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
It’s OK if the U.S. learns responsible-human-independence from
Canada, England, or other nation.
Right or wrong, my writing to encourage “the good People [of
the U.S.]” to reform the tyranny of civil “freedom of religion” in order to
encourage and facilitate responsible-human-independence (RHI) does not imply
that I would dislike another nation establishing an achievable better future
before the U.S. reforms.
I imagine and hope-that any of the former subjects of the
British Empire may establish RHI as soon as possible, and my message is offered
and read worldwide through two blogs: promotethepreamble.blogspot.com and
cpbr.blogspot.com.
Before, I mused that Canada might move faster than the U.S.
However, there is English precedent for developing statutory justice after a
U.S. state discovered a statistical brilliance. Let me explain. After debate
over the English tradition of unanimous criminal-jury verdicts, 12:0, Congress
worded the Sixth Amendments’ demand on states as impartial rather than
unanimous, giving the states flexibility to improve procedures for justice when
the entire court is predicated on a rigorous path to trial then prosecution vs
defense competition rather than ultimate justice.
Louisiana, the eighteenth state, and the only one accustomed
to Napoleonic law, recognized that with inhabitants split 50:50 it is
statistically unlikely to seat an impartial jury. Therefore, in 1880, with 68 years’
statehood, French influence emerged with the brilliant innovation, 9:3 criminal
jury-verdicts, so as to lessen the influence of prejudiced jurors who made it
through the competitive selection process. England, 87 years later, created the
10:2 criminal jury-verdict so as to lessen organized crime’s influence on
criminal trials.
In 2020s Ramos v Louisiana, the U.S. Supreme Court cited fourteenth-century
English law obsoleted in 1967 following Louisiana’s 1880 brilliance. On a vote
of 6:3, Ramos v Louisiana required all states to provide 12:0 criminal
verdicts, predicated on obsolete English precedent instead of U.S.-responsible-independence.
We, the “ourselves and our Posterity” of 2021 must stop the
U.S. tyranny of preserving Anglo-American tradition. We must start with
amendment of the First Amendment so as to encourage and facilitate
humble-integrity rather than religious-opinion. It should done before 2022
begins.
Facebook posts
Of necessity each person who accepts that they are human
appreciates that female&male-human-being has the independent power to
constrain chaos in their way of living. Developed with Trevor Lopez, 2/15/2021.
Afterdeath in heaven seems as mysterious as
Bible-interpretation, so we’d best have fun while we’re here. Developed with
Tawanda Walker, 3/14/21.
Quora
https://www.quora.com/unanswered/Did-you-ever-care-about-what-was-right-even-when-it-showed-you-were-wrong-Explain-pls?
by Kevin Konze
Thank you.
In my 1954 adolescence, I appreciated “The
Salem Witch Trials” as an element in the U.S. decision to separate church and
state. Now, I see U.S. scholarship as divisive propaganda, bemusing the people over
license-to liberty rather than the humble-integrity for responsible-human-independence.
In my own
experience, a “once saved always saved Southern Baptist” fell in love with a serenely-confident
Louisiana French-Catholic woman. Courting her in our 53rd year, 51 married, I
discovered that I had in those adolescent years formed an intention to trust-in
and commit-to the-ineluctable-truth. I would never have articulated that if I
had not cherished my bride and our 3 children more than Mom and Dad’s religions
(competing Southern Baptists). Yet Mom and Dad were such good providers I
struggled to choose one of their religions---subjugation v impendence---for 4
decades. I cannot say which parent was struggling with subjugation, nor could
my sister (rest in peace).
By the late
1990s, I published the proposal to amend the First Amendment in order to
terminate civil religion, civically develop religious privacy, and pursue the
rule of statutory justice---to separate church and state. I re-read the “Salem”
history and learned that a Christian sect, Puritans, effected “witch”
executions (at least 22 victims) rather than Witch Trials. It is shameful that
a nation would re-establish civil religion when such an awful event as the Massachusetts
“witch” executions is in its Christianity-dependent past.
The human-authority
for the 1776 declaration of war was “Nature and Nature’s God”, perhaps the
founders’ humble-interpretation of the-God of necessity expressed in Genesis
1:27-28: humankind is independently responsible to constrain chaos on earth. Quoting,
“the good People of these colonies” take responsible-human-independence from
England. Loyalists were free to fight for England and leave when they lost.
When it seemed “the good People” would lose, the founders negotiated French
military-providence.
