Whose demigod “battles for the soul of America?”

 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

Who has the hubris to “battle for the soul of America?” Not Joe.

Let’s connect some dots. Perhaps a Sumerian opined 4,000 years ago (before Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) in Genesis 1:28: man and woman are charged to constrain chaos on earth. Slavery was common, as expressed in the Code of Hammurabi, 1756 BC, long before men constructed the concept of “sin.”

Pondering humankind’s discoveries through this year, 2020, it is reasonable to interpret the ancient opinion as follows:  The USA’s Supreme Judge of the world charges man and woman to constrain chaos in their lives and coach and encourage their posterity to practice the required humble-integrity. In other words, the Supreme Judge, in its ineluctable domain, assigned to humankind the responsibility to develop peace in this world. To ignore this possibility seems to beg woe.

Many human events span developments from Sumer until 1776, when formerly loyal British colonists, led by the founders, declared independence from England. Most free-colonists practiced factional-American-Protestantism for freedom-from oppression by the Church of England. The Church of England enjoys constitutional-partnership with Parliament.

In their 1774 Articles of Association, the founders objected to the slave-trade. With an 8 slave-colony majority, the 13 or 14 (Nova Scotia, with Catholic influence considered but did not join) could not effect slave-reform while conducting war for independence. Instead of citing their personal Gods, whether Protestant, Catholic, Unitarian, Jewish, Islam, or none, the founders appealed to the Supreme Judge of the world to confirm their intentions. Two years later, the Continental Congress appealed to France for military providence. France provided at a 3:1 military ratio at Yorktown.

In 1784, the founders ratified the 1783 Treaty of Paris, which globally recognizes 13 free and independent eastern seaboard states. Accepting many concerns, including the threat that foreign powers could annex individual states, delegates from 12 states met in 1787 to strengthen the confederation, one dissenting, fearing a strong central government. The consequence would become a union of 9 states in a federation to be held accountable by the people. Operations began with 11 states and expanded to 50.

The 55 delegates in 1787, evaluating known governances in the world, framed a republic based on public discipline “in order to” develop humble-integrity of, by, and for living citizens and their posterity in their several states. As the founders’ posterity, the framers scheduled the end of the Atlantic slave-trade 20 years after ratification. Only 39 framers signed the 1787 U.S. Constitution, with the people’s purpose proffered in the preamble. Nothing in the 1787 Constitution lessens the humble-integrity expressed in the 1776 Declaration. However, it seems that the 16 non-signers mark the end of the founding era, because psychological independence from British colonialism is yet to be effected by We the People of the United States. This oppression is manifest in some Supreme-Court originalism, which ought to comport to the U.S. preamble and Genesis 1:28 rather than English traditional dependency on higher power. I believe Amy Coney Barrett well help establish the American humble-integrity that is proffered in the preamble.

In 1789, psychologically adolescent politicians who were elected to the First Congress rebuked each: humankind’s Genesis-1-responsibility to develop peace in the world, the USA’s Supreme Judge of the world, and We the People of the United States. Congress, in 1791, unconstitutionally imposed “freedom of religion” in place of the discipline to maintain humble-integrity “to ourselves and our Posterity.” Congress maintains the tyranny to this day: the Protestantism of 1791 evolved to Judeo-Christianity, perhaps Judeo-Catholicism, in 2020.

Abraham Lincoln represented the 1776 Declaration and the 1787 Constitution in his 1861 inaugural speech:  “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.” He had read the declaration of secession by only 7 states, with its lame claim to less erroneous Christian beliefs than beliefs held in the Northern states, and the non-slave-state count had surpassed 50%. The 7:27 unfavorable ratio was an invitation to woe from Christian military power. Under the laws of physics (perhaps the Supreme Judge of the world), invited woe inevitably comes.

Like Lincoln, President Donald Trump understands presidential-humble-integrity with responsibility to constrain chaos. The burden of presidential-integrity humbles Trump. For example, he takes expedient action to destroy world-wide terrorists rather risk American-military-persons on foreign soil. Based on the evidence, I feel President Trump expects fellow-citizens to interpret “under God” as the American expression, the Supreme Judge of the world, or Lincoln’s equivalent or Trump’s, whatever it may be. That is to say, fellow citizens, religious or not, may reserve sufficient humility toward whatever actually-real power assigned to humankind the responsibility to establish peace (constrain chaos) in this world.

Whoever abused Joe Biden by persuading him to claim he is “battling for the soul of America” expresses unholy hubris rather than humble-integrity to whatever entity is in charge of the afterdeath---that vast time when the human body, mind, and person stop functioning. No one has seen a soul and lived to provide the ineluctable evidence.

Slavery developed long before the 4,000 years I have covered, and the U.S. struggle to recover from the evil imposed on its people is only 233 years old. “Soul” is a phantasm of metaphysics which belongs in the same class as England-Africa-slavers imposing slavery in America and Barack Obama calling it “America’s original sin” and urging followers to organize for disruption. Perhaps they are Alinsky-Marxist organizations (AMO).

Lots of evil has descended on America since the 1960s. One of the worst is Saul Anlinsky’s advocacy for violence if his egocentric rights are at stake (catch the last 2 mintues of https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=OsfxnaFaHWI). Through his workshops, both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton became students if not advocates.

I tremble to think any Americans could fall for poor Biden’s demigod-folly. Aliens fall, yes: Citizens fall, no.

I hope American civics motivates you to vote Trump/Pence and against all Democrat candidates who also oppose the preamble to the U.S. Constitution: I think RINOs can reform, but most Democrats are aliens, as shown by their behaviors during the past 8 years.

Quora

https://www.quora.com/Hume-insisted-that-morality-is-just-our-sentiments-that-we-pretend-are-real-things-in-the-world-Kant-says-there-is-an-actual-moral-law-and-that-this-is-absolutely-binding-Can-we-use-the-Categorical-Imperative-to?

Hume insisted that morality is just our sentiments, that we pretend are real things, in the world. Kant says there is an actual moral law and that this is absolutely binding. Can we use the "Categorical Imperative" to know this moral law? Explain.

No, we can’t.

I think philosophy and metaphysics thrive on vital questions and proprietary responses that perpetuate bemusement. Research, on the other hand uses common language by which a journal of discovery may be maintained. Disproof is not purged from the journal, in order to prevent wasteful repetition or for availability when humans discover new instruments or new dimensions for reliable perception. Wikipedia may be the closest journal like this in existence.

Consider, for example, the human-demand that good citizens do not lie. It is common to hold this demand to be metaphysical and thus not grounded in the-ineluctable-truth (described below). See https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/religion-and-philosophy/philosophy/lying-a-metaphysical-issue-before-a-moral-issue.html.

Even Albert Einstein wrote about 1940s proprietary “science and religion” in a vain attempt to express that good people don’t lie, in order to lessen human misery and loss rather than to apply a rule. He could have written that integrity comports to the laws of physics. That is to say, lies are eventually disclosed by physical evidence.

By using expected words, Einstein missed the opportunity to write: discovery without integrity is lame; integrity without discovery is blind.

Returning to Hume’s statement, ethics is mere convention if not expressing humble-integrity to physics. For example, civility is defined by the civilization’s norms rather than to comport with physics. And to Kant, humans must continually improve the law until statutory justice based on the-ineluctable-truth is discovered and codified.

