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.
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.
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 51st-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 14th 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment