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 proposal as follows: “We willing citizens of the United States collaborate for civic, civil, and legal self-discipline to provide integrity, justice, goodwill, defense, prosperity, liberty, for ourselves and for the nation’s grandchildren and beyond and by this amendable constitution authorize and limit the U.S.’s service to the people in their states.” I want to collaborate with the other citizens on this paraphrase and theirs. I would preserve the original, 1787, text, unless it is amended by the people.
It seems 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. Equality 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
Alert to civic integrity, as in government officials and the media beware a developing interest in civic integrity.
News
Gov. Edwards arrogantly neglects civic integrity (Elizabeth Crisp) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/politics/elections/article_d57937da-f6b8-11e8-a021-5f670a6f8e15.html)
I appreciate Elizabeth Crisp and The Advocate editors publishing John Bel Edwards’ earnestly arrogant, hypocritical opinion about Kennedy’s decision. It seems for some reason some West Point honor code officials don’t recognize contradiction as they express it.
“For Sen. Kennedy, this was never about the people of Louisiana. This was about focusing the spotlight on himself," Edwards said. "There are more than 4.5 million good people who call Louisiana home. They deserve to have elected officials who will work together to put Louisiana first."
You’d think the people of Louisiana would appreciate the sitting governor supporting their elected U.S. Senator for his decision to stay where the people of Louisiana think he’ll serve best.
My reaction to Gov. Edwards’ statement is visceral. I voted against Vitter, and I’ll vote against Edwards.
I remind politicians. Humankind has been aware for over 2400 years that the individual is served by equal justice under law; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_justice_under_law. In this country, the civic, civil, and legal agreement under which citizens may collaborate-with or simply enjoy equal justice under law is the preamble to the US Constitution. Uniquely, fellow citizens choose whether to trust-in and collaborate-for the purpose and goals stated in the US preamble or not. Thus, fellow citizens divide themselves between collaborators for equal justice under law and dissenters.
The nation’s drift from excellence 230 years ago, when nine states on June 21, 1788, established the US, more fellow citizens are considering the US preamble’s agreement. A concise paraphrase I would collaborate for is: Willing citizens want to achieve the civic, civil, and legal goals stated herein and therefore authorize the limited republic that is hereby specified to serve us in our states.
The clergy-politician-partnership that has brought the US to the free speech that empowers unworthy statements that people like John Bel Edwards take for granted is being questioned by a people who are crying for mutual, comprehensive safety and security.
The clergy might do themselves a favor by either obtaining a degree in social work or another field that could use their desire to serve believers or strengthening their focus on theology rather than politics. Politicians might do themselves a favor by considering equal justice under law and the US preamble. The people ultimately demand civic integrity, and the focus is narrowing.
Without Crisp’s quotation of Edwards and The Advocate personnel’s publication, I would not have been inspired to write my opinion. Readers who think I express the-objective-truth harbor their own folly.
“For Sen. Kennedy, this was never about the people of Louisiana. This was about focusing the spotlight on himself," Edwards said. "There are more than 4.5 million good people who call Louisiana home. They deserve to have elected officials who will work together to put Louisiana first."
You’d think the people of Louisiana would appreciate the sitting governor supporting their elected U.S. Senator for his decision to stay where the people of Louisiana think he’ll serve best.
My reaction to Gov. Edwards’ statement is visceral. I voted against Vitter, and I’ll vote against Edwards.
I remind politicians. Humankind has been aware for over 2400 years that the individual is served by equal justice under law; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_justice_under_law. In this country, the civic, civil, and legal agreement under which citizens may collaborate-with or simply enjoy equal justice under law is the preamble to the US Constitution. Uniquely, fellow citizens choose whether to trust-in and collaborate-for the purpose and goals stated in the US preamble or not. Thus, fellow citizens divide themselves between collaborators for equal justice under law and dissenters.
The nation’s drift from excellence 230 years ago, when nine states on June 21, 1788, established the US, more fellow citizens are considering the US preamble’s agreement. A concise paraphrase I would collaborate for is: Willing citizens want to achieve the civic, civil, and legal goals stated herein and therefore authorize the limited republic that is hereby specified to serve us in our states.
The clergy-politician-partnership that has brought the US to the free speech that empowers unworthy statements that people like John Bel Edwards take for granted is being questioned by a people who are crying for mutual, comprehensive safety and security.
The clergy might do themselves a favor by either obtaining a degree in social work or another field that could use their desire to serve believers or strengthening their focus on theology rather than politics. Politicians might do themselves a favor by considering equal justice under law and the US preamble. The people ultimately demand civic integrity, and the focus is narrowing.