The-ineluctable-truth exists and may be approached by continually improving instruments for perceiving the-objective-truth. Physics does not respond to metaphysics nor other human constructs to evaluate absolute, ultimate, and other superlatives.

For example, if a fellow-citizen is about to annihilate a family, one family-member must have the means and the intention to convince the aggressor that one aggression will result in aggressor’s death. That is to say, the defender must be so impactful that the aggressor will decide not to attack. But if attack ensues, the threatened death comes while the other family members escape.

I am developing a glossary to resolve proprietary expressions to common words and phrases. It may be found by searching with Bing for: A civic people + glossary. I write for civic conversation. If this post gets deleted, it can be found on my blog cipbr.blogspot.com for the week ending 10/31/2020.

https://www.quora.com/If-you-wanted-to-add-a-fundamental-right-in-the-Constitution-what-would-it-be?

If you wanted to add a fundamental right in the Constitution, what would it be?

Replace “freedom of religion,” a private choice, with encouragement to develop humble-integrity, a human essential by which personal-integrity and corporate-integrity are measured.

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-it-important-to-know-your-rights-and-responsibilities?

Why is it important to know your rights and responsibilities?

Thinking about the Supreme Judge of the world and an ancient suggestion in Genesis 1:28 (man and woman, constrain chaos in your lives) a human being is fortunate to appreciate humble-integrity as a personal opportunity and practice.

The human right to develop humble-integrity seems essential; a person measures both individual and collective integrity by humble-integrity. Beyond that, I doubt any “right” or “liberty” or “license” is defensible.

https://www.quora.com/If-man-1-believes-that-a-conclusion-is-one-way-and-man-2-subjected-to-the-same-intelligence-draws-his-conclusion-differently-is-it-then-obvious-to-the-assume-that-in-the-spirit-of-the-formula-if-a-b-and-b-c-then-a-c?

If man #1 believes that a conclusion is one way and man #2, subjected to the same intelligence, draws his conclusion "differently", is it then obvious to the assume that in the spirit of the formula "if a = b and b = c then a = c" is wrong here?

I think what’s needed is objectivity to nourish Models A and B to develop C and perhaps beyond in order to meet the human demand to constrain chaos on earth.

Let me describe a model designed for ineluctably good people who, aware or not, voluntarily behave in order to comport to the command metaphorically issued by the 1776 “Supreme Judge of the world” (SJW), whatever that is, perhaps first suggested by an ancient Mesopotamian, more than 4000 years ago.

Many people, on reading or hearing SJW immediately equate to God, and dismiss SJW’s civic duty for the crutch of spiritual pursuit. I suggest that the 4000-year-old-suggestion, in Genesis 1:28, was that the spiritual judge (either SJW or the author’s God/Guru) assigns to man and woman the responsibility to constrain chaos in their lives on earth. We expect a better view of the-ineluctable-truth in 2021 and even better from our posterity.

“The good [loyal-colonial] People” appealed to SJW in the USA’s Declaration of Independence from England. England’s God then and now is the constitutionally required Protestant-Trinity of the Church of England. Protestantism was a response to centuries of abuse by the Catholic Church, terminated in England’s 1689 Bill of Rights. Unfortunately, Congress resumed factional-American Protestantism, hiring Congressional chaplains and unconstitutionally imposing “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Neither We the People of the United States as defined in the preamble nor SJW authorize Congress to impose religion rather than encourage humble-integrity.

I work to promote an unheralded, proffered-repressed culture, wherein “the good People” civically connect to fulfill individual responsibility to each SJW, Genesis 1:28, and posterity. I interpret that verse to mean:  Man and woman, you are constrained to behave for peace on earth.

In the Genesis-1 and U.S. 1776-1787 peace-culture, civic proponents of Model A present their case to civic listeners who advocate Model B. Presenters use language expected under SJW rather than proprietary words and phrases, and listeners take the time to criticize the presentation, first to clarify Model A and improve SJW appreciation. If listeners happen to accept Model A, they express approval. And if features of Model B proffer improvement of Model A, they say so. If they perceive that Model B should substantially replace Model A, they say so, and Model A presenters become civic listeners. The ensuing discussion may convince both listeners to develop Model C, which satisfies the personal goals of both Model A and Model B, and also comports to the peace-culture. The two listeners may re-iterate the discussions so as to reach Plan Z or Plan Zeta. Perhaps at that point codify the improvement by proposing a constitutional amendment. Civic citizens appreciate posterity, who emerge with intentions to behave for peace in the future, which currently-living adults cannot imagine.

Nothing in the 1787 U.S. Constitution lessens the intentions for humble-integrity that is expressed in each Genesis 1:28 or the 1776 Declaration. I conclude that the culture of humble-integrity the world is constrained to develop was proffered in the 1787 U.S. Constitution.

The constraint is physics and its progeny including psychology, both worldly forces. Benefits must be discovered and practiced, even by the good People who pursue religion for reasons only they may choose and nourish.

Thus in the issue:  Is belief in God A correct or is belief in God B correct, civic people may arrive at Option C: neither of us knows, but SJW holds us individually responsible for peace on earth.

Your question, Coats, seems timely for the approaching season-of-good-will among human beings.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-relationship-between-justice-and-fairness?

What is the relationship between justice and fairness?

It is fair (equitable) for living-citizens to behave for statutory justice and in the meantime observe written law and its enforcement. (Precedent for this principle pre-dates the British Empire, and therefore is not subject to developments since Magna Carta, 1215. That is to say, the U.S. opened a novel justice-slate on the September 17, 1787 Constitution, and colonial-English tradition represses We the People of the United States.)

I appreciate you, GJ Mohillo, for my first motivation to think without John Rawls’ folly.

Parents, whether direct or technological, owe their progeny the care and attention such that early in life he or she chooses to be a human being. Nevertheless, each surviving adolescent has the human, individual power, energy, and authority (HIPEA) to choose to be human. If not, they perhaps unwittingly neglect/reject developing human, psychological maturity. Chances are, adolescent adults will die younger than their human potential. Like starving if you don’t either earn the food you want or accept a bureaucrat’s choice for you, life or death is a human condition. The idea that a government can assure life, license liberty, and facilitate happiness is utter folly.

Among humans who accept being human many accept HIPEA and choose to develop humble-integrity, by which personal-integrity is measured. Most people who survive beyond their sixth decade begin to sense humble-integrity, even though society does not promote its principles. I work to change that neglect, yet the best cultures in the world are without excuse for repressing the culture of humble-integrity. For example, the U.S. is without excuse for not emphasizing living adults’ obligations to posterity, and the responsibility rests with the state-repressed entity We the People of the United States.

The Sumerians, about 3700 years ago suggested in Genesis 1:28 that humans are charged to constrain chaos in the world. The Greeks, about 2400 years ago suggested that civic citizens neither initiate nor tolerate harm to or from any person; that “good” ought not be re-labeled “God”; and that civic-citizens behave to enforce equity under statutory justice. The 1776 Declaration of Independence appeals “to the Supreme Judge of the world” (whatever-that-is) to judge human reliability in the world yet takes full responsibility for engaging fellow-subjects in killing for independence. When loss was threatened, they negotiated providence from France.