With physical
and political independence won, the framers studied the world’s governments and
specified the first federal-republic with “the good People” hold both their
state and the federal government accountable. Their draft-preamble did not
state a purpose, so the Committee of Style provided one 5 days before the
signing. Only 39 of 55 framers signed the formal 1787 U.S. Constitution on
September 17. Perhaps some of the 16 non-signers dissented against the
areligious document. Not one word of the signers’ product lessens the
humble-integrity the founders expressed in the 1776 Declaration.
However, on
March 4, 1789, the First Congress, representing eleven of 13 formerly free and independent
states in a confederation, began to re-establish British-colonial dependence.
With 14 states in 1791, the required 10 state representatives codified the
tyranny of church-Congress-partnership. In 2021, the rest of the federal government
observes that the First Amendment constrains only Congress, so both the Supreme
Court and the President impose their religious opinion on We the People of the
United States.
In this short
post, I expressed delight to know of the 22 Massachusetts-Puritan “witch”
executions, implied that infant baptism may be the more humble than
catechism-free choice and that necessity does not edict transubstantiation, suggested
that neither the-God nor government will usurp the individual’s necessity to
constrain chaos in their living-style, and asserted that the three U.S.
branches impose the tyranny of “freedom of religion” rather than encouraging and
facilitating humble-integrity.
We, the 2021 “ourselves
and our Posterity” must amend the First Amendment before 2022 arrives, in
order to reform We the People of the United States to the 1776 and 1787 “the
good People” rather than continue to tolerated U.S. hubris against Genesis 1:
only human individuals can constrain chaos in their lives, in order to provide
peace on earth.
FB add on: The 22 Massachusetts “witch” executions is the tip of an
iceberg of U.S. propaganda to preserve the chaos of civil Christianity, a
tyranny We the People of the United State mistakenly brook, now into the
twelfth generation and posterity. Believers who appreciate
responsible-human-impendence ought to free themselves from tolerating the First
Amendment’s religion clauses, in order to encourage and facilitate
humble-integrity toward the-God of Genesis 1: perhaps necessity.
https://www.quora.com/Which-of-your-core-beliefs-and-principles-most-often-guide-your-course-of-action-in-your-daily-life-in-a-given-situation?
by Arnold Milla
The most important virtue seems to
constantly develop humble-integrity. Thereby, each person may monitor their
personal integrity.
The principle practice is to keep and
defend “I don’t know” when that is so and do the work to discover
the-ineluctable-truth if you need to know. Usually humankind does not know, so
references to celebrity-thinkers discloses failure to admit to self: “I don’t
know”.
FB add on:
Continuously developing humble-integrity
seems a virtue.
https://www.quora.com/Which-of-your-core-beliefs-and-principles-most-often-guide-your-course-of-action-in-your-daily-life-in-a-given-situation?
by Kiril Degtarev
Appreciate the other person as a
human-being until they indicate otherwise and if so, be as kind as possible in
your response. In a conflict, consider their view of the object, not you. If
you see their point, say so as soon as you perceive it. Be concise and precise
in addressing the object, rather than their difference. Listen carefully to
seek a way your solution can be applied in their self-interest that differs
from yours. (For example, in worshipping a doctrinal God, it seems prudent to
reserve sufficient humility toward whatever controls consequences of events.) Foremost,
neither initiate nor tolerate harm to or from any person or institution.
https://www.quora.com/How-can-the-principle-The-customer-is-always-correct-be-optimized-among-human-beings?
by Phil Beaver
To Sandy Paonessa:
Thank you. Your thoughts increase my intention to suggest
that it’s in the capitalists’ self-interest to consider consumers’ actual
request rather than potential-customer’s erroneous expression.
I think the wise entrepreneur listens to then questions the
customer, in order to appreciate the necessity/desire that motivated them to
seek consumption. The entrepreneur thereby capitalizes direct opportunity to 1)
help the potential customer articulate actual need rather than perception, 2)
either locate or be the supplier, and 3) alone, research non-availability of
the sufficient/best product or service to 4) consider starting a new business
if enough people would consume that good/service.
Does this interpretation of the vague
customer-always-right-saying shed light on an-achievable-economic-future?
It can’t because “The customer” could be a nation, ideology,
cult. etc.. “The customer is always correct” applies to business because the
customer is a businesse’s boss since the customer can fire the business by not
buying there again.
To Bob
Copeland:
Thank you.
I currently write essays and quips that point to the reason,
in my view, that the United States is in chaos. Perhaps that focus empowered
this economic-viability question. Please take the time to understand my
message.
