Stop neglecting U.S. history

 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 appreciation:  For discussion, I convert the preamble’s predicate phrases to nouns and paraphrase it for my interpretation of its proposal as follows We the People of the United States proffer & practice 5 public disciplines —- integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity, “in order to” encourage & facilitate 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

Stop neglecting U.S. history

I receive many questions respecting widespread failure to comprehend the initial U.S. intentions.

I appreciate the reported-moment Benjamin Franklin, exiting the Philadelphia signing on September 17, 1787, told someone “You have a republic, if you can keep it.” Aliens, both foreign and domestic, seem to be asking “Can we terminate the U.S. intentions?”

As the reader can see in this week’s considerations, my refrain is: establish order, prosperity, and peace, by constraining chaos in the management of human-connections. Develop the civic-humble-integrity that is required for responsible-human-independence (RHI), as proffered in the 1787 U.S. Constitution.

Reform the 1791 Bill of Rights so as to eliminate dependency on English-colonialism as Anglo-American-tradition. Reform elected and appointed offices for accountability under the-ineluctable-evidence rather than 5:4 majority opinion. License voting based on personal comprehension of the preamble and practicing its goals. Disallow election of fellow citizens who cannot separate church and state; mystery-salvation and civic-success; metaphysics and physics.

Quora

https://www.quora.com/In-the-USA-who-defines-freedom-and-has-this-freedom-changed-since-it-was-first-defined? by Graham C Lindsay

Briefly, English tradition, by accommodation, and no change. But the better expression for the unfettered human condition is independence. Both freedom and liberty are obsolete English (John Locke) political ploys.

The human-being who develops responsible-human-independence (RHI), by responsibly earning the lifestyle they want, observing the law, and participating in fellow-citizens’ journey to civic-humble-integrity perceives excellence in a confused, conflicted world.

In my July 8, 2021 post “To Judicial Watch to promote Responsible-Human-Independence” (RHI), at promotethepreamble.blogspot.com (which needs editing for clarity), I share for development a 5 thousand year-old political suggestion: female&male-human-being must&can independently provide civic-order&prosperity to the species in this world. (Note: the “f&m” then “o&p” syntax suggests mutual requirement, and the hyphen is used to invite the reader not to disassemble phrases; for example, “objective truth” barely relates to “the-objective-truth” if at all.) Scribes reported the political philosophy 2 thousand years later in a theistic vernacular and with male primacy even though the female body generates the ova that, if inseminated, gestated, and delivered, needs both progenitors’ support for life. So far, the entire world neglects this obvious responsibility. Nevertheless, the USA could . . . should be doing better than to drift into divergent chaos.

To your question, we could say that Genesis 1:26-28 suggests the individual human being is challenged by civic-necessity&justice to constrain chaos in their way of living yet is free to risk human-connections. We can discuss this premise not by trying to understand the source-culture 5-thousand years ago, but by applying what humankind has learned during the recent fraction of homo-sapeins’ existence, about 300 thousand years.

Skipping to the British Empire, perhaps the world’s recent greatest for about 3-1/2 thousand years, in 1776, the USA’s founders declared the colonies a confederation of 13 states in independence from England. They claimed authority from “Nature’s God” rather than the English, reformed-Catholic Trinity, whom many colonists worshipped. And, nursing Enlightenment thought with France, they appealed “to the Supreme Judge of the world” to check intentions of-by-&-to “the good People”. In 1778, they negotiated France’s military providence. Thus, the USA founders appreciated both church and state: one for happiness and the other for civic justice, where ‘civic” refers to responsible human connections more than civil rules; metaphysics and physics; salvation and success; hope and responsibility: RHI.

However, the Continental Congress could neither manage domestic affairs nor collect taxes so as to pay war debts and provide strength for defense such as a powerful navy. Delegates from 12 states met to frame domestic rule and global authority beyond the 1783 Treaty of Paris. The 55 framers displaced the founders. Some delegates wanted to retain state supremacy over the people, some wanted to preserve the traditional dedication to God and his son Jesus, and others needed to go home. So only 39 framers became signers of the draft U.S. Constitution, codified on September 17, 1787, ratified on June 21, 1788 with the commitment to mimic England’s 1689 Bill of Rights, and placed into operation in March, 1889 under 11 states. The 1689 English bill assures a Protestant monarchy. Egregiously, the 1791 U.S. Bill of Rights substantially restores Anglo-American tradition in the U.S. rather than assuring the independence declared in 1776, won in 1781, and codified in the 1787 U.S. Constitution.

The 1787 U.S. Constitution assigns amendment-sovereignty to a disciplined public, in their states, with five public goals by which to hold both their states and the union of states accountable to the law. Majority vote by qualified citizens manages elections in the states. However, in the federal government majority vote is ruined by the Electoral College as well as a bicameral legislation with inhabitant-proportioned Representatives and 2 Senators per state. Also, Supreme Court justices and federal judges are nominated by the executive branch for concurrence by the Senate. In this way, the 1787 Constitution intended to guarantee to the states a republic form of government. However, the combination of the religion-Congress partnership and the Supreme Court deference-to Anglo-American precedent, RHI to “ourselves and our Posterity” is tyrannized. The source of this egregious neglect of the U.S. independence won by war rests with the entity We the People of the United States, the fellow-citizens who should understand U.S. citizenship enough to hold local, state, and federal elected and appointed officials accountable to RHI.

Aliens bemuse U.S. citizens with freedom and liberty, grants by the victor in war and their magistrates. So far, the entity We the People of the United States has accommodated repression of RHI since the First Congress started operating as a religion-state partnership.

We, the “ourselves and our Posterity” of 2021 must&can amend the Frist Amendment so as to encourage&facilitate humble-integrity to the people and stop supporting religious pride to Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court. Two-hundred, thirty years of codified ruin to RHI is enough.

In the U.S., Anglo-American tradition defines “freedom”, the entity We the People of the United States accommodates the tyranny, and civic-necessity&justice’s demand for RHI has been known and foolishly resisted since humankind invented grammar 5 thousand years ago.

https://www.quora.com/What-literature-can-you-suggest-on-how-to-understand-and-develop-your-moral-compass/answer/Phil-Beaver-1? Updated after share by Julianna Anand

I’m glad your question addresses “a moral compass” rather than the URL’s “your moral compass”.

“Moral” means “of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior”, http://merriam-webster.com.

More than direction to literature, I’d like to present a framework for moral behavior then leave it to you to choose how to experience&observe it in your daily living, supplemented by the literature you select to aid your acceptance of Your Excellency: your human-being; the perfect, unique person you are developing. (Note: I use the “e&o” syntax to express mutual necessities and the hyphen to invited the reader not to disassemble the phrase.)

Personally developing involves 5 acceptances. A civic-person accepts first that they are a human-being rather than one of the opposites: a dependent --- welfare gamer, religion plyer, criminal, tyrant, evil; or an animal, or plant; or mineral; or soul-mystery. An ancient political philosopher suggested that female&male-humankind is independently responsible to provide peace to living inhabitants on earth. The philosophy was interpreted, perhaps 20 centuries later, in Genesis 1:26-28; we are free to interpret it in light of 3,000 years’ discovery. The-God is yet to be discovered. Thus, in accepting being a human-being, a person accepts responsible-human-independence (RHI).