Recognizing that some humans accept HIPEA and employ it for crime rather than for humble-integrity, the civic people continually improve equity under statutory justice. Thereby, criminals are constrained in their intentions to abuse fellow citizens. Criminals choose crime for their reason, some opining that crime pays benefits. This choice is made possible by the good People, who fund the systems to enforce statutory justice. Fellow-citizens who do not connect for statutory justice may find themselves subject to unjust laws. In other words, not deciding to be a human being has consequences.

Much as knowing the speed limit is the driver’s responsibility, choosing-to understand and behave for the public disciplines committed-to and trusted-in by We the People of the United States is each citizen’s responsibility. Among the civic-disciplines is coaching and encouraging fellow-citizens who cannot comprehend how to perfect their unique human journey. Fellow-citizens who choose to take advantage of We the People of the United States invite constraint. (Presently, living adults beg constraint by continuing to build debt for posterity.)

Neglect, tolerance, or dissidence that causes harm under the constraints of civic citizenship has consequences, usually imposed on the errant citizen under developing statutory justice; which is to say, written law enforcement may not be perfect but must be known and observed.

If there are no objections, I will add your name and today’s date to my appreciations page. If this post disappears, it will be preserved on my blog, cipbr.blogspot.com, for the week ending 10/31/2020. Thank you.

https://www.quora.com/Is-there-such-as-superior-and-inferior-culture?

Is there such as superior and inferior culture?

I don’t know. I think a superior culture, humble-integrity, is proffered to We the People of the United States but so far repressed by the U.S. Congress.

The authors of the 1776 declaration of independence from England represented “the good People” in their appeal “to the Supreme Judge of the world.” They could have invoked the mystery of God (whether Trinity or Unity) they debated with England. Instead, they affirmed their intentions to accept in the USA the responsibility to humans that is expressed by an ancient Sumerian in Genesis 1:28: “Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea, the birds in the air and every living creature that crawls on the earth.” In other words, they avoided any appearance of usurping the authority of the charge to humans expressed in Genesis 1:28.

In 1787, the framers of the U.S. Constitution proffered nothing that lessens the humble-integrity of the 1776 Declaration. In the preamble, the signers proposed 5 civic disciplines “in order to” encourage responsible human independence to living citizens. Religion is not among the civic disciplines, because it is a private practice for adults. In other words, the framers observed, by human development from 1700 years BCE through 1787 AD, that posterity is equipped to constrain chaos on earth in a future which living adults cannot imagine. For example, the adults of 1787 could not reform the slavery England had imposed on them, even though the 1774 Articles of Association committed to its termination.

There have been 12 generations since 1787, and what are the consequences of U.S. development? The Democrat Party’s conduct during the past 8 years and domestic terrorism during the summer of 2020 suggests chaos so severe that ruin is threatened. What caused the U.S. divergence from the 1776 humble-integrity?

I suggest that the 1791 Congress usurped both the Supreme Judge of the world and “the good People,” in 1787 labeled “We the People of the United States” who accept the 5 disciplines “in order to” develop responsible human independence for living. Neither the judge nor the people authorized Congress to legislate: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” (I first objected to this tyranny over 2 decades ago.)

Show me the fellow citizen who does not choose humble-integrity for living rather than the tyranny of civil imposition of freedom to religious institutions. From my experience, it would take some Congresspersons about 2 decades to perceive the self-interest of humble-integrity, but We the People of the United States can help accelerate the reform.

The culture of humble-integrity that is expressed in the 1776 Declaration of Independence and proffered in the 1787 U.S. Constitution makes existing cultures look inferior. It is not difficult to connect these dots. However, articulating the present opportunity for an achievable better future is almost impossible. Yet here it is.

Now that the U.S.-proffered culture of humble-integrity has been articulated, We the People of the United States can improve and effect it almost overnight. We just need to accelerate the articulation. The egregiously errant actor, the U.S. Congress, can help by amending the First Amendment so as to civically encourage humble-integrity rather than civilly support religious enterprise. I hope the majority will act quickly to reform.

https://www.quora.com/What-are-tips-remaining-objective-and-level-headed-during-an-inter-ideological-dialogue-In-order-to-be-objective-independent-of-heresy-do-you-need-to-be-an-expert-on-the-relevant-subject-matters-to-be-discussed?

What are tips remaining objective and level headed during an inter-ideological dialogue? In order to be objective independent of heresy, do you need to be an expert on the relevant subject matters to be discussed?

Of course, I don’t know; but I think only one expertise is required: humble-integrity as a fellow-citizen of the world.

Connecting the dots to this conclusion: first, an ancient Sumerian thinker suggested perhaps 3700 years ago, as reported in Genesis 1:28, that man and woman are charged to constrain chaos on earth (not beyond). Second after 2000 years Church abuse in Europe, England declared in the 1689 Bill of rights that the king must be Protestant. The 13 eastern seaboard American colonies complained of being enslaved to master slaves for England’s benefit and of being pressed by Catholics in Quebec. The British-subjects who were colonists expressed the humility to appeal “to the Supreme Judge of the world” for reliability in representing “the good People” in declaring independence from England’s church-state-constitutional partnership. In effect, they were expressing 1776 intentions to resolve chaos in living, leaving the mystery of soul consequences beyond man and woman; that is, consistent with the suggestion in Genesis 1:28.

In 1787, the framers designed a federal republic with “the good People” as “We the People of the United States” who would develop 5 public disciplines “in order to” encourage responsible human independence to us and our posterity. Nothing in the 1787 U.S. Constitution lessens the humble-integrity expressed in the 1776 Declaration of Independence.

In summary, living people who behave so as to constrain chaos on earth are well-grounded to address any issue that may arise. When they need assistance, they may refer to three sources: their independent view of ancient good and bad in the Bible, the novel humble-independence of a confederation of colonies declaring war against the world’s greatest empire, and the maintenance of humble-integrity toward posterity expressed in the U.S. Constitution.

For example of the consequence of failure, they need only address the First Congress and its 1791 hubris: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Neither the Supreme Judge of the world nor We the People of the United States authorized Congress to opine about the mysticism of soul, reincarnation, or other spiritual matter, and Genesis 1:28 suggests Congress to legislate to constrain chaos in the U.S..

https://www.quora.com/Does-naturalism-have-an-explanation-for-morals?

Does naturalism have an explanation for morals?

Yes.

My view is not constrained to either the word “naturalism” or “Darwinism.” I assert that everything emerges from physics (the object of study rather than the study) and its progeny including biology, psychology, and fiction. Spiritualism, held by some to be the origin of morality, arises from speculation about physics’ unknowns. Often the object of study is a reasonable construct on an imagined explanation. For example, some theists imagine that Jesus is the Judaic messiah except made available to all who are elected to believe Jesus. The “elect” are exempt from moral law.

Merriam-Williams online, Usage 2 informs us “naturalism” means “a theory denying that an event or object has a supernatural significance; specifically: the doctrine that scientific laws are adequate to account for all phenomena.” “Science,” in Usage 3 means “a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : NATURAL SCIENCE.” “Doctrine,” in usage 1 e is “something that is taught.” Finally, “phenomena” means “an observable fact or event.”

In M-W definitions, science is observable fact or event that is discovered through the scientific method. Taking “object” and “fact” as synonyms, science can reach the conclusion that the supernatural has not been observed and is therefore shelved for possible-future discover-evidence. For example, there is insufficient evidence that there is no God, and therefore, science shelves that imagination for possible future application of the scientific method.

