proposition by
which to manage civic, civil, legal, and private living.
Last evening, President
Trump, was unapologetic in his allegiance to “Almighty God.” Soon, he said,
“under God” will never be removed from the pledge, but the DNC had eliminated
it. It seems the DNC tolerates the removal but is not ready to civilize it. The
controversy is analyzed at https://www.truthorfiction.com/did-dems-strike-under-god-from-the-pledge-of-allegiance-at-the-2020-dnc/.
I did not see the reminder that President Eisenhower’s 1954 act was motivated
by the Knights of Columbus. It’s also reviewed with initial suggestion to
delete “under God” at “The
Pledge of Allegiance - USHistory.org”; see the online link with the quotation
of the prayer-less pledge.
I thought nothing of Staub School adding “under God” when I
was eleven-years old, but today, I consider the pledge coercive. Not only do I
object to the prayer “under God,” I object to “liberty” which is often taken as
license to harm others over egocentric “rights.” Violence over “my rights” is a
Saul Alinsky practice and a hallmark of AMO---Alinsky-Marxist organization. I
think “liberty” is a 1688-1789 European call to solidarity against responsible
human independence. When “my mob” starts harming people and
property, I want the independence to exit.
It seems to me the phrase “whatever-God-is” expresses
sufficient humility for individually accepting the human responsibility to
constrain chaos---whether the individual is a theist or an atheist. I seek a
better expression and have considered: posterity’s integrity, ultimate
goodness, perfect appreciation, and civic justice as less arrogant than “under
God” or “under the One.” With such qualifications, I could accept “Almighty
God” to express U.S. humility, if most fellow citizens agreed. However, it
seems “God” carries unavoidable doctrinal implications, and even
“whatever-God-is” seems ultimately arrogant.
It’s good that the DNC started with the preamble to the U.S.
Constitution. All public functions could start with unison reading of the
preamble and no other ceremony---no prayer, since we don’t really know what we
need and wait for posterity’s posterity; maybe a skeletal pledge I am not
prepared to suggest beyond “"I pledge
allegiance to the Flag of the United States of
America and to the Republic for which it stands.” (I do not condone “justice,
strength, liberty” instead of the preamble’s public disciplines: integrity,
justice, peace, strength, and prosperity.) See https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/democratic-national-convention-dnc-night-1-transcript.
I appreciate Schwennesen’s
concerns and hope he likes my suggestion:
Activate the repressed U.S. Preamble’s people’s proposition. My
interpretation today is: This appreciative citizen practices
and promotes the 5 U.S. public disciplines---integrity, justice, peace,
strength, and prosperity, "in order to” enjoy responsible human
independence among “ourselves” and encourage “our Posterity.”
[2 b posted on approval.]
https://lawliberty.org/forum/is-the-past-prologue
Professor Schneider’s assessment is brilliant yet empty of a
way forward: “What we have is a natural
backlash against a global economic order which has produced safety and security
for elites, and economic insecurity for the majority of Americans. It is time
to address those concerns and take a turn away from the liberal
internationalism responsible for it, being careful to balance the concerns of
our population with those of the world.”
As always, I’d like to
interpret so as to propose a solution. My interpretation of Schneider’s
brilliance: As economic policeman of the world, America’s elites used
Anglo-American and Judeo-Christian, Chapter XI Machiavellianism to develop
consumerism among “ourselves,” eventually loading “our Posterity” with debt due
to adult satisfaction. Humankind expresses the consequential chaos, and looks
to the U.S. for survival.
Now, to suggest
a solution for improvement by the writers in this great forum. First,
the elites may accept that the Orthodox Tewahedo canon is among those as old as the Roman
Catholic canon and develop sufficient national humility toward whatever-God-is.
That is to say, encourage inhabitants---civic citizens, dissidents, legal
residents, aliens, and enemies, to consider the possibility that their personal
God alienates whatever-God-is.