Second, the human-being has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (HIPEA) to develop humble-integrity. Therefore, on the journey toward psychological maturity, the person retains the infantile posture “I don’t know” when that is so. If necessity&justice do not require knowledge, it is sufficient to de-prioritize the discovery. On the other hand, if something causes you to doubt, for example, “the sun’ll come out tomorrow”, take the time to discover: The earth’s rotation on its axis hides the sun each evening and un-hides it each morning at 1000 mph earth-surface speed. Thus, the brevity of “sunrise” and “sunset” impressions plus the time to “feel” the rotation speed.

By all means, every civic-citizen can answer (probably won’t choose to) the question: Is your God the-God? It is important to practice HIPEA for humble-integrity rather than for dependency.

Third, the civic-person neither initiates nor accommodates injury to-or-from any person or association, including self and family. If initiating harm is anticipated or possible, the attended action must be stopped. Not accommodating injury means objecting when it’s anticipated and reporting to first responders when it is intended. Under direct attack, the civic-person is prepared for self-defense. These three provisions can be summarized as not accommodating injury.

In summary, moral behavior involves accepting 1) being human, 2) responsible-human-independence, 3) HIPEA, 4) humble-integrity, and 5) not accommodating injury. Maybe spend some time developing an acceptance list you want to explore.

I think Wikipedia, with all its weaknesses is a great place to start in finding literature to read. So, taking my first phrase, “being human”, there is an article at Being Human - Wikipedia. Under “other” is a link: Human condition - Wikipedia. The article suggests excellent reading, and if it appeals to you, I think every source listed is worthwhile. “See also” links to Human nature - Wikipedia, which is worthy of thorough consideration. It could be a reader’s first exposure to Chinese philosophy. I would expect from these initial studies, that Darwin’s “Origin of the Species” might be a first selection for opening the mind to physics and its progeny --- everything. Unfortunately, I noticed one article talked about “natural selection” rather than adaptation to the environment, which I understand is more Darwinian. But select what interests you the most, and continue the study as you like.

Continue with each of the acceptances I suggested or your alternatives, and your preferences will identify themselves. If a particular word interests you, say “truth”, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy will give you more than you need. Note that philosophy discloses all that has been reported on a topic or word and leaves evaluation/judgment to the reader. I have developed my own-term: the-ineluctable-truth. “Ineluctable” means “not to be avoided, changed, or resisted”.

That brings me to the most essential essay in my lifetime: Ralph Waldo Emerson’s “Self Reliance”. It’s time for me to re-read it.

Update: from Aug 24, 2021 on October 2, 2021. Thank you for sharing my earlier post, which I edited for clarification.

I continued from “Self-Reliance” with “History”, “Friendship”, and “The Over-soul”; and am on “The Poet”, after which I will read “Experience” and “The Divinity School Address.” In time, I may mimic “The Overs-soul” as “The Person”, in order to encourage&facilitate addressing physics rather than pursuing metaphysics; success rather than salvation; RHI rather than dependency; humble-integrity more than exhortation.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-national-integrity-and-why-is-it-important? by Khryss Gel Bernal

We must consider “integrity”. First, “integrity” is thinking and saying “I don’t know” when that is so. Second is judging whether you need to know or not and if not, thinking and saying “And I don’t need to know.” Third, when you need to know, doing the work to discover. In the research work, you always act on the-ineluctable-evidence; “ineluctable” means “not to be avoided, changed, or resisted”.

For example, someone asks a forbidden question: “Is your-God the-God?” You respond, “I don’t know. And I don’t need to know: my-God comforts and guides me, gives me hope for my future, and does not compete with your-God.” If it’s true, you might add: “Nevertheless, I reserve humility toward the-God.”

A nation of people has all ranges of integrity, from abject dependency to responsible-human-independence (RHI). Dependency includes indolence, abuse, religious seclusion from the civic-good, crime, tyranny, evil, and worse. The cumulative sum of RHI being practiced by fellow-citizens determines national-integrity. That is to say, fellow-citizens cannot accommodate a corrupt government: they must hold accountable elected and appointed officials --- local, state, and federal --- to practice RHI.

https://www.quora.com/How-is-the-truth-related-to-academic-integrity? by Asha Daniella

I think “truth” is misleading and wonder if there is an entity “academic integrity”.

When an academic agrees to teach a course, they feel qualified to impose their opinion on a topic they’ve only begun to master. Their PhD licenses this behavior. It positions them to coerce the students to see it prof’s way, in order to receive good grades. When a PhD encounters a civic-citizen, they can’t handle it, because they are just a fellow-citizen. I work hard to persuade them to perceive a fellow citizen, hoping the experience will impact their students. But no; I have to change the topic to LSU sports or a weather event or the food being served.

Most fellow-citizens, including professors, consider honesty sufficient. Consequently, they have never considered, much less encountered integrity. Integrity is a practice more than a product. In the practice, something comes up that you don’t know. You admit: “I don’t know” and then make a personal decision: accept not knowing or do the research to discover the-ineluctable-evidence; “ineluctable” means “not to be avoided, changed, or resisted”.

For example, someone asks, “Will the sun come out tomorrow?” The weather is expected to be good but the presence of the question causes caution. You respond, “That’s what they tell me.” Later, you consult the internet and comprehend for the first time that the earth’s rotation on its axis hides the sun each evening and un-hides it each morning. You go on to read that the surface rotation is 1000 mph and appreciate for the first time the power of gravity holding everything against the centrifugal force. For the first time, you perceive the fast rotation toward the hiding. Dusk takes a new perspective, and midnight means complete hiding. You commit to share the new perspective every chance you get.

It is shocking that scholars have not given up on “truth”, a subjective term, made so by countless scholarly arguments that erroneously claim “the truth”. They could encourage&facilitate responsible-human-independence (RHI) by using phrases like the-objective-truth the first time research discovers ineluctable-evidence. Then, when they invent new instruments of perception that require modification of that-objective-truth, they can perceive they have more closely approached the-ineluctable-truth.

With repeatability under different research designs and confirmation of interconnections to other ineluctable-evidence, experiences&observations eventually confirm the-ineluctable-truth.

I hope this helps.

https://www.quora.com/Can-we-still-afford-a-17th-century-definition-of-Westphalian-sovereignty-or-does-the-21st-century-require-a-more-evolved-liberal-world-order-type-of-sovereignty? by Matthew Lowe

Regarding sovereignty in international law, I think “Westphalian” refers to a nation controlling its territory. The alternative called “liberal world order” proposes organizations like the League of Nations, established in 1919 "to promote international cooperation and to achieve peace and security". Right?