In Genesis 1:28, an ancient Sumerian thinker, perhaps 3700 years ago suggested, in my interpretation, that man and woman are charged to constrain chaos on earth. In 1941, Albert Einstein suggested, in my interpretation, that the laws of physics and the laws of integrity come from the same source. His only example was that man and woman don’t lie so as to constrain chaos.

The question becomes: What entity judges performance by man and woman in constraining chaos in their lives? The authors of the 1776 declaration of independence from England appealed “to the Supreme Judge of the world” for reliability in their intentions against the Church-of-England-Parliament-partnership that had abused loyal-colonial British-subjects.

The providence of France’s military strength and strategy at the 1781 battle of Yorktown, VA resulted in England’s surrender to both France and the 13 former colonies who became free and independent states. In nearly 4-years, the states realized they were each vulnerable to foreign invasion and other disadvantages and decided to strengthen their confederation. In convention, delegates framed a federal republic with national powers limited by the people in their states. Nothing in the 1787 U.S. Constitution lessens the humble-integrity expressed by representatives of “the good People” of the 1776 USA.

However, Congress, in 1791 turned its back on the Supreme Judge of the world with the words “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Neither the entity We the People of the United States nor the Supreme Judge of the world authorized Congress to impose religious hubris and tyranny over humble-integrity in fulfilling man and woman’s charge to constrain chaos on earth.

As a consequence, the USA has emerged in chaos that if not rapidly addressed begs ruin. The good People of 2020 may first demand amendment of the First Amendment to promote humble-integrity rather than religious-hubris, then focus on constraining chaos in individual living.

By ignoring the Supreme Judge of the world (whatever-that-is) Congress lost the humble-integrity needed to constrain chaos on earth. Perhaps the 1776 and 1787 humility is being restored as We the People of the United States faces the consequence of perhaps the most massive voting in U.S. history. We’ll see if responsible human independence survives.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-better-To-start-a-philosophical-system-from-scratch-Or-to-use-other-philosophers-to-inform-your-own-system-Someone-told-me-that-philosophy-does-not-exist-in-a-vacuum-but-has-a-long-conversational-history?

What is better? To start a philosophical system from scratch? Or, to use other philosopher's to inform your own system? Someone told me that philosophy does not exist in a vacuum, but has a long conversational history.

You pose a profound question. If Quora deletes our dialogue, continue it on my blog cipbr.blogspot.com, week ending 10/31/2020.

I think you should accept that you are a human being. And each human has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (HIPEA) to develop humble integrity rather than tolerate someone else’s idea for his or her unique person. Because life is so short, a person ought to develop his or her philosophy at an early age and be quick to change direction as required by personal, psychological maturity.  

My first thought to help you form a plan was to seek a list of philosophies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_philosophies. Second, I sought the top philosophers of all time: https://beckchris.wordpress.com/people/the-greatest-philosophers-of-all-time-ranked/the-greatest-philosophers-of-all-time-chronological/. The author also presents the list ranked by frequency of inclusion at the tops of 20 lists.

I speculate that reviewing the list of philosophers and noting the ones whose works most interest you would help order your formidable task. Moreover, completing this task might give you your fist impression of your philosophy. (I might do this exercise.)

Note, however, that some philosophers are not in the propriety. Albert Einstein, for example, suggested that research without integrity is lame and integrity without research is blind, or something similar that is meaningless to me. Also, Jesus suggested that the human being can perfect his or her unique person, or something similar that I do not understand. In other words, the college of philosophers doesn’t recognize some worthy philosophers. Therefore, you should not de-emphasize your normal reading interests.

Also, this special interest should not cause you to withdraw from normal living. The most impactful moral lessons come from daily contacts with your monogamous family and your fellow-citizens. Each one attempts to treat every connection with humble-integrity, by which an individual’s personal integrity may be measured. Keep a daily journal, digital for search-ability.

https://www.quora.com/What-should-you-do-if-you-know-somethings-true-but-its-very-hard-to-prove?

What should you do if you know something's true, but it's very hard to prove?

Chenneye Oliver, you have asked a profound question most humans face but don’t articulate sufficiently to evoke a fellow-citizen’s answer. If Quora deletes my response they have abused your creativity, but you can find it at cipbr.blogspot.com, weekly ending 10/31/20/.

To address your question, first, accept that you are a human individual with the power, energy, and authority (HIPEA) to develop humble-integrity and to uniquely perfect the practice. Let me give you an example from my experience.

I was reared Southern Baptist, but by age 10 read deeply what I chose to read. The last couple verses in the New Testament impressed me:  No God I would follow is so weak as to feel he or she must threaten me. Nevertheless, Dad and Mom were each such good providers (yet conflicting in their Christian beliefs) that I continued to try to force Phil Beaver in to the person(s) my loving parents envisioned.

Trusting myself more than my Protestant community, 53-years ago, I risked the attraction I felt to a Louisiana French-Catholic woman, now my wife in our 51^st-year. I did not know then, what attracted me, but it is her serene confidence.

Our intentions to family-monogamy for life inspired me to write and humbly share the experience. In the late 1990s, I published a proposal to amend the First Amendment so as to encourage human independence rather than defend religious institutions. I frequently reference that article. Just now, it is the third URL under the Bing search, "A civic people"+"let's revise the first amendment".

In my late 80s, I am just now connecting the dots from an ancient Sumerian thinker’s suggestion in Genesis 1:28 that man and woman are charged to constrain chaos in their lives; to 400 AD Bible canonization; to Magna-Carta’s 1215 empowerment of the Catholic Church-Parliament partnership; to Nicolo Machiavelli’s 1513 “The Prince,” Chapter XI theory of believer-sustained church-state partnership;  to Martin Luther’s Protest in 1517; to Parliament’s 1689 Bill of Rights’ Protestant king in perpetuity; to the Continental Congress’s 1774 Articles of Association decrying “Quebec . . . hostility against the free Protestant colonies”; to the USAs 1776 appeal “to the Supreme Judge of the world”; to the 1787 U.S. Constitution affirming the humble-integrity in the Declaration; to Congress’s 1791 arrogance and tyranny: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Neither the Supreme Judge of the world nor the preamble’s We the People of the United States authorized Congress to religiously constrain Congress. President George Bush observed that the First Amendment does not restrict the administrative branch; in 2000, he created “Faith-based Policy” with eleven federal functions. I cannot imagine a Supreme Court that would rely on religion to defy the Supreme Judge of the world and therefore expect to observe reform soon.

I intend to live to witness We the People of the United States demand amendment of the First Amendment so as to encourage humble-integrity rather than religious hubris. (I accept that a human doesn’t always get what he or she wants.)

Thank you for the opportunity to share a four decades quest and the re-discovery of “the Supreme Judge of the world,” whatever-it-is, the 1776, neglected U.S. benefactor along with the providence of France. Without you, Oliver, this post would not exist. If there are no objections, I will add your name and 10/27/20 to my appreciations page.

Let’s amend the First Amendment to encourage humble-integrity in the United States.

quora.com/Why-does-Aristotle-believe-that-a-human-being-lives-well-when-she-he-acts-rightly-and-possesses-all-virtues-both-intellectual-and-those-relating-to-good-character?

