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 good citizen practices the U.S. disciplines---integrity, justice,
peace, strength, and prosperity, "in order to” develop responsible
human-independence “to ourselves and 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
The authors of the 1776 Declaration of Independence, among
other references to deity, wrote “appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world
for the rectitude of our intentions.” The deist expressions formed a tacit war
cry against the British-Protestant-Trinity: our God will beat your God. Whatever-God-is
used France to secure the author’s intentions: independence.
The framers of the 1787 U.S. Constitution, appreciating the
physical independence from England, proffered psychological independence in the
preamble. It proposes a culture of domestic discipline “in order to” establish
and develop responsible human independence to living citizens. Incidentally or
not, Genesis 1:28 states a similar proposition to man and woman---humankind: ““Be fruitful, multiply,
fill the earth and subdue it.”
I
doubt either the Supreme Judge of the world or the authors of the
preamble would usurp responsible human independence on earth---the
responsibility to constrain chaos. However, the U.S. Congress did, in 1789,
by re-establishing factional-American-Protestantism to make themselves look as divine
as Parliament’s House of Lords, with 26 seats to the Church of England. The
U.S. Supreme Court codifies Judeo-Christian tradition, recently in Greece v
Galloway (2014). U.S. tyranny over people will end when a majority of citizens accept
that constraining chaos on earth is individual, human responsibility.
Only
a culture that coaches and encourages its youth, adolescents, and adults to
constrain chaos in their lives can succeed. Thanks to Congress and its rebuke
of its independence-champion, the Supreme Judge of the world, the U.S. is in
chaos. Only We the People of the United States as defined by the preamble can
institute reform.
Quora
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-it-so-hard-for-people-to-be-civil-in-public-discourse?
Why is it so hard for people to be civil in public discourse?
by Marty Schoenleber Jr
You ask a profound question, and I’d like to know your
reaction to my response.
I no longer read the Bible as the word of the
Supreme Judge of the world. Based on what humankind has discovered
since King James (a Protestant by law) published his Bible-version in 1611, the
Bible seems to be literature developed from ancient consideration of perceived
physical evidence (physics and its progeny).
Ancient books were diversely selected for canonization to
support a human construct for business development under a doctrine. The
general business plan is: instill fear then suggest reward for a fee. There are
as many canons as there are viable Bible-businesses. My latest awareness is the
Ethiopian Tewahedo Bible, itself a sub-canon. I’d be happily surprised if it
does not advocate a black God with black chosen people.
I interpret Genesis 1:28, perhaps verbal tradition more than
3,700 years-old as follows: Humankind is
charged by physics to constrain chaos on earth. For humankind to effect this responsibility,
most individuals must behave so as to both 1) constrain chaos and 2) encourage
dissident persons to reform.
However, the religious enterprises inculcate the belief that
a higher power, perhaps the Supreme Judge of the world, or the Catholic Trinity
embodied in the Eucharist, or the Protestant remembrance of God embodied in
Jesus on the Cross, or the non-Christian Universal Soul, or other deity will
eventually restore humankind in a resurrection of soul or body or ascension
into a higher world (with dissension of dissidents into a nether world).
Believers are candidates for the rewards.
If the Supreme Judge of the world assigned the constraint of
chaos to humankind, there will be no usurpation of that responsibility; neither
by a God nor by a government. In other words, whatever-God-is probably doesn’t
usurp duties assigned to another entity.
Civil discourse represents conformity to a civilization, a
society, a government, a constitution, scripture, or some other human standard.
Responsible cultures are subsets of the human responsibility to constrain
chaos. No culture teaches its youth to take responsibility to constrain chaos
in their lives: to be civic citizens rather than civil conformers.
In public, an individual can tell quickly if the other party’s
ideas are civil or civic. If judged uncivil, there is no problem with censoring
or stonewalling that person. While socially acceptable, it is the psychological
equivalent of physical stoning. There is no regard for the fellow citizen who
wants to discuss civic integrity as preferred to civil subjugation. There is no
civic culture on earth, but a proposal exists.
A civic culture was proposed by the U.S. on September 17,
1787. It was an abstract consequence of the Declaration of Independence’s
concluding paragraph:
We, therefore, the Representatives
of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing
to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions,
do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies,
solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right
ought to be Free and Independent States . . . . And for the support of this
Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we
mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
[Emphasis mine.]
The 13 states had expressed a 1776 war cry: Our army under “the Supreme Judge of the
world” will defeat the red coats under the British-Protestant Trinity. However,
whatever-God-is used France’s fortune, strategy, and military dominance in the
deciding battle at Yorktown, VA, in 1781. That is to say, the 13 states were,
in 1784, obligated to both France and the Supreme Justice of the world for
their sacred honor.
By 1787, the 1784 states decided their unity needed
strengthening. Delegates of 12 states framed the 1787 U.S. Constitution. It
proffered a federalism that guarantees the states a republican government with “We
the People of the United States” holding their local, state, and national
governments accountable to the goals and purpose stated in the preamble. The
good People would encourage domestic peace. The preamble drops altogether the competition
over higher power---Supreme Judge of the world, British-Trinity, military
aggression, or any other doctrinal-power. It tacitly admits that majority,
individual human-discipline can constrain chaos on earth. Erroneous as
ourselves may be, our posterity or theirs would discover statutory justice.