A hundred years later, it seems it’s acceptable for nations to conduct war as long as nuclear weapons are limited. Also, the world, nuclear-impacted by the Chinese virus, accommodates immunity to the Chinese Communist Party. Other divergent organizations also have functional names: United Nations, World Bank, International Monetary Fund, World Trade Organization, World Health Organization, and the Paris Climate Accords.

After a short life, it seems the liberal world order has produced divergent chaos.

Perhaps it is time to reassess the basis of law. Presently, “justices” debate the law to appreciate a recently discovered injustice. They may start by considering the ineluctable-evidence. “Ineluctable” means “not to be avoided, changed, or resisted”. However, they might turn to legal precedent to propose an amendment. This process, the rule of law by legal opinion, can go on for eternity, opposing the-ineluctable-truth by using procedures to avoid, change, or resist its evidence.

Most human-beings want safety and security, in order to pursue the happiness they perceive rather than to submit to a plan someone else has for them. They recognize it is a mutual desire among considerate citizens. Consequently, they practice civic-integrity --- fidelity in human connections. They neither initiate nor accommodate harm to or from any person or association.

However, some fellow-citizens prefer dependency: indolence, religious doctrine, abuse, crime, tyranny, evil, and worse. Therefore, the civic-citizens must not only earn their way of living, they must pay the taxes required for infrastructure including both law-enforcement and research to discover then enact statutory justice. In statutory justice, offending fellow-citizens are constrained until they reform or, under dire offenses, terminated.

Within a nation, a substantial majority of inhabitants must be civic-citizens, in order to maintain economic viability. The nation that encourages and facilitates responsible-human-independence (RHI) can survive. When the dependent-fellow-inhabitants outweigh the civic-citizens, chaos becomes divergent.

A World State-Annihilation Organization does not make sense. However, a nation whose majority-inhabitants constrain chaos in personal living can motivate their leaders to constrain national chaos. Once the concept is widely adopted, the leaders may observe exodus by the civic-majority.

Similar action is taking place now, in the USA’s 50 states. Civic people in Illinois, New Jersey, and New York are moving to Florida, Texas and other states without notifying elected and appointed officials left behind.

https://www.quora.com/unanswered/What-personal-ethics-do-you-have-and-why? by Mary Therese Penecitos

In my fourth quarter century I accept physics and its progeny --- mathematics, chemistry, biology, psychology, imagination, appreciation, fiction, lies --- indeed everything, as the basis of ethics.

To express it another way, if an action does not comport to physics, it is unethical to responsible-human-independence (RHI).

Still another expression; metaphysics is human reasoning to explain a heartfelt concern, in the absence of discovery. The explanation is researched using ineluctable-evidence; “ineluctable” means “not to be avoided, changed, or resisted”. The-ineluctable-evidence respecting that concern may be negative, in which case humankind updates the journal of ethics so that future concern can start from that research. On the other hand, if the concern is confirmed, more research may be required to discern how to responsibly act. To metaphysics to overrule the-ineluctable-evidence and take action is erroneous and begs correction if not accountability. In other words, to construct doctrine on an unproven concern is unethical to RHI. For example, enacting “Shoot first; ask later” invites criminal prosecution.

In a modern, essential application of this principle, we, the 2021 “ourselves and our Posterity” are continuously under attack by unethical entrepreneurs. For example, a new industry can physically resist a person’s gender. To economically survive, they need subjects to pay for the “service” at prices high enough to repay the research costs and provide profits to the investors. They ply the field of troubled adolescents to convince them their psychology is in conflict with their physicality: they have female hopes and comforts in a male’s body or vice-versa. Persons who contract for the gender change enslave themselves to the consequential services, for life. They sacrifice their chance to develop the person they have to avoidance, change, and resistance; misled, they defy the-ineluctable-evidence of their gender.

I am not at all unfamiliar with the challenges of accepting the person you are. I am a geek, yet was elected secretary of my high-school graduating-class. I had many kinds of relationships with females and was a virgin. I was offered homosexual play and turned it down. A couple times, a girl offered her body to me, but selfishly turned them down: I felt I would jeopardize my future. Unfortunately for me, neither Dad nor Mom ever counselled me about the self-interest of monogamy for life. A few girls rejected me during my college years, and at age 24 I resolved to be a bachelor. Unknowingly at first, I met my bride-to-be. I was awed by her serene-confidence (but could not have articulated it then). Part of the mystic was her extreme physical beauty yet acceptance of me. In awe, I was reluctant to court her: I perceived the loss of the bachelor-intentions I had happily arrived at. I suffered what I call male-heterophobia: fear of commitment to a woman, the viable ova she will produce during her fertile years, and any children they may beget. We are in our fifty-second year of marriage with 3 children.

My life began with the belief that if I mastered Bible interpretation, success would be easy. I tried to pursue that belief into my late forties and ended with a ruined life at age 47. Ten years later, I totally accepted the ruin, but decided I need-not allow it to ruin Phil Beaver. During these 3 decades I developed trust-in and commitment-to the-ineluctable-truth, discoverable only through researching the physics of the source of concern. No matter how helpful human reason may be in managing the research, reason cannot be adopted as belief: metaphysics cannot trump physics. Everybody knows and few accept the humble-integrity required for RHI.

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-it-that-Congress-shall-make-no-laws-inhibiting-free-speech-Is-Bitcoin-a-form-of-free-speech-because-it-s-digital-information-and-energy? by Alex S. Gabor

If congresspersons and clergy could not lie, we, the 2021 “ourselves and our Posterity” would have no way of discerning liars. This principle holds for all government officials --- elected and appointed; local, state and federal; democrats, independents, liberals, and republicans; conservatives and leftists; theists and non-theists. It holds in personal-privacy as well.

Liars don’t and have-not accepted that physics and its progeny --- mathematics, economics, chemistry, biology, psychology, imagination, fiction, indeed everything works to discover falsehood and hold the liar accountable.

The lie that brought human-beings to 2021’s divergent chaos is to deny the secular advice (shared in a scribe’s religious vernacular 2 thousand years later, 3 thousand years ago), in Genesis 1:26-28: necessity&justice suggest that female&male-human-being can provide order and prosperity to the species living in the world. That is, the individual can provide fidelity to fellow-citizens. In other words, each individual is accountable for the lack of peace in the world. The rest of Bible canon is a journal of spousal infidelity (including attempts to subjugate female-human-being) and begging-diverse-otherworldly-power (perhaps the-God) to usurp responsible-human-independence (RHI).

If an individual could not lie to self, there would be no way for physics&progeny to inform them --- hold them accountable --- to acquire the humble-integrity with which to practice RHI. This is unfortunately&avoidably so, because no civilization or culture has ever inculcated in their youth the principles herein and more.

The 1787 U.S. Constitution proffers such a culture. However, the First Congress re-established Anglo-American religion in the 1791 Bill of Rights. Since then, the continuum “ourselves and our Posterity” has bemused itself with “freedom of religion” and the entity We the People of the United States accommodates that lie.