Without Crisp’s quotation of Edwards and The Advocate personnel’s publication, I would not have been inspired to write my opinion. Readers who think I express the-objective-truth harbor their own folly.
Ralph D. Holley President Trump is not easy to understand, which is not to say that I understand Gov. Edwards.
I think if Edwards had responded in Trump's style, he would have said something like the following.
"I am comforted not to face election against John Kennedy. Moreover, I am glad Senator Kennedy chose to keep the office to which the people of Louisiana elected him. I intend to work with Kennedy as much as possible to accomplish what we can for the people of Louisiana. We'll see how it goes."
I voted for Trump/Pence twice and am on deck for my third and fourth votes for them. I think they each take to heart the advice in Matthew 7:6 regarding the protection of knowledge of the oval office's information. I understand Pence's approach better than Trump's yet cannot fault Trump.
The Advocate personnel arrogant against civic integrity (Olivia McClure) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/crime_police/article_d8253d76-f58c-11e8-8bc3-db433ec3f0f8.html)
“[A] police officer and a young man acted out a mock traffic stop before about 80 people . . . at Gloryland Baptist Church Saturday morning for an event aimed at promoting greater understanding between local law enforcement and those they serve. Funded by a $750,000 grant from the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Victims of Crime, the yearlong program strives to aid the city's recovery from a chain of events in 2016. [The BR] initiative involves police as well as Mayor-President Sharon Weston Broome's office, the local NAACP chapter, 100 Black Men. . . , Capital Area Human Services, LSU and Southern University.”
Entering our sixth year of meetings at local libraries, our total attendance in five years (about 15 meetings) has not reached Saturday’s 80, much of whom were “middle and high school boys in 100 Black Men's . . . program and their parents.”
Our education group, A Civic People of the United States, began on June 21, 2014, to publically develop a timeline of events that keep this nation under a civic, civil, and legal agreement that is lamely cited (we, the people) yet grossly neglected: the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. Our initial purpose remains---to encourage BR citizens to collaborate for statutory justice rather than divide, for example to another new city, St. George City.
However, the leading edge of our discoveries, thanks to collaboration by over sixty people, some of whom are dissidents, is much more. We perceive that the U.S. preamble invites fellow citizens to decide whether they intend to trust-in and commit-to the agreement or dissent. By dissent I mean oppose the agreement that is offered. How can an aware, egocentric person refuse equal justice under the civic, civil, and legal agreement?
The U.S. preamble has been erroneously labeled “secular” but is neutral to religion as well as gender, race, ethnicity, wealth, and other individual characteristics. Among many grave errors, some dissenters think the U.S. preamble’s goals will be fulfilled by their personal god rather than by their personal collaboration with fellow citizens. I’ll never forget a graduate level LSU student shouting after my 2006 presentation, “Don’t tell me my god is not all-powerful!”
Clerical-political partnerships have kept this grave error---neglect of the preamble’s agreement---from public attention for 229 years. In 1889, Congress re-established constitutional, English church-state partnership with legislative prayer and in 1791 ratified the falsehood “freedom of religion” in the First Amendment. Congress bemused the 1788 intentions for civic integrity that is expressed in the U.S. preamble. The U.S. preamble tacitly promises to willing citizens the opportunity for individual happiness with civic integrity.
These expanded ideas about the U.S. preamble came from collaboration by over sixty fellow citizens who participated in local library meetings. The meetings have been publically announced and directly offered to Mayor Broome as an alternative to her focus on dialogues on racialism and church.
I write not as an old white man, but as a person who never wanted either slavery or its consequences. A man who’s WFF (wonderful family of five) never wavered in the quest for statutory justice and public goodwill.
It is sad to witness personnel for the hometown press asserting “rebuild trust with community” as a racial and religious divide, whether they do so by intent or by ignorance. The Advocate personnel’s subtitle, “fix rift with BR residents” would hide the ignorance The Advocate personnel represents. What’s doubly sad is that the press’s role is to journal U.S. progress toward civic integrity rather than foment division as a business plan.
There is no problem with Christianity as a generator of hope for a believer’s salvation from death through ascension of their soul into heaven. However, the Bible’s assertion, for example in John 15:15-23, that non-believers hate God, Jesus, and believers is un-civic, uncivil, and beyond statutory justice. Justice cannot fail to address constructed mysteries. I dissent against the public toleration of Christian hate.
Whether Christianity originated in Judea after Jesus died 2000 years ago, before King Ezana in Ethiopia, in Rome when Constantine ordered a canonized Bible, or in Martin Luther’s Germany, or in the African-American Christianity developing after MLK, Jr., every individual has the opportunity to agree to statutory justice or not. Justice is ancient to Christianity.