Infidelity to fellow-citizens begs woe, so it is in each person’s self-interest to develop humble-integrity.

https://www.quora.com/Does-humanity-have-the-instruments-of-thought-to-understand-the-complex-interdynamics-of-individual-psychological-and-collective-cultural-development?

Update, 10/27/20: Whereas in the past I focused on the popular, introductory phrases in the USAs 1776 declaration of independence from England, e.g., “Nature and Nature’s God,” I read the conclusion again. The representatives of “the good People” appealed “to the Supreme Judge of the world” to measure reliability of their intentions.

Now, I perceive “whatever-God-is” as theological hubris and don’t advocate it. I reformed.

Nothing in the 1787 U.S. Constitution lessens the humble-integrity that is expressed in the 1776 declaration.

https://www.quora.com/In-two-sentences-explain-how-important-ethics-is-in-communication?

In two sentences, explain how important ethics is in communication?

Ineluctably-good citizens do not lie so as to lessen the human misery and loss that comes from infidelity.

https://www.quora.com/Which-ethical-standard-do-you-prepare-to-adhere-to-Write-it-in-at-least-100-words-minimum?

Which ethical standard do you prepare to adhere to?

I accept being a human and choose to develop humble-integrity rather than tolerate infidelity. For living, physics (and its progeny, including human, psychological maturity) seems more reliable than God or reason. I accept a Sumerian suggestion in Genesis 1:28:  Woman and man is charged to constrain chaos on earth. I accept the human’s individual power, individual energy, and individual authority (HIPEA) to practice humility. I intend humble-integrity to peak before my unique body, mind, and person stop functioning.

Sorry:  I only reached 78 of the 100 word minimum.

https://www.quora.com/Are-there-any-websites-that-have-freedom-of-speech?

Are there any websites that have freedom of speech?

No.

If you sincerely want to express yourself without constraint, I suggest creating your own blog. I maintain 4 blogs. I like it if people view them, but do not fret when they don’t. What’s important to me is responding to civic fellow-citizens who collaborate for statutory human justice in life.

Even Quora cannot accept the good of allowing civic fellow citizens to communicate, without introducing rules for subjective enforcement. They want reliability, which seems too much to demand:  Scholarly references are not reliable. For example, Albert Einstein expressed that research without humility is lame; humility without research is blind. However, those are not his words and my interpretation draws on a complete opinion of Einstein’s failure by writing what he thought the audience wanted rather than what he wanted to express. I have not enough remaining decades to research reliability of my claim about Einstein, yet mine is a worthy impression IMO.

In another example, no one comments on my discovery that the 1774 founders, in the 1776 declaration of independence from England, appealed to “the Supreme Judge of the world” for reliability of their intentions. Nothing in the 1787 framers’ draft U.S. Constitution lessens the humble-integrity the founders expressed. However, the First Congress defied both We the People of the United States as described in the preamble and the Supreme Justice of the world when they unconstitutionally gave themselves authority to hire factional-Protestant chaplains and in 1791 codify “freedom of religion.”  “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The 1776 “the good People” expressed humble-integrity but Congress arbitrarily imposes religion. Let’s see if anyone publishes my proposal to amend the First Amendment to encourage civic integrity. In these parts, accepting Anglo-American, Chapter XI Machiavellianism, fellow citizens stonewall humble-integrity.

I post my comments on the blog cipbr.blogspot.com. Also, I post dialogues I especially want to share on Facebook.

Law professors

https://lawliberty.org/book-review/natural-rights-and-religious-conscience

Professor Munoz kindly concludes “[The book] fails to fully explain the “radical significance” of the Founders’ constitutionalism when it comes to the free exercise of religion.”

This does not seem accurate:  Writing “the Founders’ constitutionalism” seems to both lessen the 1774 colonial work for independence-from-England and to oppose the U.S. framers’ 1787 affirmation of the American integrity that was recorded in 1776.

England had suffered Catholic abuse until the 13th Century Magna Carta controversially divided powers between the king and a church-state-partnership in Parliament, leaving commoners out of the mixed government. But after Martin Luther, England changed to Protestantism with the 1689 Bill of Rights, with commoners still subjects.

American colonists were mostly former European, factional-American Protestants with Catholics in Maryland and in Nova Scotia---the could-have-been 14^th eastern-seaboard state.

In 1776, the founders expressed the USA’s humble-integrity by appealing to “the Supreme Judge of the world” for representatives’ intentions for “the good People.” In 1787, the framers wrote nothing that would contest humble-integrity by the U.S. republic. Only the 1791 Congress took the hubris to impose civil Anglo-American Christianity. We the People of the United States in 2020 may hold Congress and now the U.S. Supreme Court accountable for this tyranny over the minds of scholars and citizens who read them uncritically.

From Wikipedia, “According to natural law theory, all people have inherent rights, conferred not by act of legislation but by "God, nature, or reason.”

After 24 more decades of discovery, we may view “nature” as physics and its progeny, including psychology. Civic citizens don’t lie so as to lessen misery and loss more than to follow a divine rule. We know that physics does not respond to reason. Also, it seems clear, as a Sumerian thinker expressed in Genesis 1:28, that humankind is charged with constraining chaos in the creation. Only living citizens can effect peace.

Let’s amend the First Amendment so as to encourage humble-integrity rather than religious hubris.

Notable writers I won’t read

https://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Belief-Conscience-Significance-Inalienable/dp/0195305817

“Pulitzer Prize-winning author Jack Rakove tracks the unique course of religious freedom in America.”

Perhaps Pulitzer promotes a cult of scholarly bias toward a political agenda. The real story is told in American documents: 1774 enslavement of the “free Protestant colonies”; 1776 appealing to “the Supreme Judge of the world” for confederacy reliability in declaring independence from England; 1787 maintenance of humble-integrity in domestic constitutional Union rather than confederacy; 1791 imposition of Anglo-American religion by tradition.

The Articles of Association, May 20, 1774: “[T]he present unhappy situation of our affairs is occasioned by a ruinous system of colony administration, adopted by the British ministry about the year 1763, evidently calculated for enslaving these colonies . . . for raising a revenue in America, for depriving the American subjects, in many instances, of the constitutional trial by jury . . . also an act for extending the province of Quebec . . . thus, by the influence of civil principles and ancient prejudices, to dispose the inhabitants to act with hostility against the free Protestant colonies.”

https://twitter.com/i/events/1320955846713458690 

The transparency of some supreme stupidity is amazing! Justices ought to develop self-appreciation. The voter has the responsibility to assure timely delivery of his or her vote. Physically, presence before closing time is adequate, but who stands in line at a closed door?

9:25 AM · Oct 27, 2020·Twitter Web App

 

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.

Quora obsoletely censors people’s dialogues

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

 Quora obsoletely sensors people’s dialogues

Some people pose profound questions on quora.com. Some civic people choose to respond, creating a potential conversation. Quora, erroneously imagining its reliability, wants writers to pretend they know rather than think in creative spontaneity.

I suppose the owner wants "reliability" more than possible creativity when two humans with humble-integrity engage each other. Such people do not need the human constructs of “knowledge.” Any proprietary unreliability of their thoughts is subjective. Did Socrates agree with me that goodness is sufficient and does not need the aura of “divinity?” In other words, did Socrates advocate sufficient humility toward the Supreme Judge of the world (1776 Declaration of Independence) as more precious than nourishing a personal God? Who cares what Socrates thought: one philosopher’s divinity is another’s evil. That's not to say I regret the little I have read about Socrates (he did not write).