We, the 2021 “ourselves and our Posterity” must&can amend the First Amendment so as to encourage&facilitate RHI rather than religion-state-partnership, removing any elected or appointed officials’ whimper “. . . so help [you] God?”. Any personal-God is a matter of personal-privacy: Civil-imposition is tyranny.

I use the “f&m” syntax to indicate mutual necessity and hyphens to beg the reader not to disassemble the phrases. For example, “objective truth” is not close to “the-objective-truth”, which often only points to the-ineluctable-truth”. I name female before male, because she is responsible to perhaps 400 viable ova during her fertile years. The authentic male knows his potential for happiness is to reliability “provide order and prosperity to” her and her viable ova, then their children, grandchildren, and beyond.

I though Bitcoin a double-pyramid scheme so stayed away.

https://www.quora.com/Is-nationalism-a-lie? by Paulius Zvykas

I don’t think so. Nationalists practice reliability to independent fellow-citizens, both native-born-and-legal-immigrants. Civic-citizens participate for life to aid&require reliability of their elected and appointed fellow-citizens in public office rather than apply to emigrate.

But there are deceitful uses of the “nationalism”. Also, too many scholars blindly seek utopia, overlooking the fact that the human-being possesses the individual power, energy, and authority (HIPEA) to choose either responsible-independence or a dependence: indolence, eternal-wait for higher power, crime, tyranny, evil, and worse abuses of fellow-citizens.

Engage as I discover three uses of “nationalism”. First, Google offers “identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations”. Second, merriam-webster.com suggests “loyalty and devotion to a nation”. Third, britannica.com presents “ideology based on the premise that the individual’s loyalty and devotion to the nation-state surpass other individual or group interests”. I did not intend to evaluate discovery but must.

The first usage accuses intent to exclude --- tries to start a fight --- compatible with Alinksy-Marxist organizations (AMO); whether democratic-collectivist, socialist, communist, or other woke “-ist”. (Note: “How would Jesus do it?” is political correctness from my 1950s youth. Also, Alinsky must have liked the Apostle John’s ploy --- since you hate me you hate the-God.) The second usage seems realistically inclusive to human-being --- a culture of “E Pluribus Unum” including the-God. That is, the entity that controls the consequences of human-individual choice. The third usage seems restrictive, almost as violent as the first. For example, the nation that requires citizens to choose a-religion-or-none invites self-reform to the reality that pursuit of religious hope and comfort is personally-private: not a public practice and thus not subject to government-force. That is, for successful service to a nation of people, the government must accept that military and police powers are physical-force that invokes real fears but cannot influence metaphysics. Government can constrain the body, but neither the mind nor the person. Also, it is important to note that no government knows anything about the metaphysics of “souls” and afterdeath.

Now, to your question, I have loyalty-to and devotion-to the-yet-intended-U.S. civic-integrity. I work all I can to discover expressions with which fellow-citizens can practice, encourage, and facilitate the nation’s proffered public disciplines. Viewing the U.S. intentions in 2021, I perceive individual&collective U.S. failure-to-be the-informed&responsible nation the 1787 Constitution-signers proposed and 9 states ratified for amendment by the First Congress.

I attribute the pivotal-failure to preservation of Anglo-American tradition erroneously supported by self-styled conservatives. The reliable conservatism focuses on physical necessity and justice rather than metaphysics. For example, Kim R. Holmes, PhD, in “The Problem of Nationalism”, December 13, 2019 (online at https://www.heritage.org/conservatism/commentary/the-problem-nationalism), asserts “[Nationalism] celebrated differences, not the common humanity of Christianity as it had been known in the Holy Roman Empire or the Catholic Church or even in the Enlightenment”. Note Holmes deceptive nod toward Anglo-American Protestantism in the U.S., now morphed toward Judeo-Catholicism. Neither Holmes nor fellow-scholar David Azerrad, Ph.D. (online at https://www.heritage.org/political-process/commentary/the-declaration-independence-and-the-american-creed), share “The American’s Creed”, by William Tyler Page, even though both cite it:

“I believe in the United States of America as a government of the people, by the people, for the people; whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed, a democracy in a republic, a sovereign Nation of many sovereign States; a perfect union, one and inseparable; established upon those principles of freedom, equality, justice, and humanity for which American patriots sacrificed their lives and fortunes.

I therefore believe it is my duty to my country to love it, to support its Constitution, to obey its laws, to respect its flag, and to defend it against all enemies.” –Written 1917, accepted by the United States House of Representatives on April 3, 1918.

I have no problem with William Tyler Page’s sentiments for his person, but they do not, will not, apply to my person, Phil Beaver. Also, I do not think Page’s creed expresses appreciation to Americans who lost their lives for their reasons rather than for Page’s.

Interpreting in 2021 the 1787 draft constitution, I consider the USA a civic-people’s nation of by and for public-discipline. Civic refers to reliable human-connections more than obedience to municipal rules. Local, state, and national government-officials are held responsible to the-ineluctable-truth discovered by the continuum “ourselves and our Posterity” including legal immigrants. Together, civic-citizens continually amend obsolete legal opinion. The deliberate-entity We the People of the United States intends responsible-independence from bestowed freedom, liberty, equality, emotions, and English precedent, in order to develop the responsible-human-independence (RHI) required to act on necessity&justice. The 5 disciplines that facilitate RHI are: integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity. Posterity’s posterity will define the ultimate standards. Religion is preserved as a personally-private pursuit or none rather than a legal imposition. Consequently, it is my duty to neither initiate nor accommodate injury/harm to-or-from ether dependent fellow-citizens or aliens.

The Anglo-American propaganda my creed-mimic addresses includes: the coercion “consent of the governed”, compromised “republic”, sovereign people in their states, necessity to constrain and reform arbitrarily-dependent fellow-citizens including corrupt-officials, liberty and equality replaced by RHI, maintain unjust-law while developing statutory justice, and no coercive-allegiance.

The Continental Congress, seeking domestic control after France’s essential military-providence to victory at Yorktown, VA in 1781, adopted, in 1782, for the 13-states’ seal the 1776 motto “E Pluribus Unum”. Before, then, and now “Unum” might include the-God: whatever controls the consequences of human choices. Heraclitus, d. 475 BC, wrote about the-God; Fragment 10 ends “and out of all things one and out of one all things”; Benardete, Seth. “On Heraclitus.” The Review of Metaphysics 53, no. 3 (2000): 613–33. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20131400.

My point is that this issue, nationalism, and its impact on the individual’s RHI, is not at all new. In fact, it can be traced to a Middle-Eastern political suggestion 5 thousand years ago: only the-female&male-human-being can provide order&prosperity to the living species in this world. On this beginning-of-history suggestion, the individual can choose to constrain chaos in their way of living, no matter how their nation behaves excepting physical force and inhalation. Female&male can be faithful to each other.

It is critical for U.S. citizens to contemplate the 1776 declaration of independence from England, the founder’s thoughts, together with the 55 framers’ provisions, complimented with the 39 signers’ addition of intentions to the draft preamble only 5 days before the signing on September 17, 1787. That is to say, the founders, with French provisions, won independence as 13 free&independent states. The framers specified a republic with provisions to prevent democracy so as to encourage&facilitate RHI as “ourselves and our Posterity” practiced 5 public disciplines. The signers made the domestic federalism held accountable by the civic faction, We the People of the United States. But the First Congress restored Anglo-American dependence.