In
the competition between the Tewahedo canon and others, I cannot discern how the
charge to humankind in Genesis 1:28 emerged. For all I know, it was a
prehistoric observation that if individuals do not constrain the chaos near
them, they will personally perish. For example, overexposure to the sun could
kill you. Regardless, I cannot extract the directive that I should assume
a mysterious soul and take charge of its destiny.
Many
Americans, intentionally or not, detract from the U.S. intentions that are
proffered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution (1787): to constrain chaos.
The Constitution’s signers if not the framers set forth the disciplines by which
the Anglo-American founders’ dependent psychology may be replaced with responsible
human independence and due appreciation for whatever-God-is.
In
1763, the 14 eastern seaboard British colonies discerned that their loyal
countrypersons on Great Britain were enslaving them to be overlords for British
ambitions for the Atlantic slave-trade. In 1774, Nova Scotia, with a
significant French-Catholic faction, was left out of the confederation of the
other 13 colonies, who changed their global status to 13 free and independent
states. They took the license to declare war against England in 1776, and the
French provided military strategy and power to win the deciding battle at
Yorktown, VA, 1781. They ratified the 1783 Treaty of Paris in January, 1784. By
May, 1787, 12 of the 13 free and independent states convened to establish
states’ unity.
Through
September, the 55 framers debated a republican federalism, and 16 either dissented
or otherwise left Philadelphia. One of the chief objections was the preamble’s
5 public disciplines “in order to” enjoy responsible human independence to
“ourselves and our Posterity.” We are the 2020 “ourselves” with “our
Posterity.” The Congress of 1789-1793 substituted dependence on whatever-God-is
for humankind’s responsibility to constrain chaos, and the federal government
has maintained the tyranny ever since. It is time to reform “freedom of
religion” with encouragement to develop integrity.
The
originality of this U.S. intent becomes evident when the individual develops a
personal interpretation of the U.S. Preamble’s people’s proposition by which he
or she manages his or her civic, civil, legal, and spiritual living, keeping
afterdeath concerns private. My interpretation today is: This appreciative citizen practices and promotes the 5 U.S. public disciplines---integrity,
justice, peace, strength, and prosperity, "in order to” enjoy responsible
human independence among “ourselves” and encourage “our Posterity.” Both civil liberty
and private spirituality are expressed in the phrase “human independence.”
Non-civil liberty, or license, or vigilantism, is observed
nightly in Portland Oregon’s 2020 August. Failure to express sufficient
humility toward whatever-God-is is expressed in the 1954 pledge of allegiance.
I seek criticism of my interpretation in order to improve
it.
[Approved and posted.]
https://lawliberty.org/book-review/the-expanding-tyranny-of-cant
“Few people . . . would deny that the
political temperature, not only in the United States but elsewhere in the
world, has risen of late.
A . . . cause of the polarization of opinion
. . . is cant. To cant is to utter moral sentiment far in excess of what is
felt or could ever be felt. The purpose of cant is either to present the person
who utters it as morally superior to others or to himself as he really is, or
to shut other people up entirely.
The social—or antisocial—media have been a
powerful catalyst of cant.
Perhaps the most valuable . . . is its
typology, that is to say the various species of cant: piling on (. . . adding
one’s voice to a target already under attack), ramping up (. . . extending
outrage yet further), trumping up (. . . the finding of severe moral problems
where there are none), displays of strong emotion (. . . exaggerating one’s
emotional responses) and dismissal (. . . assuming that one’s moral position is
so self-evidently correct to all decent people that any other view can be
brushed aside like a noisome little insect and do not even have to be
considered).
And surely it should be bogeyperson?
I note that my spellchecker does not draw my
attention to this locution, though it does to hangperson. I am furiously,
incandescently angry at this gross inconsistency.”
PRB Comment:
I was uncontrollably, outrageously rewarded by Dalrymple’s
last sentence.
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.