Many people in the U.S., especially among Congresspersons
and Supreme Court Justices do not accept fellow citizenship. The hold the view
that citizens serve them. Further, many claim the authority to usurp the
individual’s responsibility to constrain chaos in his or her life. Thus, the
culture nourishes the expectation that a higher power will constrain other
fellow-citizens, leaving the individual free of any responsibility for chaos.
Many people allow their chance to accept and practice responsible human-independence
dwindle to loss to themselves and their descendants.
After 233 years neglecting each the proposition that is proffered
in the U.S. Preamble, Genesis 1:28, and physics, U.S. citizens tend to be not
only un-civic but un-civil as well.
For example, just yesterday, I asked a booming-voiced (like
a natural public address system) Presbyterian preacher to consider these
arguments and he agreed to take the time. As I progressed, he started stating
details of the history I was interpreting, using up the time he had granted.
When I objected to his distractions from my presentation, he told me I needed
to see a psychiatrist. (I do that when I perceive the need.) My view is that he
needs to stop being so rude with that PA voice in a drugstore.
The generations from 1787 until now have left our generation
the privilege to establish the U.S. as proffered in the preamble. An achievable
better future is in our hands if we develop civic integrity.
https://www.quora.com/Would-you-agree-with-Wittgenstein-when-he-said-philosophy-is-a-battle-against-the-bewitchment-of-our-intelligence-by-means-of-our-language?
Would you agree with Wittgenstein when he said "philosophy is a
battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of our
language"? by Graham C. Lindsay
No. By addressing “philosophy” rather than
“civic self-interest,” Mr. W turned human principle into a propriety. In other
words, instead of connecting with fellow-citizens, he bewitched us with the
impression his thought was for an elite group. The integrity to not stonewall
fellow citizens is each human’s responsibility. Psychological stonewalling
seems kin to physical stoning.
For example, there’s
probably one personal God for every theist, yet believers carry on long
debates, never evaluating each other’s definitions. Thus, they babel and talk
over each other.
In fact, this practice is
at the heart of U.S. infidelity to “the good People,” so far. The past 233
years of majority personal dedication to the Trinity---Father, Son, and Holy
ghost---in perhaps 10,000 competitive interpretations---has prevented
development of human integrity instead of “freedom of religion.” Language
empowers failure of national integrity. Consider slavery, an ancient practice.
In Catholic history,
Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274), opined that slavery was redemption for ancestors’
sins. In colonizing, six European nations placed African slaves on this land.
About 150 years later, representative of the 13 English-American colonies,
about 12% of this land, declared war against England. Their 1689 Bill
of Rights required a Protestant monarchy. Americans wrote in 1776:
We, therefore, the
Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress,
Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for
the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the
good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That
these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and
Independent States . . . . And for the support of this
Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine
Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes
and our sacred Honor [emphasis mine].
The 13 states invited
France to join their war. France dominated military power in the deciding
battle, Yorktown, VA, in 1781. Consequently, the treaty was negotiated in
France. The 1783 Treaty of Paris recognizes the 13 free and independent states
by name, and Congress ratified it in 1784. The confederation of states, which
were diversely allied according to peoples, proved they could not cooperate.
For example, the Appalachians, dominated by Scots-Irish people (my grandma was
a Farley) were fierce opponents of any state that would impose on their way of
living.
In 1787, 55 delegates of
12 states met to strengthen the confederation. However, the Virginia delegation
among others had studied the world’s methods of government and proposed a union
of states held responsible by “the good People” in their states. They changed
that 1776 phrase to “We the People of the United States,” so as to admit that
citizens choose civic integrity or not. The articles prevent religious oaths,
and the preamble does not include religion in either the public disciplines or
the purpose. Here’s the preamble:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a
more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for
the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of
Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish
this Constitution for the United States of America [emphasis mine].
Compared to “the good
People,” “We the People of the United States” seems totalitarian. However, each
citizen must take interest in the preamble if it will influence individual civic,
civil, legal, and private choices during his or her unique life. Personal
acceptances are involved: I am a person; I am a citizen; I want the goals that
follow “in order to”; I act in my unique self-interest and for
the-ineluctable-truths my descendants will discover; I
ordain U.S. law under the Constitution and behave to improve it.
Phil Beaver expresses the
preamble’s tacit disciplines: integrity (as both wholeness and reliability),
justice, peace, strength (to discourage offense), and prosperity. The purpose
is responsible human independence (for example,
integrity to exit and resist when the mob takes license to demand liberty in
coercion’s “solidarity”). These views are mine, for me, and I do not wish to
impose them on fellow citizens: I encourage each one to consider the preamble
and the-ineluctable-evidence for the-objective-truth.
The First Congress
unconstitutionally labeled the preamble “secular” whereas the preamble merely
assigns the choice to be religious/not to individual privacy. Congress imposed
unconstitutional Congressional prerogative respecting religion. The Supreme
Court imposes approval.
