Tuesday, January 9, 2018

Personal civic authority

Key concepts: my experiences and observations on Rose Wilder Lane’s 1943 book, “The Discovery of Freedom”; mutual responsible freedom; the-objective-truth, which can only be discovered; personal authority for civic goodwill; physical and psychological person (human) power; civic morality---mutually just public and private connections; coaching in preparation for experiencing and observing; hierarchical repression of goodwill---tyranny over human personal authority.

Abstract

            In public transactions, most people behave as though they appreciate mutual responsible freedom, or at least act as though they are civil. They understand civilization or social order. However, some people, perhaps 1/3, readily attempt to impose arbitrary authority over the other party. They are dissidents. Some dissidents attribute their behavior to an institution, church, or government. Civic persons do not readily yield to arbitrary authority rather than responsible freedom.
We assert that the human individual has and cannot delegate the authority for mutual responsible freedom, or civic justice. Two parties in a public or private transaction each have the authority to complete their transaction in mutual civic justice. If the two parties require intervention by a higher power, they have missed the opportunity to humanly collaborate.
Some individuals strengthen their personal authority through spiritualism, such as prayer to their personal God. However, spiritualism does not lessen the responsibility for mutual freedom in transactions with others.
In simple terms, if each person realized that they may personally take authority for mutual justice in one-on-one human conversations, things would go better.

Executive Summary

            This presents a principle for mutual responsible freedom. The application is human-relations training in service industries such as medical-care. The thesis is: Evolution informs humankind that theirs is the species whose each individual has the potential physical and psychological powers to accept the authority to establish mutual responsible freedom. Some people erroneously avoid that personal authority. Some institutions unintentionally discourage that authority.
            In the hierarchy of interests to patient and health-care providers, are life rather than death; best possible physical outcome; best possible psychological outcome; and fiscal viability. Medical services accepts the authority and responsibility to preserve life; provide best outcomes, both physical and psychological; maintain availability to both paying patients and safety-first responders carrying injured people. Perhaps in no other human service is management of authority as critical, and the CEO has that responsibility.
            The ideal free market involves health care providers and patients. In 2018, I cannot innumerate the “provider’s category.” The contributions of doctors, nurses, medical aids, information workers, and communicators seem lost in the insurance and government aid debates. However, this improvement proposal addresses the one-on-one conversation between direct provider and patient that is found in each contact in a medical care event. We propose that the provider, whatever their role, accept the authority to collaborate for mutual responsible freedom in all conversations. When the patient does not understand responsible freedom, this system incidentally may fail, but most patients understand.
            Medical services involve conversation. In all one-on-one human connections, acceptance of the authority to practice responsibility for mutual freedom is critical. Ideally, neither the provider nor the patient imposes coercion or force on the other. To work toward that ideal, providers may choose a system that preserves the patient’s freedom as much as possible; accepting direct provider authority is the system. To accomplish this mutual responsible freedom, the provider must accept the authority and defend that authority with responsible action. If the patient does not reciprocate, the provider accepts that not all humans understand responsible freedom and then calls for help.
            Below, I explain this proposal in more detail. If it is interesting, the complete theory may be of interest. It would take a little time to assemble the existing ideas.
Accepting human authority
            The way things are, human beings face death, uncertainty, and opportunity, with determinants for each---a triad of controls. Death may come on either exhaustion of positive energy or on fateful event. Uncertainties come from the ever changing environment, including the psychological community and the physical universe. Opportunity comes from preferential use of personal energy. The individual may accept personal human authority. In other words, the individual may accept the opportunity to spend his or her lifetime energy to discover and acquire personal preferences. For example, I am glad to know I prefer both dark chocolate and to never lie.
            During his or her lifetime, the individual is subject to the world: physical and psychological evolutions, the market place, governments, the public, family and friends, and personal energy. Just as he or she must work to eat, he or she must work to understand fidelity, to establish and enjoy statutory justice, and to assure economic viability. Statutory justice refers to just written law with just law enforcement; in other words, responsible freedom. Rare is the person who takes the authority to manage these lifetime opportunities.
As cultures evolve most individuals expect and seek authority. Death is coming. Government contends with uncertainty. The individual may struggle to discover personal preferences. Often, the individual subjects to civility under the least repressive tyranny. Options range from democracy, communism, socialism, monarchy, and others to republicanism under statutory justice. There could be a way of life wherein government serves the individual. It could feature public justice with personal privacy---a civic culture.
A civic culture can be created wherein each newborn is both informed about existing knowledge and coached to take personal authority for responsible human connections in both private life and public life. This way of living empowers rather than represses discovery of personal preferences such as vocation, avocations, religion, fine arts, sports, etc. It offers private liberty with civic morality. Therein, the individual who accepts private authority for mutual justice may live at the leading edge of civic morality.

