Humble integrity

 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

Humble integrity

Human integrity seems the practice of reliability to personal commitments; that is, intolerance toward infidelity to self.

Humankind is capable of more: humble integrity accepts that other humans are also capable of human integrity. Humans can connect to each develop humble integrity toward the-ineluctable-truth.

For example, a person who believes St. John’s hate message in John 15:18-23 can converse with a person who believes in reincarnation. They can both accept sufficient humility toward “the Supreme Judge of the world”* to hold precious for each other the other’s pursuit of soul-salvation while collaborating to constrain chaos on earth (Genesis 1:28). They can reject St. John’s hate expression.

^* The U.S.A. Declaration of Independence from England (1776).

Quora

https://www.quora.com/Should-we-settle-for-moral-relativism-or-aim-for-moral-universalism?

Should we settle for moral relativism or aim for moral universalism?

It seems to me your question is too broad for an individual to adjudicate, primarily because of the verb “settle” which could mean “license” rather than “accept.” If I may, I will answer based on “accept.”

First, the human being has no choice but to accept that each fellow-citizen has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (HIPEA) to develop either integrity or tolerance for infidelity to self. Thus, there will always be individuals who pursue infidelity.

Second, the human being may accept that he or she is a person with the independence to develop either responsibly or not. For responsibility, they must develop discipline sufficient to manage their civic, civil, legal, and private behaviors so as to pursue private happiness. In other words, prevent or minimize infidelity-consequences in their lifetime. That is to say, their HIPEA cannot be consigned to another entity, such as the other human, a demi-god, a government, or a personal God. Whether they pursue the mystery of soul or not, they reserve sufficient humility toward “the Supreme Judge of the world” (1776 Declaration of Independence).

Third, the person who applies HIPEA to develop integrity may imagine perfecting his or her unique being before afterdeath, that vast time after body, mind, and person stop. Jesus may have observed this about humans and the people who wrote about him did not understand. I think Agathon spoke about it in 360 BC (Plato’s “Symposium”).

I think individuals should aid the development of human equity under statutory justice. Equity and justice imply conservation of human life. And just as an individual may perfect his or her unique life through integrity, humankind can approach perfection by accepting HIPEA.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-a-matter-of-opinion-and-a-matter-of-fact?

Came to me as “How do we distinguish opinions from the truth?”

Accept that your person is a human being.

Accept that every human being has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (HIPEA) to develop integrity rather than accept infidelity to his or her person.

Facing each issue, do the work to discover whether the concern is actual-reality or a mirage. If mirage, file the-objective-truth you uncovered. If actual, do the work to learn how to responsibly benefit. Behave for benefit and share with other people your reasons, listening for possible improvements that may aid you. Remain open-minded to new discovery that requires change.

Accept that with practice you may perfect your person before death arrives.

https://www.quora.com/Is-it-possible-that-true-forgiveness-is-one-of-society-s-most-basic-and-fundamental-values?

Is it possible that true forgiveness is one of society’s most basic and fundamental values?

Yes.

And egregiously, churches hide this point perhaps to suppress the quid-pro-quo of “the Lord’s Prayer”. (I read the Bible as literature.)

See for example the liturgy of the mass (https://www.xavier.edu/jesuitresource/online-resources/prayer-index/catholic-prayers):

“Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be
thy name. Thy kingdom come, thy will be done,
on earth, as it is in heaven. Give us this day our
daily bread and forgive us our trespasses as we
forgive those who trespass against us; and lead us
not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.”

Compare the Bible text, Matthew 6:9-13, 14, NIV:

“This, then, is how you should pray:

“‘Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,
¹⁰ your kingdom come,
your will be done,
    on earth as it is in heaven.
¹¹ Give us today our daily bread.
¹² And forgive us our debts,
    as we also have forgiven our debtors.
¹³ And lead us not into temptation,^[a]
    but deliver us from the evil one.^[b]’

 

¹⁴ For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.

The Church version hides the quid-pro-quo of forgiveness.

Forgiveness benefits the victim rather than the offender.

https://www.quora.com/When-can-you-say-that-you-are-morally-accountable-for-your-actions-Explain-and-give-an-example?

When can you say that you are morally accountable for your actions? Explain and give an example.

In my understanding, 1941 political philosopher Albert Einstein suggested that physics and integrity conform to the same laws. His only example is that ineluctably good people don’t lie so as to lessen human misery and loss rather than to follow some rule. In my experience, each adult human has encountered this lesson in his or her own experiences and observations, and some individuals and societies reject it.

Every human being is challenged by the unknown. Whereas, each human has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (HIPEA) to develop integrity, many choose to tolerate infidelity to their person. Integrity is the practice of behaving according to the-ineluctable-truth (TET). When TET is unknown, and no action is required, the person waits for discovery. If action is required, the person behaves according to the-objective-truth, observed from ineluctable evidence. For example, a people does not declare independence from colonial status without reliable cause.

The patriots of the N. American war for independence, “the good People,” appealed “to the Supreme Judge of the world” for reliability in their complaints against England. They tacitly declared independence from the Catholic versus Protestant wars that plagued Europe and especially England’s kings until the 1689 Bill of Rights required Protestantism. In particular, they ended allegiance to England’s Trinity.