Equal justice under law (EJUL) is a concept that is attributed to the Athenian Greeks, about 2400 years ago; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_justice_under_law. It matters not whether dissent arises from individual arrogance, religious hope, vigilantism, belief in crime, evil or other alien thinking, opposition to statutory justice attracts law enforcement. In the U.S., EJUL is asserted in the U.S. preamble.
Centuries of ignorance empowers clergy-politician partnerships to keep factions of inhabitants bemused with the hope that their personal god will deliver them from misery and loss. I talk to many people, and many of them affirm these ideas. Perhaps one day soon our meeting announcements will attract as many as 80 participants. Perhaps people will at last consider the civic, civil, and legal agreement that is offered fellow citizens in the U.S. preamble. Statutory justice comes from the people.
Most people want mutual, comprehensive safety and security, and that is what the U.S. preamble offers. The $750,000 grant seems wasted on a local clergy-politician, revenue-generating non-profit. Instead, fellow citizens could be informed that there is an agreement for equal justice under law on which to establish civic trust among fellow citizens rather than “rebuild” falsehoods from the clergy-politician-partnerships that compete for dominance now and during the past 229 years.
Columns
Did the young develop ignorance or begin feral? (Walter Williams) (https://www.creators.com/read/walter-williams)
Alas, syndicated columnists are as subject to freedom-of-the-press tyranny as any fellow citizen. Press freedom in a nanny state is simply awful.
Whereas the column at the above URL is captioned, “Miseducated or Stupid?” the column printed by The Advocate (Baton Rouge) is captioned “Young ignorant of socialist societies.” It’s a silly caption since newborns are feral, or absolutely ignorant, and it takes three decades for them to acquire the comprehension and intent to live a complete human life if live at all. So the real problem Williams perhaps addresses is that many teachers are alien to the American republic, and that has been so at least since 1939.
But Williams is not explicit as I view it. For example, “Young people who weren't alive during World War II and its Cold War aftermath might be forgiven for not knowing the horrors of socialism” refers to people who weren’t alive in the range 27 to 79 years ago.” A comma after “Young people” lends sensibility to “Some of their beliefs represent their having been indoctrinated by their K-12 teachers and college professors.” Someone born in 1991 might have been in kindergarten in 1995, so perhaps Williams is lamenting alien indoctrination during the last 23 years.
But Bernie Sanders is 77 years old and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is 29 and Williams calls them comrades. Is Williams classing age 77 young? If so, he is writing about psychological maturity rather than chronological maturity, which is alright if expressed explicitly. H.A. Overstreet’s book “The Mature Mind” informs us that many chronological adults never progress past adolescence yet die old.
I think Williams may have the correct time reference, though. U.S. history might be categorized as 1607-1783 dominance by the British empire with its Atlantic slave trade with Africa; 1784-1788 dominance by some of the 13 eastern seaboard states; 1788-1789 window under the civic, civil, and legal agreement offered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution; 1789-1939 continental development of the American-Protestant-politician-partnership to mimic the English constitutional church-state-partnership; 1939-1964 world affairs dominant; 1964 and beyond civil rights movements with collectivism for social democracy, or the nanny-state era.
We have James Comey, age 57, who would have been in kindergarten in 1965, the beginning of the nanny state (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanny_state). When government dictates personal choices, citizens don’t develop integrity.
I greatly appreciate Walter Williams and his writing.
Glad I am not a writer for The Advocate (Lanny Keller) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/lanny_keller/article_a94890c4-f713-11e8-a187-9fad44b0f4b5.html)
To Wayne Turner: There’s worthy expression and then there’s trash like “for GOP party animals.”
I’m glad I neither imagined, nor wrote, nor published that phrase.
Other fora
https://www.facebook.com/phil.beaver.52
Dec 7. I'm reading the book "Scalia Speaks." He said a good writer is in the audience's shoes---has: their assumptions, their anticipations, explanations they need, their thoughts, and their feelings.
He spoke to many groups, for example, Catholics, Jews, lawyers, writers, turkey hunters, and more.
I don't know enough to perform like Scalia and therefore express a concern and well-grounded, possible remedy then listen to the audience.
Thereby, I hope to learn.
https://www.amazon.com/review/R2SX20KHGK80BA/ref=pe_1098610_137716200_cm_rv_eml_rv0_rv
I normally read with pen and paper so as to recall ideas that seem important to me. However, Peres's story was too interesting to put down so as to write.