By not including religion
in the civil goals, the preamble is consistent with the Declaration of
Independence’s “Nature’s God,” “Creator,” “Supreme Judge” and “Providence,” all
of which may be attributed to physics, by which the universe unfolds, both as
actual-reality and as imagination. The fact that the Declaration’s phrases
express Deism rather than Christianity is not as important as the acceptance
that no man can specify whatever-God-is: Doctrinal Gods, such as England’s
Trinity, might be opposed by the Supreme Judge of the world. Further, no man
can consign to the Supreme Judge of the world humankind’s responsibility for
peace on earth. Nothing will usurp humankind’s responsibility for peace on
earth.
With a 1789 free-society
that was 99% factional-American Protestant, Congress re-established British,
Chapter XI Machiavellianism---church-state partnership---first by hiring
Congressional Chaplains then in 1791 ratifying their Bill of Rights with
“freedom of religion” rather than human integrity. (The 1689 English Bill of
Rights requires a Protestant monarchy, oppressing Catholics.)
The framers had the
integrity to propose to end religious oppression, as expressed in 1776, but
Congress had not the integrity to resist re-establishing usurpation of the
human responsibility to control the earth (an ancient idea commented on in
Genesis 1:28). As a consequence, many otherwise “good people” vainly wait for a
higher power to eventually provide peace to their civic descendants—our
posterity.
Congress’s imposition of
factional-American-Protestantism (rebuking their own “Supreme Justice of the
world”) worked against the U.S. ending African-slavery. The 1787 Constitution
and preamble encouraged the next generation to emancipate the slaves (after
1807s end of slave importation). Frederick Douglass in 1852 castigated
fellow-citizens for the domestic slave trade. Pro-slave
Missourians started plundering Kansas abolitionists in 1854, causing “Bleeding
Kansas.” R.E. Lee, in a December 1856 letter to his wife, called abolitionists
evil for trying to accelerate God’s blacks-redemption schedule.
White-Christians in South Carolina, in 1860, arrogantly referred to both “the
Supreme Judge of the World,” and a “more erroneous religious belief” in the
North. The white-Christian CSA fired on the white-Christian abolitionist-U.S.,
starting the Civil War. That is to say, the Civil War was a white-Christian
conflict. This easily discernable view is stonewalled by traditional scholars.
(The other day, a gentleman-Presbyterian-preacher frantically told me to go see
a psychiatrist.)
In his first inaugural
address, Abraham Lincoln obfuscated Congressional infidelity to both 1776 and
1787:
Why should there not be a
patient confidence in the ultimate justice of the people? Is
there any better or equal hope in the world? In our present differences, is
either party without faith of being in the right? If the Almighty
Ruler of Nations, with His eternal truth and justice, be on your side
of the North, or on yours of the South, that truth and that justice will surely
prevail by the judgment of this great tribunal of the
American people.
Intelligence, patriotism,
Christianity, and a firm reliance on Him who has never yet forsaken this
favored land are still competent to adjust in the best way all our present
difficulty.
Lincoln should have
stopped at “ultimate justice of the people” or skipped to “the judgement of
this great tribunal of the American people. And he could have cited
“responsible human independence” rather than “Christianity, and a firm reliance
on Him . . . .” What higher authority can sustain infidelity to the Supreme
Judge of the world? More importantly, what higher authority will usurp the
human individual’s responsibility for peace? Ultimately, the military victory
in the Civil War is ineluctable evidence of “more erroneous [Christian]
belief”: the Supreme Judge of the world (perhaps physics and
its economic viability laws) uses slavery for redemption.
After the assassination
of Martin Luther King, disruptive influence emerged: black liberation theology,
the Ethiopian Tewahedo Bible, Black Church, and Alinsky-Marxist organization.
It’s alright if African-American Christianity worships a black God and thinks God’s
people are black, provided believers do not attempt to consign their
responsibility for peace to that God. To do so would be to mimic Congress’s
infidelity to the public discipline expressed in the preamble to the U.S.
Constitution and I think in Genesis 1:28.
This tome on the role of
theism in U.S. Congress’s infidelity to We the People of the United States and
their responsibility for peace may seem like a treatise on religion. However,
it is not. It is an illustration of the use of language to control
people who do not do the work to collaborate and connect for the
self-interest of mutual, comprehensive safety and security.
We the People of the
United States can effect an achievable better future by holding Congress
responsible for 233 years of infidelity and requiring as a start, amendment of
the First Amendment to encourage civil integrity, an individual duty, rather
than to protect religion, a private option. Second, we can examine existing and
future legislation regarding its fulfillment of the goals and purpose stated in
the preamble. Humankind’s responsibility for peace cannot be
usurped.
Clarifying language is a
civic self-interest rather than a philosopher’s privilege.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-role-and-impact-of-theatre-and-film-on-modern-public-morality-standards?
What is the role and impact of theatre and film on modern public
morality standards?
The arts in general, and especially movies, offer the means
to influence markets for goods and services that whet or intensify human
appetites.
