Thursday, July 6, 2017

Traitors or victims?

Commenting on Walter E. Williams’s “Were Confederate Generals Traitors?,” June 28, 2017,

Williams chose a controversial question: “Did the South have a right to secede from the Union?” I think it’s as erroneous a question as “Why does anything exist instead of nothing?” A reasonable response to the treason question is: If the South had won, they would have established the right to secede. Perhaps the South was the victim of 1500 years of erroneous religious belief.

Williams answers that King George III would have held George Washington to be a traitor against England, and similarly might hold R. E. Lee a traitor to the USA, since both fought for independence.

However, Williams poses a false comparison. England was an empire that was unjustly ruling a colony---enslaving the loyal colonists to benefit loyal subjects in England---whereas the states were in a perpetual confederation. Williams overlooks this document of perpetual commitment by the colonies turned states:

Agreed to by Congress 15 November 1777

Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.
Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.

A critical phrase is “perpetual Union,” which would be denied by slave states in 1860. The USA did not accept their opinion.

Williams, as is typical of Western propriety, overlooks the ancient evil done by the Catholic Church, which led to the US slavery problem to start with. The evil of African slaves, that continental commodity, has always been known:  chains, whips, brutality and rape to black slaves with physical burdens to masters and psychological burdens to owners. The Church is without excuse for including books that condone slavery. In the 300 AD to 400 AD, the Church canonized the Christian Bible. The Church is also without excuse for assigning Portugal a monopoly on African slave trade in the east and Spain in the west and for the doctrine of discovery in the 15th century. I’ll return to religion later.

The colonists objected to the African slave trade during their decision to become statesmen. From 1720 to 1765, colonists accumulated the courage to confront England’s injustices, also debating how they would emancipate the slaves once they gained states’ independence. The statesmen found themselves in charge of persons displaced from their homelands and knew not how to either return them or accommodate them as free citizens in this land. As thirteen independent states, they soon realized they must establish a nation. They negotiated an organization with federalism: The people would govern their states and a limited nation would serve the people in their states. The draft constitution represented a drastic change from a confederation serving the states to a nation serving the people in their states.

The signers of the draft constitution provided for the end of slave trade and for representation of slaves in Congress but did not emancipate the slaves---left that justice for a viable future, perhaps yet to be attained even in 2017. When nine states ratified the draft constitution on June 21, 1788, the four lagging states had to decide whether to remain independent yet confederated or join the USA. The laggards included Virginia, New York, North Carolina, and Rhode Island, the later two joining many months after the 1st Congress was seated. Their ratification debates become moot as to effects on the USA, except insofar as the nine states had agreed to include a bill of rights to be negotiated by the 1st Congress. The 1st Congress neither proposed nor effected revision of the preamble.

The preamble does not break the commitment in perpetuity on which the thirteen states declared and won independence from England. The perpetual Union remained, but responsibility had been transferred from the states to the people in their states. So far, after 229 years, the people have neglected that responsibility. Many descendants of the slaves and other blacks dismiss the preamble. Some citizens look to government as surrogate to personal responsibility and some depend on their personal God, neither of which has proven reliable, as demonstrated by the Civil War, as explained below. Yet there are some citizens who willingly trust in the purpose and goals stated in the preamble: They look to other willing people for civic justice.

Returning to religion’s role in the injustices, America, so far, seems a willing victim of the canonization of the Bible, the Atlantic Slave trade, and the doctrine of discovery. It is difficult to separate the historical facts from the outcome: they are related. However, if most people adopt the preamble to the constitution for the USA they may establish public integrity for discovering civic morality. The outcome of a troubled history can be favorable, and the past may be put aside. Under that possibility, religious doctrine that conforms to civic morality may flourish. It does the people no harm if someone believes they must save their soul, as long as they do not ruin other people’s lives in the pursuit of salvation.

Rather than candidly rely on the-objective-truth, at each major step, all but two authors, George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, appealed to divinity---however the authors chose to refer to whatever divinity may be. They started vaguely, in the Declarations of the first Congress, 1774:

That the inhabitants of the English colonies in North-America, by the immutable laws of nature, the principles of the English constitution, and the several charters or compacts, have the following RIGHTS . . .