A viable method makes the change possible

The overall conditions in the world do not seem optimal. The triad of authority may not be serving the individual well, and there may be an achievable, better way of living. The individual may assume authority on all three levels of control. Thus, even though God/fate, government, and personal preferences exist, each individual develops personal authority in all three determinants.
Personal authority is made legitimate according to its fidelity to actual-reality or the-objective-truth. The-objective-truth is discovered rather than constructed; human inventions behave according to the-objective-truth.
            In the physical and psychological world that has evolved, one species, the human being has the capability of taking the authority to discover and benefit from the-objective-truth. The corollary is that each person has the responsibility for both personal freedom and civic justice in human connections. “Civic” means behaving for mutual justice in human connections more than conformity to a municipality or doctrine. When or if most inhabitants collaborate to prevent or lessen injustice, misery, and loss, they create and improve a civic culture. I say “most” because history shows there are always dissidents to statutory justice for reasons the dissident may or may not understand.

An achievable improvement

In a civic culture, collaborating humans enjoy private liberty with civic morality; dissident citizens are constrained by statutory justice (civic laws and law enforcement). Civic citizens look not to tradition but to actual-reality to guide human connections so as to live at the leading edge of civic morality. For example, the British commoners who settled this country vaguely knew that Lords fox hunt for revelry; the American settlers adapted to indigenous peoples’ cultures, hunting for food rather than for revelry. The British purpose for hunting became obsolete for Americans, yet remains the English tradition. A civic culture allows the individual to develop private hopes according to personal preferences. In fidelity, each person, in their daily choices, discovers his or her preferences, and therein his or her person. The dissident is a slave to habit, subjugation, or other tyranny.
No institution should repress the civic person’s quest for self-discovery. To put it another way, cultural evolution that influences people to assign the authority for civic connections (human goodness) to institutions is erroneous. While it may be true that a higher power (God, physics, energy, or other) controls fate, goodwill between two humans is a consequence of mutual civic justice. The erroneous tendency to assign authority for goodwill to institutions can be lessened by collaboration and coaching. The spiritual person errs to neglect personal authority for mutual responsible freedom in transactions.

Illustration in hospital services

            A hospital is a human collective that takes or accepts the opportunity to preserve life and its benefits. The doctors take responsibility for medical care and supervision of assistants---specialist, nurses, aids, and other direct medical providers. Close to the direct medical-care providers are administrators---record keeping, appointment schedulers, food servers, room janitors, and other people who communicate directly with patients. The administrators coordinate with the direct care providers and all other necessary functions---data, legal, collections, maintenance, etc.
            A hospital takes responsibility for the both the patient’s well-being and the risk of causing death. The last thing a hospital wants is to perceive they may have caused the dreaded fate: death. In other words, no civic person serves in a hospital so as to participate in deadly error. Hospitals do all they can to continually discover potentials for error and eliminate them. Application of the theory of human, mutual responsibility for freedom---in other words, accepting civic authority---may be advantageous for hospital-employee training.
            The hospital personnel may decide to accept the triad of authority:  opportunity, uncertainty, and fate. In every civic connection, the patient rather than institutional authority may be the prime consideration. With common practice, the public would perceive the better relationship and reciprocate---take the authority to preserve mutual appreciation.

An example

An example will help understanding for collaboration on this idea to consider developing it for inclusion in employee training. We choose the doctor’s appointment scheduler (DAS) to illustrate a care-giver who may take civic authority. By DAS, we mean the person who confirms the doctor’s availability, for example, when the hospital’s general appointment scheduler needs assistance from the doctor’s suite or the patient is in the doctor’s suite. In this example, a patient came to the office for an appointment that was interrupted by an emergency. He asked to be called at home when the doctor arrived. The DAS did not feel authorized to say, “Okay.” Explanation of both sides of the conversation will aid comprehension.