Egregiously, the intentions were repressed by the First Congress, beginning in March, 1789 and codified the tyranny in an English-mimicking Bill of Rights in 1791. We, the “ourselves and our Posterity” of 2021, have the privilege and duty to establish the world’s first republic proffered for the public discipline that is necessary to develop RHI under statutory justice rather than the world’s unwanted-chaos: civil “freedom of religion”, a personally-private pursuit rather than justifiable-legal imposition. 

Typically, quora-questions are easy; an individual’s answer perhaps not so easy. I hope my deep-response seems worthy of consideration. If so, the reader may take action to cause reform, for example, amend the First Amendment so as to encourage&facilitate the humble-integrity needed for RHI rather than maintain religious-pride over a doctrinal-God that cares nothing for the-God.

Conservative human-beings seem the most qualified fellow-citizens to lead the reform, because non-believers have less vested-interest in religious-doctrine despite mutual desire for safety&security. Security is needed to pursue personal happiness rather than submit to a national-doctrine, and every human-being deserves responsible pursuit of their happiness rather than someone else’s idea for them.

https://www.quora.com/Is-the-concept-of-inalienable-human-rights-silly-and-overly-idealistic-Do-some-humans-such-as-convicted-criminals-not-deserve-rights? by Anthony Blake

I would not have thought of “silly” and commend you. It means “exhibiting or indicative of a lack of common sense or sound judgment”, Meriam-webster.com.  Moreover, I consider the “rights” propaganda erroneous colonial tyranny over our minds; the 2021 “ourselves and our Posterity”. The only right we are due is the opportunity to develop humble-integrity by which to develop our personal-integrity.

The U.S., correctable-tyranny originated with Englishman John Locke, d. 1704. He said we are God’s property and thus due protection by government. Because of his metaphysics --- theism, initially Calvinism and perhaps morphing to Deism --- Locke’s community is owed “life, liberty, and property” in Locke’s view. Since I trust-in and am committed-to the-ineluctable-truth, I oppose Lockean politics.

When the formerly loyal British subjects in the N. American colonies rebelled, they did not relinquish the religious personal-privacy that was pivotal to some of their departures from England or other European nations. They declared war citing human authority from “Nature’s God” instead of the English Trinity (still transitioning to a reformed-Catholicism). Also, the founders directly-rebuked Locke with “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. In other words, they did not accept being “property” of Locke’s God-pursuit, yet wanted to preserve the familiar as much as possible.

The colonists exempted the-God from any responsibility for killing fellow-subjects in red coats in order to gain independence. They declared responsible-human-independence (RHI --- please remember this acronym for what follows). They recorded a responsible oath: “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”

Many colonists denied Locke’s-God’s property, sacrificing life and liberty for RHI to “the good People of these Colonies”. They sought their happiness rather than subjugation as “God’s property” according to Locke.

With military providence from France, the good people secured Cornwallis’ surrender at Yorktown, VA, in September, 1781. In 1782, they adopted the motto “E Pluribus Unum” which applies to the-God as well as to “the good people of these Colonies”. Surrender by the worlds’ greatest empire to a colony plus another nation affirmed “the Supreme Judge of the world” as a political rather than church function. Brave Americans have continued to sacrifice their lives for RHI “to ourselves and our Posterity”, the object of the 1787 U.S. intentions expressed in the amendable Constitution.

I think Locke’s “property of God” has been dismissed. Do life and liberty remain?

The above review is evidence that government-guaranteed life is as silly as you suggest, Mr. Blake. Murder rates in the U.S. Democrat-run-cities, who in summer, 2020 licensed the liberty to injure, kill, and destroy, clarifies travesty: liberty too often excites citizens against fellow-citizens. Since the French reign of terror in 1789, the U.S. has needed to amend the constitution to “independence” wherein it extols/bestows liberty.

It’s tragic that metaphysics plays such a major role in this silliness. Every considerate person is confident we are living and working for something of ultimate nobility yet we in the west are constrained by if not to and for seventeenth-century English tradition. Traditionally, we’re property of the-God no one knows. However, nobility could be the-good that posterity’s posterity can achieve. That, in my opinion, is the intention the 1787 framers expressed as best they could . . . and not poorly. A person’s privacy regarding religion was of no interest to the signers if not the framers.

The 1787 U.S. Constitution proffers a representative republic (under the rule of law). The aware&considerate citizens volunteer for 5 public disciplines “in order to” secure RHI “to ourselves and our Posterity”. To accommodate continual amendment toward the ultimate-good, the framers left no standards for the 5 disciplines: integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity. The framers omitted religious-discipline, because it is a personally-private choice. Each generation would do all it could to discover civic injustice plus devise best civil reforms to advance statutory justice. Justice would answer to necessity to the-ineluctable-evidence rather than to majority opinion, especially, erroneous legal-precedent. Instead of extolling freedom&liberty, the U.S. would encourage and facilitate the humble-integrity that is required for individual RHI. Instead of religious-chaos there could be civic-order.

All the angst I am aware of stems from Bible canon representing diverse races and cultures. The first chapter in most canon could have originated with a secular (civic) suggestion. Genesis 1 may have come from a 5,000 year old secular or polytheistic culture that observed that order&prosperity is possible if the individual human-being provides it. That is, if every person constrained chaos in their way of living, there would be peace on earth. The remainder of the canon is a journal of diverse chaos.

Regardless, operation of the U.S. since imposition of English tradition through the 1789 Congress and the 1791 Bill of Rights has brought us to divergent chaos. It is time for responsible civic action. First, I urge we, the 2021 “ourselves and our Posterity” to amend the First Amendment so as to encourage&facilitate RHI rather than accommodate civil religion. Second, require the Supreme Court to open sessions with the reading of the preamble to the U.S. Constitution, pledge to advance it using the-ineluctable-truth, no pledge of allegiance to the flag (a coercive ceremony), and no prayer to negate RHI. Third, require each citizen to demonstrate understanding and commitment to the U.S. preamble to apply for license to vote.

Accommodating the vote of an inhabitant who opposes the preamble’s disciplines lacks common sense and sound judgement: is silly. Allowing them to run for elected or appointed office is tyranny.

https://www.quora.com/What-were-John-Lockes-ideas-about-government? by Kanye West

Only you can apply your experiences and observations to assess your John-Locke-political-philosophy. Neither professional scholar nor interested citizen such as me can interpret a thinker’s ideas published in 1690. We may read Locke’s words at https://www.gutenberg.org/files/7370/old/trgov10h.htm.

However, we must not be too distracted: humankind has discovered much in the 317 years since Locke died. Locke could not have imagined the divergent chaos the 2021 “ourselves and our Posterity” face.