Then with specific divinity in the Declaration of Independence, 1776:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

In the Articles of Confederation, 1777:

And Whereas it hath pleased the Great Governor of the World to incline the hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in Congress, to approve of, and to authorize us to ratify the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union.

Breaking the tradition, George Washington, in June 1783, chose not to impose a divinity into civic morality. This quote seems a forecast of the subject of the preamble, We the People of the United States:

There are four things, which I humbly conceive, are essential to the well being, I may even venture to say, to the existence of the United States as an Independent Power:  An indissoluble Union of the States under one Federal Head; A Sacred regard to Public Justice; The adoption of a proper Peace Establishment; and The prevalence of that pacific and friendly Disposition, among the People of the United States, which will induce them to forget their local prejudices and policies, to make those mutual concessions which are requisite to the general prosperity, and in some instances, to sacrifice their individual advantages to the interest of the Community.

It disturbed dissidents during 1787 through 1791 that the preamble did not invoke divinity, and some dissidents to this day strive to add divine invocation to the preamble. The preamble states the purpose “to form a more perfect Union,” which does not signal terminating the perpetuity.

The South Carolina Declaration of Secession, 1860, invokes religion as a concluding concern:

. . . the non-slaveholding States . .  have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery. Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation, and all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanction of more erroneous religious belief.

President Lincoln, on March 4, 1861, responded to the threat of war, returning to Washington and the preamble’s dependence on the people:

Why should there not be a patient confidence in the ultimate justice of the people? Is there any better or equal hope in the world? In our present differences, is either party without faith of being in the right? If the Almighty Ruler of Nations, with His eternal truth and justice, be on your side of the North, or on yours of the South, that truth and that justice will surely prevail by the judgment of this great tribunal of the American people.

This last item in the catalog of possible appeals to divinity is Lincoln’s explicit claim that God, mysterious as God may be, leaves the consequence of war to the people. Civil War, like any other war, is determined by military might.

The confederate states, at that time 7 CSA states against 27 USA states, believed God would answer their prayers rather that the USA’s prayers. Having accused the North of “more erroneous religious belief,” they embarked on a war that shows that their interpretation of the Christian Bible cannot be trusted. I count them victims of the Catholic Church and personal rejection of reason more than traitors.

However, I don’t want apology or reform from the Catholic Church beyond, in the USA, the Church adopting the preamble more than church doctrine. To serve We the People of the United States, all religions must conform to civic morality.

I want most of the people in their states to adopt the preamble as a tool for establishing public integrity in the USA. After 229 years, the USA is still in the drastic change from a confederation serving the states to a nation serving the people in their states: the people may accept that responsibility by collaborating for comprehensive safety and security. The meaning of “comprehensive” in that phrase may be discovered in the-objective-truth.

Copyright©2017 by Phillip R. Beaver. All rights reserved. Permission is hereby granted for the publication of all or portions of this paper as long as this complete copyright notice is included.

Monday, June 26, 2017

6/21/2017 Presentation Text

4th Annual Personal Independence Day Celebration
Wednesday, June 21, 2017, Baton Rouge, LA
Main Library, 7711 Goodwood Blvd, Conference Room B, 7:00 PM
Sponsored by Citizens for A Civic People of the United States
Please, visit