Among societies such as nations, ideologies, cults, etc.,
the customer is the individual who accepts that they are a human being and
therefore appreciate the individual power, energy, and authority (HIPEA) to
develop humble-integrity, in order to constrain chaos in their way of living.
For conversation, I call such people civic-citizens among dissidents to mutual,
comprehensive safety and security.
Among the development of civilizations, none considers its
purpose is to encourage and promote humble-integrity to gauge individual
integrity. Such a culture is suggested in three historical documents: Genesis
1, the 1776 declaration of war against England, and the 1787 United States
Constitution.
The political philosopher behind the perhaps 4500 year old
Genesis 1 lived before Abraham, perhaps a myth from 3800 years ago. Careful
consideration of what humankind has learned since those times suggest that
Genesis 1:27–28 claims that female&male-human-being is both responsible and
independent to constrain chaos on earth. That is, there is no power higher than
humankind that can provide peace on earth. The 2021 implication is that the
author of Genesis 1 primitively expressed separation of church and state;
metaphysics and physics; hope and responsibility; infidelity and
monogamy-for-life; life and death.
Also, about 3800 years ago, the British Empire began to
emerge. In 1215, King John agreed that the Catholic bishops at Canterbury and
the Lords would legislate a mixed population with elites and commoners. In
1689, Mary and William oversaw the 1689 Bill of Rights, requiring a Protestant
monarchy. The Europeans who left this religious squabble in order to pursue
responsible-human-independence included loyal British subjects.
By 1763, under King George III, inhabitants of the 13
British colonies, on land representing about 13% of today’s USA, perceived that
British subjects of Great Britain were enslaving the colonial subjects to be
overlords for the African-slaves placed in America for agricultural enterprise.
Colonists began to resist.
In 1774, the USA founders met as Worchester, MA was being
liberated by local militia. Shots were fired in April 1775, and in 1776, the
founders declared war.
The founders claimed human authority under “Nature and
Nature’s God”, representation of “the good People of these colonies”, and
reliability “to the Supreme Judge of the world.” They wrote not one word to
disparage either England’s transition from Catholic to Protestant Trinity or
the Trinity itself. In 1778, the founders negotiated military-providence from
France. Humble-integrity toward both civic-church and civil-state had never
before been expressed by an emerging nation.
England surrendered to France (30,000 military personnel)
and the 13 colonies (11,000) in September 1781, and in January 1784 the 13 free
and independent states ratified their global status under the 1783 Treaty of
Paris. However, the 13 states could not manage domestic disputes. Therefore, 12
of them created a constitutional convention in Philadelphia in summer, 1787.
The 55 delegates, the framers, wrote a constitution
predicated on “the good People” of their states holding a federal republic
accountable to develop the framer’s intentions. Delegates who were loyal to
colonial-British tradition resisted the outcome, and a few of the 16
non-signers dissented for that reason. Only 39 framers signed the document with
its 5-day old, revised-preamble. We are indebted to the signers for a
constitution that fulfills both Genesis 1 and the 1776 Declaration regarding
both responsible-human-independence and separation of church and state.
Among the dissident framers and other 1788 non-signers were
influential people who demanded re-establishment of colonial-British tradition.
The consequence is a religion-Congress-partnership that by tradition mimics
Parliament with 26 seats constitutionally assigned to the church. In the 1791
Bill of Rights, Congress defied Genesis 1, the 1776 USA Declaration, and the
1787 U.S. Constitution. Observing the effectiveness of Chapter XI
Machiavellianism, the First Congress imposed freedoms of religion, the press,
and speech—-tyrannies all three, as we observe 230 years later.
The customer of U.S. government needs and wants the
responsible-human-independence that is proffered in the preamble to the U.S.
Constitution, and its 1787 provisions for amendment by the people. Nothing
therein advocates religious opinion and we have observed that the British
confusion of freedom and liberty need to be replaced with humble-integrity and
responsible-human-independence.
Conforming to Genesis 1:27–28’s
responsible-human-independence is essential to humankind’s survival.