For example, gender-change innovations are marketed by promoting
empathy for potential customers. Movies can powerfully present the change-option
without even mentioning the life costs to the customer ---attention to the change-process
and risks to future choices. Also, whereas philosophers professionally weigh
both sides of an issue without drawing conclusions, movie producers don’t
provide the whole story.
For example, a man who feels physics has dealt him an
unwanted gender is not unlike the man who fears dedicating his life to monogamy
with a woman and their children and perhaps grandchildren. Either one has the
option to obtain professional assistance to accept his gender and form the
family that physics intended rather than choosing to entertain the chaos of
“correcting physics’ mistake.”
The beginning of human life is the ovum to emerge a zygote,
and every ovum is due the dignity and equity of a person. People who choose to
impose a product or service on an ovum err. The error impacts the zygote.
As in all things human, people are free to err, and the arts
are free to promote loss and misery.
BTW: Perversely, the
NFL has decided to make football an art form rather than a professional sport.
We’ll see how that turns out.
https://www.quora.com/Dont-all-laws-in-a-society-remove-freedoms-and-control-people?
Don't all laws in a society remove freedoms and control people?
Maybe so. It does not have to be so.
First, Western thought, primarily developed in Europe,
substantially defended in England fosters confusion regarding freedom and
liberty. Freedom is a human condition and liberty is license granted by a
civilization, culture, society, or institution.
Humankind can develop public discipline for mutual,
comprehensive safety and security so that every citizen may responsibly pursue
the happiness they desire rather than submit to civil liberties. No such
culture exists, but one has been proffered: the United States under the
proposition that is abstractly stated in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution.
U.S. citizens are free to ignore the preamble, so a person must 1) want to
comprehend it, 2) do the work to discover that the continuum of living families
is the “ourselves” and the coming generation including legal immigrants is the
next “our Posterity”, 3) do the work to develop the interpretation by which
they would like to manage their civic, civil, legal, and private living, and 4)
share with fellow-citizens out of self-interest, both to learn and to encourage
human integrity. The result is a precious intellectual property to be shared
with fellow citizens.
I share my interpretation hoping to learn from interested
readers. It is: This good citizen
practices the U.S. disciplines---integrity, justice, peace,
strength, and prosperity, "in order to” develop responsible
human-independence “to ourselves and our Posterity.” Neither
my interpretation nor the original offers standards for either the disciplines
or responsible human-independence, implying that posterity’s posterity may
approach human integrity or statutory justice: freedom.
https://www.quora.com/What-can-one-person-do-to-defend-the-rights-of-all-people?
What can one person do to defend the rights of all people?
It seems self-evident that humankind is responsible to
constrain chaos on earth. So far, there’s been about 8 trillion-human-years
developing human integrity. Perhaps a human life spans 80 years.
As soon as a person accepts that he or she is a human being,
they can constrain chaos in their lives and thereby defend the rights of all
people.
https://www.quora.com/What-do-we-do-with-humans-engaging-in-baseless-arguments?
What do we do with humans engaging in baseless arguments?
Accept that they are humans at a point in
their path to integrity—-as they are, where they are.
Accept that each human has the individual
power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (HIPEA) to either
develop integrity or tolerate and perhaps nourish infidelity; including you.
Develop and maintain comprehension of what
humankind has discovered from physics and its progeny—-the objects of
research—-and how to benefit from the discovery. The practice will empower you
to happily express “I don’t know,” when you don’t know. Also, you will be able
to compare knowledge and perception.
Accept that an ineluctably good citizen
neither initiates nor tolerates harm to or from any person or institution.
Intolerance is the difficult practice. If personal attack is possible, you must
maintain sufficient strength and judgement to not cause harm as a consequence
of mere concern. When harm is observed, it may be sufficient to inform the
offender of your objections and the reasons you object. Sometimes, it’s best to
inform first responders, such as the police.
For example, on hearing an adult teach a
child that the sun’ll come out tomorrow, one intolerance of harm is to say, “I
like that saying. Moreover, I enjoy “feeling” the earth’s rotation on its axis
un-hiding the sun each morning after hiding it each evening. I enjoy the
awesome rotation-speed as the appearances approach what we call “sunset”. With
that, you have offered the child knowledge to obtain and perhaps informed the
adult, too, without harm. If the adult takes offense, it is merely an
opportunity for their discovery. It is best to accept that and drop the
conversation.
In dialogue with another human, listen
carefully to their statements, and respond directly to what they said,
especially if they say, “You’re rude.” Stop talking or change the topic. Too
often, people stonewall each other by responding to each statement with
diversion to a counter argument. For example, if someone says, “You’re crazy
and rude. We can plainly see the sun coming up.” You can respond with something
like, “That’s what my eyes tell me, too. However, from a satellite view, you
can plainly see the earth’s continual rotation of a dark side opposite the sun.
You can find it on the Internet at space.com.” [Why Does the Earth Rotate?]
Psychologically stonewalling another human
being is not too unlike physically stoning them out of your pursuit of
integrity. However, if their attitude is to stonewall you, you must accept
their HIPEA as it is. Most likely, their experience will improve their
psychology.
That’s enough to express the approach.