Introduction of ideas for discussion.
A Civic People
A civic people collaborate for comprehensive safety and security more than for a community’s ideals.
There will always be dissidents to safety and security.
What is or is not the “common good”?
  1. Government would favor the few in control
  2. Some believe the good is defined by religion or God
a)    However, each individual defines his or her God/none
b)    No one compromises their God/none, even in church
c)    Thus, religion or God cannot serve the common good
  1. Most people want comprehensive safety and security:
a)    Civic justice, where “civic” refers to people more than city
b)    Safety and security to empower private living rather than to compete for dominant public opinion
  1. The people provide civic justice using the-objective-truth
Live the leading edge rather than the past
  1. The-objective-truth exists: Humankind works to discover it.
  2. 7,000,000,000,000 man-years experience and observations
a)    The-discovered-truth exceeds any one person’s capacity
  1. People may collaborate to use the-objective-truth
a)    Contemplate the facts rather than erroneous opinion
b)    Never lie, so people can communicate (Albert Einstein)
  1. The agreement stated in the preamble to the constitution for the USA empowers collaboration for the-objective-truth
  2. Overall, a way for adults to live their 90 years on the leading edge as well as for their children, grandchildren and beyond.
America began: Americans may be great
  1. 1765 the stamp act signaled enslavement by England
  2. 1774: loyal colonists changed to statesmen; some dissented
a)    1776: declaration of independence by 13 states
b)    1781: France led the victory at Yorktown, Virginia
c)    1784: the 13 states ratified the 1783 Treaty of Paris
  1. During 3 years the need for a nation became plain to people
a)    1787: draft constitution. The preamble offers the world’s first government of, by, and for the people (A. Lincoln).
b)    1788: 9 states ratified the constitution: the USA began
  1. 2017: we may promote personal independence on June 21.

Collaborate for comprehensive safety and security
Comprehensive safety and security
Discussion starters:
  1. The preamble is a civic contract for willing persons.
  2. The colonists discovered:
a)    Freedom-from the tyranny suffered in homelands
b)    Opportunity for liberty-to pursue personal preferences
  1. Some descendants discovered:
a)    Ability to achieve personal goals
b)    Collaboration for civic justice
c)    Perseverance
d)    Possibility to perfect their unique person (RWE, 1838)

All pages are copyrighted June 22, 2017 by Phillip R. Beaver to protect his right to express these collaborative ideas again. Ideas may be shared on permission. The essential theory is: A civic people can live private lives, candidly using both the preamble to the constitution for the USA and the-objective-truth; each member collaborates to achieve comprehensive safety and security. The theory, lived with my wife, Cynthia and family, and discussed continually with Kishon Seth, Henry Soniat, Hector and Mari Presedo, Gordon Totty; advanced first with Hugh Finklea and Holly Beaver with the National Anthem sung by Rebekah Beaver on Ratification Day, 6/21/14; 9/17 with Dennis Eilers, Joyce Murray, and Mona Sevilla. Mint Marionneaux 10/26; Kelley Young 12/11. Brij Mohan, Prem Mohan, Gordon, Satish Verma, and Shawn Hanscom 12/15/14; Diana Dorroh 1/29; Jeremiah Wright 2/19; Daniel Liebeskind 3/7; Dona Bean 3/18; BR Freethinkers Katherine Shurik, Chad Harelson, Doug Johnson, Mark Logan, Richard Martin, Ron Sammonds, Tom Hannie, Elizabeth Johnson and Roger Alexander, 4/8; Austin Guidry 4/19; Rich 5/13; Alex Townsend 6/20; Rebekah Beaver 7/20; Jay Vicknair 7/29; Jacob Irving 8/6; Anna Fogle 9/14; Erick Martin 9/14/2015. Bob Souvestre 2/2/16; Shahed Khan 2/29; David Earle 4/19; Kate Gladstone 5/17; John Earle 5/18; Joyce Goldner 6/21/16; Lorraine Davidson 6/21/17. The revised text for each library discussion was sent to participants and Mary Stein, EBRPL Director. Contributors are gratefully acknowledged.

