Voluntary Civic People of Baton Rouge

Saturday, April 4, 2020

Whatever-God-is accepts acceptance

1. The person may accept being human, a potential member of the most powerful species.

2. The human person has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (HIPEA) to develop integrity rather than infidelity to the-objective-truth as discovered from ineluctable evidence. HIPEA can be discovered and practiced but not consigned to another entity.

3. In civic self-discipline, a person may develop human equity with statutory justice.

4. A person neither initiates nor tolerates harm to or from any person or association.

5. A person practices responsible human independence; that is, pursues with civic integrity the happiness he or she wants.

What I expect from government is the opportunity to develop integrity rather than infidelity to the-objective-truth.

In the U.S., I have the opportunity to express opposition to harm I perceive in my governance (Item 4, above). For example, I think the First Amendment errs in its religion clauses and they should be replaced with a clause that encourages integrity. Whatever-God-is may prefer acceptance rather than religion. This is only the latest of expressions I have written over the past two decades. I have never felt threatened for the effort and continue to dream I’ll witness the change even though I am in my eighth decade.

One other point. I recently perceived that responsible human liberty seems an oxymoron. The human being is not liberated from the-literal-truth and only hopes that new instruments of perception will help improve the-objective-truth so as to approach perfect knowledge. However, I have yet to experience a situation wherein I could not practice civic integrity even though I do not know the-literal-truth. Furthermore, “liberty” is often taken as license. When the activists take the liberty to disrupt, destroy, and risk lives, I want my responsible human independence.

https://www.quora.com/Why-has-the-West-been-so-successful-over-time?

I’d need a definition of “the West” to wholly consider the question. Does it include Greece, for example?

Just now, I am reading about Anglo-American law, which I do not consider successful. England maintains constitutional Chapter XI Machiavellianism, and America follows many English precedents. America falsely touts “freedom of religion” when its Constitutional preamble encourages public discipline regarding unity, justice, tranquility, defense, welfare, and liberty. I do not like some people’s license and bloodletting so prefer “independence” to “liberty.”

Despite political regimes that have evolved from 1789 factional-American Protestantism to Judeo-Christianity if not Judeo-Catholicism in competition with African-American Christianity, it seems to me about 1/3 of Americans develop civic integrity, 1/3 are passive to anything but survival, and 1/3 are dissidents to the preamble.

The Americans who develop civic integrity somehow regard the preamble as their precious personal property and interpret their lives to be both the latest in the 1787 generation’s “Posterity” and “ourselves” to the next generation. They practice if not articulate the preamble to practice integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity so as to encourage responsible human independence to living citizens.

I think developing responsible independence is a dominant factor in 1/3 to 2/3 of U.S. citizens’ lives. I encourage every citizen to own and interpretation of the U.S. Preamble and to use it to order their civic life while privately pursuing the spirituality or religion they prefer.

https://www.quora.com/What-are-your-thoughts-on-China-joining-a-U-N-Human-Rights-Council-panel-where-it-will-help-select-the-next-world-monitors-on-freedom-of-speech-enforced-disappearances-arbitrary-detention-and-health-disasters?

I think the principle that humans can develop equity under statutory justice (Greeks 2,400 years ago) holds for nations of people. Also, under this suggestion, the party that will not allow the other party to speak can expect to not know what the other party wants to talk about much less what they say. The listener still has to observe the subsequent actions.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-one-mistake-that-the-United-States-made-that-continues-to-cause-problems?

Not encouraging citizens to know and use the preamble to the U.S. Constitution.

When 1/3 of the delegates of 12/13 states to the 1787 constitutional convention in Philadelphia did not sign the draft on September 17, 1787 there were perhaps three major objections. The preamble’s discipline of by and for civic citizens in a union of states 1) replacing the 1774 confederation of states, 2) dropping the 1777 Article of Confederation’s reference to the Great Governor of the World (I prefer “whatever-God-is” as less arrogant than any human assignment of character or duty), and 3) the absence of a British-like Bill of Rights.

When the required 9 states had ratified the 1787 Constitution on June 21, 1788 with the stipulation that the first Congress would amend it, some of the other 4 could have and should have, with up to 5 other states, ratified the un-amended Constitution.

It was more obvious to them than it is to me that the preamble to the U.S. Constitution offers a citizen’s proposition that could end England’s psychological influence in the USA. The preamble addresses unity, justice, tranquility, defense, and welfare to secure liberty to the continuum of living citizens. Spiritualism or religion is thus humbly assigned to privacy rather than to public discipline.

However, Congress established “divinity” on par with the Church of England’s (reformed Catholic) seats in Parliament by hiring Congressional factional-American Protestant chaplains. It seems self-evident that whatever-God-is assigned to human individuals accountability for civic integrity. By encouraging citizens to vainly, arrogantly attempt to consign to whatever-God-is mutual, responsible human independence, citizens are constrained by an unconstitutional political influence to mimic England’s church-state-partnership or Chapter XI Machiavellianism.

It is in the U.S. citizen’s self-interest to personally separate church from state. I encourage every citizen to earn an individual interpretation of the preamble so as to order their civic life while privately pursuing the afterdeath each prefers. After some months of practice, join forces to cause amendment of the First Amendment to delete the religion clauses and add a clause that encourages civic integrity under the preamble and the-objective-truth or ineluctable evidence.

https://www.quora.com/Do-you-think-allowing-anonymous-answers-comments-and-actions-provides-on-balance-a-positive-impact-to-society-comparable-to-accountability-Is-the-result-beneficial-overall-Does-it-make-us-a-better-people-overall?

Yes.

The evolution of humanoids has gone on for 10s of millions of years, and humans perhaps 3 million years. There has been perhaps 10 trillion person-years of humankind’s psychological maturing. Cultures have evolved for tens if not hundreds of thousands of years. Democracy was debated by the Greeks 2,400 years ago, and they were commenting on earlier politics. Rome was once a republic. Capitalism was explained by Adam Smith. No human can achieve humankind’s knowledge in a lifetime, yet individuals can intentionally emerge at the leading edge of human psychology.

The human infant was born yesterday, and needs 2 to 3 decades excellent encouragement and coaching to accept the responsibility of being human. However, encouragement to accept being human is rare. Few adults believe humans have the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (HIPEA) to develop integrity rather than drift-into or nourish infidelity to the-objective-truth or the ineluctable evidence. Most adults think it is good to teach youth knowledge and opinion the adults use, failing to admit the youth will face challenges the adults cannot imagine. Most individuals must discover being human.

Consequently, it is more likely that young adults have not the comprehension and intention to live a complete human life. That is, use the first 3 decades acquiring the understanding and self-interest to develop integrity. Then, appreciating humankind, serve: do all he or she can to further the human directive to develop equity under statutory justice (or better). That means serving humankind for about 4 decades or more, then expressing the accumulated understanding so as to encourage posterity and use the dialogue to self-improve, again recognizing that the youth are born for a time the adult cannot imagine.

The human being is so powerful, he or she can develop integrity from the moment he or she accepts each of being human, having HIPEA, and using it to avoid infidelity. Every human being may be viewed with this appreciation, no matter how low his or her current performance may be.

If, at his or her point in the path toward accepting being human among humans, he or she feels the need to reserve his or her identity, he or she should be able to dialogue frankly then read frank responses. It’s like Sunday school: fallacies spoken speak their corrections.

https://www.quora.com/What-do-negative-freedom-and-positive-freedom-mean-What-do-you-think-are-the-similarities-and-differences-among-them-And-what-were-the-social-and-historical-circumstances-which-led-to-this-differentiation-in-terms

I don’t think about such questions but know where to go for answers: Search (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) My search found 1393 documents.

https://www.quora.com/unanswered/If-politics-involve-compromise-why-does-it-seem-there-is-so-little-of-it-today?

The falsity that political order is resolved by compromise is imposed by those with apparent advantage in order to persuade the other party to submit to power. Perhaps compromise summarizes the Machiavellianisms reviewed in “The Prince,” 1513.

To me, the most notorious tyranny is the church-state-partnership reviewed in Chapter XI, which I refer to as Chapter XI Machiavellianism. The clergy and the politician live high on the hog by picking the people’s pockets and the people neither rebel nor leave the country. Only a dreamer would work to end the tyranny.

From 1607, just 94 years after Machiavelli published his theories, England started plying the Church of England assigned seats on Parliament to effect Chapter XI Machiavellianism in the N. American eastern seaboard. In 1774, after pleas for relief, leaders in the 13 British colonies declared that they were free and independent global states and began writing state constitutions. France joined for their war against England and created strategic and military superiority at Yorktown, VA. In 1781, France secured victory in the American war for independence.

Having won global status as 13 free and independent states, named in the 1783 Treaty of Paris, the 1774 confederation of states tried to operate, but failed, as General George Washington anticipated on June 8, 1783 in his farewell to his generals. In 1787, 12 of the states held a constitutional convention and their Committee of Style by September 12, 1787 authored the preamble to the U.S. Constitution’s proposition for, in my view, 5 public disciplines that encourage individual citizens to practice responsible human independence. Only 2/3 of the delegates, the framers, signed the 1787 draft constitution and for some of the 1/3 dissidents, the U.S. Preamble, in its assignment of holding the Union accountable to fellow citizens, was the objection. Also, the U.S. Preamble reserves prudent humility toward whatever-God-is, by inferring that spiritualism and religion are private rather than public pursuits.

In the zeal to establish a Union of states rather than maintain the confederation, the signers compromised with the dissenters to agree to mimic the English Bill of Rights in an amendment of the draft constitution. Two states wanted a Bill of Rights, and ratification required 9 states; perhaps 2 of the dissenting states would have ratified without compromise, but we’ll never know.

The U.S. began operations March 4, 1789 with eleven states, and right away Congress legislated the restoration of Chapter XI Machiavellianism but under factional-American Protestantism instead of the reformed Catholicism of the Church of England with Parliament. Under 14 states, Congress ratified the Bill of Rights on December 15, 1791, and the First Amendment codified “freedom of religion” rather than encouragement to develop integrity.