I
don’t seriously disagree with your comments. I agree with you that the United
States is in chaos. I heard today that your former president is now writing in
a supremacy site. I enjoy writing on the human condition too & how
everything fits together with the universe so our interests align. I also agree
with you that our species is here to solve problems or prevent chaos (Genesis
1: 27). Our species, like all species is built on patterns & is highly
competitive. The elites control our competitiveness through drugs, alcohol
& religion (losing your soul). My observation is that the war for
independence scared the living hell out of the United States so everyone was
given gun rights & the government was organized so no one has control. The
citizens of the United States will give the shirt off their back to help other
nations in trouble but are reluctant to solve their own citizen’s problems so
racism is allowed to continue. To be fair all of us are racist since we’re a
pattern based species & it’s hard to reconcile our patterns with the
patterns of other groups within our species or basically to interpret other
patterns in the interest of harmony. Also, except for the WW11’s Marshal Plan
the United States doesn’t have any staying power to get the job done or has an
isolationist tendency to avoid involvement in the world unless attacked as seen
in Pearl Harbour. The United States also says it’s a melting pot but from my
observations it isn’t. Anyway, my e-mail is bcope16@hotmail.com if you want to get in
touch or alternately just continue the discussion here for the readers.
Second to Bob Copeland:
I
agree: you and I work to suggest similar goals.
The
elites control us by involving us in their competition for their
wealth. That’s the point of Chapter XI Machiavellianism. The
church-state-officials live high on the hog and believers neither rebel nor
emigrate, hoping their God will relieve their grandchildren’s misery and loss.
Your
creative focus on Genesis 1:27 reminds me of the metaphysical claim: “in the image of God he
created them; male and female he created them”.
One way the claim could be psychological (a progeny of physics) is that
the-God, a male, created female and male with the potential to perfect their
unique human being before death. Another
physical interpretation invokes V 28: a family-flourishing human-being is
female&male (religiously, what God has joined let no man divide) and God images
a monogamous pair, based on “he created them”. Just as God does not die, he is
an androgynous person, much as some Christians believe he is the-Trinity. But
humans are constrained to gods-facing-death; physics.
But
what about chaos? Modern biological entrepreneurs attempt to create both hermaphrodite humans and the market for “gender” services. I
suppose the industry’s success would mean that future offspring would be
hermaphrodites. It is an endeavor I would not subject-myself-to on the
principle that it increases rather than constrains failure-statistics: chaos.
Furthermore, physics and its progeny, biology, evolved humans as placental
mammals with reproduction/not assigned to the woman’s responsibility. If she
does not know a reliable man with whom to consider mating for life, she does
not risk abuse of her viable ova or herself. Likewise, an authentic man does
not risk a woman’s viable ova or her. Again, the gender-entrepreneurs increase
chaos if they make viable the choice of hermaphrodite families.
A civic-American would not at all
agree that the war against England “scared the living hell out of the
[founders’ USA]” (the framers’ or signers U.S. did not yet exist). When it
seemed the former fellow-commoners in red coats might win the war, the
Americans took responsibility independent of the-God, in order to personally
kill them. When it seemed the red coats might win, the founders negotiated
French military-providence more than praying for the-God’s aid. Cornwallis
surrendered to France with 30,000 military men plus the Continental Army’s 11,000
against red coats and Hessians with 9,000. The English treaty with France was
negotiated before the English treaty with the 13 globally free and independent
states, each named in the 1783 Treaty of Paris.
In 1787, 12 of 13 states accepted
George Washington’s 1781 urgency: to survive, the colonies must form a nation
rather than a confederation of states. The 55 delegates negotiated a federal
republic with the people in their states holding the national government
accountable to an amendable constitution.
A very small number of U.S.
citizens, let alone other victims of British tyranny, even less other global
fellow-citizens do the work to comprehend, practice, and promote the proffered
proposition in the 1787 U.S. Constitution. Yet it conforms to the principles in
Genesis 1:27-28. Therefore, any civilization on earth can study it, improve it,
and have an achievable better future.
The good People’s proposition was
proffered only 5 days before the signers activated the 1787 U.S. Constitution
for ratification by 9 states. Here’s my interpretation of the preamble’s
intention to pursue statutory justice under humble-integrity: civic-citizens
among We the People of the United States maintain 5 public
disciplines---integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity, “in order
to” encourage and facilitate responsible-human-independence “to ourselves and our
Posterity”. None of the 5 disciplines suggest religion or lessen the privacy of
religious independence. The French Revolution of 1789 convinced the world that
liberty can mean egocentric license to draw fellow-citizens’ blood. The statue
in New York Harbor should be renamed “The Statue of Independence”.
We, the 2021 “ourselves and our
Posterity” need to effect the First Amendment reformation by 2022 so as to
promote and facilitate civic-integrity rather than civil religion, and
un-constitutional Congress-authorized speech and press.
Any non-American who reads this
and is motivated to form their own interpretation of the preamble’s proposition
has the opportunity to improve it for their country’s use. The personal charge
to constrain chaos in one’s way of living, suggested in Genesis 1:27-28, is
universal. It is proffered and repressed in the U.S., so far for 230 years or
for 12 generations.