Citizens for A Civic People of the United States, Baton Rouge, LA

Monday, April 17, 2017

Voluntary public-integrity 5/8/17

Voluntary public-integrity expresses a way of living wherein most people mutually discover public-morality[1],[2] using the-objective-truth rather than submit to dominate-opinion or political-power. Thus, most people discover public-integrity not by force or coercion but by personal will. For example, spouses mutually grow fidelity according to the-objective-truth. The-objective-truth expresses what-is---the object of discovery, rather than what-may-be---the subject of imagination. For example, humankind explores the universe yet does not talk to extraterrestrials.
Also, most people iteratively-collaborate to discover the-objective-truth. Thus, they may practice broadly-defined-public-safety-and-security, hereafter, public-security, for themselves, for their children, and for the beyond: posterity. It seems almost everyone seeks such a way of living. Perhaps voluntary public-integrity expresses the political morality humankind has been discovering but at a cruel pace. Perhaps political evolution is occurring geographically, ethnically, religiously, culturally: comprehensively. Perhaps most people pursue a mixture of what-is and what-may-be, according to personal preferences. Perhaps most people, knowingly or not, seek to perfect their unique person low as they may be, independent of their community. In other words, in psychological maturity, the person rises above civilizations, social moralities, civil convention, and religious doctrine.
Perhaps public-security is essential to freedom-from oppression so that a person may earn the liberty-to pursue private happiness. The purpose of this essay is to propose private-happiness-with-public-morality through voluntary public-integrity. Peaceful pursuit of private dreams and hopes such as arts, sports, or religion seem not a matter for public deliberation, yet private pursuits must either conform to public-morality or risk constraint. Constraint may be needed when a private practice causes actual harm. For example, a religious event that routinely causes death may be constrained. The proposal for public-justice so as to empower private happiness can start the process, but the practice requires maintenance and continual improvement by the people who choose to collaborate and/or cooperate---a civic people.
Public-morality is established in voluntary iterative-collaboration by most persons so that each life may flourish in place and time rather than for the sake of either the community, tradition, or an ideology. In public-morality persons collaborate for public-security for each person rather than to cooperate for the city or state. Rather than persons civilizing for the greater good, the greater good provides public-security so that each person may earn the liberty-to pursue private preferences, often referred to as happiness. Liberty requires responsibility for public-security. Part of earning liberty is maintaining public-security.
In iterative-collaboration, living persons voluntarily, candidly discuss public issues until practice that provides mutual, individual justice is discovered. In other words, neither party subjugates or cooperates for arbitrary advantage. By pursuing the-objective-truth the way of living avoids errors of obsolete opinion or tradition. The consequence is freedom from arbitrary constraint so that each person has the liberty to privately pursue personal preferences during their lifetime. Instead of serving government, willing people collaborate to make certain government does not make the liberty to earn private happiness impossible.
Private-liberty-with-public-morality empowers an-objective-culture. Therein, humankind in most civilizations deliberately evolves so that most persons flourish in their time---their perhaps eighty years of life---rather than suffer a cause they did not choose or rather than submit to imposition. An-objective-culture records discovery of the-objective-truth so that future generations may efficiently correct errors upon discovery or new understanding. The purpose of records is not to impose ideologies or rules but rather to empower infants to become adults at the leading edge of progress. For example, people once thought the earth is flat but it is like a globe,[3] and no infant should have to rediscover the facts. Also, people don’t lie so that they can communicate, and no infant need struggle to learn that principle. But not every person or civilization participates in voluntary public-integrity: some are dissidents for reasons they may or may not understand. For example, a liar does not understand that he or she did not communicate. A common source of dissidence is discovery that care-takers neglected, betrayed, or abused one’s self. If so, either personal autonomy[4] or coaching may overcome the wounds and restore the person’s path to self-discovery.
Among first principles of voluntary public-integrity is personal public fidelity. Both respectively and collectively, the person grows fidelity to these entities: to the-objective-truth, to self, to immediate family, to extended family, to the people, to the nation, to the world, and to the universe. Inevitable human errors may be confronted, corrected and not repeated. Achieving public-fidelity seems possible for each unique human---each person. An-objective-culture invites each person to undertake the private journey from what-is to what-may-be; from feral infant to psychologically mature adult; from abject ignorance to unique perfection. The consequence of the journey may be unique personal perfection within a lifetime. The journey cannot be entered if the person is attempting to conform to someone else’s quest. Dissidents may prevent perfecting a nation, yet a nation may facilitate most person’s opportunities to perfect themselves during their lifetime. That is, comprehending these principles, a person may apply them even in a nation that has not  discovered voluntary public-integrity.
An-objective-culture is established by willing persons, but some people prefer personal fidelity rather than public-fidelity. For example, some persons commit to exceptional wealth or power or expertise and therefore compromise voluntary public-integrity. Some people choose crime or evil or live to satisfy banal appetites. Some people are gullible to a social cause and have not the humility to protect themselves from false influence. We refer to the willing persons as “a civic people.”