It’s a matter of appreciating every human being and having the confidence to
consider them, converse, and connect if they allow it. I write to learn, so
please comment or ask a question.
To
Ronny Wijngaarde:
Not initiating harm seems obvious; intolerance
not so easy.
The difficult part is intolerance of harm. For
example, in a restaurant if a couple at the next table argue, and one starts
beating the other, you immediately call the police rather than expect someone
else to do so. In some circumstances, you then actually step between the
fighters to constrain the action without getting injured.
When your government has an unfair law, you
lobby for reform while obeying the bad law.
If someone makes a racial comment, you voice
opposition. When someone uses profanity, you at least frown. I’ve said, “I used
to swear until I realized I was suffering frustration to find the right words
to express my concern.” Eventually, I stopped the habit.
Why is intolerance of harmful behavior
important? Fellow citizens are important to each of us, and it is better if
they are good people. When we encourage and coach goodness, we are showing 1)
appreciation for the fellow citizen as they are and where they are and 2)
belief that they want to be the best they can be. Their improvement is in our
self-interest.
https://www.quora.com/Why-did-America-decline-morally-in-the-1960s?
Why did America decline morally in the 1960s?
Thank you for the question. The “why”
happened long before the 60s.
So far, the-good-people have not observed
that the 1787 U.S. Constitution uniquely encourages rather than denies the
human individual’s non-consignable responsibility: to constrain chaos on earth.
Furthermore, the 13 British-American colonies won free and independent
statehood “appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world” (1776). Then after 1781
victory on the military power of France, the 1787 framers specified a nation to
be held accountable by the good People. But Congress (1789) imposed the
factional-American-Protestant-God. The nation cannot survive such infidelity to
its trust and commitments. It is not too late for U.S. reform, these 233 years
later.
The incentives to establish competitive
states in the 13 Anglo-American colonies began long before 1763. The abstractly
proffered human intentions to constrain chaos was signed on September 17, 1787.
Some of the 9 ratifying states intended to restore English tradition on June
21, 1788. Colonial English-American national-psychology was restored on March
4, 1789.
The U.S. Constitution and the good people’s
proposition in its preamble were ratified, but a few states demanded
that the First Congress amend the Articles so as to re-establish Anglo-American
traditions where possible. The hapless James Madison took the job. With no
authority to act on religion, Congress imposed “freedom of religion.” The
proffered U.S. Preamble (1787) does not usurp the individual citizen’s privacy
in the decision to have religious beliefs or not: The Bill of Rights (1791) unconstitutionally
makes religion a civil imposition. The consequence is the chaos we observe
today, with the Anglo-American Congress again threatening President Trump for administering
constitutional duty. The church-state partnership cannot survive U.S.
intentions. The nation cannot survive on a false premise.
I
wish to address U.S. integrity rather than theology as I articulate the failure
of Congress. But theology is undeniably involved. Separation of church from
state, or establishing U.S. psychological independence from colonial-English-American
tradition is at stake. An achievable better future is available as the U.S.
rather than under preservation of English precedent on this continent.
Consider
European-Trinity influence reported in the history from British colonization to
the U.S. proposition. The Mayflower Compact, 1620, under King James of King
James Bible fame, asserts, “Having undertaken for the
Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith . . . to plant the first
Colony in the northern Parts of Virginia . . . ” politically
organize. There are lots of European-Protestant v Catholic documents earlier
than the 1774 declaration by the First Continental Congress. Congress complains
against King George III, notably: “Also the act passed in the same session for
establishing the Roman Catholic religion, in the province of Quebec, abolishing
the equitable system of English laws [partnering with the English Trinity].”
George conformed to the 1689 Bill of Rights requirement to be Protestant yet
was not intolerant toward the Canadians.
The
Declaration of Independence, 1776, breaks from the Protestant vs Catholic
enmity by using four Deist expressions: Nature’s
God, Creator, Supreme Judge of the world, and Providence. It’s like a battle
cry: The Supreme Judge of the world will
beat the English Trinity! Yet with France’s dominant military strength,
strategy, and money, the continental victory came at Yorktown, VA, in 1781. French
military strength won 13 American-states’ independence! Throughout history, the
beneficiary would not turn its back on the victorious God.
Prudently, but not to most historians,
the 1787 Constitution excludes religion from the list of intentions stated in
the preamble. And Article VI states, “no religious
Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust
under the United States.” Controversially, good citizen is the most important
office in the U.S. The U.S. abstractly shared a lesson to the world: No higher authority will usurp humankind’s
responsibility to constrain tyranny on earth. Bible scholars don’t cite Genesis
1:28 to emphasize that individual responsibility for peace is a perhaps
3,700-year-old suggestion. In today’s politics it seems evident humankind is
responsible to constrain chaos.
Tragically for the 1787 framers (55) and signers (39), the politically
biased First Congress, in spring, 1789,
restored Anglo-American religion---factional-American Protestantism---by hiring chaplains at the people’s expense. And in
1791, Congress unconstitutionally codified the tyranny: “Congress shall make no
law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof . . . .” Congress usurped what “the Supreme Judge of the world” would
not control and has nurtured arrogance over the minds of citizens through the
year 2020. The Supreme Court’s latest arrogance came in Greece v Galloway,
2014, wherein Legislative tradition overruled integrity.