It’s easy to get lost and overlook for decades (3 in my case) Locke-thoughts like “. . . for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely wise maker; all the servants of one sovereign master, sent into the world by his order, and about his business; they are his property, whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not one another's pleasure . . .” (my emphasis). No wonder the uSA founders, in the 1776 declaration of war against England, modified Locke’s “life, liberty, and property” to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”.

Locke’s prejudicial thinking constructs theories like antinomianism: through God’s grace, the individual who is chosen by God is exempt from civil law (state). Since human-belief is divided, especially after Abraham, state is split: theists and others. Also, Abrahamic theists are divided.

For some Jews, antinomianism means fidelity to the Torah because you are God’s property. For some Christians, God elected you to believe Jesus, and thus you are redeemed. For some Muslims, Allah elected you to obey Sharia. To some Ethiopians, it means elected to establish (Biblical?) unity. Racial interpretation of the Bible, a racial journal, creates chaos: heartfelt, divergent chaos.

For the nations who were once subjugated by the British Empire and under its influence after the sixteenth century, separation of church and state is an urgent need that is neglected by the only citizen who can make it happen: the potentially civic-individual, where “civic” refers to reliable personal-connections more than conformity to community rules. That is, the citizen who would like responsible-human-independence even if they pursue personal-privacy regarding spirituality or none.

In other words, physics and its progeny including psychology is everybody’s business, whereas spirituality is personally-private: physics is essential while metaphysics is a diversion. John-Locke-focus is metaphysics.

https://www.quora.com/unanswered/Why-is-an-appeal-to-principles-of-justice-or-human-embedded-in-the-law-of-civilized-nations? by Saiku Barrie

Female&male-human-being has the individual power, energy, and authority (HIPEA) to act on necessity. They must act in justice toward fellow-citizens, in order to preserve independence.

Not every person accepts necessity&justice. Consequently those who do must provide infrastructure for law-enforcement plus research to develop statutory justice.

Even the most civilized nations do not articulate these principles, which were colloquially suggested about 5,000 years ago.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-your-great-responsibility-to-language? by Jon Dixon Bersabal

The responsibility I accept is to consider a writer’s message, judge it according to my comprehension of human discovery since the writer’s era, and express my interpretation such that it may impact fellow-citizens’ experiences and observations. I use my words and phrases from my limited American English, and avoid artificial intelligence, for example on grammar, in order to constrain further confusion. I write for the audience without their assumptions, anticipations, explanations, thinking, and feeling, which I cannot possibly know.

I depend on the reader to appreciate my work enough to clarify my message, in their view, then comment, whether negatively or positively. If so, I become a dedicated listener, because I anticipate that together, we will improve the reliability and availability of the message. If someone blasts me with Alinsky-Marxist organization (AMO) or other ridicule, I accept their exit and keep the door unlocked.

As an example, of my accomplishments, in my opinion, I first wrote about “Faith in the Truth” in 2006. When he heard my talk, Harold Weingarten kindly asked, “Phil, what truth are you advocating: truth, the truth, absolute truth, ultimate truth, God’s truth, Phil’s truth?” I answered, “None of those, because they all involve human evaluation and controversy.”

Since then, I studied to find an expression that is precise and accurate. I first proposed “the-objective-truth”, the hyphens intended to invite the reader to not disassociate the 3 words. I stated that the-objective-truth is discovered by researching physics and its progeny (everything) --- the evidence. Then I realized that the invention of new instruments of perceiving the evidence may demand new research on the-objective-truth, and if change is required, it is a step toward the-ineluctable-truth. “Ineluctable” means “not to be avoided, changed, or resisted”, merriam-webster.com. It surprises me that the-ineluctable-truth has not been pursued for centuries already. I speculate that scholars preserve “truth” to empower metaphysics.

Another grammatical invention is “the-God”. Sincere goodwill is offered daily in conversation about “God”. A party of five might be offering insights about Yahweh (unspoken), Jesus, the Trinity, Allah, or other deity, and none of the five realize they are discussing different entities. Each one, by tradition, assumes the other four realize they are discussing the-God. Each one of them admits to self that they accept their personal-God on faith, but do not in fact know the-God. After all, considerate people assume the-God can read their minds. Civic articulation of the difference between a personal-God and the-God could . . . would aid humankind’s advancement toward civic peace.

I share a glossary we are developing in the continually updated October 30, 2014 post at promotethepreamble.blogspot.com. Some of the people who helped develop the glossary are appreciated in the July 25, 2020 post. Appreciations with first name only are recorded even though the party asked not to be associated with the work: a worker’s appreciation lives beyond withdrawal.

https://www.quora.com/Where-did-the-error-of-thinking-constitutional-freedom-has-no-restraints-begin? by Tim Lee-Carter

Of course I don’t know. I think, for the U.S., it begins with the 1789 Congress establishing church-legislator-justice-partnership and codifying Anglo-American tradition by constructing and ratifying the 1791 Bill of Rights to mimic England’s 1689 Bill of Rights, which requires a Protestant-Christian monarchy.

Its political philosopher was Englishman John Locke, whom the USA founders rebuked in 1776 when they modified Locke’s “life, liberty, and property” yet established the ridiculous hope “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. No government can offer such hopes, much less rights. The Locke-slight was consistent with the separation of church and state, citing authority from “Nature’s God” instead of the English Trinity, which many Americans’ worshipped.

In my view, the only valid human right is the opportunity to develop the humble-integrity that is required to practice responsible-human-independence, the 1787 U.S. intentions signed on September 17, 1787 and neglected by the majority since then. No government can deny citizens the right and opportunity to constrain chaos in their way of living.

To Tim Lee-Carter: I accept your closed door. I’ll keep it unlocked perchance you return.

https://www.quora.com/What-were-Thomas-Hobbes-thoughts-on-the-government? by Kanye West

Long ago, I thought I would not live long enough to understand every profound thinker if I undertook them all. I adopted the policy of not continuing to study thoughts I disagreed with.

Whereas I think feral infant-human-being is born to be encouraged and facilitated so as to define the-good, it seems Hobbes considered the infant destined for willful conflict. With that impression I read no more Hobbes. However, I do not know and would be happy to reconsider if you see something useful.

Just now, I am, in my fourth quarter-century, re-reading early Ralph Waldo Emerson. I perceive his fascination with “soul” a metaphysical concept that offers the student no conclusion. I consider that each of us is body, mind, and person. When our person behaves with responsible-human-independence, which requires humble-integrity toward whatever controls the consequences of human actions, we can be confident that our self-reliance is well grounded. 

https://www.quora.com/How-can-we-distinguish-between-good-and-bad-interpretations? by San

Good question. I perceive four practices.

First, we can accept that we are a human-being. We have the individual power, energy, and authority (HIPEA) to constrain chaos in our lifestyle. Therefore, we must acquire the comprehension and intention to earn the way of living we desire, for the rest of our lives. We must admit that we do not want another person to impose a way of living on us, and observe that most considerate people have the same intentions: responsibly pursue the happiness they want rather than accept someone else’s vision for them. Unfortunately, some people choose dependency: indolence, deference to higher power, crime, tyranny, evil, and such. Consequently, we must be active in civic power for our entire lives: we cannot leave politics to other people and pursue the happiness we want. And we must earn enough to pay the taxes required to provide the infrastructure that encourages and facilitates our lifestyle. That includes law-enforcement-systems for safety and security and research to discover statutory justice.

