Revise the First Amendment to promote humble-integrity rather than religious-pride

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 Born a fellow-citizen, I choose to join We the People of the United States and aid 5 public disciplines---integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity, “in order to” establish and maintain 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

Revise the First Amendment to promote humble-integrity rather than religious pride

Appreciating one civic-citizen’s view that the-God of humankind is necessity&justice, another’s than it’s the Jesus of their Bible interpretation, another’s that it’s Jesus the author of Genesis 1:26-28 (another Bible interpretation), and another’s that it is their truth, whatever that may be: accepting citizens who neither initiate nor accommodate injury to-or-from any person, association, or property, including self and family.

A culture like this or better is achievable, and civic-citizens can&must establish it right away. Already, it seems the train left the station 234 years ago (the signing of the 1787 U.S. Constitution) and won’t return.

Quora

https://www.quora.com/If-you-do-something-of-your-own-free-will-do-you-do-it-by-choice-and-not-because-you-are-forced-to-do-it? by John Deang

I am beginning my fourth quarter-century with the conviction that I am learning to behave so as to survive the laws of physics&progeny; that is, wave fields, cosmic chemistry, inorganic chemistry, biology, psychology, imagination, and fiction (motivated by the undiscovered laws of physics&progeny and inevitably obsoleted by discovery).

In my daily choices, I am motivated by self-interest in necessity&justice. If I perceive I should take action, I consider whether my action would be just or not, and if it is ineluctably just, I may take the action if it seems necessary. If the action is not necessary and justice is unknown, I take no action. For example, if on retiring I recall that I did not lock an exterior door, risking self and family, I get up and check all door-locks.

I learned from Plato’s 2,400 year-old claims about Agathon that a good-citizen appreciates fellow citizens and neither initiates nor accommodates injury to or from a person, association, or property. Therefore, if I observe someone about to injure another or self, I either object or report the potential injury to first responders. If I feel a health-care provider is neglecting or harming the patient, I kindly say so and listen to the response. If their response is vocally negative, I repeat verbal objection or take it to the front office. I avoid vigilantism.

If I feel tired, and there are no family-demands on me, I take a nap. On the other hand, if a vital chore demands my work, I bypass the nap.

If someone is showing no appreciation --- for me or my person, I walk away so as to avoid conflict. If the other tries to follow me, I hasten my departure without drawing attention.

If, in my sleep an idea comes to mind that could help even one person lessen the chaos in their way of living, I get up and record it to start an essay or message. If someone wants to discuss a heartfelt concern, they have my undivided attention for as long as it takes --- without neglecting my family.

In such a conversation, a friend asked me to be kinder to believers in a given doctrine when they also develop civic-integrity. I immediately revised an essay to accomplish that improvement. A couple days ago, I thought for the first time that I have an open mind AND an open heart. I admit I may be wrong.

I perceive that I trust-in and am committed-to the laws of physics&progeny in self-interest more than by free-will. I am constrained by physics rather than metaphysics.

https://www.quora.com/Does-freedom-of-speech-include-the-right-to-lie-If-so-should-it? by David Morton Rintoul

I think so, for a couple reasons. First, if publishing lies is forbidden, the people have no means to discover liars. Second, if civic-authorities can’t equivocate, there’s no way for them to keep vital secrets.

Google Chrome offers for “equivocate”: “use ambiguous language so as to conceal the truth or avoid committing oneself” and Merriam-Webster-online offers: “. . . with intent to deceive”. Donald Trump exercised presidential-humility by quickly equivocating when the-ineluctable-truth would expose the entity We the People of the United States to clear and present danger. Democrats and the media giddied in presenting dangerous questions. Some Republicans didn’t get Trump’s personal humility. I cautioned my Senators not to criticize Trump’s responses when a Democrat or a “journalist” was in the room.