We can break the generational replication of patterns by
recognizing the importance of “ourselves and our Posterity” as human beings. I
think the framers chose “Posterity” rather than “descendants” in order to
include immigrants. The motto, established in 1782, was “E Pluribus Unum”
instead of “In God We Trust” (1954), and it’s still on the President’s seal.
Moreover, by recognizing that Genesis 1:27-28 assigns the establishment of
peace to humankind, competition for a God one nation can persuade to usurp
responsible-human-independence might lessen. There could be more
humility-toward the-God rather than hubris-in “our-God” or God.
I added your name and today’s date on my appreciations post
at promotethepreamble.blogspot.com (unless you object).
Third to Bob
Copeland:
Bob,
I must have written something that seemed condescending. I apologize for my
poor expressions.
I
suspect, with dread, that it was “A very small number of U.S. citizens, let
alone other victims of British tyranny, even less other global fellow-citizens
do the work to comprehend, practice, and promote the proffered proposition in
the 1787 U.S. Constitution.”
I
foolishly took for granted that “very small number of U.S. citizens, let alone
other victims of British tyranny” would express inclusiveness of Canadians,
British Islanders regarded as “commoners”, Australians, indeed every individual
who accepts that they are a human-being and therefore equipped with the power,
energy, and authority to develop responsible-human-independence rather than
tolerate either church or state or their partnership to impose a happiness the
individual does not want.
Further,
I was developing the suggestion that I would love it if the U.S. reform came
from another country adopting the 1787 U.S. Constitution’s intentions as I see
them, but improving the encouragement and facilitation of individual
responsible-human-independence. “Liberty”, “freedom of religion”, and
Anglo-American tradition are so inculcated in the American psychology that
reform from within may not be possible.
I
already have learned so much from your side of our joint dialogue that I would
never stonewall you. No one before motivated me to write “Anglo-American
tradition”. You are my friend and also Canadian, I think on the same side: for
mutual, comprehensive safety and security so that the individual may
responsible pursue the happiness they perceive when they perceive it rather
than submit to someone else’s vision for them.
Lastly,
I am cautious rather than smart and subject to my journey to comprehend 1) what
it means to be a human being and 2) what is added/taken by being an
American—-by choice, by birth, or by illegal occupation. I simply use the
Internet to affirm that my thoughts can be verified by anyone who goes to the
Internet to consider their view of my opinion.
You
seem like me in that
regard, and we can share the-good, if we want to. I do.
Fourth to Bob Copeland:
Thank you. I understand now that my angst about the 1788
Congress imposing Anglo-American politics on the U.S. intention to establish
responsible-human-independence evolved from the 3 human documents: Genesis 1,
the 1776 declaration of war, and the 1787 proposal for domestic discipline
comes across as animosity toward England and the English people. Unlike any
message from the originator of universal events, human documents are flawed,
and must be viewed so as to benefit from the-ineluctable-truth of later
discoveries.
The above
mentioned documents do not suggest racism in any way. Consider the author of
Genesis 1 perhaps not knowing that the political philosophy of
female&male-human-beings dominating the other species was thought out
perhaps a few millennia before 4500 years ago---maybe 7 thousand years ago. But
the discovery/proposal that the dinosaurs had perished due to the high
temperatures from a cosmic collision 65 million years ago is only 40 years old.
Likewise, racism is a product of erroneous reason rather than discovery.
That is to
say that people who accept that they are human beings do not tolerate
infidelity to HIPEA: human, individual power, individual energy, and individual
authority to develop humble-integrity. To interpret skin color as a measure of
human potential is as ignorant as not comprehending what happened. Humankind
discovered, so far, that the earth is 4.6 billion years old (BYO), biology on
earth is 3.8 BYO, the necessary 21% oxygen level was attained in earth’s
atmosphere 0.6 BYO, placental mammals emerged 0.065 BYO, humanoids appeared
0.007 BYO, humans appreciated awareness about 0.000,000,200 BYO, the
red-hair-gene mutated 0.000,000,100 BYO, some tribes constructed religious
competition 0.000,000,052 BYO, then mono-theistic conflict 0.000,000,045 BYO. Abraham
was born/mythologized 0.000,000,038 BYO, and writers claim Jesus said “Before
Abraham was born I AM.”
