Restoring the 1787 U.S. intention to be humble

 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

Restoring the 1787 U.S. intention to be humble to the Supreme Judge of the world, whatever-that-is

England’s 1689 Bill of Rights requires a Protestant monarchy, and the American-British colonies resisted the Parliaments’ partnership with the Church of England. Many citizens in those colonies were from other European countries, with variations on Christianity, and majority-resistance to Catholicism.

Consequently, the 1776 Declaration of Independence expresses humility, with more general terms for the divine: Nature’s God, Creator, the Supreme Judge of the world, and Providence. Probably these choices were influenced by Deists and represented Unity rather that The Trinity. The representatives spoke for “the good People,” perhaps less than 40% who were neither pacifists nor loyalists. In the victory at Yorktown, VA in 1781, England surrendered to France and the 13 colonies.

The colonies ratified the 1783 Treaty of Paris on January 14, 1784, accepting the global recognition as 13 free and independent states. Soon, they discovered they needed a central government, so delegates from 12 states met and framed a constitutional republic with discipline by “the good People” in order to encourage the responsible human independence to hold governments accountable to statutory law.

Nothing in the 1787 U.S. Constitution or its preamble lessens the claims in the 1776 Declaration: the good People’s appeal to the Supreme Judge of the world or the providence of France joining the American revolution, or the patriots “sacred Honor.”

Egregiously, the 1789-1793 Congress restored factional-American Protestantism in order to feel as divine as Parliament with their upper house’s 26 seats for the Church of England. The patriot’s sacrifices to win independence from England was accepted physically but rejected psychologically.

The good People of 2020, now under the collective “We the People of the United States” according to the preamble, may hold Congress responsible to reform. As a first step, Congresspersons can begin their sessions with no prayer or pledge, but with unison recitation of the preamble, each Congressperson thinking of the interpretation they negotiate for their civic, civil, legal, and private way of living. Second, the First Amendment can be reformed so as to defend the individual’s right to develop human integrity rather than institution’s rights to develop religious businesses.

News

Best wishes to Mr. President and the First Lady for complete recovery from COVID-19.

Quora

https://www.quora.com/Is-lying-always-wrong-even-if-doing-so-will-cause-less-harm-than-the-truth?

Is lying always wrong, even if doing so will cause less harm than the truth?

Absolutely, ineluctably good people never lie. They behave to lessen human misery and loss.

A good illustration of the consequence of deceit is Rudyard Kipling’s “The Man Who Would Be King.” The men of a village decide the king is a god. The women bled him to prove otherwise.

I recall Ralph Waldo Emerson expressed that murder is witnessed by the walls.

In 1941, political philosopher Albert Einstein suggested that the laws of physics unveil lies.

https://www.quora.com/Is-philosophy-of-any-value-to-you-personally-and-will-it-help-your-current-status-in-life?

Is philosophy of any value to you personally, and will it help your current status in life?

Approaching my eighties, accepting that I am a human being---perhaps 3 decades ago---has been invaluable respecting judgment by willing human beings.

In my mid-forties, accepting that I have the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (HIPEA) to develop integrity rather than tolerate infidelity was and remains exhilarating, low as my status may be. And today, I am free to share online, especially when strangers ask questions that stimulate either support or opposition.

While I enjoy sharing conclusions from my experiences and observations, I realize some people find them so annoying they hope for termination of my participation. That’s OK. I welcome peace, any way it may come.

Meanwhile, life has never seemed more rewarding, and I want it to continue tapering off for another 44 years, much like this.

https://www.quora.com/Can-you-share-your-own-slogans-about-truth?

Can you share your own slogans about truth?

May I respond by creating my slogan then revising it when I agree with a reader’s suggestion for improvement?

The-ineluctable-truth charges humankind to constrain chaos.

Some of the acceptances supporting this slogan include:

Genesis 1:28 seems an ancient response to primitive speculation about the Supreme Judge of the world,* which may be physics and its progeny. In other words, the laws of physics constrain human psychology. For example, ineluctably good people don’t lie so as to lessen human misery and loss.

To accept being a human being is to accept the charge to constrain chaos during one lifetime. Humankind is the only earthly species with the language and grammar required to develop cultures; in particular, the culture of mutual, comprehensive safety and security. At the heart of this culture is minimizing energy loss, or behaving to aid economic viability. From birth, the earlier a person discovers that the existing world evolved into a confused, conflicted people, the better. Thereafter, he or she may take self-interest in developing the integrity to pursue the-ineluctable-truth. That is to say, integrity is the practice of pursuing the-ineluctable-truth.

Persons who realize the world is unreliable may soon discover that they have the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (HIPEA) to develop integrity rather than tolerate infidelity in his or her lifetime. Further, they realize that integrity is in a person’s self-interest and should be practiced and encouraged more than preached. Often, discovery of HIPEA precedes trust-in and commitment-to integrity, and therefore, many fellow-citizens tolerate infidelity to self. Therefore, “the good People” accept the responsibility to develop and enforce statutory justice. To be of the good People, a person must both want and offer statutory justice.

The Supreme Judge of the world, perhaps the laws of physics, controls the unfolding of the-ineluctable-truth. Since the universe is expanding, perception a moment later is not identical to the previous impression. Also, humankind continually invents new instruments for perception. Research is usually repressed by subjective agenda, so efficiency is obtained by dedication to the-objective-truth. When the-objective-truth is verified by the interconnected laws of physics as comprehended, the research may approach the-literal-truth. However, it seems prudent to reserve conviction that the-ineluctable-truth is known before all instruments of perception and dimensional tools are in use. In other words, reservation about commitment to the-literal-truth seems prudent.