The consequence of compromising the U.S. Preamble to British tradition (stare decisis dating from 1215’s Magna Carta) has been ruinous for We the People of the United States. It is time for reform to the U.S. Preamble’s encouragement of responsible human independence.

https://www.quora.com/How-effective-are-change-org-petitions-1?

I don’t know.

I appreciate learning about it and may write a petition so as to find out how well it works in my really strange cause: promoting the U.S. Preamble’s proposition as each living citizen interprets it.

As I interpret it, the U.S. Preamble is a citizens’ proposition for 5 public disciplines so as to encourage responsible human independence. I share my view hoping to learn from fellow citizens: state my case, clarify it for interested fellow citizens, then listen to their criticisms.

I would appreciate your tips on using change.org. Thank you.

https://www.quora.com/Why-do-Americans-love-their-government?

The U.S. guarantees each state a republican form of government under the rule of written law. Most if not all states are pure democracies: one person one vote and the majority decides.

The preamble to the U.S. Constitution (the U.S. Preamble) is a citizens’ proposition for 5 public disciplines so as to encourage responsible human independence. Each citizen is free to earn an individual interpretation of the preamble and either live by his or her interpretation or not.

If not, he or she may risk subjugation to written law enforcement, even though the law has not been corrected to statutory justice, the ultimate will of the continuum of “ourselves and our Posterity.” Otherwise, the citizen may use the preamble’s proposition to pursue individual happiness with civic, civil, and legal integrity, all the while pursuing in private any spiritual or religious practice he or she believes.

The U.S. Preamble proposes private humility toward whatever-God-is, even though Congress, since March 4, 1789, has arrogantly claimed divinity on par with the Church of England’s Parliament- partnership.

https://www.quora.com/Is-integrity-the-number-one-attribute-for-a-good-leader?

Maybe so.

Integrity is a practice: research a personal awareness or concern to discover the ineluctable evidence that it is either an actual-reality, a mirage, or is an unknown (in which case, accept the position “I don’t know”); if real, discover how to benefit; behave so as to benefit, keep an open mind to new discovery that would demand amendment; share with fellow citizens the ineluctable evidence for your understanding and behavior; listen for any improvements fellows may suggest; be alert to new inventions that change perception so as to demand change.

With integrity, the theist/atheist reserves sufficient humility toward whatever-God-is.

Many leaders honestly persuade gullible people to tolerate harm. They’re honest leaders because they never learned the practice of integrity and appeal to other honest people. It seems evident that the world is in chaos because of honest leaders and fellow citizens.

https://www.quora.com/Why-are-Americans-constantly-being-promoted-to-the-idea-that-exceptionalism-in-science-technology-and-medicine-is-uniquely-American-Doesnt-this-just-encourage-a-false-view-and-ignorance-about-the-real-world?

I don’t know.

However, see “The United States . . . was responsible for the development of 43.7% of the [FDA new molecular entities]” at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2866602/ but shares only 23.6% of world GDP; see https://www.investopedia.com/insights/worlds-top-economies/#countries-by-gdp.

I think the only exceptionalism in the U.S. is responsible human independence, which is only partially developed---maybe 1/3 participation when it should be 2/3.

https://www.quora.com/unanswered/What-is-the-source-of-tension-between-cooperation-and-self-interest?

A 2,400 year old Greek suggestion is that humans may develop equity under statutory justice. To do so requires both parties to pursue statutory justice and individual happiness according to personal opinion.

Statutory justice requires a standard that is external to both parties. The only standard I know of is the-literal-truth. In other words, legislators ought to research the ineluctable evidence and understand how to benefit from it in order to make laws.

For example, providing the human ovum the dignity and equity it is due requires a woman who is aware of and committed to her viable ova. In other words, in caring for her health, the woman acts not only for herself but for her posterity. She chooses a mate who will be faithful to them and the children’s children for life. Thereby, their posterity will experience monogamous mating for life---learn by example rather than by exhortation, coercion, or force.

The-literal-truth cannot yield to human reason or reasonable constructs. Likewise, the human individual ultimately cannot yield the self-interest of integrity---cannot cooperate for arbitrary inequity, equality, or injustice. He or she uses HIPEA to demand equity under statutory justice and will not cooperate to lessen integrity.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-meant-by-human-rights-Why-do-some-politicians-often-say-that-there-is-a-lack-of-human-rights-in-China?

I can only address what I think about “human rights”: the phrase is a misguided substitute for “responsible human independence”.

The human being starts as a unique ovum in a unique woman’s body. The ovum is inseminated by a unique spermatozoon to form a unique, single-celled embryo. With gestation, delivery, rearing, and acceptance of being human, he or she may acquire the comprehension and intention to live a complete, unique human life. He or she may perfect his or her person.

As the most aware species, and empowered with grammar, the leading edge of humankind is the most powerful species on earth. The human being has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (HIPEA) to develop either integrity to the-literal-truth or infidelity. By young adulthood, a person may have accepted HIPEA and chosen to use it to develop integrity.

If so, he or she has the human right to develop integrity, which must be developed among all fellow citizens including those who have chosen infidelity. For example, some criminals think crime pays. A culture of integrity requires constraint of infidelity.

In a civic culture, citizens develop integrity by neither causing nor tolerating harm to or from any fellow citizen or association. Civic citizens trust-in and commit-to equity under statutory justice. Rejecting the civic culture risks the responsible human independence that the integrity-accepting citizens enjoy. Committing a crime is an act of dependence on fellow citizens. Thus, by choice, the criminal risks responsible human independence, for example, incarceration, or fines that lessen the criminal’s access to his or her wealth. When justice falters, the culture is lessened.

The single human right I perceive is the opportunity to develop responsible human independence. It begins with responsibly earning the lifestyle the fellow citizen wants.

https://www.quora.com/unanswered/When-you-think-of-politics-whos-the-first-person-that-comes-to-mind?

Strictly speaking, because of the media, I think of President Trump and his administration, then his domestic enemies.

For my work, I’m always interested first in my neighbors, who seem too busy trying to survive or get ahead that they cannot take time for civic integrity. My next concern is my municipal representative, whom I wish would take the time to support my work and help advance it up the political hierarchy. I promote the preamble to the U.S. Constitution and the civic, civil, and legal culture it proposes: public discipline to encourage responsible human independence. Most people like to refer to the lame “we, the people” or the Declaration of Independence on hearing my topic.

In Baton Rouge, a district is represented by a Metro-Councilperson, and none of the recent three nor any of the other eleven councilpersons have thought the entity We the People of the United States as I view it is worth minimal time and effort for consideration. Meanwhile, the U.S. Congress continually abuses We the People of the United States.

Frustrated with the Metro Council, I tried our Mayor-President, my state representative and state senator, my U.S. Representative, and my two U.S. Senators. I speculate that none of them consider themselves on par with a fellow citizen. Somehow, they count themselves above We the People of the United States.

I hope I am wrong.

The preamble to the United States Constitution’s proposition promises an achievable better future. However, past regimes have erroneously labeled it “secular” whereas the preamble treats religion as an individual, private pursuit rather than a civic, civil, or legal imposition.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-most-effective-parenting-style-to-produce-productive-members-of-society?

Of my siblings, so far, my younger sister is the only one with a grandchild, so I must admit: I do not know.

Nevertheless, I will share what I think from my experiences and observations with one woman now in our sixth decade of marriage with three children. Here’s what children should learn from their parent(s), in my view.

1. The child should learn heterosexual monogamy for life by living as a dignified, deserving person within the family to be extended to the child’s family.

2. The woman, during her fertile years, may deliver 400 viable ova. Each ovum is unique yet is due dignity and equity as a potential human being. She innately seeks a mate who will commit to her and her ova for life, thereby assuring spousal support for her children’s children and beyond. It matters not that a single parent did not find such a spouse: he or she is obligated to her conceptions to transfer this information. Single parents, in ways I cannot imagine, owe their children observations-of if not experiences-with heterogeneous monogamy for life. If the single parent does not have a spouse, his or her children need to know why. Children need to understand the mutual civic integrity involved in selecting and agreeing to monogamy for life.

3. The authentic man is aware that attraction to a woman incorporates her commitment to about 13 viable ova per year, and he would not invite intimacy with her if he suffers heterophobia: the fear of monogamy for life with a woman and her possible ova.

4. Every human ovum has the dignity and equity to become his or her unique individual. Recognizing the above principles, upon conception, gestation, delivery, and infancy, he or she accepts being a human being.

5. As the most aware living species, the leading edge of humanity develops grammar so as to empower statutory justice; that is, to discover injustices in written law and reform the law until it approaches perfection: Faithful enforcement yields justice.

6. Every human has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (HIPEA) to either pursue statutory justice or not; to develop integrity to the-literal-truth or not; to accept equity under written law or not. The parent promises the child that he/she will never forsake them in the encouragement and coaching both to accept HIPEA and to develop integrity.

7. Because most of the-literal-truth is unknown, integrity must be developed using the-objective-truth, or the latest comprehension of the ineluctable evidence and how to benefit from the understanding. The process of understanding involves human error, and integrity is maintained if the error is not repeated, at least not made habit. Persons who are more committed to HIPEA and integrity may have a more direct path to their unique perfection.

8. Neither government nor whatever-God-is will usurp HIPEA, comforting as a personal God may be. Therefore, justice-practicing fellow citizens do not question/challenge each other’s spiritual motivations and inspirations or none.

I think that is enough of my opinion to ponder in one day. I hope it helps. I write to learn, so would appreciate comments.

https://www.quora.com/What-exactly-is-the-meaning-of-left-wing-and-right-wing-politics?

Right wing means negotiating to maintain written law until possible injustice is discovered, the necessary reform is worked out in apparent justice, and an amendment is ratified. Left wing means demanding delivery of wants because leftists want them, even if they obviously oppose the ineluctable evidence. For example, people take for granted denying the dignity and equity due the human ovum.

Both groups are divided, some right wing groups tout their religious beliefs as reasonable for everyone, even though the doctrine may defy whatever-God-is. Some legal conservatives consider this risky hubris toward whatever-God-is, get erroneously labeled “left-leaning”, and are stonewalled by the right.

Some leftists nevertheless trust-in and commit to physics and its progeny including psychology. They argue that demands must responsibly consider economic balance: that is, the demand can be met with existing human capacity for work. Some legal leftists erroneously label their allies “conservatives.”