The
individual who uses their HIPEA to address human-constructs rather than
the-ineluctable-evidence constrain themselves if not beg woe. They blind
themselves to the charge in Genesis 1. For example, scholars knew the earth was
like a globe 2500 years ago, but sailors (with church teachings and without
Internet search) debated falling off the earth even after the Vikings sailed to
Canada. Global discovery accelerated 700 years ago. If continental discovery
was repressed for 1800 years, it is no catastrophe if it takes the U.S. 234
years to discover the necessity to separate church and state; to encourage and
facilitate civic integrity rather than promote civil religious-opinion,
where “civic” refers to good-human-connection rather than municipal conformity.
People who insist on civic religion are ignoring the message of Genesis 1,
which may be authored by Jesus. I think Genesis 1 is a political-philosophy of necessity
rather than religious omniscience. It would not surprise
me if Canada or England takes advantage of the-ineluctable-evidence before the
U.S. does. Racism is hot in England as we write.
You mentioned the
Civil War. White-Christian-church fired on white-Christian-church, staring in
1856 in Kansas. Abolitionist there from Massachusetts were evil for proposing
to accelerate the Trinity’s plan to redeem blacks for the sins of their
forefathers and fathers, perhaps in a few millennia. Commenting on Bloody
Kansas, R.E. Lee could have applied HIPEA to sell all his property and move his
family to a non-slave state. Alas, his Christian ministers distracted him to
the loss of everything. What a sad end for his family!
Political
philosophy based on physical characteristics is a human construct based on
reason rather than evidence. The unfortunate construct is founded in religion. By
nature, a church must claim omniscience-now and omnipotence-in-eternity,
in order to persuade some individuals to try-to-consign their HIPEA to
dependency rather than responsible-human-independence (Genesis 1). The problem
is that the-ineluctable-evidence exists and controls consequences of trust and
commitment (faith as a practice rather than as a subject, such as “my
religion”).
Whereas the Catholic canon was interpreted in art as a white-skinned
God, the more extensive Ethiopian Tewahedo canon may promote a black-skinned
God. The logical consequence of this competition may be the expectation of a
war to make the-God’s people reign in the-God’s kingdom. That is to say,
the-God intended whites to be slaves. So much for human constructs that defy
the-ineluctable-evidence: the human-individual is responsible to constrain
chaos on earth; create peace on earth.
The blunt
response to someone who accuses an individual of racism can be: I appreciate
and accept that I am a human-being with the individual power, individual
energy, and individual authority to develop responsible-human-independence to
myself and to fellow-citizens. Thereby, citizens can develop equity under
statutory justice. Let the racism-accuser decide if they behave for justice or
not.
Bob, excepting a
few family duties and fun living, I have worked on this response since you last
posted. I covered a lot of facts, not on my knowledge, but by looking up each
one I doubted using the Internet. None of the Internet URL’s I relied on is
useful to our dialogue, because you can check them with sources you trust. By
all means, I do not trust American media-writers. The idea of journalism is
almost nonexistent in the U.S. For example, Fox News believes anyone who does
not conform to Jesus can be smugly laughed out of existence, not realizing they
are imposing their religion on their image of Jesus. For all we know, the Jesus
of I AM authored Genesis 1 and opposes the individual who does not behave to
constrain chaos on earth.
https://www.quora.com/When-did-freedom-of-speech-become-allowed-for-all-people-and-where-did-it-start-first?
by Graham C Lindsay
Constraining
Congress to freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion constitutes
civil impositions, so these freedoms are yet to be established by We the People
of the United States.
Perhaps
the politics started with the English Bill of Rights, 1689:
1) it is the right of the subjects to petition the king, and
prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal.
2) The freedom of
speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to
be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament.
(from Wikipedia)
Typically, England favors the church
and the lords. It is a cast society, with “commoners” paying the bill. Under
the developed 1787 intentions, the U.S. has no commoners.
The framers’ draft U.S. Constitution
and the signers’ September 17, 1787 publication left freedom of speech to the
people. James Madison defended speech in Federalist 10: “As long as the reason of man
continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions
will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his
self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on
each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach
themselves.
The
diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate,
is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The
protection of these faculties is the first object of government.” Powers not
authorized to the central government or to their state were intended for the
people.
Unfortunately, perhaps 2 states influenced a rush to
ratification with 7 other states, provided an English-mimicking bill of rights
be added. We’ll never know if 2 non-bill-of-rights states might have stepped
forward to prevent the 1791 tyranny by Congress, now exacerbated by the Supreme
Court. The U.S. Bill of Rights, primarily because of re-introduction of U.S.
psychological dependency on England repressed the 1787 U.S. intentions to
promote public discipline so as to develop responsible-human-independence.