On the other hand, scholars promote lying, I think to aid the liars. Andy Smarick, in “Literally, Seriously, and Institutional Integrity” (current “National Affairs”) perhaps equivocated “equivocate” so as to avoid considering Trump’s humility rather than convicting Trump of “lies”; I wonder where Smarick would place “equivocate” on his 3 graphs. Meanwhile, Smarick left a lot of liars unmentioned. I wonder if Smarick erroneously thinks published-honesty equivocates to integrity. Anyway, Smarick wants the people to contend with 21 forms of lies from government authorities, responsible communicators, provocateurs, leaving only the lie and two variations on which to exclude someone from our serene-confidence.

https://www.quora.com/unanswered/Does-the-Universal-Declaration-of-Human-Rights-include-which-basic-rights-check-all-that-apply? by Diana Crisan

I check none, in order to encourage responsible-human-independence.

Political philosophers analyze “human rights” as a way to gain (not earn) money from the elites who seek to bemuse the people from what they need: responsible-human-independence. By expecting “rights”, dependents are enslaved to “God” and/or their particular government, perhaps a God-government partnership. The most egregious “human right” I encountered is “freedom from want”; it’s right up there with “the right to know mathematics”.

Many scholars preserve “God” as a means of bemusing the people from reserving sufficient appreciation&humility to the-God, whatever it is; I think physics&progeny. The Anglo-American pitch on this enslavement is that “Nature’s God” granted the human-being “natural rights” to “self-governance” for “the common-good”.

The elite’s intent is to impose the people’s happiness and coerce the people to accept that imposition rather than practice&facilitate responsible-human-independence. The proposition that the-God, or government, or their partnership will usurp the individual citizen’s humble-integrity is preposterous.

Nevertheless, U.S. scholars, for high income, debate “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” which no entity on earth can guarantee to the individual. In fact, the extant Democrat Party encourages individuals to risk health, life, and property by marching for socialism, and the Republican Party exacerbates the tyranny by encouraging national return to “God” rather than humility toward the-God, perhaps phsycis&progeny rather than metaphysics/mystery.

The civic-citizen preserves responsible-human-independence by earning their way of living, funding the development of statutory justice, and encouraging&facilitating reform to dependent-citizens, such as the indolent, the criminal, and the tyrant. In existing cultures, most citizens think they are too busy “living” (economizing affluence to image self-satisfaction) to develop responsible-human-independence in self-interest. The elites promote civil-satisfaction so as to defeat civic-self-interest.

The only reliable human-right I know of is the right to accept&practice responsible-human-independence.

I comment on questions so as to learn and, therefore, appreciate responses.

Thank you, Mr. Gutowski. Yes, I have studied the United Nations document on several occasions. Also, I read that Eleanor Roosevelt led the UN human-rights work. Her husband was author of the four freedoms.

Your response about responsibility reminds me of “don’t tread on me” and does not encourage&promote one of the points in my post: “. . . sufficient appreciation&humility to the-God, whatever it is; I think physics&progeny”.

What Anglo-American political philosophy obfuscates is that each citizen must comport to the laws of physics&progeny in order to survive. Thus, when a citizen is under higher-ground evacuation-order due to a tsunami, they do not jeopardize their safety by lingering to convince someone who prefers to pray to their God rather than risk the journey to higher ground.

Physics reliably corrects metaphysics, and Anglo-American political philosophy encourages citizens to rely on metaphysics.

To Gutowski again: I certainly don’t feel my speech is at a higher level and respond to you only to fill in gaps my writing left. You are kind to clarify.

I agree with you fully: we should do all we can to save someone who is so focused on the metaphysical that they will risk almost certain death under unstoppable physics; we should not try to grab a 250 lb person’s hand in prayer. The best we can do is yell “Leave with us and save your prayer for thanks!”

 

Again: Gutowski, I appreciate your upvote and work to clarify our shared, individual respects for responsible-human-independence (RHI), by no means novel.

I think the 5,000 year-old political-philosophy expressed in 3,000 year-old terms in Genesis 1:26–28 implies that humankind can&must provide RHI to the earth and its living species.

 

 

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-treating-success-as-duty-obligation-and-responsibility-important? by Isreal Ntewo

Ntewo, you ask a profound question in political language that protects tradition. Of course I don’t know the-ineluctable-truth and can only share my experience&observations.