The 1787
generation, with 8 slave-states to 5 free-states, could not
negotiate ending the controversially-accepted slavery-evil. But they provided
in the U.S. Constitution the groundwork for their posterity to provide emancipation
of the slaves. Borrowing a phrase from the Declaration of Independence, 1776,
the good People of 1787 expected emancipation soon after 1808s termination of
the Atlantic slave trade. A significant faction of Anglo-Americans were not of
“the good People,” by then “We the People of the United States in order to . .
. .” Too many overlooked appreciation of the Supreme Judge of the world.
With most
people again secure in future hopes in factional-American Christianity, by
1852, Frederick Douglass eloquently addressed fellow-citizen’s failure to live
up to both the preamble and the articles that comprise the 1787 Constitution. I
don’t know if Douglass articulated the Christian problem, but in 1860 the
Confederate States of America covertly did:
“. . . all 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. We, therefore, the People of South
Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme
Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared
that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of
North America, is dissolved.”
Surprise! “The People of South Carolina” cited the Declaration of Independence’s authority “the Supreme Judge
of the world” to deny each 1) their commitments in perpetuity, 2) individual
responsibility to constrain chaos, and appreciation for France’s power in
defeating England at Yorktown. It was a triple failure of human integrity
rather than a theological error. Yet, theism---Christianity---is their “more
erroneous religious belief.”
Sandwiched
between Douglass’s 1852 appeal and the CSAs 1860 declaration were two events
that disclose the more erroneous Christian belief that a minority could defeat
a majority. In 1854, white-Christian slave-staters caused “Bleeding Kansas” in attacks on white-Christian slavery-abolitionists. In 1856,
pro-slavery Missourians sacked Lawrence, which had been founded by
abolitionists. R.E. Lee explains the more erroneous Christian belief in a
December, 1856 letter to his wife; https://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Letter_from_Robert_E_Lee_to_Mary_Randolph_Custis_Lee_December_27_1856. According to Lee, abolitionists
were “evil” for trying to accelerate God’s schedule for redeeming blacks from
their ancestors’ “sins.”
Abraham
Lincoln obscured the Congressional usurpation (of citizens’ responsibility for
peace regardless of religious privacy) in his first inaugural address: “If the
Almighty Ruler of Nations, with His eternal truth and justice, be on your side
of the North, or on yours of the South, that truth and that justice will surely
prevail by the judgment of this great tribunal of the American people.” Lincoln
lessened “the Supreme Judge of the world” by equivocating to “the Almighty . .
. “ and looking to “the good People” for justice. Lincoln did not share that
the CSA invited a 7 states:27 states unfavorable risk. That is to say, militarily,
Lincoln had the upper hand but did not plainly share that perspective with the
CSA. Subsequently, perhaps consequentially, the CSA fired on the USA, and the
Civil War caused perhaps 0.75 million American deaths, proportionally 8 million
at today’s population. I revere neither Lincoln’s integrity nor any
government’s Christian impositions.
Strengthened
by developments since Martin Luther King’s assassination, America now has
African-American Christianity’s hope that the Supreme Judge of the world is perhaps
black or at least God’s people are black. While this private-doctrine seems
consistent with the Bible’s image-hope, the preamble informs that religion
cannot be civilly imposed. However, passions among the leaders are so
divided---for example, due to competitive Christianity’s liberation theology,
the Ethiopian Tewahedo Bible, and Alinsky-Marxist organizations (AMO)---that
once again, some individuals are prepared to usurp humankind’s responsibility
to constrain chaos, counting on their personal God for military might. The U.S.
might be better off to restore “the Supreme Ruler of the world.” Better, the
U.S. could encourage human integrity for living regardless of private
after-death-doctrine.
It is up to
each individual to choose to be a member of humankind or not; to behave to
constrain chaos or to effect infidelity to mutual,
comprehensive safety and security on earth. To aid development of both “the
good People” and “We the People of the United States” or be a dissident.
America may
be at the abyss. The ascension to responsible human independence rather than
widespread dependency may be imminent. I think with the U.S. Preamble and
the-ineluctable-evidence, We the People of the United States can accelerate the
ineluctable good.
America’s
decline seems due to Congress’ failure of integrity---metaphorically, turning
its back on “the Supreme Judge of the world” to choose the Anglo-American Trinity.
Maybe the practice obscures the U.S. Preamble by labeling it “secular” when the
text prudently declines to usurp the human responsibility to constrain chaos.
https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-usual-steps-involved-in-the-decision-making-process?
What are the usual steps involved in the decision making
process?
First,
we must choose a purpose for the process: tyranny, integrity, infidelity,
humility, civility, civicality, good, or other?