“Civic” relates to a willing citizen of humankind more than city, country, or other habitation. In public connections or transactions no matter where the parties are situated, civic persons collaborate for individual public-fidelity we dub civic-justice. Their collaboration does not yield to past opinion, even though expected fidelities may reference dead relatives or past ideologies. Their way of living rises above civilizations, laws, opinion, pure-reason, regulation, imagination, etc., and only conforms to the-objective-truth. I neither know nor can discover alone. Humankind is in the continuing process of discovering the-objective-truth and each person who enjoys freedom from oppression may benefit from the leading edge throughout their lifetime rather than being bound to past opinion or tradition. Civic-justice continually improves statutory law as the people discover injustice yet public-integrity does not expect to eliminate either criminal law-enforcement or civil law-enforcement, because there are always dissidents. A civic people does not expect utopia. Therefore, an-objective-culture seems achievable: voluntary public-integrity just never has been attempted.
In summary so far, people establish an-objective-culture by voluntarily, iteratively-collaborating to discover the-objective-truth of which most is undiscovered and some is both understood and used, like discovering how the earth fits in its solar system. The-objective-truth exists and humankind works to discover both its elements and its interconnecting theories. Humankind continually explores universal theories.[5] While theories based on evidence aid discovery, the-objective-truth does not respond to human constructs hopes, dreams and ambitions. In other words, study may start with an evidence-based idea, but the-objective-truth does not conform to the idea. Human action modifies future events, but the events unfold according to the-objective-truth. Human achievement is built on studies to discover the-objective-truth. Human enterprise that rebukes the-objective-truth begs woe. For example, people who manipulate reason so as to justify slavery beg woe.
In iterative-collaboration, a public-integrity-volunteer perceives injustice and develops a plan for reform. He or she presents the concern and proposed remedy to a willing listener who agrees to discover the-objective-truth. The listener clarifies the words and phrases the speaker used to describe both the concern and the proposed solution. If listener agrees, they discuss the need for action, and perhaps a plan for implementing change. If listener’s experiences and observations differ from those of the speaker, he or she offers a related alternative statement & solution. Both parties seek justice according to public-fidelity. They may discover they do not know the-objective-truth yet find mutual public-fidelity within the theory of the-objective-truth. Each is guided by the-indisputable-facts-of-reality rather than personal-opinion or dominant-civil-opinion.
In contrast to civic-morality, civil opinion may have two aspects:  social and legal. Traditional social morality, mores, is based on temporal civilization rather than the-objective-truth. Cultural evolution has not overcome the quest for either dominant-civil-opinion or raw power. Many civilizations have not yet admitted that things go better with conformity to the-objective-truth rather than dominant-opinion. Whereas humankind cannot rebuke the-objective-truth without inviting woe, most civilizations are based on dominant-opinion, often that people behave only under force or coercion. For example, tradition holds that the USA is intended to protect life, liberty and property (pursuit of happiness). While “life” seems explicit, both “liberty” and “property” are controversial.
Life, liberty and property are actually English principles, revered by formerly loyal British colonists, some of whom turned statesmen in 1774. American statesmen concluded that England was intentionally enslaving the loyal subjects who were living in the colonies. Patriot-colonists changed their style to statesmen, rebuked English principles and declared independence in 1776. The consequence of revolutionary thought in America from 1720 through 1774 led to war for independence. The French led in strategy and military power in the victory battle at Yorktown, VA in 1781. The 1783 treaty with England names thirteen independent states rather than a nation. Four years later, statesmen drafted a constitution for the USA that specified explicit breaks from English common law: English Protestantism and Blackstone. The constitution stated the aims and purpose in a preamble that offers voluntary public-integrity.
The preamble proposes a civic agreement by the people in their states. The articles that follow address the slave population but, regardless of reasons, erroneously do not provide for emancipation. Social pressures to maintain the existing states’ civilizations prevented adoption of the draft constitution. Ratification in 1788 required that the First Congress negotiate an English-customary bill of rights. The Congress reinstated factional-Christian Protestantism and restored common law. The civic preamble was labeled “secular,” whereas it is neutral to religion.
Temporal mores overthrew the opportunity for statutory civil law that offers voluntary public-integrity. Extant US civilization regressed a civil republic that proposes voluntary public-integrity. As a consequence, many Americans now talk of democracy (which can only lead to chaos) rather than republicanism: representative rule according to statutory law that continually seeks civic justice. Some descendants of slaves talk of separation within the nation---a divided nation. As stated in the preamble, civic justice may be provided by willing people. The necessary people live in 2017, but their opportunity, like all the ones before is passing them by: every faction and perhaps every person is missing freedom-from and liberty-to for the sake of an ideology, personal or associative, they hold but do not understand.
Like republicanism, voluntary public-integrity values civic virtue, political participation, containing corruption, a republican constitution, individual-independence, and the rule of statutory law. Liberalism yields to civic freedom: both freedom from domination and “independence from arbitrary power.” With freedom from dominant-opinion about the-objective-truth, individuals may earn the liberty to pursue personal preferences and perhaps perfection of their person. Voluntary public-integrity is not to be confused with civic republicanism, civic humanism, communitarianism, liberalism or libertarianism. Closest to voluntary public-integrity may be civic republicanism, which we will discuss in a future post.