In its current, dominant species, H. sapiens, humankind does not possess the humble-integrity that is required for self-discipline. To the typical person, discipline is something for their future. Influencers have learned that to tell someone they need self-discipline seems an offense and civic self-discipline would reduce political power to the elite. Thus, civil “rights” is a developed, political problem. Hopefully, H. integritas is emerging among us. In other words, maybe the next humankind-mutation will practice&encourage integrity.

Following the errant pursuits of the British, such as John Locke, d.1704, elites speak of “self-governance” under “Natural rights” granted to the human-being by the-God. However, the-God, whatever it is, assigned to humankind, female&male, the responsibility to provide order&fruitfulness to the earth. See Genesis 1:26-28 for this suggestion expressed 5,000 years ago.

As cultures developed, most civilized peoples constructed reasonable strategies to cajole the-God into usurping humankind’s responsibility: self-discipline. However, the-God does not accommodate human doctrine.

I know of only one proffered public-discipline proposition by a people. The entity We the People of the United States, specified in the 1787 U.S. Constitution, is the faction of inhabitants who take self-discipline as their self-interest, for themselves and their posterity. Every word in the 1787 Constitution is important to the individual citizen, either for preservation or for amendment, where there is injustice. And the critical sentence to the individual is the preamble. Each citizen should own a personal interpretation of the preamble’s intentions.

Mine, this morning, is: The good-people of the united States practice&encourage 5 disciplines --- integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity, “in order to” benefit-from responsible-human-independence “to ourselves and our Posterity”. Notice that neither the preamble nor my interpretation includes religion in the disciplines. Also, I replace Lockean “liberty” as a “right in governance” with “independence”, a human self-interest. (No one wants to wait in line for a bureaucrat to hand out a way of living.) Therefore, the U.S. accommodates the citizen who seeks comfort from the-God as well as those who develop the humble-integrity that is required for responsible-human-independence. Humble-integrity is pursued in religion by retaining sufficient appreciation for the-God, whatever it is.

I write to learn and appreciate comments.

https://www.quora.com/Do-you-obey-the-law-even-when-there-is-no-way-you-could-ever-be-caught-or-do-you-obey-the-law-because-it-is-the-right-thing-to-do? by Jack Ingram

In my 4^th quarter century, I obey the law for self-interest in maintaining personal independence and to encourage fellow-citizens to adopt their self-interest for the same reason: responsible-human-independence.

I want neither to spend my fixed-income on fines, spend limited time answering to the law, or more importantly, submit-to nor accommodate injury to-or-from any person, association, or property.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-statement-human-freedom-demands-responsibility? by Daizy Mae Empeño

Empeño, your question interests me because you ask about “human freedom” without specifying the individual or humankind. Consequently, the responsibility demand is to ether self, to responsible fellow-citizens, or to humankind. Please correct me if I am misreading your question. I think responsible independence earns freedom.

Recently, I ponder Genesis 1:26-28’s political philosophy, and your question augments my earlier interpretation to: The female&male-human-being can&must independently pursue necessity&justice to all species on earth. In other words, neither the-God nor government will usurp the human-being’s independent responsibility.

The individual who accepts that they are a human-being and therefore can perfect their unique-person will, in self-interest, constrain chaos in their way of living. The faction of citizens who constrain chaos nevertheless responsibly pursue the happiness they independently perceive, and are of a group I call “civic-citizens”.

However, some fellow-citizens, perhaps erroneously, perceive dependency in their self-interest. For example, some think crime or tyranny pays: they expect fellow-citizens to support their way of living. If fellow-citizens resist, the dependents may turn to irresponsible means to maintain the dependency, thus dividing themselves from their fellow, civic-citizens. If their behavior injures a fellow-citizen, the civic-citizens constrain the dependent, in order to encourage&facilitate them to reform from the dependency. The civic-citizens fund both law enforcement and revision to statutory-justice.

In this culture, there is no freedom-from dependency. Every citizen is impacted by the cost of statutory justice. Thus, the civic-faction is not free-from responsibility, yet they have accepted individual and collective independence, in order to preserve self-interests including reform.