It seems the more ineluctable-evidence humankind discovers the more research is needed. Whereas in the past, research involved human perception, exponentially needed research depends on new instruments. Preparing the land for settlement is less psychologically demanding than constraining human abortion, for example. (The religious principle that life begins at conception ignores the dignity and equity due the woman’s ova and the man’s spermatozoa:  Heterosexual partners who want intimacy must either maintain physical and psychological well-being or prevent conception.)  That is, the human psychology to constrain chaos has not kept pace with discovery of the-objective-truth and the-literal-truth.

Perhaps humankind needs to restore sufficient humility toward the Supreme Judge of the world in order to accept and approach the-ineluctable-truth, the key to constraining chaos.

:* The American minority who in 1776 declared independence from England’s constitutional church-state partnership appealed “to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions.” It seems like a war slogan: our colonial God will beat your empirical God; or our appreciation for Unity may be less erroneous than your demand for The Trinity. From the war result, it seems the minority was correct.

https://www.quora.com/how-do-you-participate-on-social-affairs-how-it-helps-you-and-society?

how do you participate on social affairs. how it helps you and society?

I answer questions I deem worth my time on quora.com and comment on select essays at lawliberty.org among other media.

I like this approach, because I am sharing my pursuit of civic integrity with someone who expressed a sincere concern rather than approaching a person or group with my concerns. I get few “upvotes” but enough to tell me some inquiries are both sincere and open-minded.

The experience improves my appreciation for people and my assumption of goodwill in public connections. When I encounter ill intentions, I move away as soon as possible. I most enjoy visitors in our home.

https://www.quora.com/Is-it-a-misuse-of-our-power-to-take-responsibility-for-solving-problems-that-belong-to-others-Why?

Is it a misuse of our power to take responsibility for solving problems that belong to others? Why?

I don’t know and don’t think so.

I think Genesis 1:28 is an ancient thought that actual-reality charges men and women to constrain chaos in their lives. For example, if their family lives in a cave and panther enters it, the man and woman must protect their children.

The British Empire was imposed on by the Vatican, off and on after Martin Luther, until in 1689 the Bill of Rights required the monarchy to be Protestant.

North America was subjected to British abuse until 1763 when they began to rebel, then formed a confederacy of states in 1774, the declared independence in 1776 with the conclusion:

“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.”

The confederation anticipated defeat and invited France’s aid. Consequently, in January, 1784, they ratified the 1783 Treaty of Paris, granting each of the 13 states freedom and independence.

The states could not domestically cooperate, so in 1787 framers from 12 states specified a constitutional republic predicated on public discipline “in order to” develop responsible human independence (my interpretation). Nothing in the 1787 Constitution or its preamble negated the 1776 “the Supreme Judge of the world”, “Authority of the good People,” providence’s use of France, or the framers’ sacred Honor.

However, Congress, in 1789-91 undertook the hubris to “prevent” themselves from acting on religion: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . .” Congress re-established factional-American Protestantism, tacitly usurping humankind’s Genesis 1:28 responsibility to constrain chaos, rebuked both the Supreme Judge of the world and the good People, and slighted France. In 1790, 99% of free citizens were factional-American-Protestants, and France was into the bloody revolution, so they paid little attention.

Both Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court codify this tyranny every chance they get. Would it be an abuse of power for a 2020 citizen to encourage We the People of the United States to both 1) revise the First Amendment in order to encourage civic integrity rather than religion and 2) to restore American humility toward the Supreme Justice of the world? I think the good People, as defined by the preamble, would be glad.

 

https://www.quora.com/If-two-wrongs-dont-make-a-right-how-did-war-make-something-right?

If two wrongs don't make a right, how did war make something right?

Ineluctably good people neither initiate nor tolerate harm to or from any person or institution.

When two wrongs inspire attack, self-defender makes-a-right if they have both the necessary military power and integrity to the-ineluctable-truth. Christian imposition of slavery in North America serves to illustrate the principles. The Christian responsibility for travesty is not accepted.

Christianity long held that slavery was a consequence of ancestral sin; living people were enslaved under the Trinity’s plan for eventual salvation. Abolitionists throughout Christianity were held to be evil for trying to accelerate the Trinity’s plan.

Under the Catholic doctrine of discovery, first Portugal then Spain received papal “authority” to colonize the Americas, converting, enslaving, or killing the indigenous peoples. As agriculture expanded, more labor was needed, so they bought African slaves and sold them to colonists. Of six European nations who participated in the Atlantic slave trade, England became the most active.

The 13 English-American colonies on America’s eastern seaboard came to realize they were being made slave-overseers and slaves to their homeland fellow-subjects, especially through taxation starting in 1763. They declared themselves free and independent states in defense against military occupation. On behalf of “the good People” they appealed to “the Supreme Judge of the world” for reliability to rebuke England’s Trinity. They enlisted the aid of France, who was already at war with England. By 1784 their status as free and independent states was ratified. But they could not get along in their confederacy.