The question remains: what lifestyle do we desire, and how can we live-it in this Machiavellian world? (Machiavelli wrote about the sinister ways noblemen (elites) accumulate wealth and military power. Chapter XI of “The Prince” explains the U.S. loss and misery due to a church-Congress-Supreme Court partnership. It is sustained because most citizens wait for their personal-God for eternal relief and teach their young to continue the faith.) Second, during our first quarter-century, when we have the chance to learn something, we must take charge of acquiring the knowledge. For example, it is not sufficient to read Machiavelli-Cliff-Notes and take a test. You must read the translation or direct text until you understand the author in your self-reliance. I think Machiavelli wrote irony so as to share with fellow-citizens yet not be executed by the nobles. Thus, according to Chapter XI, until most people are able to separate church and state, salvation in afterdeath versus responsible living, metaphysics and physics, the elites ---priests and state officials --- will continue to live high on the hog and the people will neither rebel nor emigrate. This principle --- using HIPEA to acquire knowledge at the moment you need it --- is necessary for life. The afterdeath can be left to its metaphysics.

Third, we must comprehend that metaphysics empowers the elite and their representative artisans --- writers, painters, and scholars who sell their talents to the elites. These societies are among the dependents who prey on the civic-citizen, where “civic” refers to reliable connections with human-beings more than compliance with communitarian goals. Civic-citizens practice responsible-human-independence (RHI). They may consider metaphysics for entertainment or development of psychological skills. However, when it comes to personal advancement and survival, they work to comprehend and responsibly benefit-from physics and its progeny --- mathematics, weak and strong waves, the chemistries, biology, psychology, imagination, indeed everything. Metaphysics is the development of a theory about a possible unknown in physics. When metaphysics is constructed as a doctrine and used to compete with physics to inform HIPEA, it may be classed as religion or ideology. In a civic-culture, the civic-citizen neither initiates nor accommodates physical or psychological injury to or from any human-being or society. The metaphysical “heavens” do not resist NASA’s invitation to include your name on the next Mars mission.

Fourth, while it seems prudent to reserve sufficient humility to a universal entity, by which we gage our HIPEA, we need not attempt to usurp that authority with a definition or constraint such as omnipotence and omniscience. The entity could be universal intelligence, necessity and justice, the ultimate-posterity’s future goodness, potential energy, an infinite singularity, chaos, or to-be discovered. By practicing RHI, we can perceive our self-reliance is affirmed by our humility.

We enjoy serene confidence when we appreciate fellow-citizens and constrain chaos in our personal way of living.

https://www.quora.com/Would-the-Founding-Fathers-favor-an-interpretation-of-the-Constitution-that-was-originalist-and-literal-or-would-they-prefer-it-to-be-seen-as-a-living-breathing-document-that-must-be-reinterpreted-every-generation? by Martin Asiner

Mr. Asiner, I appreciate your question and the opportunity to express my opinions. Please share your views about my opinions: I write to learn and first express my views about the question to clarifying dialogue to start.

I think the signers on September 17, 1787 intended posterity to change the constitution as needed of, by, and for female&male-human-being’s advancement toward peace in this world.

I distinguish the founding fathers, who won independence but could not establish domestic order among the 13 free&independent states as of January 14, 1784’s ratification of the 1783 Treaty of Paris. Shays Rebellion demanded change the Continental Congress could not control.

In my view, the founders separated church and state in the 1776 declaration of war for independence from England. The claimed human authority on “Nature’s God” rather than England’s Trinity and appealed “to the Supreme Judge of the world” for military affirmation they later negotiated from France. Their 1782 motto “E Pluribus Unum” applies to the-God, whatever that mystery may be.

One state rebelled against the 1787 convention in Philadelphia, where delegates saw no promise in strengthening the Articles of Confederation so opted to frame a constitution for the united States of America predicated on a disciplined public holding their states and the nation accountable. Through personal problems such as sickness at home but also by dissent only 39 of 55 framers became signers on September 17, 1787. The draft was ratified on June 21, 1788, with the dissent that the First Congress would add a Bill of Rights.

Politicians began operating the USA in March, 1789. No more founders, framers, or signers: politicians.

On September 6, 1789, Thomas Jefferson wrote from Paris the opinion that the Constitution should be reviewed every 19 years, to keep pace with future generations. Acceptance of that suggestion would have coincided with termination of the African-slave trade in 1808. The original slave state ratio had lessened from 8:5 to 9:8 by 1809, but did not break to non-slave majority until 1858 at 15:17.

Perhaps the Bill of Rights, which re-established Anglo-American tradition, including church-legislation partnership attempting to mimic The Church of England’s 26 seats in Parliament,  can be blamed on Tories who could not afford to return to England after the France-led victory at Yorktown, VA in 1781.

Now, to your question: the framers and signers expected an informed public and one that held the pursuit of religion to personal-privacy rather than civil imposition. Consequently, religion is not among the five public disciplines listed in the preamble. I view the public-discipline predicate-phrases as nouns to list: integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity, respectively. Also, I think the French Reign of Terror, beginning in 1789, justifies the conclusion that “liberty” is too often taken as license to let fellow-citizens’ blood: independence is a preferred U.S. intention. The preamble has 2 thoughts: presentation of the constitution and statement of intention.

The statement of intention has a voluntarily limited subject: We the People of the United States who intend the five disciplines. It has a totalitarian object: responsible-human-independence “to ourselves and our Posterity”. That is our descendants and legal immigrants. The five disciplines as well as independence have no standards, because posterity’s posterity will discover statutory justice as female&male-human-being matures.

Thanks to the Supreme Court’s view that the rule of law by legal precedent can keep track of technological advances such as including your name on the next mission to Mars, the U.S. is in divergent political chaos.

We, the 2021 “ourselves and our Posterity” must stop preserving Anglo-American tradition and establish the U.S. according to the preamble and constitutional amendment by the civic people in the 50 states.

https://www.quora.com/At-what-point-does-the-common-good-society-limit-your-rights? by Mary Cabisuelas

There’s only one human-right a culture should . . . could offer:  The opportunity to develop the humble-integrity required to practice responsible-human-independence (RHI).

The secular suggestion that female&male-human-being can independently provide order&prosperity to the inhabitants of the world was expressed 5,000 years ago. That’s before Eve&Adam and before Sarah&Abraham were each unfaithful. The chaos since then has become divergent.

Each human-being has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (HIPEA) to constrain chaos in their way of living. Obviously, “the common good” does not encourage&facilitate RHI, so the responsible individual must behave independently and discover an authentic mate or none.

https://www.quora.com/How-do-you-define-human-capital-in-HR-and-why-do-you-think-is-it-important-to-understand-such? by Hafsah TEE

Merriam-webster.com offers “the skills, knowledge, and qualifications of a person, group, or workforce considered as economic assets”, first published in 1799.