Let
me assume the objective is mutual, comprehensive safety and security. It seems
the first step regarding heartfelt concern is to consider whether a decision is
needed or not. If not, record the concern and do nothing. If so, do the work
needed to discover whether the concern is justified or not. I not, record the
discovery and do nothing. I so, do the work to comprehend the action most
likely to achieve the ineluctable good. Take that necessary action and let
others know why; consider their response and any improvements they suggest; if
possible, have this discussion beforehand, accepting opposition they may
express as their personal choice for them. If there is future discovery that
requires change, act quickly for the reform.
For
example, I try to develop strength for an attack by another person or
association. I am cautious to not call on those defenses unless there is
actually an attack. So far, I have not harmed someone because I acted without
being attacked.
The
most universal human concern I encountered is commitment-to and trust-in a
doctrinal God. So far, humility informs me to wait for ineluctable evidence
before acting. Just as I trust my origins to whatever is in control, I trust my
destiny.
https://www.quora.com/Do-you-think-social-media-is-a-product-of-freedom-or-censorship-nowadays?
Do you think social media is a product of freedom or censorship
nowadays?
In my experience, there’s social-censorship everywhere you
turn: in letters to the editor, in requests for discussion with government
representatives, in contacts to media celebrities or university professors, in
discussion with family and friends, in voluntary personal-blogs, in
public-proprietary forums, in copyright law, in social-media response, and in
social-media rules. However, there is much to learn from total stranger
somewhere on earth.
The person with a dream, such as establishing majority human-integrity practice,
must avoid equivocating stonewalling to stoning, and just keep promoting the
idea.
Here are a few direct experiences stated as generalities to
which there are exceptions. First, in writing letters to the
editor you learn 1) it’s freedom of the press, not freedom to publish ideas and
2) the press reserves the caption so as to bias/slant the idea you offer. Your
representatives are shielded by career officials who do the stonewalling. Media
celebrities and university professors accept no obligation to respond to your
contact. Family and friends are too busy living to respond to your political
concerns; some are too busy developing integrity to talk about it. At best, a
blog gives you the freedom record ideas; don’t expect dialogue if your dream is
as extreme as widespread human integrity. Some forums invite your response to
questions then censor your answers. I only recently took note of the copyright
threat, finding myself reluctant to express interpretations without memory of
how I earned my opinion; I do recognize that discipline of for and by the
people recalls Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, but feel no obligation to explain
the fallacy of “government” or “not perish”. Society finds no self-interest in
members understanding members’ personal ideas let alone ideas of non-members’
ideas.
I learned through Jeany Bernas on 9/8/20 to stop trying to
write an interpretation of the U.S. Preamble’s people’s proposition for “us”
and speak only for myself. The improvements that emerged since then are
astounding. I am grateful. The experience convinces me that the public
discipline to encourage human integrity will emerge without me.
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-knowing-the-truth-important-in-acquiring-wisdom?
Why is knowing the truth important in acquiring wisdom?
The newborn human being is wise. They trust-in and commit-to
the care from their providers, preferably the bonded-for-life spouses who
conceived them. They accept being uninformed by asking, “What’s that?” They
learn the responses, perceiving it’s knowledge.
By adolescence, they observe that they don’t always learn
the-ineluctable-truth from caretakers, community, or any other source. They
note that some people take advantage of other people’s innocence. Most accept
that they live among humankind and are a human being. A few humans accept the
individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (HIPEA)
to develop integrity. Those few return to child-like capability to admit to
themselves they do not know what they do not know. They are patient for
the-objective-truth if not the-literal-truth (using new instruments of
perception), hoping to approach the-ineluctable-truth.
They seem wise, no matter how small their accumulated
knowledge may be. Most humans can develop wisdom if we develop a culture
wherein these principles and better are encouraged and coached in the
civilization’s youth and beyond. A person can develop his or her unique
perfection no matter how late they adopt the intention and practice.
How do you respond to a societal issue that destroys the dignity and
social engagement of a person towards others and the society as a whole?
Agathon, in Plato’s “Symposium” gave good directive, which I
interpret: The ineluctably good citizen
neither imitates nor tolerates harm to or from any person or society.
Intolerance is the difficult part, and in today’s cultures, independence from
infidelity can isolate you.
This means the civilization needs reform to Agathon’s
standards or a fellow-citizen’s better interpretation than mine. It does not
mean the ineluctably good citizen is bad.
I think we are experiencing this reform in 2020, when many
political scientists and politicians are paying lots of money to support
anarchists and the chaos. Aliens to human integrity thrive on chaos.
To Don Daniels:
Thank you for comment. I am in your corner in the debate
with me.
Over the last couple days I discovered that the Declaration
of Independence (1776) uses the phrase “the good People” in its concluding
paragraph. Consequently, I changed my interpretation of the preamble’s
proposition to “This good citizen . . . “
I actually practice my interpretation in every moment. Human
error seems a declining challenge, and I do not repeat mistakes. For example,
after a 57-year habit, I no longer drink, unless it is essential to human good
will. For example, the only time I took a glass of wine since I stopped was to
celebrate a health triumph with my wife on a rare night out for dinner.
Developing your own interpretation of the preamble is a
task, but it is well worth it. It becomes one of your most precious
possessions.
To Mark Smythe:
Thank you for your outpouring. You share a lot of
background, but not much opinion about my opinion.