Note that independence establishes freedom to use HIPEA to develop integrity, whereas “liberty” grants license from a constraining authority. It seems only the discipline of independence can secure “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

The patriots were a 40% minority among people who were 80% Christian (not counting any Ethiopian Tewahedo Christians among the slaves, which seems possible and perhaps not yet indicated by DNA; https://www.newscientist.com/article/2249839-how-the-slave-trade-left-its-mark-in-the-dna-of-people-in-the-americas/). The Christian inhabitants opposed Catholicism and consequently Nova Scotia was not the 14^th colony (with other reasons as well); https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11135a.htm.

With the providence of France’s dominant military aid; battle strategy at Yorktown, VA in 1781; and money, the 13 colonies won acceptance as free and independent states (ratifying the 1783 Treaty of Paris in 1784). But they could not cooperate as a confederacy of states---needed more unity.

In 1787, 12 states sent delegates, 55 of whom framed and 39 signed the U.S. Constitution. Nothing in its articles or preamble lessens the Supreme Judge of the world, the good People, the authors of the Declaration of Independence, or the discipline required for independence.

Nine states ratified the draft, egregiously with intentions to add a Bill of Rights (Protestantism through “freedom of religion” rather than pursuit of integrity). The first Congress, 1789-1793 turned their backs on civic, civil, legal, and private independence by restoring factional-American-Protestantism and other English traditions. Civilly imposing The Trinity instead of civically encouraging independence to reserve sufficient humility toward the Supreme Judge of the world is an egregious tyranny not to be tolerated by the good People; We the People of the United States under the preamble as the individual views conformity to the-ineluctable-truth.

If I am not willing to do the work to understand Congress’ sustained tyranny against the good People, now called We the People of the United States, I can expect my posterity to suffer increasingly divergent chaos.

The U.S. chaos of 2020 seems sufficient to inspire We the People of the United States to hold Congress accountable to the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. I write to learn from fellow-citizens and would appreciate comments.

Posted on FB and Twitter.

Law professors

https://lawliberty.org/book-review/taking-liberties-with-the-history-of-freedom

Readers like me appreciate a new book inspiring scholarly outpouring Professor Hankins shares in this essay. As always, my view, biased toward 1787 Americanism rather than Anglo-American tradition motivates questions.

First, why isn’t Albert Einstein (d. 1955) recognized as a political scientist who knew more discovery than Cicero (d. 43 BC) could imagine. Grant Cicero “had true freedom: the power to live as one should want to live [under] the rule of law” and “liberty of citizens as ‘being able to live as you will.’” Einstein suggested the laws of physics and the laws of integrity are the same. Einstein’s only example was that humans don’t lie in order to meet “the demands: ‘Human life shall be preserved’ and ‘Pain and sorrow shall be lessened as much as possible.’” What mysteries are traditional scholars preserving?

Since by the fourth century BC, the Greeks saw problems with democracy, self-rule, Christian egocentrism (see hate in John 15:18-23), and the 1789 French demonstrated the harm of democratic self-government as popular tyranny, why are these concepts still the objects of traditional, scholarly debate? Why can a “democratic socialist” (De Dijn) attack the U.S. Constitution without addressing is provisions? A scholar ought not conflate the ethnic diversity of American patriots declaring war for independence from England to the democratic tyranny in France’s 1789 civil war.

In 1784, there were 13 free and independent states, formerly British colonies. It’s OK to attribute this independence to “the Founders.” However, the Framers created the 1787 U.S. Constitution and 39 of 55 framers were signers. And nothing in the framers’ 1787 Constitution lessens the founders’ claims in the 1776 Declaration of Independence.

After asserting “the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God” entitle “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” (which no government can provide) the 1776 Declaration of Independence concludes:

“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 Deist divinity-expressions directly defy English Protestantism. More basically, the expressions were Unitarian vs Trinitarian. In 1778, the confederation of states anticipated defeat and invited France’s aid. With England’s surrender to France and the states, in January, 1784, the states ratified the 1783 Treaty of Paris, which grants each of the 13 states freedom and independence.

From 1789 to 1793, Congress re-established Anglo-American religion by tradition, thereby rebuking the claims of the Declaration and the Constitution: Nature (physics and its progeny), pursuit of integrity, the Supreme Judge of the world, the good People or “We the People of the United States in order to”, the providence of France, the founder’s sacred honor, the signer’s intentions, and the benefits to “ourselves and our Posterity.” Our families are the 2020 “ourselves” and the next generation begins “our Posterity.” Congresspersons continue their tyranny of preserving Anglo-American tradition rather than encouraging development of public discipline and individual integrity as intended by the 1787 Constitution. In 2020, we have experienced fellow-citizens taking the license to harm property and persons in the name of “liberty,” and when my society takes such action I want the independence to walk away and report them.

No person I know would knowingly rebuke all its benefactors. The U.S. Congress is the only entity, other than the Church, I can name who does so. Congress ought to drop ceremonial prayer and pledge and recite in unison the preamble to the U.S. Constitution, each participant thinking of how he or she applies the preamble’s discipline and integrity in their civic, civil, legal, and private ways of living.

It is past time to restore national humility toward the Supreme Justice of the world and civic discipline by We the People of the United States “in order to” practice responsible human independence.

The writers in this forum know enough to make it happen. I hope Professor Hankins will be the first to take an active role.

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.