The proposition that is offered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution offers resolution of this conflict, and it is in every citizen’s self-interest to earn and treasure as personal property his or her interpretation of the civic, civil, and legal power of the U.S. Preamble.

https://www.quora.com/Do-you-agree-or-disagree-that-the-rules-society-expects-young-people-to-follow-and-obey-are-too-strict?

I disagree.

Fortunately or not, the individual human condition is absolute ignorance of any memes behind the genes at conception. The human infant is apprehensive but uninformed. It takes about 3 decades for him or her to acquire the comprehension and intention to live a complete human life. That implies psychologically maturing to his or her unique perfection.

Being unique, the human being has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (HIPEA) to develop either integrity toward the-literal-truth, much of which is unknown, or tolerate/nourish infidelity. Integrity is the self-interest-practice of considering a concern enough to conclude either personal comprehension using the ineluctable evidence or the resolution, “We don’t know.”

These basic human conditions are not encouraged or coached in any culture. Therefore, it is difficult for the child, the adolescent, the young adult, or the chronologically mature adolescent to accept each of being human, his or her HIPEA, and the choice to develop integrity. Recall, I am not talking “personal integrity” as much as integrity to the-literal-truth; saying “I don’t know” when you don’t know.

Citizens are obviously confused about the awareness evolution has developed in the leading edge of humankind, and how the species has used grammar to exponentially develop both physics and psychology. Nevertheless, the encouragement and coaching to take advantage of humankind’s experiences and observations the passing opportunity to approach your unique perfection during your one lifetime is a gift most youth neither discover nor accept.

I hope this helps. Also, I write to learn, so comments would be appreciated.

https://www.quora.com/unanswered/George-Orwell-said-in-a-free-society-there-are-all-sorts-of-ways-to-keep-unpopular-ideas-from-being-expressed-what-does-this-sentence-mean?

Because of the word “expressed,” I imagine he was frustrated with a publisher. Bill Bankston taught me, “Phil, it’s freedom of the press rather than freedom of the letter writer.” I was complaining about the editor writing a caption that changed the tone of my message. It happens all the time. Bankston refused many of my letters.

Orwell died in 1950. The world-wide internet came in 1989. Blogging in late 1980s to 1990s. Quora in 2010. I no longer write letters to the editor. Freedom of the press has been turned upside down. Orwell might not have that old frustration in 2020.

https://www.quora.com/How-messed-up-can-politics-get?

Are you speaking of world politics or U.S. politics? Let me assume U.S. and answer.

I think we are living the abyss and the assent to individual responsible human independence has begun.

The reason for my optimism is promotion of the preamble to the U.S. Constitution’s proposition as each individual citizen self-interestedly interprets it . . . or neglects/opposes its disciplines.

There’s isn’t a new word in the U.S. Preamble. However, there is the view that our generation is both the most recent “our Posterity” to the 1787 generation and the “ourselves” to the coming generation. In other words, holding local, state, and federal governments accountable is in our self-interest, and whatever-God-is will not usurp our human, individual power, energy, and authority (HIPEA).

The 1787 public goals stated in the U.S. Preamble are unity, justice, tranquility, defense, and welfare so as to secure liberty to “ourselves and our Posterity.” As history saw in the English Revolution of 1689, the American Revolution of 1774, and the French Revolution of 1789, liberty often means license for bloodletting. When the mob gets violent, I want independence. With that and other 2020 synonyms my interpretation today is: We the People of the United States civically, civilly, and legally practice 5 disciplines---integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity---in order to encourage responsible human independence to the continuum of living citizens. Both the original and my interpretation exclude religion, admitting that spiritual pursuits are personal whereas the civic goals are public.

No political regime has ever encouraged U.S. citizens to practice the U.S. Preamble’s delegation of spiritual pursuits to individual privacy. Regimes have labeled the U.S. Preamble “secular” whereas it is prudently neutral to religion. In fact, it’s more than prudence: it’s humility toward whatever-God-is. No person, church, or government, has the authority to cause a citizen to fear for his or her spiritual destiny, whether real or mysterious.

The perpetrators of the hubris, “freedom of religion,” are the congresses throughout U.S. history, so far. The egregious First Congress defied the U.S. Preamble’s proposition and established for themselves “divinity” on par with The Church of England’s seats in Parliament (reformed-Catholic-politics), by hiring factional-American Protestant-chaplains. Yet much has been written about U.S. separation of church and state. To end the charade, We the People of the United States may hold Congress accountable to amend the First Amendment so as to protect the individual’s pursuit of both civic and spiritual integrity from religion, a business institution. That is, delete the religion clauses and add pursuit of integrity.

I have written about this reform since the late 1990s. Never has the need for change been so obvious. Each day during the recent Senate trial after the Democratic Party’s unconstitutional impeachment of President Donald Trump, the Senate chaplain conducted a prayer that often informed whatever-God-is and directed its conduct. Then, the Senators recited the pledge of allegiance with its prayer “under God.” Many Senators behaved in allegiance to their parties more than to the Constitution to which they declared an oath. One Senator shamed himself by admitting that his religion alienated him from the U.S. Constitution.

Some of the framers of the 1787 U.S. Constitution were well aware of Machiavelli’s “The Prince,” 1513. I doubt that they missed Chapter XI, which says that the clergy-politician-partnership is able to pick the people’s pockets with immunity because the people “know” that their God will eventually relieve them of government abuse. Only a dreamer would imagine reform. The Congress, in 2019, turned the dream into grounds for reform.

Since 1789, when the First Congress lessened the importance of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition and re-established as many English traditions as they could, We the People of the United States has been dormant. The 2016-20 consequence is the political chaos the Democrats enacted the moment the Trump/Pence administration was elected.

However, beginning in 2019, the proposal for every citizen to own his or her interpretation of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition has been read worldwide. The failure of our generation’s “ourselves” to its “our Posterity” will shake many citizens into awareness of the U.S. preamble’s proposition: civic, civil, and legal discipline of by and for fellow citizens. If not, loss of independence of by and for future citizens. By no imagination should our generation saddle our posterity with $30 trillion U.S. debt.

If this seems a hopeful message, share it. Please comment, as I write to learn.

https://www.quora.com/Why-would-anyone-build-robots-in-a-society-where-robots-have-human-rights?

The erroneous entrepreneur believes he or she can find enough suckers to sympathize with robots so as to have a market for the religion. Thus, the entrepreneur speculates that intelligent robots have souls and owners have the obligation to develop souls of the robots they own. The entrepreneur custom programs the robots to commit to the doctrine and presto, the owner has a disciple. To some people this would be a satisfying life style, so I do not doubt there is a market.

It’s much like the idea of changing your gender according to your feelings about your psychology. A human individual’s life is too short to enter into such an experiment, yet there are customers. They can be persuaded to reject help from social workers or psychologists, as I do with problems like heterophobia. (The fear that loving a woman requires personal commitment to fidelity to her and her ova for the man’s lifetime, not matter what lies in store.) Unfortunately, there is a cottage industry for gender change.

Why would anyone rebuke physics and its offspring like psychology in order to research a speculation? For example, an entrepreneur says, “Everything is controlled by whatever-God-is. The God called me to a mountain and revealed mysterious powers. I now share what I learned with you.”

As a consequence, disciples develop a construct to explain how everything is controlled, and the masses gather to learn the secrets about what is not known. Eventually, masses learn to call it a mystery rather than doctrine constructed on speculation. Believers’ minds are closed to the actual reality that physics and its offspring control the civic, civil, and legal life mankind must discover while spirituality is a private, individual-human private-pursuit.

Only a dreamer would attempt reform. The preamble to the U.S. Constitution, as I view it, provides a concrete proposition for responsible human independence; in other words for developing personal happiness with civic integrity rather than supporting an errant entrepreneur.

Every U.S. citizen should take the self-interest to earn a personal interpretation of the preamble’s proposition. Everyone who does, will know they own a precious intellectual property. It starts with the object “ourselves and our Posterity.” Our generation is both the latest “our Posterity” since the 1787 “ourselves” and the “ourselves” to the coming generation. Thus, our generation is responsible for the preamble’s development of the public discipline that encourages responsible human independence.

Robots will always lag the latest newborn humans and therefore will not help discover the statutory justice our posterity will develop.

https://www.quora.com/What-makes-a-society-complete?

It encourages responsible human independence; in other words, citizens voluntarily develop statutory justice.

https://www.quora.com/If-a-teacher-agrees-to-submerge-himself-into-the-system-if-he-consents-to-being-defined-by-others-views-of-what-he-is-supposed-to-be-he-gives-up-his-freedom-to-see-to-understand-and-to-signify-for-himself-Do-you?

I’m reluctant to answer “yes” because I would not choose all the words and constraints you expressed. I’m especially concerned that ambition could not only isolate you but take you out of the profession. With that caution, I want to write helpful thoughts, perhaps so as to learn from you.

While it is necessary to transfer information to students, comprehension is the student’s responsibility. Furthermore, the teacher cannot imagine the future the student’s face. A system duty is to encourage and coach the student to acquire the intent and comprehension with which to accept a complete human lifetime: his or her life. Given the chance, I would be lobbying to change my employer’s title from Department of Education to Department of Human Encouragement. Read Kahlil Gibran’s On Children by Kahlil Gibran - Poems then ponder the message, ignoring the references to whatever-God-is so as to recognize the suggested human responsibilities.

To progress on your plan, you will need decades of persuasion to reform education’s errant momentum. Thus, your first goal is to stay in the system.

Consider a few thoughts from Greeks, an Italian, and a Russian, which I interpreted:

Civic citizens commit to and develop equity under statutory justice. Nevertheless, they honor written law during the discovery and reform of its injustices. The civic citizen’s outstanding power is that he or she neither initiates nor tolerates harm to or from any person or association; within the civic culture, he or she confronts harm with mutual civic appreciation: fellow citizens avoid violence. Fellow citizens accept that neither whatever-God-is nor government usurps responsible human independence. Therefore, no one questions another’s responsible inspiration and motivation. A promise made to a fellow citizen is never broken. Government officials are first civic citizens.