My response is: Human-independence demands responsibility to civic justice.

https://www.quora.com/If-all-men-were-created-equal-why-are-there-first-class-and-second-class-citizens? by Ubazuonu Samuel Maduka

Mr. Maduka, your question seems a profound statement of widespread concern that has been neglected for so many thousands of years that chaos’s divergence seems unstoppable. But maybe an achievable better future is in the making.

What if we ask why most people accept division of humankind into 2 classes. Then we could ask:  What human equality is founded in the-ineluctable-evidence; “ineluctable” means “not to be avoided, changed, or resisted” (Merriam-Webster online).

In 2021, humankind comprehends exponentially more this year than last year, last century, last millennium, indeed more than ever before. We struggle against necessity&justice to not only survive but thrive. In physics, we keep our home and loved ones prepared&alert-to expected natural disasters. In my location, south Louisiana, hurricanes&tornedoes are more feared than packing provisions and taking the escape route if so ordered. Recently, I put my mask back-on even though I’ve had 2 COVID19 vaccinations. In metaphysics, we never lie, expecting that inevitably, physics will out the lie by delivering predictable loss and misery. My initially-exemplary life is repressed with “white lies” yet I refuse to accommodate the ruin of my person.

Perhaps 5,000 years ago, a Middle-Easterner expressed a practical-political-philosophy in colloquial terms that need not distract “ourselves and our Posterity” from its essence. Hebrew scholars interpreted the suggestion 2,000 years later, in Genesis 1:26-28; https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201%3A26-28&version=NIV.

My studies convince me that both the 1776 USA declaration of war against England and the 1787 U.S. Constitution affirm a 2021 view of Genesis 1 and that the metaphysical Jesus I speculate would agree with me. I express my interpretation of the 1787 Constitution and its preamble for this post: the-good people of the united States practice&promote 5 public disciplines, “in order to” encourage&facilitate responsible-human-independence “to ourselves and our Posterity”.

My interpretations proffer the proposition that every newborn person who survives the first quarter century and acquires the comprehension&intention to live a complete life may experience the opportunity to choose to develop their person as a human being. Further, they may accept the human, individual power, energy, and authority (HIPEA) to develop either humble-integrity-to or infidelity-to necessity&justice. On these three unlikely choices, the people divide themselves: civic-citizens and dependent-citizens. Accepting humble-integrity as the dividing practice, the civic-citizen accepts the RHI to develop statutory justice by which to influence dissidents to reform or perhaps lose their independence, even life, inviting statutory justice.

I think humankind itself is on the march toward the humble-integrity that is required to practice&facilitate RHI. The sooner individuals accept being a human-being, developing HIPEA, choosing humble-integrity, and assuring that their example affirms the perfection of their unique person, the sooner the dependent-faction will reform.

An achievable better future is more likely as each living person chooses RHI and encourages their family to observe the self-interest of humble-integrity. The individual, personal choice is ineluctable.

Thank you, Mr. Maduka. I added your name and this date to my “appreciations” post at promotethepreamble.blogspot.com.

https://www.quora.com/Is-responsibility-integrity? by Adetayo Osho

Mr. Osho, I choose to respond, in-order-to learn.

I start with Merriam-Webster Online (MWO). Therein, “responsibility” seems-human-civic burden: accountability, reliability, and trustworthiness. “Integrity” seems-human-individual firm-adherence: incorruptibility, soundness, and completeness. By-the-way, “discipline” seems-human self-control. It seems obvious that to some persons, self-control is a burden and to some it is a privilege. Integrity seems a self-interest beyond codes or other arbitrary human-constraints.

I purposefully ignored adherence “to a code”, in order to strengthen “incorruptibility”. Integrity requires firm-adherence to the-ineluctable-truth rather than to civil (legal-precedent) values, such as qualifications to join the American Bar Association, qualifications as manicurist, or a golf club’s admission rules.

So far, no culture encourages&facilitates individual development of the humble-integrity required for self-control according to the-ineluctable-truth. MWO defines “ineluctable” as “not to be changed, avoided, or resisted. Without such guidance, it’s rare when a maturing person develops responsible-human-independence (RHI).