[1] In this book, I use dashed-phrases to help the reader keep a thought together and think it on each use.
[2] Revised from “civic-morality” after dialogue with GM King, “Federal help still key for saving gulf,” The Advocate online comments, April 21, 2017, online at
[3] Dimensions beyond length, width, depth and time address other universes and do not alter current perception of the earth like a globe that formed as a gravity-gathered cloud of gases and dust. See .
[4] Personal autonomy is not spontaneous. It is acquired from experiences and observations with a view toward understanding and practicing civic-justice. Perhaps it is the object of Ralph Waldo Emerson’s essay, “Self-reliance,” 1841. See . However, I do not think it is necessary to go beyond body, mind, and person in considering human fidelity: Speculation about the soul does not address civic morality.
[5] For example, a theory of ten dimensions extrapolates to universes with properties unlike our gravity and such. See .

Copyright©2017 by Phillip R. Beaver. All rights reserved. Permission is hereby granted for the publication of all or portions of this paper as long as this complete copyright notice is included. Revised 5/8/17

Thursday, February 9, 2017

Not tolerance & unity: Security

This essay is to respond to John P. McCall, “Time to affirm tolerance and unity,” letter-to-the-editor, The Advocate, Feb. 7, 2017, online at . In addition, it is to address public reaction to my too brief comments in the online forum.
Tolerance and unity are religious concepts that so far do not apply to a civic culture. In other words, religion may collaborate with civic morality, but civic morality does not comport to religion. A civic culture advocates public security with privacy respecting spiritual and mystic pursuits. The civic goal is public-integrity; in other words, broadly-defined-civic-safety-and-security, hereafter Security.[1]
We the Civic People---those who willingly comprehend and observe the preamble[2] to the constitution for the USA---discourage harm to others. However, a civic people is too humble to judge other peoples’ motives. There are too many unknowns for one person to judge another’s motives or for one group to judge another's motives. 
Furthermore, one person can’t tell when the other is tolerating the first person and his or her opinions. In other words, the person who perceives he is tolerating may discover that he was tolerated. Therefore, a civic culture shuns the antonym of intolerance: tolerance. In other words, “intolerance” is a useful civic word, but its antonym can only create mystery and is therefore not civically useful. Additionally, the human being is too psychologically powerful to conform to civilization. The human can only be urged to iteratively collaborate for Security rather than social norms such as religious morality. When there is overt harm, statutory law and law enforcement are invoked.
To restate the above paragraph, persons of differing social cultures may iteratively collaborate for Security. However, persons do not collaborate about their private preferences such as social morality or religious morality. Thus, chosen people, tolerance, and unity are neither civic pursuits nor objects of observed statutory laws.
To impose tolerance, a person must assume 1) that he or she understands the other and 2) that the understanding harbored by the tolerant person errs. The tolerant party holds that the other need not collaborate in suffering the tolerance. For example, I may have a two minute talk with any Christian, and the Christian may conclude and “know” that I am an atheist. Maybe I say, “The Jesus in my heart would not compete with my love for my family members.” From that statement forward, civic communication with that Christian may be cut off. One Christian told me he was shaking the dust off his feet[3] with regard to me. I asked if we were still neighbors. He said, “Yes,” but we have never spoken since then and still live nearby. Is he a civic dissident? I think so but don’t know.
My question about neighborliness was a nudge. A civic people neither imposes nor brooks force[4] but nudges[5] dissidents to reform for Security and is prepared for self-defense. The object of civic nudging is Security.
Among the Holy Bible interpreters, there is unity of thought: There are chosen people. But what constitutes “chosen”? Factions war within the four extant branches: Jews, Arabs, white Christians, and black theists. In other words, some members of the four branches are of a civic people and are thus not of the warring factions. The unity of war over the concept “chosen people“ ruins the world.