And from interpretation of Albert Einstein’s speeches. Physics and its progeny such as chemistry and biology, the objects of research on ineluctable evidences, are also the sources of psychological discovery. Physics and psychology are controlled by the same laws. The journal of discovery represents progress toward statutory justice, which will always be needed because humankind’s progress exponentially exceeds the individual’s capacity to know within a human lifetime. However, each human ovum or spermatozoon is unique, and the fertilized ovum is further diversified.

Neither gestation, delivery, rearing, nor acceptance of individuality lessens the human being’s potential for perfection. Each human has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (HIPEA) to develop either integrity to the-literal-truth or infidelity. It is in the person’s self-interest to use his or her HIPEA to develop integrity. Integrity is the practice of remaining open minded to the-literal-truth, most of which is unknown. The adult who discourages a child is uniquely errant.

With courageous humility, the human individual may develop his or her unique perfection.

Those are my ideas today. The suggestions may help you imagine what you would like to do with your career. Advancing your ideas will take courage, and the sooner you understand them and get to work, the more likely you’ll see reform within your lifetime.

I write to learn, so please comment.

https://www.quora.com/Do-conservatives-lack-abstract-thinking-skills?

Quick is better when slow is not necessary.

It depends upon the speed of discovering the ineluctable evidence. The prosecution is obligated to the victim to discover evidence beyond reasonable doubt before indicting the suspected offender. If there is no shred of evidence, law enforcement should quickly return to the list of suspects.

We the People of the United States want injustice discovered and resolved in favor of the victim, and that hinges on not creating a victim by using anything but ineluctable evidence.

Fortunately in the U.S., written law and its enforcement is continually improved toward statutory justice.

https://www.quora.com/Do-conservatives-lack-abstract-thinking-skills?

Conservatives do the work to convert ideas that are disassociated from any specific instance, difficult to understand, and insufficiently factual into particulars, comprehension, and the-objective-truth.

Consider, for example, the recent impeachment of President Donald Trump by Democrats in the House of Representatives. Most Democrat were confronted in the Senate by conservatives for We the People of the United States. (Mitt Romney demonstrated that he is a religious man---insufficiently factual---rather than a member of We the People of the United States.)

https://www.quora.com/How-much-does-it-matter-to-you-if-public-officials-value-the-truth?

In 2006, in the Q&A after my speech “Faith in the Truth,” Harold Weingarten kindly asked, “Phil, are you representing the ultimate truth, absolute truth, God’s truth, or Phil’s truth?”

I weakly responded, “All of those truths require human evaluation: I’m am talking about the truth.”

Since then, I developed the phrases “the-objective-truth” to represent comprehension of ineluctable evidence with current tools of perception, the perfection of which may approach “the-literal-truth.” In each phrase, the hyphens are intended to persuade scholars not to delete the article.

To me, it is essential that civic people hold public officials accountable to the-literal-truth, unknown as it usually is. In other words, in a civic culture, most fellow citizens demand the-objective-truth when the-literal-truth is unknown, and otherwise, otherwise, officials should claim they don’t know what they don’t know.

This practice might serve officials well in cases wherein an alien is trying to learn the official strategy. See Matthew 7:6, CJB. For example, if the enemy asks, “What would you do if we impeach you?” The official can respond, “I don’t know. I will be defensive.”

Or what if we use germ warfare? “I don’t know: our response will be strong.”

Or what if we fire a missile that strikes your ally? “I don’t know: you will soon learn.”

https://www.quora.com/Do-you-put-your-hand-over-your-heart-when-you-pledge-allegiance-to-the-flag?

I do when I don’t.

I appreciate and love the flag and the responsible human independence with statutory justice it stands for. However, I will not be denied individual independence by civil tyranny and civic submission.

I do not recite the pledge for two reasons. First, I think a pledge is coercive rather than encouraging to We the People of the United States as defined by the preamble to the U.S. Constitution (the U.S. Preamble). Second, I tremble before whatever-God-is and do not take the hubris to claim “under God.” Fellow citizens are mutually accountable to the goals stated in the U.S. Preamble.

Consider the U.S. Preamble’s proposition as I view it: We the People of the United States maintain 5 public disciplines so as to encourage responsible human independence. The 5 disciplines exclude spiritual pursuits such as religion, since religion is a private rather than public pursuit. Also, liberty is often practiced as license, lawlessness, even bloodletting; “responsible human liberty” seems an oxymoron.

Our 2020 generation is responsible. Quoting the preamble, we are the latest “our Posterity” to the 1787 generation and “ourselves” to the coming generation. Just as I do not pray when I am responsible, I do not join an act that I think opposes the U.S. Preamble.

I want Congress to stop prayer and the pledge to begin sessions and replace those hypocrisies with unison recitation of the U.S. Preamble, each Representative or Senator reflecting on his or her interpretation while uttering the original words. Congresspersons ought to be first members of We the People of the United States and too often act as aliens. Consider Nancy Pelosi’s recent reference to a pope and Mitt Romney’s impeachment vote as a religious man.

I want Pelosi to face her shame and resign and no “Mormon saint” to ever win election. (I don’t always get what I want.) In the U.S., fellow citizens either trust-in and commit-to the U.S. preamble’s proposition as they see it, or are aliens to We the People of the United States. And that chosen/neglected status starts with elected and appointed government officials—-local, state, and national.

https://www.quora.com/Should-tribal-loyalty-take-precedence-over-things-like-truth-integrity-and-decency?

The human being who accepts his or her person relies on his person when the tribe has a different opinion. Psychological offense by the tribe is taken as an opportunity to reform the tribe. Stonewalling by the tribe leaves the tribe isolated. Physical offense by the tribe must meet either overpowering strength or physical retreat to preserve psychological self reliance. The self-reliant person cannot be isolated.

https://www.quora.com/I-do-not-understand-the-concept-of-if-the-Moon-was-not-being-observed-then-it-would-not-be-there-It-is-a-philosophical-question-but-does-the-Moon-exist-regardless-if-it-is-looked-at-or-not?

An observer can fix their tripod-fixed cell phone camera with video recorder on the moon and record the earth’s rotation sweeping the image out of view. The skeptic can then ask if the earth is really rotating on its axis.

https://www.quora.com/unanswered/What-should-I-learn-if-I-want-to-be-an-education-policy-expert?

That depends upon whether you want to rise to the top of the profession or to help people who need encouragement and coaching to become what they can be. If the latter, here are a few acceptances a human needs and educators can coach and encourage to the student, who must experience and observe---cannot be taught.

First, the educator must admit that he or she does not know the world his or her students will face and therefore can only teach information, practices, and the human acceptances required to use them.

1. The human body completes building the wisdom parts of the brain in a quarter century.

a. Persons live in an unintentionally confused and conflicted world yet many fellow citizens develop integrity.

b. Meanwhile, accepting self-interest, the individual may acquire, hopefully in 2 to 3 decades, the comprehension and intent to live a complete human life in self-interest.

2. The human individual may accept the power, the energy, and the authority (HIPEA) to develop either integrity to the-literal-truth or vulnerability to infidelity. Integrity is the practice of discovering and taking advantage-of the ineluctable evidence.

a. If the former, the individual may accept the civic, civil, and legal propositions developed by past civic citizens and help resolve written law discovered to be unjust.

b. The basic agreement is to pursue human equity under statutory justice.

c. If a fellow citizen falls into habitual infidelity, the civic citizens encourage reform by example more than by exhortation or punishment.

i. Yet the rule of written law is essential to a civic culture.

ii. Elected and appointed government officials are foremost civic citizens.

3. In a civic culture, individuals separate church from state by retaining enough humility for whatever-God-is, meanwhile pursuing hope and comfort from his or her personal God. A civic people hold government responsible to this humility.

4. The human individual is as unique as the ovum with which his or her spermatozoon formed a single cell without lessening the singularity. Also, his or her path to psychological maturity is unique, and therefore, his or her perfection is unique yet attainable before the body, mind, and person stop functioning.

Developing these four principles, every education department in the world could change its purpose and name to Responsible Human Encouragement Department. Systems could be developed to inculcate human integrity into the minds of every infant, every child, every adolescent, and every adult.

https://www.quora.com/In-a-growing-secular-society-are-there-new-ethics-to-define-concepts-of-right-and-wrong-behaviour?

The people in each nation may hold their government accountable for a civic proposition that civic citizens may trust and commit to, preserving to each human the privacy of religious hopes and comforts and the public discipline that encourages responsible human independence.

You pose a wonderful question. I think there is a new journal of ethics to be discovered. The basis is elimination of the political correctness by which ancient human principles are obscured for religious powers.

The Greeks, about 2,400 years ago debated human integrity as viewed by early thinkers and suggested some principle I interpret for 2020 as follows:

Humans may encourage each other by directly coaching good behavior rather than attributing people’s motives to mysterious gods.

Nevertheless, self-interest to pursue integrity is private, individual, and must be learned.

Integrity is the practice of discovering the-objective-truth if the-literal-truth is obscure. For example, a historical view progressed from “not flat” to “like a globe.” The view that the earth is not flat was deduced by sea explorers from the curvature on the horizon and its constancy as the ship continuously moved forward. Awareness that the earth is like a globe became general with invention of jet propulsion.

The-objective-truth comes from doing the work to understand ineluctable evidence and how to benefit. Once discovered, it may be improved by new viewpoint, perhaps due to new instruments of perception. For example, Galileo’s telescope empowered proof that the earth rotates around the sun. With adequate perception, the-literal-truth may be discovered. Human reason and constructs do not alter the-literal-truth.

Civic citizens develop human equity under statutory justice.

Statutory justice is perfect written law and its enforcement, which can only be approached. It is developed by amending discovered injustice.

Each human is unique and equity for him or her can only be weighed on consequences of his or her human independence.

The civic citizen neither initiates nor tolerates harm to or from any person or association.

Fellow citizens who oppose these principles are dissidents and invite subjugation to written law enforcement if not statutory justice.

Qualification as a citizen requires acceptance of the above principles and pursuit of civic integrity from adolescence until the afterdeath, that unlimited time when body, mind, and person have stopped functioning.