It seems to me that in the Epilogue Peres was unable to look past ethnicity if not race to imagine a world wherein everyone first appreciates each fellow citizen as they are where they are. Peres wanted Israel to be the instrument or channel of peace.
Only when a person demonstrates individual dissidence against civic integrity may statutory justice be called on to maintain mutual, comprehensive safety and security.
The preamble to the U.S. Constitution tacitly offers fellow citizens individual happiness with civic integrity. It is understandable if Peres never seriously considered the U.S. preamble's offer to fellow citizens: So far, fellow citizens have not created the evidence that the U.S. preamble's agreement can aid the establishment of a civic culture.
This review attracted me to https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07H4T4R75/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1 which includes the book’s preface and introduction in the “Look inside” feature.
I find the introduction accepts if not promotes some politically correct falsehoods. For example, slavery was instituted here by the Catholic doctrine of discovery, which spawned the Atlantic slave trade with Africa, which was dominated by England. Thus, to call slavery “America’s original sin” is false. I contend that the first Congress’s original sin was denying the 1787 Constitution with its preamble so as to reinstitute Blackstone common law and the church-state-partnership that is constitutional in England and unconstitutional in America. The people’s reform seems underway despite the scholars.
Modern scholars harm humankind when they forego fellow citizenship for elitism by not equally examining the evidence that any interested person may pursue using the Internet and libraries. I think erroneous Christian belief is responsible for the Civil War and cite the evidence for both the 800-year-old English Christianity’s claim to supremacy versus a half-century of African American Christianity’s bid for supremacy.
Why would a fellow citizen study historical facts? Acute interest imposed by Mitch Landrieu’s infamous New Orleans tyranny drew this chemical engineer’s interest. I wanted the statues to remain, affixed with plaques that tell New Orleans visitors the lesson learned from the Civil War: Civic integrity comes from the people rather than from their gods or their government.
Slavery existed during recorded history, and that includes enslavement of Africans by competing African tribes and their kings. Catholic popes, as part of their doctrine of discovery, “authorized” the slave trade with African kings so as to place African slaves in the Americas first to Portugal and then to Spain in the 15th century. Not to be outdone, European Protestant kings joined the awful enterprise, and England became the largest force in the Atlantic slave trade.
English colonist Thomas Paine wrote in 1775 in Philadelphia, “That some desperate wretches should be willing to steal and enslave men by violence and murder for gain, is rather lamentable than strange. But that many civilized, nay, Christianized people should approve, and be concerned in the savage practice, is surprising; and still persist, though it has been so often proved contrary to the light of nature, to every principle of Justice and Humanity, and even good policy, by a succession of eminent men, and several late publications.” See https://www.constitution.org/tp/afri.htm.
When the nine states established the U.S. on June 21, 1788, they had not the economic viability to emancipate the slaves, but the 1787 Constitution with its preamble fellow citizens could embrace provided for ending the slave trade in 20 years and emancipation when economics would allow.
In 1852, Frederick Douglass, lamenting the Fugitive Slave Act before the President of the U.S., said, “By an act of the American Congress, not yet two years old, slavery has been nationalized in its most horrible and revolting form. [T]he power to hold, hunt, and sell men, women and children, as slaves, remains no longer a mere state institution, but is now an institution of the whole United States. The power is co-extensive with the star-spangled banner, and American Christianity.” See https://rbscp.lib.rochester.edu/2945.
In 1856, with plenty of time to respond to both Douglass and abolitionist-bleeding Kansas, by selling everything and moving to a free state, “American Christian” R.E. Lee wrote against abolitionists, “The painful discipline [the blacks] are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is Known & ordered by a wise & merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild & melting influence of Christianity, than the storms & tempests of fiery Controversy.” See https://leefamilyarchive.org/9-family-papers/339-robert-e-lee-to-mary-anna-randolph-custis-lee-1856-december-27.
In February 1861, the Confederate States of America issued the declaration of secession with complaints and the “American Christian” conclusion, “[A]ll hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanction of more erroneous religious belief.” See http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp.
On March 4, 1861, President Lincoln responded to the CSA’s warning of war with obscure, homespun, military theology, “Why should there not be a patient confidence in the ultimate justice of the people? Is there any better or equal hope in the world? In our present differences, is either party without faith of being in the right? If the Almighty Ruler of Nations, with His eternal truth and justice, be on your side of the North, or on yours of the South, that truth and that justice will surely prevail by the judgment of this great tribunal of the American people.” See http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/lincoln1.asp.