Homo sapiens has been around for 300 thousand years. The last mixed-homo mutation died off 10 thousand years ago. About 5 thousand years ago, a pre-Eve&Adam and pre-Sara&Abraham culture suggested that secular necessity&justice hold female&male-human-being able to independently provide order&prosperity to the living species in the world. Two thousand years later, a scribe reported the suggestion as coming from the-God of Genesis 1. Genesis 2’s God introduces Eve&Adam and spousal and communitarian infidelity that becomes the theme of the rest of the Bible canon.

In other words, some individuals do not accept the independence of being a human-being. Some prefer dependency: indolence, eternal-wait for a higher power, crime, tyranny, evil, and worse. The individuals who accept the responsibility to earn the happiness they want rather than accept the constraints dependents would impose, also pay taxes for capital infrastructure, including a published law-enforcement system and research to discover statutory justice.

So far, humankind has managed enough human capital to sustain enormous misery and loss. However, in 2021, the chaos seems divergent. Perhaps it is time to increase statutory justice by encouraging&facilitating the humble-integrity required for responsible-human-independence (RHI).

In the U.S., we, the 2021 “ourselves and our Posterity [including legal immigrants]” must&can amend the First Amendment so as to encourage civic RHI rather than civil religious-dependency.

https://www.quora.com/Can-you-explain-one-by-one-section-of-the-Bill-of-Rights? by Jonathan Melendres

Is that the 1689 Anglo Bill of Rights which “constitutionally” requires a Protestant-Christian monarchy or the 1791 Anglo-American Bill of Rights in which Congress unconstitutionally empowered itself to legislate personal-privacy respecting religion, “civilizing” the accused-citizen to define their private-religion?

The Supreme Court supports Congress’s’ tyranny so earnestly that they apply Machiavellian skills to unconstitutionally query the Presidential oath: “. . . so help you God?” What weakness! The person was just elected to Commander-in-Chief responsible for peace in the world, and The Court encourages an appeal to an otherworldly power? I still blame Pence for defaulting to the otherworld’s leader and don’t want it to happen again.

Congress and the Supreme Court have no idea how egregiously they slight the-God of necessity&justice. I speculate it’s too serious for the people to continue accommodating tyranny since 1791, now their egregious neglect of their posterity including legal immigrants.

We, the 2021 “ourselves and our Posterity” must amend the First Amendment so as to promote responsible-human-independence rather than Congress’s tyranny regarding religious personal-privacy under civic humble-integrity.

https://www.quora.com/unanswered/Why-is-non-social-cohesion-the-fault-of-the-social-system-and-not-individuals? by Not Shuana

The individuals are the system. Only individuals can provide order and prosperity.

https://www.quora.com/unanswered/Why-does-openness-to-accept-the-dynamism-of-each-country-s-culture-society-and-politics-connect-us-to-our-very-own-history-as-people-with-a-distinct-set-of-challenges-we-are-called-to-reflect-confront-and-address? by John Alfred Eborda

When we notice a stranger, we hope they notice and appreciate us as we are. If they do, it affirms our speculation that they are open-minded, too. Soon we judge whether they seem open-hearted as well. If not, we are satisfied with “Hello, how are you?” Following an uninviting response, we exit with “Have a good day”.

If they respond with invitation, like “Fine, thank you. Isn’t it wonderful to be here just now?” we explore their civic-opinion, to the depths of mutual interest they share. If we counter resistance, we let them lead. But if a brick wall appears, we change the topic to the weather, or a sports event, or other small talk. If they do not return to the joys of heartfelt living, we appreciate their privacy as well as our own.

When the dialogue ends, we depart, pondering insights shared by a human-being who pursues necessity&justice. We don’t need to their name, because we know sincerity is ever present. If they share their name, we learn it to appreciate them.

Trump solicitation

ecure.winred.com/save-america-joint-fundraising-committee/2021-trump-priorities-survey-hf?utm_medium=email_hf&utm_source=et_10_na&utm_campaign=20210926_ws-2021-trump-priorities-survey_donaldjtrumpcom_sa&utm_content=survey_button_cpyrs_1325

On 09/26/2021 9:53 AM DonaldJTrump.com <contact@email.donaldjtrump.com>

Congress unconstitutionally partners with religion to provide representatives divine excuse on par with Parliament's constitutional partnership with the Church of England (26 seats in the upper chamber). The U.S. Supreme Court affirms Congress's tyranny.

The consequence since Congress's 1791 mimic of England's 1689 Bill of Rights is the Anglo-American religious&political chaos we now suffer.

The person with the charisma to lead 75% of voting citizens in 75% of the states to amend the First Amendment in order to encourage&facilitate civic humble-integrity rather than fund representatives' religious-excuses will have restored the U.S. to its 1787 intentions: personal-privacy in spiritual pursuits. And the USA's 1776 intentions: separation of church and state. And the secular-political-suggestion in the pre-Eve&Adam and pre-Sarah&Abraham, yet canonized, Genesis 1:26-28: humankind can independently provide order&prosperity to living species on earth. (Maybe that's Jesus' idea, unknown to Mike Pence; see below.)

That is, the competitive Gods that are described in the rest of the diverse Bible canon will not usurp the-God of Genesis-1 regarding humankind's responsibility to constrain chaos on earth. That includes the controversial (perhaps revisionist) Ethiopian Tewahedo Bible Canon.

I can't think of a people in history who suffered more that the entity We the People of the United States and President Trump when Mike Pence betrayed Genesis 1:26-28, the 1776 Declaration, the 1787 Constitution, and the metaphysical Jesus, on January 6 this year. On January 4, Pence "witnessed" for his-Jesus in Georgia, then on January 6 did not challenge the U.S. Supreme Court to enter the election debate, defying his former running mate, the temporal Commander-in-Chief of the political suggestion in Genesis 1: constrain chaos on earth.

We are told that the metaphysical Jesus said: "be perfect [in the image of God]", "render unto Caesar [worldly justice]", answering the disciples about their ancestor Abraham "before Abraham was born I AM". For all we know, Jesus is the author of Genesis 1, and Pence defied the real Jesus.

 

This is not the first time an elected official has injured the preamble's continuum "ourselves and our Posterity [including legal immigrants]" because of "more erroneous religious opinion". See the CSA's 1860 declaration of secession and R.E. Lee's letter to his wife in December, 1856, labeling abolitionists "evil". President Trump has the opportunity to end 5,000 years of denial that only humankind can provide peace on earth.

It starts with revision of the First Amendment so as to encourage&facilitate responsible-human-independence "to ourselves and our Posterity" and to end funding Congressional-Supreme-Court pride in Anglo-American religion.

I hope this reaches President Trump.

Phil Beaver

225-907-8658

On 09/26/2021 9:53 AM DonaldJTrump.com <contact@email.donaldjtrump.com>

 

 

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.