Humankind progresses at a pace that makes it impossible for an individual to learn everything in his or her lifetime. Nevertheless, the above principles may be discovered by every human, and it is in his or her best interest to learn and practice them.

While there seems nothing new in the above principles, there may be some new ways of expressing them. Furthermore, humankind has learned a staggering knowledge in the recent 2,400 years. And in the last 300 years, humans have improved technology orders of magnitude more than psychology. We assert that western scholarship has attempted to preserve British influence on the world, especially in the U.S., where the worlds’ most promising political sentence emerged: the preamble to the U.S. Constitution, hereafter, the U.S. Preamble. What have we learned since 1787?

From the 1689-1789 English, American, and French blood letting in the name of liberty, we may discover that human independence may be pursued with civic integrity. Consider the oxymoron, responsible human liberty. When the mob starts their bloody “liberty” expressions I want independence. The wife and six children of “Give me liberty or give me death” might prefer independence.

Albert Einstein suggested in the obscurity of “science” and “ethics” that physics and integrity observe the same laws. In fact, ethics is the journal of humankind’s progress in discovery of integrity. From interpreting Einstein impossibly “speaking for the audience”, we have a clue as to how to create an achievable better future: Discover the words and phrases that convert the-objective-truth into scholarly proprieties that enable elites to control or abuse civic citizens and reverse the practice. That is, communicate and collaborate to create a civic glossary by which elites cannot confound a newborn for his or her lifetime.

Thus, make it general knowledge that a civic citizen develops equity under statutory justice according to whatever public agreement his or her nation of people proposes, and dissident fellow citizens are expected to reform for self-interest, for example, rather than die early or leave the country. Locke-isms such as “the common good” are clarified with “responsible human independence” or “civic integrity” or better. Identity propaganda like “the Christian thing to do” or “In God We Trust” are replaced with phrases that reserve some humility toward whatever-God-is.

In conclusion, civic citizens separate church from state so as to help every living citizen flourish regardless of private hopes for his or her afterdeath. People are then aware of the struggle to accept human individual power, energy, and authority to develop integrity rather than drift into or nourish infidelity to the-literal-truth. Citizens may then accept the proposition on which their nation of people is founded rather than live there without commitment.

To Graham C. Lindsay:

I just updated a sentence in my original response to “Identity politics like “the Christian thing to do” or “In God We Trust” are replaced with phrases that reserve some humility toward whatever-God-is.”

The most important thought here is “humility toward whatever-God-is.” This invention, the hyphens to keep the thought together, comes from many conversations with my Louisiana-French Catholic wife, who said “I do not have to explain God and Jesus being One. It is a mystery” and one with my neighbor, Bob Dorrah, an atheist, who said when I was being treated for lung cancer said, “May God be with you—whatever that is.”

I do not think it is necessary to claim secularism, which to my scholarship means, at best, areligious. I doubt many of us are areligious. Maybe some of us are not theists. How do you define “secular”? However, a civic citizen can practice public integrity and privately pursue spirituality. That is, not present his or her God for evaluation by fellow citizens.

The preamble to the U.S. Constitution is not secular. It assigns the decision on how to develop motivation and inspiration to the individual.

Every U.S. citizen should own a personal interpretation of the preamble as a prized personal property. My interpretation is: We the People of the United States consider, communicate, collaborate, and connect to practice 5 public disciplines: integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity so as to encourage both living citizens and future fellow citizens to practice responsible human independence.

Neither my interpretation nor the original preamble includes religion in the six public disciplines: Unity, Justice, Tranquility, defence, Welfare, and Liberty. Therefore, We the People of the United States, in self-interest, need to amend the unconstitutional First Amendment so as to encourage civic integrity, a human duty, rather than religion, an institutional business.

(BTW: “responsible human liberty” seems an oxymoron whereas “responsible human independence” makes sense, to me.)

I hope you will help promote these ideas and certainly want to learn what “secular” means to you.

Best regards, Phil

To Graham C. Lindsay again:

Thank you for your perspective.

If we consider the U.S. in four segments. First, in 1763–1774 loyal British colonists on the U.S. eastern seaboard decided that homeland fellow citizens were enslaving them as overseers of African slaves to England’s financial advantage and changed their titles to states; and in 1776 declared war against England.

Second, 1783 until 1788, when the Treaty of Paris agreed that the 13 states were globally free and independent.

Third, September 17, 1787 until June 21, 1788, when 9 of the 13 states ratified the draft constitution with the agreement influenced by two states to add a British-like Bill of Rights. After that, two of the 4 dissidents states could have stepped in and asserted ratification without amendment. With affirmation by 7 of the 9, the Bill of Rights negotiation by Congress might have been negated. Bill of Rights ratification under 14 states on December 15, 1791 might not have happened.

Without the Bill of Rights, less English tradition according to the U.S. Preamble would have been preserved.

However, religion itself, in particular Christianity, specifically factional-American Protestantism is claimed in the preamble to all 50 state constitutions. Thus, we can look at “freedom of religion” as a U.S. Congress promise to the states. The amendment begins “Congress shall make no laws . . . “ However, the U.S. Preamble expresses the will of We the People of the United States’ currently living “ourselves” for each coming “our Posterity.” And the six disciplines listed excludes religion.

In 1790, 99% of free citizens in the U.S. were factional Protestants, so the First Amendment’s religion clauses did not alarm them to lessened support of responsible human independence. In other words, they did not notice the tyranny against civic integrity.

In America, the “monarch” in support of religion is Congress. I work to reform Congress by alerting individuals to the personal advantage of separating church and state, rather than to negate the religion they want to practice.

In other words, the U.S. Preamble takes religion out of the U.S. rule of law, but does not take religion out of the spiritual hopes and comforts of either believers or non-believers: theists or non-theists; theists or atheists. Spiritual believers can be civic citizens.

Albert Einstein suggested that an individual cannot have integrity to the-literal-truth without the motivation and inspiration to avoid infidelity to the-literal-truth, unknown as it may be. Michael Polanyi said that Christian doctrine has the same trajectory. The U.S. Preamble says We the People of the United States will not civically, civilly, or legally debate the Einstein-Polanyi dialectic.

It seems to me the U.S. cannot be included in the list of secular countries, because most citizens want their religion. Nevertheless, the motto “In God We Trust” expresses hubris more than humility before whatever-God-is. Reform is called for.

Thank you.

https://www.quora.com/What-suggestions-do-you-have-for-resolving-the-issues-created-by-differences-in-laws-between-different-countries-What-do-you-think-would-work-and-what-do-you-think-would-not?

An ancient Greek, about 2,400 years ago, suggested that human beings can develop equity under statutory justice. To do so requires written law with institutions of enforcement that is reformed each time fellow citizens discover injustice. The persons entrusted with law and its enforcement must first practice the proposition that describes a civic, civil, and legal fellow citizen. The ultimate consequence is living at the leading edge of individual self-interest, no matter what culture the nation now practices.

The nation who first established a growing majority of citizens who practice responsible human independence would lead the world to a better future.

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.

Sunday, March 29, 2020

Individuals separate state and church so as to protect both life and afterdeath

Phil Beaver seeks to collaborate on the-objective-truth, which can only be discovered. The comment box below invites readers to write.

"Civic" refers to citizens who collaborate for individual happiness with civic integrity more than for the city, state, nation, or society.

Consider writing a personal paraphrase of the preamble, which offers fellow citizens mutual equality: For discussion, I convert the preamble’s predicate phrases to nouns and paraphrase it for my interpretation of its proposal as follows: “We the People of the United States consider, communicate, collaborate, and connect to practice 5 public disciplines: integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity so as to encourage both living citizens and future citizens to practice responsible human independence.” I want to collaborate with the other citizens on this interpretation and theirs yet 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. 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

Individuals separate state and church so as to protect both life and afterdeath

I hope it is plain to readers that I find political excellence in the disciplines I perceive in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution (the U.S. Preamble). My efforts to communicate with elected and appointed officials are met with silence. I speculate that few of them take the preamble seriously, blind to the fact that neglect makes them aliens to We the People of the United States.

I answer many public-forum inquiries as to what to do about U.S. divisions, the chaos of social democracy in Europe, the disrespect currently felt by the Christian right, and the unconstitutional movements to convert the U.S. into a socialist government. I often comment that the U.S. has not begun to establish psychological independence from colonial-American English law. Especially egregious is the assigned seats for the Church of England in Parliament.

I felt this week’s essays tended to highlight a necessity I perceive: The individuals who want the We the People of the United States that is proposed in the preamble can individually separate state and church so as to protect responsible human independence while privately pursuing personal hopes and comforts in whatever-God-is.

For fellow citizens to effect this reform, it is necessary to amend the First Amendment so as to promote civic, civil, and legal integrity rather than religion. Religions emerge from physics and its progeny, psychology and imagination. Humans imagine an unknown, assume an explanation, then develop the explanation into doctrine, never discovering whether there is ineluctable evidence for the explanation.

An ancient Greek asked colleagues, in my interpretation: Can we encourage and coach fellow citizens that responsible human independence is in their self-interest expressing “good” rather than “God”?

I charge the individuals who are members of the U.S. Congress to consider the public goals that are stated in the U.S. Preamble and immediately stop conducting the two prayers, one by a clergyman and the other as the coercive pledge of allegiance and instead recite the U.S. Preamble in unison.

Quora

https://www.quora.com/How-can-we-take-advantage-of-the-current-crisis-to-reform-our-society-economy-and-government?

The ancients discovered many elements of the-literal-truth that are hidden in scholastic, propriety debate. Interpretations of some 2,400 year old Greek comments follow:

Human individuals may develop equity under statutory justice.

Statutory justice is approached by amending written law as soon as injustice is discovered and resolved.

A civic individual neither initiates nor tolerates wrong to or from a person or association.

Civic citizens privately pursue spirituality and civically maintain a reserve for whatever-God-is.

In the U.S., these ideas are expressed in the people’s proposition that is offered to the continuum of living citizens in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. Every citizen may develop his or her interpretation of the preamble.

To its object, “ourselves and our Posterity” the living generation is both 1) “posterity” to generations since the 1787 framer’s generation and 2) “ourselves” to the coming generation. The preamble proposes 5 public disciplines to encourage responsible human independence to living citizens.