Lincoln seemed to go beyond iconoclast to actually deny religious relevance or the involvement of a God. Also, his statement seems more a military threat than an effort to avert war. I wish I could talk to him, but I have formed my opinion that he was a skillful politician but never discovered civic integrity.
Lincoln’s subsequent personal and presidential suffering may have changed his willingness to appeal to a God, in the Gettysburg address, but I do not know that he referenced a God. However, there is no doubt in his letter addendum in 1864, “Now, at the end of three years struggle the nation’s condition is not what either party, or any man devised, or expected. God alone can claim it.” See http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/hodges.htm. I doubt Lincoln’s motives.
After the Civil War, some people continued the “American Christian” view that the Bible condones subjugation of blacks, but a great decision was reached with the non-discrimination Civil Rights Act of 1964. However, liberation theology, black power, black church, and Alinsky Marxism combined, beginning in about 1970, to assert both that white church is Satan and to establish African American Christianity. The religion’s title is exclusive. See https://www.wsj.com/articles/dr-kings-radical-biblical-vision-1522970778.
It seems time for fellow citizens, be they scholars or not, to address the obvious: Christianity has, so far, strived for the political role Constantine imposed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_policies_of_Constantine_I ) and has failed to reform to its viable-business: the salvation of souls rather than the development of civic integrity. Only the people may effect reform.
I think Lincoln’s 1861 message was correct: civic integrity comes from the people. My question is, why haven’t scholars reported the British, Christian liabilities for the Civil War and influenced politicians to protect the history and its monuments by affixing plaques that tell the story?
Could it be that too few fellow citizens consider, adopt, trust-in, and commit-to the civic, civil, and legal agreement that is offered in the U.S. preamble? Rather than secular, the U.S. preamble’s agreement is neutral to Christianity and all other responsible, spiritual pursuits, as well as gender, race, ethnicity, wealth, and other human characteristics.
To gabe: Dear gabe, I appreciate you.
First, you overlooked my first post in this thread, which begins with a non-sense paragraph that needed a strategic "not" in the phrase "so as to not equally examine." Moreover, you generously, continually attack my person to express perhaps religious immaturity regarding the civic citizen.
The existing preamble to the U.S. Constitution is a civic, civil, and legal agreement that is offered to fellow citizens.
It is legal, because the words that followed it on June 21, 1788, when nine free and independent states established a Union, the U.S., were immediately the USA's laws and organization, both amendable. The four dissident states remained free and independent but the confederation of thirteen eastern seaboard states that both began in 1774 and ratified the Treaty of Paris in 1784 was legally dissolved. Dissidence was also evident when only 2/3 of delegates to the constitutional convention signed the 1787 Constitution. (Dissidence today may be at 50%, but I doubt it. Evidence for 2/3 agreement among fellow citizens shows up often.)
The U.S. preamble is civil in that it is this nation's commitment to equal justice under law. Statutory justice is based on the-objective-truth rather than a dominant opinion, and it seems there will always be dissidents to justice.
The U.S. preamble is civic in that fellow citizens are free to dissent against all or part of the agreement. Citizens are free to responsibly live-and-let-live or not. Those who attempt to refuse or consign responsibility may face statutory law enforcement if their behavior causes actual harm.
The U.S. preamble is neutral to religion rather than secular. Also, it is neutral to gender, race, ethnicity, wealth, and heritage. Every human being has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (IPEA) to either develop integrity or invite infidelity. The hope of the U.S. preamble is to motivate widespread use of IPEA to develop civic integrity, and as the use of the preamble's agreement increases, mutual, comprehensive safety and security may emerge as "the common good."
Your frustrations about my posts might end if you start addressing my message rather than refuse to address the-objective-truth, about which I collaborate because I know so little.
I express hard-earned concern, offer grounded solutions, and hope to listen. However, there's nothing to hear, I think because there is a paucity of civic integrity.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07H4T4R75/ref=pe_1098610_137717230_cm_rv_rej_eml_dp
African slavery was a British-colonial sin more than U.S.’s original sin.
A book review attracted me to the Amazon offerings, and I read the “Look inside” portion.
I am disappointed that such a scholarly work does not suggest that the citizens’ agreement in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution offers the power for relief from the consequences of slavery in British-colonial America.
I am disappointed that such a scholarly work does not suggest that the citizens’ agreement in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution offers the power for relief from the consequences of slavery in British-colonial America.
I think the book overlooks Christianity’s liabilities for the Civil War and its consequences. Slavery was instituted here by the Catholic doctrine of discovery, which spawned the Atlantic slave trade with Africa, which was eventually dominated by England. Thus, to call slavery “America’s original sin” seems narrow.