I guess by “induction” you mean “inference of a generalized
conclusion from particular instances.” Then you judge my life, not even knowing
me---by trying to substitute debates by dead thinkers instead of addressing
quotations of my post. Regrettably, I expect no grandchildren, did a vasectomy
a quarter century ago to protect my wife from toxemia, and in my eighth decade
enjoy erectile dysfunction. Most erroneously, you ignore my statements:
Fourth, “liberty” is the
text’s erroneous purpose, because humankind cannot escape the constraints of
physics and its progeny---each person must develop responsible human
independence. Therefore, the best a nation can provide is freedom from-tyranny.
Fifth, there are no standards for achieving
either the disciplines or the purpose, and thus, there is no usurpation of
human responsibilities to self: Posterity’s posterity will discover how
successful the proposal will be. Religion is a private rather than civil human
interest. Sixth, there are no discriminations against
gender or responsible factional societies within humankind.
“Responsible human independence” requires constraint of
chaos in civic, civil, legal, and in private human connections.
I think you and I could converse by forgetting what other
people say in order to discover and develop our shared, ineluctable good.
Referring to your post, “the beginning of Karl Marx's critique - critique of
materialism - is MORE individualism and MORE personal responsibility and MORE
of the very thing that has broken your country.” I don’t think many
non-citizens understand my country.
My country is the United States. Competitive European
Christianity imposed on it agricultural colonialism with initial labor from
indentured slaves followed by placement of African-slaves; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade.
Its first permanent settlement was Spanish, including free blacks, at St.
Augustine, Florida in 1565. While European settlement here began 455 years ago,
the NYT celebrates slavery 401 years ago, and the USA created its first
conference 246 years ago, the U.S. is only 233 years old. And 229 years ago, the
First Congress suppressed U.S. intentions stated in the preamble by imposing
unconstitutional constraint of Congressional action on “freedom of religion”
when what human individuals need is integrity. How can the U.S. be broken?
Because of its preamble, the U.S. has the opportunity to lead humankind in its responsibility
under the ineluctable evidence: peace on earth.
I encourage you to apply your human-individual power, energy, and authority
(HIPEA) to humankind’s challenge rather than let Marx, Alinsky, Adam Smith,
John Adams, Socrates, the Apostle John, or any other dead thinker bemuse us.
Their brilliance and what they could observe can’t touch yours.
https://www.quora.com/q/wonder/Can-you-make-up-a-new-term-to-give-your-personal-philosophy-a-name-12?
Can you make up a new term to give your personal philosophy a name?
To Michelle Contreras Ewens:
Also, my opinion counts for nothing, since
I do not know the-ineluctable-truth.
What you believe is important to me for
you, and what I believe is important to me for me.
About a quarter century ago, it occurred
to me that my church was urging me to control my afterdeath using their
doctrine. I thought about my before-conception and that I had no influence. I
decided to trust my destiny much as I trust my origins and can do nothing about
them.
I am happy to share my observations, but
not to change your beliefs. No one can change a human being’s hopes and
comforts and offends them if he or she tries. Again, that’s only my opinion.
https://www.quora.com/How-can-I-be-a-good-person-for-my-country?
How can I be a good person for my country?
During your lifetime, constrain chaos in your sphere of
influence and encourage fellow-citizens to do the same.
In the U.S., develop a personal interpretation of the
preamble to the U.S. Constitution and practice it. I share mine so that people
can suggest improvements: This good citizen
practices the U.S. disciplines---integrity, justice, peace,
strength, and prosperity, "in order to” develop responsible
human-independence “to ourselves and our Posterity.”
https://www.quora.com/How-is-for-the-greater-good-different-from-for-the-common-good?
How is "for the greater good" different from "for the
common good"?
I think
you are correct: those phrases are synonymous.
Further, I think they are lame surrogates for “integrity,”
the practice of confirming that you represent the ineluctable evidence when you
take action. Otherwise, you accept and express, “I don’t know.”
If you are being attacked, you own and know how to use
adequate instruments of defense.
https://www.quora.com/How-does-philosophy-help-your-knowledge?
How does philosophy help your knowledge?
Philosophers consider all the knowledge about a topic. Readers
benefit by opening their minds to how thoroughly humankind considers each
issue.
For example, at Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy, searching “truth” receives 1699 documents.
The first is titled “truth.” The next nine documents are each attractive to
expand knowledge.
Reading philosophy is an exercise in humility. However,
conclusions are unlikely. To express yourself regarding “truth”, apply
self-reliant integrity to the ineluctable evidence.
I express a progression based on inventions of new
instruments of perception of the ineluctable evidence and how to apply it for
responsible good. The first discovery, the-objective-truth, may change as new
instruments appear. It may eventually approach the-literal-truth. It seems
prudent to then wait for a new invention, perhaps discovery of new dimensions
for perception, in the hope to discover the-ineluctable-truth. The journal of
these three levels of truth comprise ethics.
I fully expect, after all that expression, a sceptic to
assert: you would impose Phil’s truth. It’s alright to say that, since I do not
know the-ineluctable-truth.
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.