The sooner a majority of citizens, say 2/3, are in some stage of developing individual civic, civil, and legal living according to the preamble’s proposition as each of them interprets it, the sooner an achievable better future will become evident.

Fellow citizens can promote the U.S. Preamble by using their personal interpretation in civic, civil, and legal discipline with any spirituality kept private. As far as I can tell, the fellow citizens who can least imagine or support this reform are the citizens who pretend separation of church and state yet impose “freedom of religion” when civic integrity is what the nation of people need. The problem starts in Congress, as usual, where many members are not likely to regard themselves as We the People of the United States according to the preamble or anything less than divinity. It was not that way on September 17, 1787, but it’s been that way since March 4, 1789. Both chambers of Congress should start sessions with recitation of the U.S. Preamble and discontinue the prayers by a clergyman and in the pledge of allegiance.

Only the individual citizen can separate church and state. With a 2/3 majority of citizens, government officials would reform.

https://www.quora.com/How-powerful-is-political-correctness-Can-you-give-a-messed-up-example?

I’m only familiar with civic integrity in the U.S., even though I have visited some European countries, the longest duration being Greece for 16 months.

Here are a few examples of political error.

The 1787 U.S. Preamble’s proposition for public discipline so as to establish responsible human independence yielded to the 1791 First Amendment’s “freedom of religion.” We the People of the United States must replace the religion clauses with civic, civil, and legal encouragement of integrity.

Thomas Paine’s suggestion that religion unnecessarily divides fellow citizens (The Age of Reason, 1794, 1795, and 1807) yielded to “the Christian thing to do.”

Congress’s 1782 motto, “out of many, one” fell in 1954 to “In God We Trust.” The change seems unconstitutional under both the First Amendment and the U.S. Preamble, which excludes religion from the public disciplines.

It’s also good to consider egregious political offenses. Mitt Romney declared “I am a religious man,” to defend his unconstitutional vote to find President Trump guilty of the House Democrats’ partisan accusation. Nancy Pelosi expressed alienation to We the People of the United States when she cited a pope as her authority.

Many individual U.S. citizens erroneously deem separation of church and state the responsibility of someone else. They reject their individual responsibility for developing human equity under statutory justice. They don’t realize they beg woe, and invited woe is certain to act on its schedule.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-meaning-of-the-price-of-freedom-is-eternal-vigilance?

I suspect that the statement does not aid your pursuit of civic integrity.

If so, I agree and suggest three contentions. Ineluctable evidence prevents human freedom; humans must comprehend physics and its progeny in order to benefit if not survive. Vigilance implies defense more that strength. Lastly, price seems a lazy stab at commitment. What statement might support integrity?

I suggest that the self-interest of responsible human independence requires trust-in and commitment-to comprehending and taking advantage-of physics and its progeny, which are the objects of research-to discover rather than constructs-to imagine. That’s a close-packed sentence for discussion.

To get to your point, I think in a meaningful life the civic citizen develops human equity under statutory justice.

I read, write, and speak to learn and hope to learn from you.

https://www.quora.com/Do-you-ever-feel-like-morality-and-integrity-never-work-in-your-favor-or-that-you-are-expected-to-abide-by-good-morals-even-though-society-in-general-does-not?

I wondered about this in my mid-forties, knowing that I struggled miserably against the religions Mom and Dad conflicted on me. By this I mean, despite both of them teaching Southern Baptist Sunday school classes the each had their own personal God. They were such good material providers in a family of 5 that I continued to indoctrinate Phil Beaver to be their factional Christian person and could not discover myself.

However, in my late forties, I realized that my wife’s Louisiana French-Catholic confidence and serenity was important to me for her, and that helped me realize that integrity to the ineluctable evidence is important to me for me. I chose to stop pursuing social morality so as to develop integrity to the-literal-truth, most of which I do not know. After another quarter century I feel private happiness with civic integrity is good enough for me.

I share daily the principles I trust-in and commit-to, leaving it to readers to take interest or not.

https://www.quora.com/People-against-the-government-helping-out-in-any-for-those-negatively-affected-by-the-current-situation-why?

Your question is too vague to be answered. President Trump is doing all the U.S. Constitution allows him to do to fight the Chinese virus and has a 60% approval. Congress is trying to advance diversity, racial preference, and open borders among other outrages and has 23% approval. What are you calling “government”? And what “situation” are you concerned about. Is it diversity, gender choice, abortion, or some other focus of the DNC? Is it the Chinese virus?

It seems to me most people accept the U.S. Preamble’s civic, civil, and legal proposition, even though no political regime has ever promoted it. Each citizen should own a personal interpretation of the U.S. Preamble. If so, he or she will regard the interpretation as precious personal property.

My interpretation is: We the People of the United States discipline for Unity, Justice, Tranquility, defence, and Welfare in order to encourage responsible human independence to the continuum of living citizens. Thus, the U.S. proposition is discipline of by and for the people so as to promote human independence.

The civic citizens who are helping fellow citizens do so with responsible human independence. Otherwise, they are helping the virus spread.

https://www.quora.com/Is-it-right-that-the-governments-use-coronavirus-as-a-tool-for-forcing-people-to-accept-all-measures-for-the-common-good?

Some psychological adolescents (perhaps absent from this forum) think that because they exist, a greater power should take care of them: Mom&Dad or one parent, a government, whatever-God-is, or UNESCO human rights enforcers.

On the other hand, some adolescents discover individual power, individual energy, and individual authority (HIPEA) by which to either develop integrity or tolerate/nourish infidelity to the ineluctable evidence. Some people perceive that using HIPEA to develop integrity is in their best interest.

As a consequence, many people, a civic people, perceive that fellow citizens can develop human equity under statutory justice. Among a faction of fellows who accept neither HIPEA nor integrity, the civic citizens create written law so as to encourage everyone to develop responsible human independence. Additionally, they pay for written law-enforcement so as to coerce or force fellow citizens who prove themselves dissident to statutory justice to consider reform.

The phrase “the common good” is an unfortunate political correctness from the 18th century English enthusiasm for John Locke’s thinking. Locke died in 1704, and neglected wisdom from American writers/events offers correction. For example, George Washington's “four things” spoken on June 8, 1783 and found at Library of Congress. Political activist Thomas Paine urged humility toward whatever-God-is in The Age of Reason. Ralph Waldo Emerson urged religious reform in Divinity School Address - Ralph Waldo Emerson (1838) and personal reform in Self-Reliance - Ralph Waldo Emerson (1841).

Unfortunately, so far, the U.S. has not reformed from English psychology to the proposition that is offered in the U.S. Preamble. It is a 52-word sentence that proposes discipline of by and for the people so as to encourage responsible human independence. I’d love an opportunity to learn John Locke’s defense of responsible human liberty, which I consider an oxymoron.

Locke’s common good is served better by human independence than by liberalism. I’m breaking my younger daughter’s caution when I delete the modifier to assert that human independence, by definition, requires coercion and force if responsibility is not practiced.

https://www.quora.com/Would-you-agree-that-in-today-s-world-there-is-too-much-emphasis-on-statistics?

Yes, but moreover there is an awful partnership between social scientists and the media, and their money-making tool is opinion-designed statistics. For the study of physics and its progeny, mathematics, chemistry, biology, psychology, and fiction, statistics is an arduous, valuable tool. But social science is at best a pseudo-science and at worst human shamelessness.

The social scientist has an idea that could help influence public policy to his or her preference or that of the entity that pays him or her. The group designs questions and chooses respondents so as to favor the opinion they want to promote. Survey takers are instructed to ignore respondent’s comments to modify the question to respondent’s preferences. Statistical methods are used to evaluate the survey so as to favor the group’s objectives. In this way, they have used pseudo-science to report a public opinion that may not be true.

The reality is that when the social scientist and the media get away with the tyranny, the false “public opinion” they produced, influences public expectations, and thereby enables harmful public policy.

The impeachment of President Trump by Nancy Pelosi was supposed to work under the advice of some social scientists and the media. The totally unconstitutional procedures conducted by Adam Schiff and that other guy were supposed to generate so much public opinion against Trump that conviction would be inevitable if not in the Senate in the 2020 election. We’ll see how Trump’s second election turns out.

https://www.quora.com/How-does-the-world-cope-now-that-democracy-is-dead-and-buried?

Individuals who want equity under statutory justice will turn to written law-enforcement as the means of encouraging responsible human independence. In the USA, the proposition for discipline of by and for the people is offered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. Every citizen show own an individual interpretation of the abstract 52 words. Ones who do will regard it as precious personal property to be continually improved, much like a home.

https://www.quora.com/Is-the-left-actually-destroying-freedom-within-universities?

The left is the current, dominant offender as noted in the recent impeachment of President Trump. But they are not fellow citizens and dissidents in a vacuum. They have fellow citizens and dissidents on the right. The right is dominated by fellow citizens who never reformed from British tradition to the American proposition that is offered fellow citizens in the U.S. Preamble.

It is not uncommon for rightists to erroneously refer to “the founders” (maybe 1763 to 1787) and “the framers” (May-September, 1787) interchangeably, neglecting the signers (September 17, 1787) and the ratifiers as of June 21, 1788. Just as the authors of the First Virginia Charter, 1607, did not conceive the declaration of independence from England, 1776, “the founders” did not frame the U.S. Constitution, 1787. Unfortunately some founders influenced the First Congress and the Bill of Rights, 1791.

On June 21, 1788, 9 of 13 former British colonies in this country established a global nation under the 1787 Constitution to be amended by Congress, leaving the four dissident states free and independent. Two joined before operations began on March 4, 1789. The other 2 and a 14^th joined before December 15, 1791, when Congress enacted the promised amendments as the British-mimicking Bill of Rights.

The First Congress, 1789-1793, egregiously restored all the British-American colonialism they could. Most egregiously, they established factional-American-Protestantism-Congressional-partnership to elect themselves as “divine” as the Church-of-England-Parliament-membership. It is not uncommon for American jurists to cite Blackstone as the authority for originalism, negating the reforms from English influence that are offered in the U.S. Preamble’s proposition.