Consequently in 1787, 12 of the 13 states’ 55 delegates met to create a domestic Union. They framed a representative republic to, in my paraphrase, discipline the good People in their states for responsible human independence. Only 39 delegates signed the document. Nothing in the 1787 U.S. Constitution lessens “the good People” or “the Supreme Judge of the world,” and authority not assigned to one of 3 branches of the Union are left to the people if they have not authorized their state. People hold their states responsible through democracy, or popular vote, and the Union through representative law or a republic.

However, the First Congress, with no authority to do so, amended the constitution so as to prevent Congress (itself) from re-instituting competitive-American-Protestantism. Thereby, Congress may feel as divine as the English Parliament with its higher house with 26 seats for the Church of England: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. This tyranny was popular, because 99% of the free citizens were factional-American Protestants.

However, it slighted each of the founders, France, the good People, and the Supreme Justice of the world as appropriate expression of humility. Congress’s constitutional-tyranny, because they could, had devastating consequences on the signers’ intentions: by 1807 and the termination of the slave trade, the next generation would perceive viability to emancipate the slaves. By re-establishing factional-American Christianity Congress initiated failures leading to the Civil War. It does not disprove Christianity but does express the prudence of humility in believing.

In 1852, Fredrick Douglass reminded fellow-citizens that they, posterity, were failing the 1787 generation. In 1854, pro-slave people imposed “Bleeding Kansas” to discourage slavery-abolitionist settlers. In 1856, R. E. Lee complained in a letter to his wife about the “evil” abolitionists trying to accelerate God’s schedule. In 1861, the CSA fired on the USA for “more erroneous religious beliefs”, starting a war with a 7 state to 27 state military disadvantage. It was white Christians of erroneous beliefs attacking white Christians who accepted the humanity of black people.

Today, America has African-American Christianity. The title seems uninviting to Europeans, so maybe it is a separatist institution; I have not read the Ethiopian Tewahedo Bible. I would not blame believers to think God is black and His people are black. That is, the Declaration of Independence’s “the good People” were the black slaves. If so, they might be prudent to express humility to the Supreme Justice of the World.

By all means, if they favor war, they must have both sufficient military might for victory and the-ineluctable-truth: Two wrongs don’t make a right.

https://www.quora.com/Where-is-the-balance-between-personal-freedom-and-public-health-safety-from-the-Covid-19-coronavirus?

Where is the balance between personal freedom and public health safety from the Covid-19 coronavirus?

I don’t know. To us, freedom is the lack of arbitrary oppression so that we can pursue fidelity to the discoverable, ineluctable truth. In other words, we work to respond to physics and its progeny rather than either doctrine or “science”.

What I do is review CDC recommendations occasionally, noting the revision date. See https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/prevention.html. I read it and think for myself. For example, they say the virus is spread mostly person-to-person, so I focus on issues related to human contact. But I’m cautions about surfaces, because they say to disinfect them. We wear washable masks and wash them after a use.

In preparing food, I re-wash my hands every time I touch a surface or package. On first washing, I scrub under each fingernail. We remove trash from the house twice a day. Our vacuum cleaner catches dirt and trash in water, so there is almost no dusting.

We leave shoes we wore for shopping or doctor visits at the door and change to house shoes. We wash the clothes we wore immediately. Also, we have a couple room UV/ozone disinfectors we run once a quarter in each room. We keep the A/C unit running so ozone-air passes through the ducts and have no idea if that helps.

The one person who works 5 days per week adds to the above routines a bath on arrival from work.

Also, we do not leave home for entertainment. We contribute to the Metropolitan Opera livestream performances and watch them, watch movies, watch news events, talk, read and write, celebrate each meal preparation, and happily argue.

Comments would be appreciated.

https://www.quora.com/Is-it-morally-right-to-shame-someone-for-making-an-offensive-joke?

Is it morally right to shame someone for making an offensive joke?

I don’t think so. I think it’s offensive.

I like to address such dilemma with appropriate acceptances.

Everything begins with accepting that you are a human being. Second, accept that you are neither omniscient nor omnipotent. Third, accept that you can develop integrity, uniformed as you may be.

Fourth, unless they prove otherwise, the other person is another unique human being, and they may be at a different yet equitable point in their development of integrity.

A good person neither initiates nor tolerates harm to or from any person or responsible association/society/institution. Thus, a good person does not tell offensive jokes. If a joke offends him or her, they say so with kindness and consideration, making certain not to impose shame. If the joke might offend other people, a question avoids shame: Are you certain that joke would not offend the implied group/person if they heard it?

Let me humiliate myself to illustrate the point. I was in an aerobics group of 3-10 people after work. We talked as we exercised. One woman, every time I said something witty rewarded me with a humorous, “You old S.O.B.” I started returning the humor with “You bitch.” No one objected.

My wife has always been witty, and it took me a quarter century to realize my frustration with her answering a question before I could express it was jealousy of her wit. I changed my mind from frustration to appreciation. But; I started saying “You bitch,” in a drawn out expression when she was extra witty. She never objected, and trust me, if she had been offended I’d know it.

At a party, a close friend asked my wife’s attitude about a political race. I expected her to understand my broad smile when I said, “That bitch! She’s going to vote against me again.” The friend convicted me of the guilt she imagined and shamed me. I’ll never forget that condemnation, even though I forgive her after my foolish assumption. I appreciate her teaching me a lesson my Mom rendered, but I did not accept nearly ¾-century ago: Phil, you trust people too much.