In responding to fellow-citizens' creative questions, I have no time for Quora's desire to compete: “In that sense Quora is not reliable. But a good question can reliably get a wide range of responses, and that is nearly always interesting at least. But unless people are prepared to offer references or links to other reliable sources, much of the material posted as answers and discussion can be hard to verify.” 

If readers want a source that is designed for proprietary reliability, Wikipedia has that objective. In other words, Wikipedia sacrifices the spontaneous creativity of unconstrained dialogue for traditional "reliability," which often is unreliable. But Quora has value to civic citizens' unconstrained dialogue.

When it comes to civic citizens in conversation to discover statutory justice as a means to a better future, there is no reliability: only creativity in a world that has fallen to an abyss respecting humble-integrity. Even the U.S. Supreme Court followed Congress's lead. Congress turned their back on the Supreme Judge of the World so as to favor the latest Judeo-Christianity or other human construct based on controversial Anglo-American tradition.

My Quora responses during any week will be recorded in this blog, as long as I work to respond.

Quora

https://academyofideas.com/?s=Self; https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-meaning-of-self-for-Socrates-Plato-Augustine-Descartes-hume-kant-ryle-meleau-ponty-aristotle-and-Aquinas-After-doing-so-can-you-explain-how-your-concepts-of-self-are-compatible-with-how-they-conceived-of?

What is the meaning of self for Socrates, Plato, Augustine, Descartes, hume, kant, ryle, meleau-ponty, aristotle, and Aquinas? After doing so, can you explain how your concepts of self are compatible with how they conceived of the self?

The question: What are listed philosophers’ meanings of self? What do I think?

Perhaps like the group Aquinas, Kant, and Hume, I think the self is body, mind, and person. My concept differs from them in that I think body& mind-wellness, together with intention, empowers the person to perfect their unique-self before dying. Think of “be all you can be”.

Individual philosopher study:

Socrates - Soul

Plato - Soul in 3 parts: desires, awareness of reason, and anger toward injustice

Augustine - recognizing and responding-to God's love (there is no self? the person is God’s property (Locke)?)

Descartes - The mind is what matters.

Hume - Psychologically balancing interrelated perceptions

Kant - Consciousness: both internal and external

Ryle - Mindless behaviors caused by the physical workings of the body

Meleau-Ponty - Embodied subjectivity rather than mental reasoning

Aristotle - Embodied capacity for self-sustenance, growth, and reproduction

Aquinas - Response to experiences of objects in our environment.

Grouping my perceptions of their philosophies:

Soul only: Socrates

Body, mind, and soul: Plato

Accepting God’s love, or mind only: Augustine and

Mind only: Descartes

Civic perception: Aquinas, Hume, Kant

Body only: Ryle, Meleou-Ponty

Body and mind: Aristotle, Aquinas.

It seems the philosophers you listed may be grouped according to the self being one of the following: soul only; mind only; body only; body and mind; body, mind and soul, civic body and mind, and God’s property. Self as body and mind seems “person” to which some philosophers attach soul. Perhaps self is body and mind in appreciation of other persons who develop responsible independence. The groups might then be Socrates; Descartes; Ryle; Meleau-Ponty and Aristotle; Plato; and Aquinas, Hume, and Kant. Augustine attempts to displace appreciation with love and impose God on consequences of human choice; he thus stands alone. Perhaps for Augustine, the person who does not love God is not a human-being.

The self is the accumulation of individual choices during a person’s unique lifetime. The human being has the individual opportunity, the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (HIOPEA) to either develop humble-integrity toward his or her unique person or accommodate infidelity.

The person may monitor their humble-integrity by discovering and responsibly applying the laws of physics and its progeny, such as biology, psychology, and economics. For example, a person of humble-integrity does not lie, in order to reduce human misery and loss rather than to obey some rule.

Perhaps physics and its progeny inspired “the founders” in their 1776 declaration of independence from England “to appeal to the Supreme Judge of the world” for humility of their intentions. Early in the document, they grounded authority on “Nature and Nature’s God”, following John Locke’s claim that by “nature” human-being is a property of God.

When body, mind, and person stop functioning, the person achieved psychological maturity that may be measured by the humble-integrity and good-humor he or she achieved with the accumulated choices and the chronological path so generated. The person who is encouraged and coached in these principles may mature faster than others. I don’t think it has been tried.

Perhaps the achievement-standard for the individual human-being is the efficiency by which they comprehend& practice responsible-human-independence (RHI). On the other hand, the standard may be set by the consequences of human decisions. Either way, the controller of consequences of each human choice might be called “the-High-God” to facilitate conversation with people who have a personal-God.

Perhaps my conception conflicts least with the group Aquinas, Kant, and Hume. What do you think? I think my conception conforms to the 1787 U.S. Constitution and Ralph Waldo Emerson’s message to the human-being: Jesus advised us to perfect our person before death. Emerson perceived Jesus a man: I prefer to consider the metaphysical Jesus, without constraint beyond civic-connections.

quora.com/What-is-truth-Is-truth-absolute-How-about-the-existence-of-our-conscience-It-seems-that-from-culture-to-culture-every-human-being-has-a-single-or-unified-version-of-what-is-right-and-what-is-wrong-Does-it-really?

What is truth? Is truth absolute How about the existence of our conscience? It seems that from culture to culture every human being has a single or unified version of what is right and what is wrong. Does it really prove that truth is absolute?

Actual-reality exists and evolves. Additionally, humankind’s perception improves with new instruments of perception and with discovery. The object of research is physics and its progeny such as biology.

Research applies to the-ineluctable-evidence of physics, and the first step is to discover that a concern is a mirage rather than actual reality. In that case, the discovery is recorded and awaits new instruments of perception that would reverse the conclusion. If the-ineluctable-evidence affirms actual-reality, the research turns to the responsible option to benefit from the discovery.

The consequence of the research is regarded as the-objective-truth, subject to new instruments of perception. Eventually, the-objective-truth fits well with the interconnected discoveries, and the theory may be regarded as the-literal-truth. Appreciating the power of invention, sufficient humility is reserved in order to approach the-ineluctable-truth.

At any time in humankind’s quest our construct, “absolute truth,” may yield to the-ineluctable-truth.

I write to learn and hope you will comment. If Quara censors our conversation, you may find it on my weekly blog, cipbr.blogspot.com, for the Saturday ending this week.

quora.com/unanswered/Hello-everyone-I-m-a-native-Russian-I-want-to-try-make-a-podcast-I-was-wondering-what-topics-would-you-be-interested-in-listening-to?

A sincere interpretation of the preamble to the U.S. Constitution.

My interpretation today is: Phil Beaver practices the five disciplines—-integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity—-“in order to” encourage responsible human independence “to ourselves and our Posterity.”

https://www.quora.com/What-about-inner-peace-is-not-possible-if-our-personal-values-contradict-one-or-more-universal-values/answer/Phil-Beaver-1

Update on 10/22/2020: since writing this, I read the conclusion of the 1776 declaration of independence from England without my usual influence from the early phrase “Nature and Nature’s God.” I accepted “the good People” appealing to “the Supreme Judge of the world” as a better expression than “whatever-God-is,” since the judge, whatever-that-is, could be physics and its progeny. Now, “the good People” is known as “We the People of the United States” and we can demand amendment of the First Amendment in order to encourage humble-integrity rather than support religious businesses.

https://www.quora.com/unanswered/Why-are-ethical-guidelines-used-by-researchers?