The literal interpretation of the U.S. Preamble proposes 5 public and 1 individual discipline: Unity, Justice, Tranquility, defence, Welfare, and Liberty to living and future citizens. Religion is not included in these disciplines: the signers expressed humility to whatever-God-is and therefore made the choice to be religious or not and if so how to be religious to the individual citizen.

The U.S. Preamble’s goals express the civic integrity living citizens may ultimately develop to approach statutory justice---perfect written-law enforcement.

To unlock an achievable better future, the First Amendment must be amended so as to protect integrity, a civic self-interest, rather than civil religion, a business.

With this amendment alone, the moderates on both the left and the right might have a better future. Moderates might approach the 2/3 supermajority of citizens who trust-in and commit-to the U.S. Preamble for civic living, meanwhile practicing their personal religion for spiritual hopes and comforts.

I agree that social democrats have hurt the minds of students for the past 50 years. Reform is on the way. However, I hope part of the consequence is the end of civil religion so as to favor civic integrity with private spiritual salvation in the USA.

https://www.quora.com/Are-you-willing-to-give-up-your-liberties-to-slow-coronavirus?

Yes.

However, I do not condone liberty, which many passionate dissidents, for example, many social democrats, far rightists, and anarchists exercise as license to disrupt civic living, damage property, injure people, and take fellow citizens’ lives. The revolutionary man who is famous for liberty or death discounted integrity to his wife and six children. A decade later, a nation suffered a reign of terror for bloody liberty and other claims.

I daily forego many liberties to maintain the self-interest of responsible human independence. I gained such commitments by considering both the-literal-truth and the preamble to the U.S. Constitution, interpreting it so as to guide my civic, civil, and legal conduct. Indeed, I interpret responsible human independence as more civic than responsible human liberty. As I view it, only one of those options encourages integrity.

https://www.quora.com/unanswered/Why-is-the-Universal-Declaration-of-Human-Rights-not-included-as-a-statement-on-the-AI?

I normally pass questions that seem to burden me with stating the question. I take full responsibility for my folly.

I guess “AI” means “artificial intelligence” but am bemused by the article. I write and propose “the-literal-truth” as a statement of existence; that is, the-literal-truth exists. Human work to discover the-objective-truth and invent new tools for perceiving it hopes to approach the-literal-truth. Perhaps there is an ultimate AI which could be referred to as “the AI” rather than unconventional “the-AI”, and I doubt it is suggested at 2020s leading edge AI programming.

I refute the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. What people could use is reassessment of Maslow’s hierarchy of human needs as a hierarchy of duty to self-interest.

Each human begin begins as a unique ovum in a unique woman’s body. The ovum may be inseminated with the spermatozoon of a unique man. Gestation, delivery, rearing, and the youth’s choices do not lessen the person’s individuality. Every human individual has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (HIPEA) to develop either integrity to the-literal-truth or toleration of infidelity.

Humankind has no idea how excellent the available future may be if most persons are so encouraged and self-interestedly accept both HIPEA and personal development of integrity.

AI programmers and UN officials have no idea how good humankind may become.

https://www.quora.com/Considering-advances-in-technology-and-an-evolution-of-societal-laws-standards-and-ethics-does-the-U-S-Constitution-still-reflect-our-nations-values-and-evolution-or-do-you-believe-it-should-be-re-written-to-better?

The U.S. is on a path to develop public discipline according to the people’s proposition that is offered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution (the U.S. Preamble). Being a fellow citizen and not owning an individual interpretation of the U.S. Preamble invites misfortune more commonly dreadful than driving without knowing traffic laws and signals. The fellow citizens who use the U.S. Preamble’s civic, civil, and legal integrity consider their interpretation precious personal property, and they continually improve the interpretation.

The recent unconstitutional impeachment of President Donald R. Trump by the Democrats in the House of Representatives is evidence that the U.S. Preamble’s (Article IV) guarantee to the states that the national government will be a republic under written law is sufficient to cause more than casual consideration to the standards under which We the People of the United States develop integrity. From my view, the nanny state has almost erased public appreciation of integrity. Is that the “societal laws” you speak of? I think nanny-state people ought to consider self-discipline. Also, discovery of integrity writes rules of ethics, and fairness is no surrogate for justice.

That’s not to say the U.S. Constitution does not need amendment. I have been writing for two decades to promote revision of the First Amendment to promote civic integrity, a citizen’s self-interest, rather than religion, a business enterprise. The U.S. Preamble recognizes religion and other forms of human motivation and inspiration as private pursuits by not including religion in its listed goals.

We know from over 230 years of their opportunities that political regimes will not terminate the U.S. church-state partnership: it is up to We the People of the United States to individually separate civic, civil, and legal living from devout pursuit of a preferred afterdeath or other religious hope.

Working from a principle commented on by Greeks 2,400 years ago, citizens may develop human equity under statutory justice. In the U.S., the civic, civil, and legal commitment to such citizenship is stated in the U.S. Preamble. A second constitutional amendment I propose is to require candidates for elected or appointed office to present a resume of practices and accomplishments in conformance to his or her interpretation of the preamble. The amendment would also stipulate that qualified citizens must present their interpretation of the preamble in order to register to vote.

In summary, the U.S. Constitution provides citizens written law---a luxury many citizens of the world do not have. It provides for amendment when injustice is discovered. People from all over the world want to come here. I promote establishing a supermajority of citizens who own a personal interpretation of the U.S. Preamble, live by it, and share with fellow citizens, listening for possible improvements in the interpretation.

https://www.quora.com/As-America-was-never-a-democracy-and-the-Gods-willing-we-never-will-be-one-what-form-of-government-are-we-and-why?

Your question is by no means trivial. I sicken each time I read “our democracy” in the writings of elected or appointed officials in the US.

The U.S. Constitution, Article IV, guarantees to the states a republican form of government, a commitment in the states-national federalism. Most states have popular elections, but the national government is prudently designed to ruin popular elections. Through many, intricate provisions, the national government persists under the rule of written law, even though regressions are constantly pursued by various factions. The Articles exist under the preamble to the U.S. Constitution (the U.S. Preamble) and therefore should comport to its goal: civic discipline of by and for the majority of the people. In writing this, I consider myself more proponent than dreamer/fool.

The U.S. Preamble legally terminated the 1774 Confederation of States, established in 1788 a Union of people in their states, and offers fellow citizens a proposition for mutual self-interest even though the First Congress erroneously imposed the Bill of Rights in 1791. Citizens may ignore the U.S. proposition, and that, to me, establishes the democracy so many people lamely refer to. The hope is that a majority of fellow citizens will consider, trust-in, and commit-to We the People of the United States’ proposition.

More trivial is the fruitless colloquialism “we, the people.” The U.S. Preamble divides “we, the people” into two groups: fellow citizens who accept its proposition and dissidents. As the U.S. Preamble’s proposition is practiced or not, so goes the achievements of We the People of the United States as defined therein. Historically, a 2/3 majority needs to be developing integrity to the U.S. Preamble for things to go well in the USA. As the generations have drifted further and further from the responsible human independence it took to settle America, the elected and appointed officials, especially in the national government drift more toward a nanny state psychology.

Under the lame “we, the people” Congress begins its sessions with two prayers: one by a minister who symbolizes the “divinity” of Congress on par with the English Parliament’s faction from the Church of England and the arbitrary pledge of allegiance to the flag with its prayer “under God” as though Congress is aware of whatever-God-is. It is up to We the People of the United States to require Congress to drop both prayers and recite the U.S. Preamble as a statement of each congressperson’s acceptance-of and appreciation-for membership in We the People of the United States. America’s federal republicanism was ruined by the First Amendment’s protection of religion (a business), instead of integrity, a duty in each citizen’s self-interest.

We are the 1787 generation’s recent “our Posterity” and the coming generation’s “ourselves”. Therefore, each fellow citizen may consider the abstract U.S. Preamble and interpret it for his or her civic, civil, and legal use, meanwhile pursuing the private good he or she perceives. He or she may make an interpretation of the U.S. Preamble his or her precious property or not. Under that democratic choice, each citizen invites good or woe.

People cite “God” without appreciating whatever-God-is. Respecting civic integrity, perhaps God is the ultimate law enforcement “our Posterity” might approach under the U.S. Preamble’s proposition. Without a supermajority if participants, the U.S. Preamble’s proposition will continue to languish.

Addressing your “why?” I suggest that only through integrity can humankind be all it can be. Integrity comes only because the individual discovers self-interest in its practice. Integrity is so demanding it is unlikely that the newborn will discover it without encouragement and coaching. Fortunately, the 1787 Constitutional Convention’s Committee of Style formulated the proposition in 52 abstract words that got it through an unlikely political debate. Now, over 230 years later, this generation has enough ineluctable evidence to commit-to and trust-in the U.S. Preamble’s proposition for civic integrity as each of us interprets the abstract sentence.

https://www.quora.com/Do-you-think-there-is-equality-between-people-in-the-world-today?

The response is so obviously no that I feel like responding with two queries to your question: do you think each human being is unique? And, if so, what experience, observation, or persuasion caused you to perceive the unique may be equal?

To me, President Donald Trump has exemplified inordinate appreciation of fellow citizens---until one proves they prefer alienation to pursuit of the-literal-truth. Trump confronts such fellow citizens by labeling them “fake” and waiting for their response or reform. I perceive Nancy Pelosi is alien to Mr. President’s prompts for reform, especially when she appeals to a pope for civic integrity. I am learning from Trump to be patient in civic dialogue, because I might learn something from a fellow citizen even if they intend to be uncivil, as in Democrats lobbying for diversity when the nation is at war with a pandemic.

Do you agree with me that each of a woman’s viable ova is unique and has the potential to transition into a human being? With this logic, the woman is herself unique, which means without equal. In other words, the woman survived the arduous path from ovum to human: insemination, gestation, delivery, rearing by typically controversial parents from four potentially conflicted grandparents in a bemused and warring world, acceptance of being human, and commitment to responsible human independence.

But the woman is, after all, a human being, and in that view she is both unequal and superior to a porpoise. By ineluctable evidence, while the porpoise has sonar abilities the human does not have, on an overall basis the human species is superior to whales and all other species. The elevating qualities are 1) more complete awareness of the-literal-truth respecting both physics and psychology and 2) grammar by which to pursue discovery and to practice advantages of the ineluctable evidence respecting the-literal-truth.