But not my wife: The last time I asked, she said she is bored by this obsolete-joke story.

https://www.quora.com/What-can-individuals-do-to-prevent-committing-torts?

What can individuals do to prevent committing torts?

Mr. Moreno, in my late 70s I appreciate your bringing “tort” to my attention, which it had escaped until now. I see that a lie about someone can be a tort; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort_of_deceit.

Albert Einstein informed us that the laws of physics and its progeny have the same source as the laws of human integrity (my paraphrase). His only example is that an ineluctably good person never lies, in order to lessen human misery and loss.

To benefit from political philosophy like Einstein’s a person must accept that he or she is a human being and deserves to be treated like one. This acceptance alone might be enough to avoid tort in all circumstances, due to the principle of reciprocity. Reciprocity is unlike the golden rule in that human integrity does not involve religious doctrine.

Religion is a progeny of physics only through the unknowns. That is to say, when something has not been discovered using ineluctable evidence, people can use their imaginations for reasonable speculation, create fear, recruit believers, then present them relief for a fee. For example, people on earth are manipulated from another world. If people don’t conform to that world, they’ll be punished by fire. For a fee, we’ll relieve you of that possibility. Hmmm: do I smell tort?

However, it is better for a human being to also accept the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (HIPEA) to develop integrity rather than tolerate infidelity to self. When a person practices ineluctable goodness, there’s no chance for tort.

https://www.quora.com/What-makes-philosophy-special?

What makes philosophy special?

Philosophers spend the time to examine all thoughts about a topic and not draw conclusions. You might say they present to their customers the awareness to think: Wow there’s a lot I don’t know—-facilitate much needed humility.

For example, Albert Einstein modeled the universe and his mathematics informed him that the universe is dynamic despite his opinion that it is stagnant. Lacking the humility to accept his brilliance, he introduced a “cosmological factor” to force the math to confirm his opinion. Ten years later, Edwin Hubble proved the universe is dynamic and expanding.

 

https://www.quora.com/Is-society-today-treating-men-that-unfairly-Only-The-truth-please-I-want-to-know-the-truth?

Is society today treating men that unfairly? Only The truth please I want to know the truth

I don’t know.

But first, how do you distinguish “society” from “humankind”? And why ask about fairness when integrity is what men need? And how do you expect a human to tell you the truth you seek, let alone the-ineluctable-truth?

I think humankind is allowing men to drift into infidelity to themselves by developing cultures that inculcate doctrine rather than discovery of the observable. For example, human life begins long before conception. It begins when the woman’s body delivers a viable oocyte and the man’s body delivers viable spermatozoa. For these reasons, the man and the woman need to maintain physical and psychological wellness.

The authentic woman cares for her oocytes and takes care not to mate with a wayward man. Her psychology prevents hormone releases that would invite a man to intimacy. The authentic man cannot maintain an erection when the woman has not bonded with him for life, let alone is not inviting intimacy. He is aware that she carries a crowd of potential humans.

Perhaps these two points relate more to what ought to be than what can be. However, a culture that promotes family-monogamy for life rather than adult satisfaction has not been tried.

https://www.quora.com/Is-an-absolute-truth-absolute?

Is an absolute truth absolute?

I don’t think so.

Merriam-Webster’s first usage for “truth” is “the body of real things, events, and facts: ACTUALITY.” For “absolute” there’s “perfect.”

The phrase “perfect actuality” does not seem to enhance “actuality,” and I doubt “absolute truth” convinces the listener. “Truth” begs the question, “Do you express your truth?” The response, “No, I’m talking absolute truth,” does not enhance acceptance. Ultimate truth? No. God’s truth? No.

Truth exists, and humankind’s works to discover, comprehend, and responsibly benefit. Discovery is based on ineluctable evidence of the-objective-truth. Comprehension of the discovery may be lessened by limiting tools for perception. Therefore, humankind appreciates apprehension for new instruments of discovery. In this process, the-objective-truth may advance to the-literal-truth, which is totally in concert with the interconnected discoveries. Humankind reserves acceptance of the-ineluctable-truth pending perfect instruments of perception.

I write to learn and would appreciate comments.

https://www.quora.com/unanswered/What-is-the-purpose-of-understanding-culture-society-and-political-identities?

What is the purpose of understanding culture society and political identities?

Since every person who accepts that he or she is a human being has membership in humankind, the only reason I can see is amusement, much as learning foreign languages for a hobby. I love Greek phonics and learned it rapidly when I was there, but dropped it when I came home. Of course there are benefits, but the time required to pursue the hobby lessens other accomplishments.

A friend of mine was a quintessential chemical engineer who taught at university but did not receive a PhD because he refused to take German, considering it a waste of life. He was a genius and became a multimillionaire, avid runner, and master bridge player.

Human life is for living, and each person is a unique individual. For another person to impose on him or her the civic pressure to learn another culture or political philosophy as a means of communicating to connect as human beings is uncommon arrogance and offense. For work, such as international diplomacy, yes, but for daily living, choose to learn how to practice human, individual power, energy, and authority (HIPEA) to develop integrity rather than tolerate infidelity to your person.

https://www.quora.com/Is-there-any-statement-that-can-cause-serious-controversies

Perhaps.

The U.S. Congress has no authority to claim: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” We the People of the United States behaves to develop civic integrity rather than civil imposition.