Research without humble-integrity is lame; humble-integrity without research is blind. (Adapted from quote by Albert Einstein.)

https://www.quora.com/Which-are-the-most-incredible-and-controversial-inaccuracies-and-or-falsehoods-that-continue-to-be-taught-in-school-as-true-events?

Which are the most incredible and controversial inaccuracies and/or falsehoods that continue to be taught in school as true events?

That the USA is a democracy based on freedom of religion and speech is error if not mendacity. The U.S. is a constitutional republic, expresses humility toward the Supreme Judge of the world, and constrains speech that may cause harm.

 

Beginning in 1763 and British-homeland taxation of the 14 colonies on the eastern seaboard of America, colonists attracted to the independence they had enjoyed began violent resistance. In 1774, 12 of the 14 met and formed a confederation of 13 states, all factional-American-Protestant, with resistance to both the Church of England and Catholicism. A faction also wanted freedom from responsibility for slavery but could not dominate the discussion, with 8 slave-states to 5 non-slave states.

In 1776, representatives declared independence from England on behalf of “the good People” and “appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world” for reliability. This was a clear statement of humble-integrity. With providence from France, the Continental Congress won the revolutionary war, and the 13 free and independent states signed the 1783 Treaty of Paris.

They tried to survive as the confederation until 1787, when 12 states sent delegates to create domestic order as a union of states. Instead, the framers proffered a constitutional republic with a national government held accountable by disciplined citizens in their states. Nothing in the 1787 Constitution lessens the humble-integrity expressed on behalf of “the good People,” who are re-titled “We the People of the United States.” Fellow-citizens who do not accept the disciplines therein divide themselves as dissident fellow citizens. Some of the 16 framers who did not sign on September 17, 1787 were dissident.

At least 2 of the 9 state-ratification conventions agreed on the condition that the first elected Congress add a Bill of Rights. Beginning in 1789, Congress rebuked the Supreme Judge of the world by re-establishing an English-style church-state partnership but with unconstitutional, factional-Protestant Congressional-Chaplains instead of the Church of England, a constitutional partnership. In 1791, Congress codified its tyranny in the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Nothing in either the 1776 Declaration of Independence or the 1787 Constitution authorizes Congress to turn its back on the Supreme Judge of the world.

Citizens who, like me have private motivations and inspirations, yet develop the humble-integrity for civic, civil, and legal living, reserve sufficient appreciation for the Supreme Judge of the world. In some cases justice is expressed by allied military power, such as France’s providence to the 1781 Continental Army.

And this is consistent with an ancient Sumerian thought expressed in Genesis 1:28. Man and woman are charged to constrain chaos on earth. In essence, it was obvious even in pre-history that the Supreme Judge of the world or equal holds humankind responsible for peace.

Citizens who agree that Congress imposed the tyranny of religion in the First Amendment may write now to their Congressional representatives demanding that they amend the First Amendment so as to encourage the people to develop humble-integrity for living rather than subscribe to religious institutions that promise favorable afterdeath---that vast time after body, mind, and person cease functioning.

I answer fellow-citizens’ questions that seem inviting for my expressions; I appreciate their creativity. I don’t know the-ineluctable-truth. I write spontaneously. If Quara censors our conversation, you may find it on my weekly blog, cipbr.blogspot.com, for the Saturday ending this week.

https://www.quora.com/What-does-freedom-from-fear-mean?

What does freedom from fear mean?

It means two conditions for me. First, to acquire resolve: I applied humble-integrity to discover the actual-reality of a concern, dismissed any mirages, eliminated lesser options for responsibly benefiting from the discovery, acquired the means to benefit, shared my intentions with affected fellow-citizens so as to learn and consider mistakes they perceive, and am alert to take action and accept the consequences. Second, I want to consider changing my mind if my wife disagrees.

I answer questions fellow-citizens pose that seem particularly inviting for my expressions; I appreciate their creativity. (I don’t know the-ineluctable-truth.) I write spontaneously, sometimes using words and phrases I have written before. Sometimes, quora deletes my responses for their reasons. I do not care to appeal their censorship. If they delete our conversation, you will be able to find it on my blog, cipbr.blogspot.com for the Saturday ending this week.

https://www.quora.com/Is-there-a-science-that-deals-with-morals?

Is there a science that deals with morals?

I can’t answer for “science”, a process for discovering the-ineluctable-truth by researching the evidence.

The 1776 declaration of independence from England appeals to “the Supreme Judge of the world” for reliability of intentions for “the good People.” An ancient thinker expressed in Genesis 1:28 that man and woman are to constrain chaos on earth.

Revelation, codes, reason, laws, and other human constructs generate chaos. However, humankind can discover how to benefit from the-ineluctable-evidence that is discovered and continually improved through new instruments of perception:  Mankind continually improves its view of the-objective-truth. The interrelated discoveries create a theory of the-literal-truth, which ultimately points to the-ineluctable-truth.

The object of human work is safety and security on earth so that each person who accepts being a human being may responsibly pursue the happiness they individually want rather than a life someone else would impose on them, even in humble-integrity.

The journal of humankind’s development of humble-integrity is a code of human ethics or human morality. The closest reference I know of for this journal is Wikipedia, and that is why that is one of my annual voluntary contributions of small money and time (when I observe an inaccuracy). A philosophy encyclopedia, for example, https://plato.stanford.edu/, is another reliable study of recorded thought about a topic. Often, I am bewildered by its abundance of thought. Consider, for example, “truth.”

I write to learn, so please comment.

I answer questions fellow-citizens pose that seem particularly inviting for my expressions; I appreciate their creativity. (I don’t know the-ineluctable-truth.) I write spontaneously to creative questions, sometimes using words and phrases I have written before. Sometimes, quora deletes my responses for their reasons. I do not care to appeal or debate their censorship. For the time being, I plan to post on quora. If they delete my response to you, you will be able to find it on my blog, cipbr.blogspot.com for the week ending October 24, 2020. Eventually, that may be the only cite for my quora-responses.

https://www.quora.com/Does-truth-spring-from-argument-amongst-friends-Why?

Does truth spring from argument amongst friends? Why?

First, let me say that http://quora.com censors some of my responses, all of which are spontaneous and motivated by what seems to me sincerity by the questioner. Quora’s reasons for censoring seem obsolete and indefensible. However, I have neither the remaining life-time nor the desire to submit to quora propriety. I feel quora is capitalizing on your creative questions but accepting bad lawyerly advice.

Now, to your inspiring question, my first thought is that “truth” became an inadequate word long ago. What people need is the-ineluctable-truth, which may be approached only through humble-integrity. That’s a form of personal-integrity that relies on physics and its progeny to measure reliability. Thus, research may discover the-objective-truth, improve on the perception with new inventions so as to approach the-literal-truth, and through the interrelated theories perhaps ultimately approach the-ineluctable-truth. Ineluctably good people do no lie, because they appreciate that the laws of physics reliably deliver ruin when an individual invites woe.