Because her path was fraught with human error perhaps habit, the will to be neighborly, and fear of the unknown, her achievement of the excellence she had as a newborn depends upon her childhood choice to pursue integrity or to tolerate infidelity, more or less. Thus, the consequence of her unique being is all it could have been or less, depending upon her choices as her life unfolds. The case for the man is similar but evolves to support the crowd of the woman, her ova, and the man himself. In no way would an authentic woman and an authentic man threaten the lives of her ova and their family. In no way would authentic singles---men and women---threaten families. These experiences and observations have nothing to do with religions like equality, gender identity, or glory/reincarnation in afterdeath.

These principles may be expressed comprehensively as a nest of acceptances: being human; the self-interested advantage of human, individual power, energy, and authority (HIPEA) to pursue civic equity under statutory justice rather than infidelity; obligation to neither initiate nor tolerate harm to or from any person or association; physics and psychology from one source; developing personal happiness with sufficient reserve for whatever-God-is. Each of these principles need unpacking, and the process can begin with consideration.

I suggest the consideration begin with the proposition that is offered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution (the U.S. Preamble). It’s object is “ourselves”---the 12th generation of fellow citizens since 1787. Thus, the 2020 “our Posterity” is the coming generation---future children, grandchildren, and further descendants plus future immigrant fellow citizens.

This reality can motivate each citizen to develop his or her interpretation of the U.S. Preamble for use in managing his or her civic, civil, and legal life, meanwhile pursuing in privacy any spirituality the individual chooses. In other words, separation of church and state is an individual opportunity that is being denied by the likes of Pelosi’s papal allegiance and Mitch Romney’s assumed sainthood. So far, I do not perceive that President Trump has a similar alienation and therefore expect more surprising good from him.

I often share my interpretation of the U.S. Preamble hoping that a fellow citizen or an alien will grant me a suggestion for improvement. My interpretation is: We the People of the United States consider, communicate, collaborate, and connect to practice 5 public disciplines: integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity so as to encourage both living citizens and future citizens to practice responsible human independence. This interpretation is among my most precious properties, and I want to improve my way of living. To improve my property, the fellow citizen may first own his or hers.

Back to your question, its seems there is ineluctable evidence that each person in the world is unique. Millennia ago, people discussed principles I interpret as: persons may develop human equity under statutory justice. The latter is the perfection of written law, which is necessary because not every human being participates in equity, let alone law.

Perhaps the eventual approach to statutory justice will demonstrate that the human will to practice integrity may be God. Such appreciation for whatever-God-is is expressed by the omission of religion, let alone a religion, among the goals in the U.S. Preamble.

I did not expect such an outpouring of my opinions when I first read your question, but I appreciate the question and hope to learn your reaction.

https://www.quora.com/How-would-you-define-an-everyday-hero?

The everyday hero is the person who accepts being human and takes responsibility for his or her personal happiness with civic integrity. Human errors neither discourage them nor become habits.

https://www.quora.com/What-makes-for-a-good-educational-experience?

The experience or observation that convinces the student to accept human individual power, energy, and authority (HIPEA) and use it to practice integrity to the-objective-truth if not the-literal-truth.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-worst-societal-stigma-the-world-faces-right-now?

Most disgraceful is freedom of theism/atheism rather than human encouragement and coaching to appreciate whatever-God-is.

https://www.quora.com/unanswered/What-is-civil-discourse?

I recommend civic discourse. Therein fellow citizens pursue equity under statutory justice. Statutory justice is the consequence of continually improving written law each time injustice is discovered. It is a perfection that may not be attained as evolution unfolds, yet statutory justice is a worthy, approachable goal.

Civil discourse is another phrase, like “the common good,” that tolerant people use to attempt to demonstrate that they own the integrity in a civic debate. When I suspect that a fellow citizen is exercising tolerance of my civic opinion or my person, I change the subject to LSU sports, the weather, the other party’s favorite music or other chit chat. In other words, I am intolerant of tolerance. If LSU sports, I can tell if the other party has interest in me if he or she discovers that I graduated from UT Knoxville.

There is no human being who has individual power, individual energy, and individual authority (HIPEA) higher than mine in my pursuit of integrity to the-objective-truth perhaps to approach to the-literal-truth. You could say that by changing the conversation, I am signaling the other party to reform from civility to open-mindedness or that I am arbitrary in my demand for appreciation of my psychology, mind, and person. That goes to show that my opinion is more important to me than the other party’s opinion is important to me.

I operate on my authority in pursuit of the-literal-truth. I am also informed by some ancient thinkers. A Greek, 2,400 years ago, suggested that humans can develop equity under statutory justice. Someone who offers to be heard but has not the openness to listen has not accepted the Greek proposition. Also, as a boy, I read and appreciated RW Emerson’s “Self Reliance.”

Conforming to civil discourse is like submitting to a tyrant. Moreover, it avoids the opportunity to encourage the tyrant to reform, for example, to accept HIPEA and use it to develop integrity.

https://www.quora.com/How-would-a-citizen-determine-in-a-present-moment-that-a-law-enforcement-officer-is-acting-tyrannically-and-thus-justly-revolting-in-the-preservation-of-ones-or-anothers-life-or-liberty?

Your question assumes that a citizen has the duty to control an errant law enforcement officer, and I do not accept that premise. When a citizen sees a law-enforcement badge and the officer taking action, his or her duty is to come to attention for the officer’s instructions and with none, stand clear.

One other point. Despite the emphasis on “liberty” in my most precious United States of America, I prefer “independence” and your question provides a forum to consider the preference.

One of the wonderful freedoms the U.S. citizen has is to own a personal interpretation of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition as a precious personal property or none (in which case woe may be invited). In my interpretation, the objective is public discipline that secures living citizens the opportunity to practice responsible human independence. The replacement phrase “responsible human liberty” seems an oxymoron. Too often liberty is taken as license to anarchy; for example, interfering with an officer in the performance of duty, erroneous or not.

https://www.quora.com/Does-a-person-first-need-to-change-in-order-for-society-to-or-is-it-the-other-way-around?

Change to what? If to pursue the-literal-truth as the object of change, I think individuals must personally practice in order to form a supermajority who pursue the-literal-truth in order for humankind to manage the division of the people into those who do and those who don’t develop integrity. In other words, humankind will never be pure in integrity, even if the supermajority actively develops integrity. The principle works for a society, too. About 2/3 of the members must develop integrity in order to manage the society with dissident members who may reform.

I think it is rare for a person to be psychologically mature enough to always act with integrity, and would suspect that if it’s no longer possible for the person to err he or she is near death.

The human being has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (HIPEA) to develop either integrity to the-literal-truth or infidelity. However, few persons accept HIPEA, because no culture/society so encourages and coaches their youth.

It takes about 3 decades for a feral infant to transition to young adult with comprehension and intention to live a complete adult life. Lots of mistakes are possible during that time and if the person makes habits of the mistakes, chances of discovering HIPEA are small, and choosing to develop integrity is also unlikely.

I don’t like the term “society”, because it seems divisive: inclusive for the civilized or subjugated. I like to focus on humankind or fellow citizens, and in that light think a supermajority is required to establish a standard, and I suggest the standard for reform is the-literal-truth.

Back to your question, humankind cannot change the individual, so the individual must take on the dream of developing by personal practice and promotion a supermajority of fellow citizens who are developing integrity under the-literal-truth. A culture/society that encourages and coaches its youth to both accept HIPEA and to develop integrity might influence a better future for humankind.

https://www.quora.com/Why-do-so-many-Americans-believe-they-have-the-best-constitution-in-the-world-when-they-havent-actually-lived-anywhere-else?

I think U.S. resiliency comes from a written constitution with a stated purpose (the U.S. Preamble) that is so abstract that each fellow citizen may interpret it so as to accommodate his or her unique pursuit of happiness with the hope that fellow citizens will not interrupt his or her pursuit of comprehensive safety and security. Even the criminal somehow feels justified and expects toleration until that day that independence is temporarily or permanently terminated by a jury of peers or less.

I am an unusual citizen in that I promote trust-in and commitment-to the U.S. Preamble’s proposition. I share it daily in hopes that fellow citizens who read my interpretation will improve my way of living, and they do. My interpretation today is: We the People of the United States consider, communicate, collaborate, and connect to practice 5 public disciplines: integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity so as to encourage both living and future fellow citizens to practice responsible human independence.” Two words deserve elaboration: responsible and independence.

First, “responsible” means disciplined by the-objective-truth if not the-literal-truth, both discovered using the ineluctable evidence. Thus, U.S. Supreme Court Justices interpret the U.S. Constitution in its original word usages according to citizens of the 1774 Confederation of States, the former loyal subjects in the English colonies on the eastern seaboard of N. America, but not according to their oppressors, the English Parliament. And, if the Justices deem the U.S. Constitution in conflict with We the People of the United States as defined in the U.S. Preamble, they communicate to Congress that constitutional amendment is recommended, but the Justices do not try to either legislate or administrate.

Second, “independence” replaces responsible human “liberty” in my former interpretation. Liberty can mean license to disrupt, damage, injure, or even kill to express demand for an arbitrary “right”, for example, to know mathematics. Liberty can be its own passion. Liberty is not feasible if the plan would arbitrarily defy physics, as in equip to fly like a bird rather than with well-designed aerodynamics or jet propulsion. When the passions of liberty are motivating the majority to offense against integrity, it is better for the individual to practice independence.

One other point is essential: my phrase “to encourage both living and future fellow citizens” interprets the original “to ourselves and our Posterity.” Our generation is about the 12^th since the framer’s generation of 1787; we are the “our Posterity” to their “ourselves.” Thus, each of us may earn a personal intention regarding the U.S. Preamble’s proposition and hold it as one of our prized possessions.

I think the opportunity to interpret the U.S. Preamble with either the empty “we, the people” or with trust-in We the People of the United States as the individual develops it is the reason most U.S. citizens feel freedom they would not feel anywhere else.

Since the U.S. is so civic, civil, and legal---a guaranteed republic under written law, I cannot fathom We the People of the United States referring to “our democracy.”

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.