Especially egregious are freedom of religion, freedom of the
press, and freedom of speech (not restricted by Congress but freely restricted
by others) rather than freedom to develop humble-integrity under the preamble.
The combination of the 1776 Declaration of Independence and the 1787 U.S.
Constitution intends separation of church and state, development of public
discipline, and “ourselves and our Posterity” to ultimately approach statutory
justice.
Unfortunately, under the 1791 Bill of Rights and the Supreme
Court we have chaos.
For example, the Supreme Court, in Ramos v Louisiana (202)
used fourteenth-century English precedent to overthrow a state’s right to
provide impartial criminal juries under Amendment VI, when England, following
Louisiana’s 1880 brilliance of 9:3 verdicts to ensure impartiality, in 1967
enacted 10:2 verdicts to lessen organized crime’s influence on jury trials. The
U.S. Court, on a 6:3 opinion required states to provide 12:0 verdicts! Tyranny!
The 2021 “ourselves and our Posterity” must amend the First Amendment so as to
promote humble-integrity by which citizens measure their personal integrity.
FB add on: Amend the religion, speech, and press clauses
of the First Amendment so as to encourage the people to humble-integrity rather
than Congress to hubris.
https://www.quora.com/Did-President-Trump-embody-peace-through-strength/answer/Phil-Beaver-1
Comment by Morva Ory
I wasn’t aware that Democrats were mentioned in the Bible.
Phil:
Likewise, the Bible does not equate pigs to Republicans.
However, Republican Mike Pence betrayed the voters who voted the Trump/Pence
ticket in 2016 and in 2020. Also, Pence misrepresented both Trump and Jesus.
What is your interest in my comment, if any?
To Ory again:
What about Jesus? Pence betrayed Jesus as well as Trump and
the Constitution.
I didn’t catch the idea that only Christians can run for VP.
Where’s that come from?
The Bible is first Middle Eastern literature, Jewish
literature, Arab literature, then Christian literature, then the Islam
development of the Middle Eastern literature. Even later is the Protestant
literature. Perhaps the oldest, largest canon is the Ethiopian Tewahedo Canon,
perhaps a branch of Christianity, but I don’t know.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-negative-impact-of-the-absence-of-the-rule-of-law-on-individuals-society-and-the-nation?
by Abre Ham
The nation’s individuals need to establish statutory
justice, the 1787 U.S. intentions.
A political philosopher some 4,000 years ago suggested that
the human being is in charge of constraining chaos in their way of living.
However, the developed cultures do not teach this principle to their youth.
Therefore, most people look to God or government to provide peace in the world.
However, neither God nor government intends to usurp the individual’s
responsible-human-independence to resist chaos rather than brook infidelity to
self.
When at least 2/3 of fellow-citizens appreciate and develop
this principle, their development of statutory-justice will encourage the 1/3
dissidents to reform or suffer for the harm they caused.
The civic-citizen behaves for equity due to statutory
justice rather than equality under the law.
These principles are developed in three documents: Genesis
1:27-28, the 1776 declaration of independence from England, and the 1787 U.S.
Constitution. They are repressed by the 1791 First Amendment’s religion
clauses.
The individual citizens who want to can collectively amend
the amendment so as to promote humble-integrity rather than religious-opinion.
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-honesty-so-hard?
by Majeed Baniyan
I think honesty is hard because it is an erroneous human
quest. The human-being is capable of developing integrity to
the-ineluctable-truth.
First, a person must accept that they are a human-being
rather than one of the opposites: animal, vegetable, or mineral. Second they
must choose humility to gauge personal integrity. Third, they must accept the
human characteristic: the individual power, the individual energy, and the
individual authority (HIPEA) to develop humble-integrity rather than tolerate
infidelity to self. Fourth, the must maintain the comprehension and intention
to live a complete human life, both chronically and psychologically.
If so, they may almost perfect their unique person before dying.
Honesty is insufficient: humble-integrity is
what we need.
FB add on: Appreciate HIPEA and use it to approach perfection before dying.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-major-goal-of-civics-and-ethics?
by Siru Ibro
I don’t know, and can only express my opinion about how to
use the terms “civics” and “ethics”. I prefer to address each term in
appreciation of the ultimate species: female&male-human-being. Within that
group, civics and ethics reference mutual-safety-and-security and
responsible-human-independence, respectively.