I assert that the first Congress’s original sin was denying the 1787 Constitution with its revolutionary preamble that invites fellow citizens to civic discipline. The First Congress reinstituted Blackstone common law and the church-state-partnership that is constitutional in England and unconstitutional in America.
I think erroneous Christian belief is responsible for the Civil War and cite the evidence for both the 800-year-old English Christianity’s claim to supremacy versus the latest half-century of African American Christianity’s bid for supremacy.
Acute interest imposed by Mitch Landrieu’s infamous New Orleans tyranny drew this chemical engineer’s interest. I wanted the Civil War statues to remain, affixed with plaques that tell New Orleans visitors the chief lesson learned: Civic integrity comes from the people rather than from their gods or their government (paraphrasing Abraham Lincoln).
Slavery existed during recorded history, and that includes enslavement of Africans by competing African tribes and their kings. Catholic popes, as part of their 15th-century doctrine of discovery, “authorized” the slave trade with African kings so as to place African slaves in the Americas first by Portugal and then by Spain. Not to be outdone, some European Protestant kings joined the awful enterprise, and England became the largest force in the Atlantic slave trade.
English colonist Thomas Paine wrote in 1775 in Philadelphia, “That some desperate wretches should be willing to steal and enslave men by violence and murder for gain, is rather lamentable than strange. But that many civilized, nay, Christianized people should approve, and be concerned in the savage practice, is surprising.” See https://www.constitution.org/tp/afri.htm.
When the nine states established the U.S. on June 21, 1788, they had not the economic viability to emancipate the slaves even if religious opinion in the South could be changed, but the 1787 Constitution provided for ending the slave trade in 20 years and emancipation when economics and opinion would allow.
In 1852, Frederick Douglass, lamenting the Fugitive Slave Act before the President of the U.S., said, “By an act of the American Congress, not yet two years old, slavery has been nationalized in its most horrible and revolting form. [T]he power to hold, hunt, and sell men, women and children, as slaves, remains no longer a mere state institution, but is now an institution of the whole United States. The power is co-extensive with the star-spangled banner, and American Christianity.” See https://rbscp.lib.rochester.edu/2945.
In 1856, with plenty of time to respond to both Douglass and abolitionist-bleeding Kansas, “American Christian” R.E. Lee could have sold everything and moving to a free state. But he wrote, against abolitionists, “The painful discipline [the blacks] are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is Known & ordered by a wise & merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild & melting influence of Christianity, than the storms & tempests of fiery Controversy.” See https://leefamilyarchive.org/9-family-papers/339-robert-e-lee-to-mary-anna-randolph-custis-lee-1856-december-27.
In February 1861, the Confederate States of America issued the declaration of secession with complaints against the North and the “American Christian” conclusion, “[A]ll hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanction of more erroneous religious belief.” See http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp.
On March 4, 1861, President Lincoln responded to the CSA’s warning of war with obscure, homespun, military theology, “Why should there not be a patient confidence in the ultimate justice of the people? Is there any better or equal hope in the world? In our present differences, is either party without faith of being in the right? If the Almighty Ruler of Nations, with His eternal truth and justice, be on your side of the North, or on yours of the South, that truth and that justice will surely prevail by the judgment of this great tribunal of the American people.” See http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/lincoln1.asp.
Lincoln seemed to go beyond iconoclast to actually deny religious relevance or the involvement of a God. Also, his statement seems more a military threat than an effort to avert war. I wish I could talk to Lincoln, but suggest that he was a skillful politician who never discovered civic integrity.
Lincoln’s subsequent personal and presidential suffering may have changed his will to appeal to a God, as, perhaps, in the Gettysburg address. There is no doubt in his letter addendum in 1864, “Now, at the end of three years struggle the nation's condition is not what either party, or any man devised, or expected. God alone can claim it.” See http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/hodges.htm. Lincoln’s statement seems bold.
After the Civil War, some people continued the “American Christian” view that the Bible condones subjugation of blacks, but a great decision was reached with the 1964 Civil Rights Act against discrimination. Alas, beginning in about 1970, liberation theology, black power, black church, and Alinsky Marxism combined to establish African American Christianity. The religion’s title is exclusive. See https://www.wsj.com/articles/dr-kings-radical-biblical-vision-1522970778.
It seems time for fellow citizens, be they scholars or not, to address the obvious: Christianity has, so far, strived for the political role Constantine imposed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_policies_of_Constantine_I ) and has failed to reform to the salvation of souls rather than competition for the dominant civil opinion. Only the people may effect reform.