I think one of the keys to such self-development is to retain early-youth acceptance, “I don’t know”, when that is so. Unfortunately, society seems to facilitate “I believe” as a valid though unreliable replacement for “I don’t know”. The adolescent who develops the intentions to accept nothing but the ineluctable-evidence before deciding action is necessary and acting, further develops the judgement by which to aid justice. Thus, self-discipline to nescessity&justice empowers integrity. For example, President George Bush, given his world’s best beliefs, could have decided that U.S. invasion was not necessary.

In human connections, the civic-citizen neither initiates nor accommodates injury to-or-from another person or association, including self and family. For mutual, comprehensive safety and security plus individual pursuits of personal happiness rather than submission, each party carries the burden of responsibility.

When each party practices civic self-control, firm-adherence to individual self-interest makes mutual integrity a privileged celebration of life --- nowhere near a burden.

When someone’s question teaches me, I add their name and the date to my “appreciations” post at promotethepreamble.blogspot.com. Thank you.

Facebook

Christine Fowler | Facebook (see comments under post at July 22 at 5:21 PM)

Thank you, Cristine, for this fairly old quote, essential for today. It led to some enlightenment to the depth of 2021 tolerance of ignorance for the sake of emotion/passion.

And for the prompt to check copyrighted (plagerism tolerant?) deception. This month, in "Seriously or Literally", Andy Smarick, senior fellow, attributed the 2+2=5 riddle to George Orwell, born 1903, perhaps from a 1946, instead of Dostoevsky, died 1881. Smarick attributes metaphysical approval of the physical impossility as infernece that authoritarianism opposes physics: Dostoevsky’s, which is point in "Notes from the Underground", 1864.

I checked Wikipedia, which perhaps 2 years ago credited Fodor, and they still do but highlight Orwell in socialism/communism review respecting 2+2=4.

And this brings a thought about Wikipedia’s possible bias. I'm not certain the people's bias is anti-human-being. The fact that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_%2B_2_%3D_5 now starts "best known in English for its use in the 1949 dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell" is an opinion not necessarily opposing the-ineluctable-truth and supported by the best review I have read.

The article now contains much more history than this: "In the 17th century, in the Meditations on First Philosophy, in which the Existence of God and the Immortality of the Soul are Demonstrated (1641), René Descartes said that the standard of truth is self-evidence of clear and distinct ideas. Despite the logician Descartes' understanding of "self-evident truth", the philosopher Descartes considered that the self-evident truth of "two plus two equals four" might not exist beyond the human mind; that there might not exist correspondence between abstract ideas and concrete reality.

A fellow-citizen smarter than me once said, "Oh, that's easy. All you need to do is define a as twice a+1 to get 'twice a is 5 when a=2; its a matter of convention regarding the definition of a". The problem with such metaphysics is that 2 apples and 2 oranges on the table ineluctably yields 4 fruit. Physics&progeny ineluctably corrects metaphysics as beliefs encounter discovery.

More:

Unbelievably, Smarick presents 23 lie-styles and advocates that political officials must limit theirs to perhaps 15 styles, scholars can add 4 styles, provocateurs another 2 styles, and the reader must reject 2 styles.

Smarick's work makes the ruinous assumption that liars know "the truth".

One problem with scholarly debate, so far, is that no one accepts a word or phrase that expresses humankind's goal: To discover the-ineluctable-truth, where "ineluctable" means "not to be avoided, changed, or resisted".

I work to learn an art better expression than: Humankind researches to discover "the-ineluctable-truth" through integrity in continually updating "the-ineluctable-evidence" until the necessary instruments of perception have been discovered and applied. The reader who deletes the hyphens loses the meaning of the phrase.

As an example, we know the earth is in orbit rather than fixed in space. Furthermore, humankind is routinely exploring space, formerly held to be "the heavens" or the exclusive domain of the-God. We have yet to invent the means to discover the-God. What caused and unleashed the laws of physics?

 

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.