 

https://www.quora.com/When-do-you-think-ethnocentrism-becomes-a-problem-Why?

When do you think ethnocentrism becomes a problem? Why?

Actual-reality charges humankind to constrain chaos on earth. If a group by any distinction causes chaos, they beg woe. Normally, woe goes where it’s invited and on an unexpected schedule.

https://www.quora.com/unanswered/Is-life-all-about-moral-values-and-adherence-to-morality-or-just-risk-taking?

Is life all about moral values and adherence to morality, or just risk taking?

Without doubt, I do not know.

I think life is the opportunity to accept being a human being; if so, to accept the responsibility to constrain chaos in your life; if so, to accept the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (HIPEA) to develop integrity; if so, to accept that with practice, you can perfect your unique person.

Most people are in some stage of discovering these acceptances, and the psychologically mature person, no matter how young by chronology, offers goodwill to every fellow citizen, accepting them as they are and where they are in their journey toward acceptance of their unique perfection.

I attribute discovery of these ideas to earnest experiences and observations leading to three principle interpretations from literature, in reverse order of discovery. First, Genesis 1:28 suggests that humankind is in charge of constraining chaos on earth, and the charge rests with each individual. Second, the Declaration of Independence expresses the humility to “the good People” appealing to “the Supreme Judge of the world” rather than to the world’s “God.” Third, the preamble to the U.S. Constitution proposes civic discipline unto integrity and does not lessen responsible human independence to conform to physics and its progeny. That is to say, an ineluctably good person does not lie, in order to lessen human misery and loss.

Just as the Supreme Judge of the world is not expected to usurp human responsibility, the U.S. Congress ought not express usurpation of We the People of the United States as defined by the preamble. That is to say, Congress has no authority to claim: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” To pursue religion/not is an adult, private choice rather than a civil imposition, and the preamble expresses that actual-reality.

It seems Congress perceives it cannot risk encouraging and coaching civic integrity rather than Anlgo-American religion. Also, the Supreme Court seems to have the hubris to agree. Do they rebuke the Supreme Judge of the world?

I answer questions so as to learn, and would appreciate your comments.

https://www.quora.com/What-are-examples-of-theoretical-wisdom-and-practical-wisdom-Mentioned-examples-in-the-discussion-are-no-longer-included?

What are examples of theoretical wisdom and practical wisdom? Mentioned examples in the discussion are no longer included.

Never lie, especially to yourself.

In 1972, I woke up, coughed heavily, lit a cigarette and thought: Smoking is killing me. I’m going to quit. Our best-Ellis-friends had just been to a 5-day cessation clinic at LSU. We invited them for dinner and to tell us what they’d learned. The next day, my wife and I went on a day trip armed with our defenses. We both quit, cold-turkey.

At work, my tall-Texas-ChE boss found out I had quit. He came to my office and laughed about the likelihood that I would stay a non-smoker. He proposed a 5-dollar bet, which I accepted. In a couple weeks, he gave me the $5. I took a picture and spent the money. Decades later, I’d be in a familiar smoking scenario and think: Hmmmm. I’d have to pay Carroll $10. It isn’t worth the laughter I’d suffer.

In 2008, my doctor discovered a Stage-3 malignancy in my right lung. Surgery, chemo, and 5 years follow-up proved me to be cancer free, as I am in 2020.

Thank you, Mr. Lanier. Also, thank you, Phil Beaver for not secretly breaking a commitment. Most of all, thanks to my doctors . . . and me for the means to choose them.

Being true to yourself helps everybody.

https://www.quora.com/unanswered/Is-intellectual-discourse-necessary-for-true-love?

Absolutely! Throughout our marriage, when I approached my wife to make love, if she said she did not feel like it, I could not function. Yet there were times when the question might have spoiled ravishing sex. I’d be surprised if this is not true in most monogamies for life.

Now, approaching my eighties and many health battles, discourse is all there is. But it’s wonderful and mystical. I like to think we are represented in Leonard Cohen’s “Dance Me to the End of Love”; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGorjBVag0I.

https://www.quora.com/unanswered/If-human-beings-do-not-live-in-accordance-to-their-nature-function-will-the-result-be-injustice-related-experience?

I think human beings are charged by actual-reality to constrain chaos in their way of living. If they are unfaithful to this self-interest, they invite woe. I doubt it should be viewed as “injustice” but don’t know.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-strategy-for-ethics?

I think ethics is the record of discovery of the laws of physics and how to benefit from the discovery. The research practices integrity to the ineluctable evidence and never allows human opinion to interfere. For example, good people never lie in order to lessen human misery and loss.

https://www.quora.com/What-do-we-do-with-humans-engaging-in-baseless-arguments/answer/Phil-Beaver-1

To Ronny Wijngaarde:

I understand your frustration and comfort myself by realizing that humankind has been developing erroneous, competitive cultures for at least 10,000 years. But the previous 200,000 years in diverse locations influenced the recent past. And the 3 million years before that influenced everything.

I think the last 233 years in the U.S. was totally misdirected by the First Congress, and the damage they did produced the chaos we may soon end.

The 1776 Declaration of Independence’s “the good People” under “the Supreme Justice of the world” changed to 1787s “We the People of the United States in order to” self-discipline for responsible human independence. In 1789 Congress unconstitutionally re-established factional-American-Protestant partnership so as to appear as divine as the Upper House of Parliament. They codified it in 1791s Bill of Rights.