I think Lincoln’s 1861 message was correct: civic integrity comes from the people. My question is, why haven’t scholars reported the British, Christian liabilities for the Civil War and influenced politicians to protect history and its monuments by affixing plaques that tell the story?
Could it be that too few fellow citizens consider, adopt, trust-in, and commit-to the civic, civil, and legal agreement that is offered in the U.S. preamble? Rather than secular, the U.S. preamble’s agreement is neutral to Christianity and all other responsible, spiritual pursuits, as well as gender, race, ethnicity, wealth, and other human characteristics.
Using the U.S. preamble’s agreement, fellow citizens may collaborate for individual happiness with civic integrity.
Greg Forster understandably overlooks civic integrity in “After the decline of conservative fusionism—combining social conservatism with economic liberalism—the three most obvious choices for the Right are nationalism, economic reductionism or a more radical reaction against the modern world.”
However, he seems to share this forum’s reluctance to address the-objective-truth. There seems to be a widespread impression that if a group decides to collaborate to discover the-objective-truth they will thereby forego the dominance they seek through opinion, even a collective of opinions dubbed either a fusion or an integralism. What’s wrong with integrity? It seems to me even ethics retards the development of integrity. If God the problem?
“Fusionism assumed religious and community institutions would handle the job of moral formation, producing virtuous citizens for the polity, if only Big Government would get out of their way. Religious and community institutions have not yet figured out how to carry out the task of moral formation in this environment of continual social upheaval. [L]iberalism is unsustainable without moral commitment, which ultimately demands a religious anthropology. Start by giving yourself permission to act as if there were no God, and you will end by treating people as if they had no souls.”
The-objective-truth is discovered by studying the laws of physics. For example, if a person or institution lies, the lie will be disclosed by physical evidence. Rudyard Kipling’s “The Man Who Would Be King,” begged his death when accepted the role of a god and the women of the village bled him. The pope is currently defending the Church of child molesters. Albert Einstein informed us, in 1941, “The Laws of Science and the Laws of Ethics,” that when people employ discovery to pursue the-objective-truth there is no need for ethics. His only example was that aware people do not lie so as to lessen misery and loss.
Today, responding to another effort, I remarked to MWW of five decades, that I today articulated: during my entire life I have benefited from the humility to reject metaphysical influences that reject the-objective-truth. Also, I reject thoughts, both modern and ancient, whose authors would impose mysterious fear and their plan for relief.
In civic integrity, there is no church-state partnership. Fellow citizens collaborate to discover and benefit from the-objective-truth, leaving motivation and inspiration to the adult individual. Spirituality is an adult pursuit of individual choice. Citizens who collaborate for equal justice under law recognize that some fellow citizens dissent from justice and therefore employ the-objective-truth to develop statutory justice.
In civic integrity, there is no church-state partnership. Fellow citizens collaborate to discover and benefit from the-objective-truth, leaving motivation and inspiration to the adult individual. Spirituality is an adult pursuit of individual choice. Citizens who collaborate for equal justice under law recognize that some fellow citizens dissent from justice and therefore employ the-objective-truth to develop statutory justice.
Fellow citizens are free to overlook civic integrity, but, borrowing from Abraham Lincoln, ultimate justice comes from the people.
https://www.quora.com/unanswered/What-social-stigmas-does-society-need-to-get-over?
The human being is the most cognitively powerful species yet each individual is stereotyped as needing a higher power. Each person may reject social pressures that prevent him or her from establishing human authenticity.
Each person may develop the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (IPEA) to master integrity. However, the stigma that he or she needs a higher power motivates most persons to choose a lesser power such as a religion or a government. However, the religion or government has neither ability nor intent to care for the individual.
Each person is best served by the integrity to discover, comprehend, and use the-objective-truth. The-objective-truth exists and can only be discovered, and if it has not been discovered, the individual must admit he or she does not know.
As long as the person chooses to adopt authority that does not conform to the-objective-truth, he or she subjects himself or herself to the misery and loss of social stigma.
Update
Each human person may develop the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (HIPEA) to develop and master integrity. However, the stigma that he or she needs a higher power motivates most persons to choose a lesser power such as a religion or a government. But the chosen religion or government has neither ability nor intent to care for the individual.
Each person is best served by the integrity to consider, discover, comprehend, and use the-objective-truth. The-objective-truth exists and can only be discovered, and if it has not been discovered, the individual must admit he or she does not know.
Discovery changes with improved instruments of perception and as evolution passes into new consequences of the laws of physics. That’s physics as the source of everything—-the object of study rather than the process for study. As technology improves comprehension, the-object-truth approaches the-literal-truth.