A civic culture nudges people towards public-integrity; civic-morality; individual-independence; real-no-harm private-dreams; Security.

As father, I coached three school-children not to try to address the-objective-truth in discussion with their peers. I said: honest as peers may be, many people cannot face integrity. Billy Joel struggled for “integrity” and fidelity when he wrote “Honesty is hardly ever heard,” and “Everyone is so untrue.” [6]
In my eighth decade, my people-appreciation reformed. IMO, people are indoctrinated to think they cannot perfect their unique person. I think almost everyone wants Security; thereby, they may enjoy freedom from oppression. Freedom empowers the liberty to pursue private hopes and dreams. Unhappily, people strive for unity and tolerance when humans need individual-independence and collaboration for Security so they may perfect their unique self.
In 1787, 2/3 of representatives of the 13 states that established the USA signed the draft constitution for the USA with its purpose stated in the preamble. The 1/3 dissidents had their reasons, just as dissidents today have reasons. It seems to me as time moves on a changing 2/3 of people in the USA wants Security and conforms to the-discovered-objective-truth. In other words, the generations iteratively collaborate to discover and benefit from the-indisputable-facts-of-reality.
The remaining 1/3, the dissidents,[7] beg constraint through civic example, statutory law and its enforcement. Dissidents suffer and lose until either they want to reform to the-objective-truth or they cause overt harm that subjugates them to law enforcement. 
Tragically, the 2/3 are kept from appreciating one another by the erroneous opinions derived from concepts like chosen people, unity, and tolerance. The human species is so psychologically powerful, and there is so much to discover:  There will always be difference of opinion respecting the-objective-truth. However, the opinion that harm is acceptable is intolerable and divisive.
If we can overcome false notions and establish We the Civic People of the United States, the world may improve, and we may begin to approach We the People of the United States as defined by the preamble. By example, a civic people may spread to the world.
Copyright©2017 by Phillip R. Beaver. All rights reserved. Permission is hereby granted for the publication of all or portions of this paper as long as this complete copyright notice is included.

[1] Capitalizing “Security” is not to suggest deity, but to create a way to remind the reader of the complete expression, broadly-defined-civic-safety-and-security. Explaining “broadly-defined” is beyond the scope of this essay. However, it addresses issues such as a living wage for requested work.
[2] A civic people is not constrained by US citizenship. Also, the preamble does not limit virtue, but serves a manageable set of goals among the willing of, for example, 7 billion people.
[3] Matthew 10:14, “If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet.”
[4] This idea comes from a couple decades reading and writing about Agathon’s speech in Plato’s “Symposium,” 385 B.C.
[5] Meaning “urge into action,” from Merriam-Webster online.
[6] Billy Joel, “Honesty,” lyrics online at .
[7] Dissidents against Security include people who are ignorant, criminal, evil, and otherwise alien.