Civic citizens of the world develop the humble-integrity
needed to constrain chaos in their lives. Statuary justice developed with
humble-integrity is human ethics, or civic integrity. Necessity is sufficient
inspiration and motivation for most citizens to pursue the-good rather than
tolerate infidelity during their life’s journey. Persons who do not appreciate
and use their human power for the-good have chosen to pursue one of the
opposites: plant, animal, or mineral.
These ideas derive from discussing with neighbors my views
of 4 documents: Genesis 1:27-28, the founders’ 1776 declaration of war against
England, the framers’ 1787 U.S. Constitution, and the un-constitutional
religion clauses in the First Amendment.
The First Amendment must be reformed to promote civic
integrity rather than religious opinion.
FB add on: Citizens of civic-integrity must reform the
First Amendment in order to promote responsible-human-independence rather than
to impose civil-religion.
https://www.quora.com/How-is-freedom-grounded-in-concrete-human-experience?
by Giselle Seiton
It is made plain to each person who accepts that they are of
female&male-human-being that self-interest demands each individual to
constrain chaos in their way of living.
The individual has the freedom-to either accept or
deny/reject their necessity to promote peace on earth. They thereby reject
self-interest. Many of them are bemused by religious-political-opinion about
the source of self-interest.
Neither the-God (whatever-it-is) nor government nor
fellow-citizens will usurp the individual’s responsible-human-independence, unless
force is required to limit harm.
FB add on: Self-interest urges each human-being to constrain
chaos in their way of living.
https://www.quora.com/Considering-the-sources-presented-what-is-the-best-way-to-establish-a-civic-nation-inclusion-rights-values-beliefs?
by Amal Chehade
Rights, values, and beliefs are private. Not making them
civil-issues is the foundation of a civic nation.
It is made plain, to each person who accepts and appreciates
that they are of female&male-human-being, that self-interest demands each
individual to constrain chaos in their way of living.
Each human being has the individual power, the individual
energy, and the individual authority (HIPEA) to develop humble-integrity rather
than tolerate infidelity. The choice to attempt to impose rights, values, and
beliefs on fellow-citizens begs woe. Woe is a reliable monster.
FB add on: There’s
self-interest in constraining rather than inviting woe.
Law professors
https://lawliberty.org/book-review/history-empire/
I offer a slight modification of Hay’s statement “History, by this reckoning, rated societies as
backward or advanced and excused actions deemed to have brought improvements
over the long term. Rather than healing all wounds, Satia argues that time’s judgment
itself became an excuse for inflicting [human misery and loss].”
We, the “ourselves and our
Posterity” of 2021 have the twelfth-generation-opportunity to establish the
responsible-human-independence proposed by three historical records: an ancient
political philosopher’s suggestion in Genesis 1:27-28, the founders’ 1776
declaration of war against England, and the framers’ domestic discipline the
signers enacted on September 17, 1787.
The ancient philosopher
suggested that the-God assigned to female&male-human-entity the
responsibility to constrain chaos on earth, separating divine duty from
temporal responsibility; church from state. The 1776 Declaration expresses
humble-integrity to both church and state, without compromising humility toward
the-God. The 1787 Constitution has not one word that lessens the
humble-integrity called for in the former two documents.
It is past time for the
entity We the People of the United States to hold both Congress and the U.S.
Supreme Court accountable to stop preserving colonial-English tradition as
legal precedent.
The first tyranny to be
reformed is the First Amendment’s religion-Congress-partnership. We must amend
the First Amendment so as to promote civic humble-integrity rather than civil
religious-opinion.
The second is to reverse
Ramos v Louisiana (2020), which by a 6:3 vote imposed fourteenth-century
English requirement of unanimous criminal-jury verdicts. In 1967, England
established 10:2 majority-verdicts, in order to lessen organized-crime’s influence
on criminal trials. The U.S. Court accepted Ramos’ erroneous claim that 1791’s
Amendment VI requires states to provide unanimous rather than impartial
verdicts. Statistically, only majority verdicts usually provide justice, a fact
Louisiana accepted in 1780 by providing for 9:3 verdicts. U.S. Supreme Court
opinion is shamefully opposed to the 1787 intention to independently develop
statutory justice. As of September 17, 1787, there is not one valid English
precedent.
YOUR COMMENT
HAS BEEN AUTOMATICALLY APPROVED AND POSTED.
https://lawliberty.org/encountering-thomas-sowell/
I don't think I've ever before read such egocentric hubris
when someone expressed abject ignorance.
YOUR COMMENT
HAS BEEN AUTOMATICALLY APPROVED AND POSTED.
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