As long as the person chooses to adopt authority that does not conform to the-objective-truth, he or she subjects himself or herself to the misery and loss of social stigma.
General update on 11/30/19
361 views · View Upvoters · Answer requested by Peter Coultas, 4 upvotes
Update
Each human person may develop the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (HIPEA) to develop and master integrity. However, the stigma that he or she needs a higher power motivates most persons to choose a lesser power such as a religion or a government. But the chosen religion or government has neither ability nor intent to care for the individual.
Each person is best served by the integrity to consider, discover, comprehend, and use the-objective-truth. The-objective-truth exists and can only be discovered, and if it has not been discovered, the individual must admit he or she does not know.
Discovery changes with improved instruments of perception and as evolution passes into new consequences of the laws of physics. That’s physics as the source of everything—-the object of study rather than the process for study. As technology improves comprehension, the-object-truth approaches the-literal-truth.
As long as the person chooses to adopt authority that does not conform to the-objective-truth, he or she subjects himself or herself to the misery and loss of social stigma.
General update on 11/30/19
361 views · View Upvoters · Answer requested by Peter Coultas, 4 upvotes
https://www.quora.com/unanswered/Are-rights-the-same-as-privileges?
In short, I think both “rights” and “privileges” are human constructs and may be erroneous reasoning. Humankind seeks to conform to physics, the object of discovery rather than the process (science).
Viewed from Merriam-Webster online, “rights” means “being in accordance with what is just, good, or proper,” and “privileges” means “a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor.” Please correct me, if I am off your topic.
In this context, privilege is determined by right, but both ideas are human constructs and are thus defined by the civilization within which the right is determined. Thus, within a culture, privilege implies advantage over right, but in another culture, the right could be different and therefore privilege would differ.
However, the concept of “right” is merely a human construct which spawned the variation in privilege. Viewed from the ovum, there is no right. There’s only consequence.
The ovum from a physically and psychologically healthy woman may be fertilized by the spermatozoon from an equally healthy man. The conception may cell divide during the trip from mom’s ovaries to the womb and the embryo may implant. Gestation and delivery may be successful. The parents may encourage and coach the child to develop integrity.
Empowered by understanding and intent to be faithful to the-objective-truth, the young adult may find and bond with a like-minded spouse. Together, they may beget a family that collaborates to provide the possibility that the parents’ grandchildren can develop an even better life for their families.
If the excellence of this progression happens, it all was the result of fidelity to physics, the object of humankind’s discovery. For example, members of the described family never lie to each other, because they learned early on that lies beget misery and loss, and their family is committed to individual happiness with civic integrity. In other words, they know that the laws of physics disclose lies.
In this story, I perceive one privilege: human life. Given life, the individual may develop integrity, which leads to fidelity. In tracing the view of the ovum, I see no role for rights.
On the other hand, this image of a wonderful family continuum has implications for erroneous choices. Consider the man whose spermatozoon fertilized the ovum. If he has not maintained personal well-being, the spermatozoon may be flawed and cause physical or psychological problems in the newborn to become adult. From that consideration, it seems the ovum had a right to a healthy spermatozoon, a right that was denied by the errant father. The implications of this consideration are far-reaching, and they are referenced in ancient literature, such as Proverbs 6:20-27, vague as it may be. “About 2700 years ago, the Greek poet Archilochus wrote to his ex-mistress: “many a sightless eel you have taken in.”[1] The brutish image of a “sightless eel” figures men’s penises.” See regulation of men’s sexuality in ancient Greece.
I think it is obvious that I appreciated the question. I answered to learn and did. I would appreciate the opportunity to learn from you, so please comment.
Viewed from viable ova each year in the U.S., there’s about 1 in 200 chances of becoming a newborn, and that’s good.
As a newborn, there’s almost no chance of being encouraged and coached to accept the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (IPEA) to develop either integrity or infidelity. That’s bad.
Without encouragement and coaching, few people consider the civic integrity of equal justice under law; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_justice_under_law (EJUL). Almost no one views the preamble to the U.S. Constitution as the U.S. agreement to collaborate for EJUL. U.S. citizens are equally suspicious of mutual, comprehensive safety and security. That’s bad but equally challenging unless there are parents who coach children to develop civic integrity. If so, there’s some good.
Most U.S. citizens are equally oblivious to the U.S. preamble’s tacit offering to willing people: individual happiness with civic morality. Thus, most U.S. citizens compete for dominant political opinion rather than collaborate for civic integrity. That’s bad but not exclusive. There are people who develop civic integrity.
I work to suggest an available better future and collaborate to make it happen. Comments would be appreciated.
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.