Our generation has to opportunity to hold Congress responsible to end “freedom of religion” so as to develop human integrity.

To Ronny Wijngaarde again:

Freedom of religion is a human tendency that cannot be quelled, at least without a mutation. What I want to end is Congress’s hubris to impose itself into civil religious practices.

Integrity is a human practice: so the work to discover whether a heartfelt concern is reliable or a mirage; if reliable, do the work to obtain the ineluctable evidence; then discover how to responsibly benefit; behave for benefit and share with anyone who wants to know your comprehension; listen carefully for their viewpoint that might improve the benefit; remain open minded for discovery that requires revision of your behavior; if so, repeat the practice.

With this practice, ineluctably good people never lie, so as to lessen human misery and loss.

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-it-important-for-a-person-to-have-a-country-one-which-they-feel-they-belong-in-and-which-accepts-them-for-who-and-what-they-are?

You ask a global question which is addressed by the 1787 U.S. Constitution.

Living spouses cannot imagine the world their grandchildren will face. Therefore, the family will discipline itself in order to practice and encourage responsible human independence to themselves and to the grandchildren and their posterity. That is to say, statutory justice will be approached by posterity’s posterity.

Most Americans never asked, “What does it mean to be an American?” I think the response is proffered in the preamble’s proposition, and every citizen should own a personal interpretation by which he or she manages civic, civil, legal, and private living.

I think citizens who do not own an interpretation of the preamble ought not vote: they have no idea what’s in their self-interest.

https://www.quora.com/unanswered/How-can-a-society-give-mutual-support?

Each citizen accepts the responsibility to constrain chaos in his or her life. (Each one works for the lifestyle he or she wants and saves for retirement.)

https://www.quora.com/unanswered/What-is-an-appropriate-adult?

Someone who accepts 1) that he or she is a human being and 2) that humans have the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (HIPEA) to develop integrity to self rather than tolerate infidelity.

https://www.quora.com/How-is-morality-defined?

Morality is conformance to benefit from the laws of physics and its progeny. For example, ineluctably good people do not lie so as to lessen human misery and loss.

https://www.quora.com/Should-your-friends-share-your-virtues-and-philosophy-or-should-friends-be-a-well-rounded-group-of-diverse-individuals?

Should your friends share your virtues and philosophy, or should friends be a well-rounded group of diverse individuals?

Accepting that humans are responsible to constrain chaos on earth, it seems psychologically good to view every human a friend until they prove otherwise. Only a physical attack is sufficient to invoke defenses.

Someone who holds a differing opinion may be either too psychologically young to have established integrity, or may express a view you had not considered and now may. It’s a gift you can appreciate, whether you adopt it or not. Either way, they deserve appreciation for being able to address the issue based on their experiences and observations.

Solidarity among friends---unity---is undesirable. What’s better is individual integrity. When a group takes the license to harm property and people to express egocentric “liberty” it’s good to have the independence to walk away and report the group’s actions to first responders.

Fellow-citizens don’t realize it, but stonewalling a neighbor over a psychological difference seems kin to physical stoning.

https://www.quora.com/Why-do-we-have-evidence-that-people-like-Cleopatra-and-Aristotle-lived-before-Christ-but-the-only-evidence-of-Christ-living-is-in-the-Bible?

Why do we have evidence that people like Cleopatra and Aristotle lived before Christ, but the only evidence of Christ living is in the Bible?

There’s history about Jesus, for example, Josephus on Jesus - Wikipedia.

The critical issue is whether or not Jesus fulfilled the Jewish expectation of a messiah. On this, each human being may decide. I don’t think so, but am prepared to be judged by Jesus (or St. Peter or other) in my afterdeath.

First, he or she must accept being human. Second, it is unlikely to be coached and encouraged to think so, but each human has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (HIPEA) to develop integrity to his or her person or tolerate infidelity. I feel fortunate to accept these principles.

As a consequence, I discovered what I consider literature from the American underground: Ralph Waldo Emerson’s “Divinity School Address,” 1838. As Mom and Dad’s intended Southern Baptist, it took me two decades of reading to grasp Emerson’s message: One historical human understood human individual-power. Each human can perfect his or her unique person during life. The Church forever buried this message by making Jesus divine.

I perceive Emerson’s message in the preamble to the 1787 U.S. Constitution’s people’s proposition. Congress partnered with the church to repress the preamble’s message. We have the opportunity to change that and begin an achievable better future.

I mention Emerson not to consign my opinion, but to say that RWE seemed to accept his humanity. I accept mine.

https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-disadvantages-of-a-rigid-constitution?

Humankind is responsible to flourish on earth and researches the ineluctable evidence for how to benefit from the unfolding of reality. For example, the earth, once imagined flat with the potential to fall off the edge, is now known as globe-like in orbits with gravity holding it together.

If posterity is held to obsolete impressions, there can be no increase in benefits of discovery.

In the U.S., allegiance to so-called “founding fathers” is negated by the U.S. Constitution with its preamble’s proposals for civic-discipline “in order to” secure responsible human independence to the continuum of living citizens.

The First Congress repressed the preamble’s proposition and since then has repressed the people’s powers to amend the law. In so doing, they rebuked not only the 1787 U.S. Constitution, but the 1776 Declaration of Independence’s appeal to “the Supreme Judge of the world.” The consequence is the Congressional chaos supporting street anarchy We the People of the United States tolerates in 2020.