The most common lie is to fail to say, “I do not know,” when that is so. Therefore a conversation with another human is diminished to the extent that the parties pretend to express opinion as the-objective-truth or better. Statistically, friends are likely to fail their “I don’t knows” in the same direction, so their conversation may not help either party discover the-objective-truth. People commonly discuss “God,” never realizing they are talking two different entities. Enemies are not likely to converse without lying.

If then when enemies express individual opinion without constraint, there is a possibility for both parties to consider Idea A, then Idea B, and create Idea C, which seems to meet the opponents’ individual needs in a way neither party imagined.

For example, if I had the chance to discuss never lose “under God” with President Trump, I would ask, do you mean never lose “appeal to the Supreme Judge of the world?” Accepting the reliability claim of the 1776 Declaration of Independence, I think Trump would say, “Yes.” Trump seems to be a person who develops humble-integrity at an awesome pace. He knows that an individual can pursue spiritual hopes and dreams and at the same time practice civic integrity among living people.

Iterative consideration can be applied by friends if each looks for opportunities to improve the other’s grounding for a shared opinion. Thus, nuance C’ addresses nuance C, and together, the friends create Idea D. If they then communicate with the proponents of Idea A and Idea B, the four might debate C and D and create Idea E.

Returning to quora-censoring, I have used some phrases I used before. My earlier posts can be researched on the key words and phrases. For example, searching Chrome on “Phil Beaver”+“the-ineluctable-truth” yields the first six URLs referencing my work, one with several hits. Using Bing yields only one URL. Bing also finds one URL for the search "Phil Beaver"+“humble-integrity” and many on Chrome. Many hits are gathered under quora.

If quora wants to be an arbitrary censor to public conversation based on creative questions and empathetic work to respond, that’s fine with me. But I will not continue to spend my time to support quora revenues from individual’s creative questions.

By my count, this is my second clear statement of my situation. With the next deletion of my work to respond to a question, I will take my humble-integrity elsewhere.

https://www.quora.com/How-can-we-understand-the-infinite-when-the-majority-of-us-look-to-the-facts-of-the-finite-to-give-us-what-we-consider-to-be-reasonable-facts?

How can we understand the infinite when the majority of us look to the facts of the finite to give us what we consider to be reasonable facts?

It seems your question touches the meaning of human life, a question which, thinking with an essence from Ralph Waldo Emerson’s writing, is renewed each time a person accepts that he or she is a human being. Fortunate are the persons who accept being human. Also, I am reminded of an essence from Albert Einstein:  Integrity without posterity is blind: posterity without integrity is lame. That is to say, living adults reserve sufficient humility toward ineluctable-evidence their descendants will discover.

We may benefit from the 1774 USA founders’ encounter with humility in the words of the 1776 Declaration of Independence. The founders expressed humble-integrity toward whatever controls the unfolding of the world’s events, with four Deist phrases: “nature’s God,” “Creator,” “the Supreme Justice of the world,” and “Providence.” They claimed to reliably represent “the good People.” They claimed freedom and independence on their “Fortunes [and] sacred Honor.”

With victory in hand, the Continental Congress failed to unite the confederation of 13 free and independent states, and framers from 12 states met to propose a Union. Nothing in the framers’ 1787 U.S. Constitution lessens the humble-integrity of the 1776 founders’ declaration. However, only 39 of 55 framers signed the Constitution on September 17, eleven days after the Committee of Style received the preamble and added a people’s purpose, in my interpretation: public discipline “in order to” develop responsible human independence “to ourselves and our Posterity.” The articles provide posterity the means to amend the constitution when injustice is discovered and reform is comprehended.

Unfortunately, the First Congress, authorized by the conditional 9-states’ ratification, unconstitutionally constrained Congress. That is to say, the people do not authorize Congress to constrain itself.  “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” By this amendment, Congress defies both the good People and “the Supreme Judge of the world” and distracts fellow citizens who work to establish humble-integrity. So far, the good People tolerate this tyranny over their lives and their posterity.

People who choose to think they are human beings are awed by the prospect of procreation. They attend to wellness, aware that their bodies and minds produce gametes. They enter spousal intimacy after bonding for life. The spouses benefit from 4 family-traditions in humble-integrity, each from their 4 parents and their ancestors. The spouses include their children in monogamy for life; their grandchildren will benefit from family-fidelity to their family-traditions.

Having been reared in family-monogamy according to diverse humility, spouses know that a life worth living prepares their descendants to discover ultimate-integrity.

We, the good People of the year 2020, especially those of us who are part of We the People of the United States, can restore 1776’s humble-integrity toward the Supreme Judge of the world. First, we can amend the First Amendment so as to promote civic integrity, leaving religion to privacy.

I feel hopeful Mr. President will lead this reform, as well as President George W. Bush’s recognition that the First Amendment restricts only Congress, as soon as the awareness emerges from the fog.

Law professors

https://lawliberty.org/the-duty-to-monitor-diversity-training

“The point here is not to reject diversity training.” Perhaps it should be. Diversity training is an imposition on the privacy of human integrity. It is sufficient for an individual to appreciate each global-citizen’s personhood.

 

 Also, a more urgent consideration for reform is the humility of the USA founders’ 1776 Declaration of Independence. For reliability to “the good People,” colonial representatives, then subjects of the Church of England, humbly appealed to “the Supreme Judge of the word.” The U.S. framers did not lessen the newly globally-independent USA's humility in the 1787 U.S. Constitution.

 

But the U.S. Congress in 1791 (unconstitutionally---without Congressional authority to interject religion) imposed civil defiance in the religion clauses of the First Amendment. Congress, the executive after President George Bush imposed faith-based-policy, and the Supreme Court who uphold legislative prayer despite my "niggling" may reform to encourage humble-integrity---reform twenty-first century pride to 1776 sufficient-humility. James Madison ought to turn over, wherever his afterdeath is. And the Knights of Columbus (1954s “under God”) may consider sufficient humility toward the Supreme Judge of the world “in order to” secure the civic privacy to enjoy their salvation during their afterdeaths.

 

Erroneous political correctness is not new. The Supreme Judge of the world self-evidently holds human individual men and women responsible to constrain chaos on earth (Genesis 1:28). The Apostle John erred to accuse non-Christians of practicing hate (John 15:18-23). Citizens in 2020 need not follow John to believe in Jesus. And Martin Luther King Jr. erred to ignore the Ethiopian Tewahedo Bible, canonized in 360 AD; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodox_Tewahedo_biblical_canon.  

Comment on book review

https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R29PYVZH8O4CKN/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_rvw_btm?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B00BPJOC7W#wasThisHelpful

To: reviewer Jacqueline Simon Gunn:

I am grateful that you shared Fromm distinctions, -to and -from, which are similar to my expressions:  The preamble to the U.S. Constitution proffers individual public discipline for freedom-from arbitrary oppression "in order to" encourage the responsible individual-independence to-practice  humble-integrity among living and future citizens. 

The summer of the year 2020 convinced me that "liberty-to" would forever be interpreted by some as the license-to hurt fellow citizen. In promoting use of the preamble to self-discipline civic, civil, legal, and private living, I replaced "responsible human liberty" with "responsible human independence." When my crowd expresses their liberty-to harm other people or civic associations, I want the independence to leave the scene and report my crowd to first responders.

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.