Only the Declaration’s “the good People,” can institute “We the People of the United States,” as abstractly described in the preamble. Only the individual with a personal interpretation of the preamble is likely to secure responsible human independence to his or her grandchildren.

Due to the influence of so-called “originalists,” the U.S. is bemused and stagnated by Congress and the Supreme Court members who hold that the people exist to serve elites. The individual who cares about the future can hold Congress accountable anytime he or she chooses.

https://www.quora.com/Among-the-given-laws-and-standards-of-morality-which-do-you-think-is-much-more-applicable-and-valid?

The human individual is solely responsible to constrain chaos in his or her life. I call it “responsible human independence”. Cultures who do not inculcate this principle in their youth, adolescents, and adults cannot succeed.

https://www.quora.com/When-does-scientific-research-become-unethical?

When the researcher attempts to impose opinion on the ineluctable evidence.

“Social science” is typically unethical when it designs statistics to prove an opinion.

https://www.quora.com/Is-dishonesty-a-sin?

Is dishonesty a sin?

No, because “sin” is a human construct while dishonesty is an actually-real practice.

Human life starts as an oocyte which may undergo meiotic division to an ovum. If the ovum is inseminated, the zygote may undergo the 9-months process to delivery as a feral infant.

Caretakers may or may not inculcate religious doctrine that invokes sin. However, the human person has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (HIPEA) to either develop integrity to self or tolerate infidelity. The unique infant will soon ask “What’s that?”, and the mature adult answers “I don’t know”, when that is so.

Nevertheless, the adolescent may develop deceitful practices rather than fidelity to his or her person. Integrity to physics is in a human being’s self-interest. For example, an ineluctably good person does not lie so as to lessen human misery and loss---the inevitable consequence of deceit.

Some religious doctrine conflicts with responsible human independence. Such doctrine is a sin. I’m interpreting Genesis 1:28, an ancient opinion by an unknown author.

Dishonesty is the failure of integrity, whether the offender is aware of the breech or not.

Law professors

https://lawliberty.org/book-review/rethinking-the-liberal-world-order

Perhaps Porter makes a valid point for wrong reasons: “. . . Porter adds in relentless opprobrium, America is a hypocrite. . . . the U.S. aim of maintaining global leadership . . . is . . . to secure America’s interests as a constitutional republic.”

The constitutional republic proffered public discipline in order to develop domestic human integrity. It takes comprehension (not necessarily mine, but it’s all I have) to construct the thread from the Judeo-Christian Bible to the American hypocrisy and thus the opportunity to reform to human integrity.

Genesis 1:28 suggests that man and woman must constrain chaos on earth. The 1689 Bill of Rights says the monarchy must be Protestant, banning Catholic kings. The Declaration of Independence (1776) appeals to “the Supreme Judge of the world” for reliability of “the good People” and the providence for their independence. France provided military strategy, dominant power, and money to gain Cornwallis’ surrender at Yorktown, VA in 1781. The 13 free and independent states ratified the 1783 Treaty of Paris in 1784. For domestic order, twelve of the 13 states specified a constitutional republic in 1787. It is predicated on five disciplines by the good People in order to encourage responsible human independence among fellow citizens.

Trivializing France, the good People, and the Supreme Judge of the world, Congress unconstitutionally re-established factional-American Protestantism in order to feel as divine as Parliament, with its upper house and 26-seats for the Church of England. We the People of the United States can hold Congress accountable and correct the First Amendment so as to promote integrity rather than religion. The Supreme Court should have noticed this hypocrisy and re-establishment of psychological dependency on England in 1789, only 13 years after Congress appealed to the Supreme Judge of the world and later accepted the providence of France’s power.

Heinrich writes, “Call it principled realism, or moral realism. American mores are shaped by the justice of the Christian tradition, and we cannot and should not act in the world contrary to those principles that distinguish our national identity.” I call it human integrity with necessary humility.

John the Apostle seems to think Christian hate is a response to non-Christian animosity (John 15:18-23). I think Jesus’ message to me is: Phil, you can perfect your unique person by fulfilling Genesis 1:28 as you read it. Both St. John and Christianity obfuscate Jesus’ message.

The U.S. can lessen Congressional hypocrisy by establishing We the People of the United States as defined in the preamble and by restoring humility toward the Supreme Justice of the world.

https://lawliberty.org/liberalism-and-the-common-good

Professor Mills writes to avoid considering “the common good” as a lame, obsolete surrogate for “human integrity.” The society that intends to develop integrity with responsible individual preferences is the proffered U.S. intention.

 

“At issue is not whether one favors community or freedom, but rather whether a form of government predicated on freedom—call it liberalism, for lack of a better term—is conducive to flourishing together. Liberalism is typically understood as a political philosophy that asserts the universality of rights on the basis of rational precepts equally available to all people, over and against the particularism of tradition.”

 

A valid human right is the freedom to develop civic integrity rather than tolerate infidelity to physics and its progeny. For example, if a neighbor says, “I don’t like my genitals, so I’m going to change them,” it’s OK to respond, “If so, you’re on your own. But let me share that my psychology occasionally gets off track from my desire for family-monogamy for life; then, I see an appropriate professional. I do not consider myself isolated from civic life.”

 

“The American project is [framed] on the proposition that its unity of purpose is made possible because of, not despite, its underlying diversity. [I]t is first and foremost through our [responsible] communities and their institutions, rather than the bureaucratic mechanisms of the modern nation state, that we learn to exercise civic virtue and seek [human integrity].”

 

These principles are expressed in the abstract, proffered preamble to the U.S. Constitution. It takes work and open-minded discussion to discover them. It starts with understanding that the phrase “ourselves and our Posterity” is intended for living adults and the next generation.

 

https://lawliberty.org/winning-the-court-losing-the-constitution

Typically, the latest brouhaha obfuscates the repression of the 1787 Constitution the generations have tolerated since 1788. Then, 9 states ratified it with the intention to negate its people’s integrity so as to favor the states’ “common good” rather than the people's integrity.

Professor Grove writes, “America’s [1787] constitutional structure abhors concentrated power, which is liable to misuse and serves as an incentive for political actors to grasp it by any means necessary.” The constitution guarantees the states a republican form of government, but in 1789, Congress appealed to a 99% Protestant free-citizenry to slight psychological independence for the rule of law. Consequently, some Supreme Court justices extoll “our democracy.”

The 1776 Declaration of Independence tacitly expresses a colonial war cry for liberation from England’s Parliamentary power, with its upper-house 26-seats for the Church of England. The founders, representing “the good People” appealed to Nature’s God, the Creator, the Supreme Judge of the world, and Providence for reliable claim to independence from England’s partnership with the Church of England.

As the war progressed, France enjoined military dominance, winning strategy, and money in securing Cornwallis’s 1781 surrender at Yorktown, VA. Consequently the 13 free and independent states’ treaty with England was negotiated as the 1783 Treaty of Paris. The founders accepted political independence. However, the states were not psychologically free to accept “the Supreme Judge of the world” instead of a doctrinal God.

Twelve states sent delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. Thanks to the framers, nothing in the 1787 Constitution or its preamble lessens “the good People” or rebukes “the Supreme Judge of the world” or slights France. The 1787 Constitution seems humble, leaving the choice to be religious or not to the individual citizen. Personal prudence suggests fairness to both France and the Supreme Judge of the world, even if a citizen pursues comfort and hope in a personal God.

However, Congress had the hubris to author and ratify arbitrary power to usurp the-good-People’s responsibility. Unconstitutionally, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Nothing authorizes Congress to author that statement. The preamble calls for human integrity rather than civil religion.

Every human has the individual power, energy, and authority (HIPEA) to perfect his or her unique person: develop integrity rather than nurture infidelity to self. President Trump has an uncanny ability to express fairness to individuals. For example, after Charlottesville, he spoke for the-good-People on both sides. Trump constantly expresses openness to Democrats and press-writers then leaves it to them to come to the table with open minds. His administrative team is wonderfully constitutional in their actions.

There’s no greater human offense than stoning; stonewalling is close kin. Congress stonewalled the-good-People in 1789 when Congresspersons re-established traditional, factional-American-Protestantism so as to claim divinity on par with the English Parliament. The Supreme Court codifies Congress’s offense, for example, in Greece v Galloway (2014), which rebukes me as “niggling”. An achievable better future is available to us.

When We the People of the United States stop tolerating Congress’s tyranny, the Supreme Court may reform on its own. The first step is to amend the First Amendment so as to encourage human integrity and civic spiritual privacy rather than civil religious enterprise.

https://lawliberty.org/talking-about-a-constitutional-restoration

Constitutional restoration must reach back to 1787 and the proffered people’s proposition: responsible human independence. (See Genesis 1:28.)

 

Focusing on progressivism during FDR and then after 1968 seems traditional scholarly distraction from the political corruption that was committed by the First Congress. In 1789, Congress hired factional-American-Protestant Chaplains in order to feign divinity--mimic the upper house of Parliament with its 26 seats for the Church of England. Then in 1791, Congress imposed civil “freedom of religion” in order to repress the preamble’s 1787 proposition for responsible human independence. The preamble assigns to privacy the citizen’s choice to be religious or not, in order to establish national humility.

 

The Founders expressed humility in the 1776 Declaration of Independence: “We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America . . . 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.”

 

Nothing in the 1787 U.S. Constitution or its preamble lessens “the Supreme Judge of the world,” or “the good People” or “divine Providence” or “our sacred Honor” or the national humility.

 

However, Congress’s repression of the preamble as a “secular” sentence and imposition of civil religion rather than encouragement to civic integrity is not merely tyranny. It is arrogance toward the providence of France’s aid in securing Cornwallis’ surrender at Yorktown and hubris toward the superior power that holds humankind responsible for peace on earth.

 

Hopefully, the Trump/Pence administration, an integral Supreme Court, and the GOP will perceive “the Framers’” folly:  Winning physical independence from England in 1781 and ratifying the treaty in 1784; in 1787 framing the world’s only government predicated on domestic discipline by the people; in 1789 allowing Congress to usurp the good People’s responsibility by re-establishing civil Anglo-American religion. The Supreme Judge of the world does not usurp humankind’s responsibility to constrain chaos: Congress did and still does. Congress is the cause of 2020 chaos. We tolerate Congress’s hubris.

 

America can be great, if most citizens accept that they are human beings and therefore responsible for peace under the U.S. preamble’s proposition. We the People of the United States is too humble to rebuke the Supreme Judge of the world.

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.