The patient’s situation 

The patient seems a candidate for stroke or heart attack. He had 3 stents added to a fourth in the same vessel on August 25. There was another serious concern:  In an unrelated subsequent first appointment, regarding a 2.5 cm thyroid-nodule, the endocrinologist would not schedule a needle biopsy because of Plavix. In a subsequent phone call, the cardiologist’s nurse reported that Plavix could not be stopped until a year had passed. The patient was anxious for the December 15 appointment with Dr. Janes.
The patient is a lung-cancer survivor, so his family is very alert to cancer. They are upset with the thyroid uncertainty; the patient not so much, because he considers risks low.
His wife is a Parkinson Disease patient and blood in her urine was confirmed on December 13. The family is very concerned about that and anxious for her to see the urologist on the PCP’s referral. On December 15, he was in the shower when his wife heard a message being recorded on the home phone from the doctor’s office. Soon, the patient, at the phone, dressed in a towel, saw two recordings from physicians, heart physicians at 9:30 and urology physicians at 9:33. He requested his wife’s permission to make an appointment for her (with Dr. McNeal) and did so.
Then he called heart physicians and talked to one person who then dialed another number, I suppose in Dr. Janes’s suite. After several minutes, the family was urging him to get off the phone to avoid being late for the appointment. He hung up and left.
At the office, the ground-floor appointment clerk sent the patient to the ninth floor. There, Dr. Janes’s scheduler presented the options: wait for Dr. Janes’s return, or reschedule for Monday. The patient thought; did not want to risk a Monday appointment; then asked, “I live only five minutes from here: Please call me when you know a time Dr. Janes can see me today.” This kind person had the opportunity to say, “OK,” but did not accept the authority to do so. She is not to blame, because she lives in a culture that represses mutual responsible freedom in favor of hierarchical authority. What’s overlooked is that the patient’s health may be at risk. She would like the opportunity to say “Okay. In other words, without institutional repression, people behave with goodwill.
A few fortunate people take authority and minimize human misery and loss despite institutional constraints. And that’s how this story ends, below.

The doctor’s suite’s situation

December 15 morning, Dr. Janes was called to a heart attack situation and the staff kindly wanted to contact me, the patient, to say I could come wait or reschedule for December 18. It was nice of them to try to call. However, as described above, I did not get the message, ran out of time, and drove less than a mile to the appointment. So far, no problem to anyone.
There, facing the options: wait indefinitely from 10:15 AM or reschedule for Monday, interrupting my family-holiday-time, I responded, “I live only five minutes away. Let me go home, and call me when you know the time Dr. Janes can see me.” Unfortunately, the nice person did not feel authorized to respond, “Okay,” as described above.
The next event was typically unhelpful:  The person she looked to for authority perhaps did not take the time 1) to understand the simplicity of the request and 2) to consider the reality that they had already called me once that morning. She merely repeated the options offered. In effect, they could call at 9:40 to say Dr. Janes was gone but could not call when he returned. When I was incredulous and stubborn, that person got a third person, who gruffly said, “Come into that office [pointing] and we’ll . . .” (I did not really hear the rest of her sentence.) That unfortunately excited me. When I responded to her “police order” to sit in the hall, I turned to sit down and saw that another customer was in line behind me. The staff knows the other patient could wait in line across the hall. In other words, to me, three care-providers were not considering me their patient; call it the hospital’s patient. The institution did not care that a heart patient was being excited to high blood pressure (see below). The “police” action was, in my opinion, an abuse:  My objections were placed on public display.
The above described events are typical of busy work places like hospitals. The first care giver has the first hand conversation but does not perceive authority to respond “Okay”. The second person may have the authority but does not have the first hand conversation---does not really appreciate the simplicity of a second phone call. Any third person becomes mere force without consideration of the patient. The hospital’s freedom is more important than the patient’s freedom, and the patient is paying the bill (paying for the insurance).
Meanwhile, the patient has human energy and psychological power that does not accept care-giver conveniences as legitimate responses. In other words, “we can’t call you,” when they had already called does not compute. The object of this proposal is to change the authority-culture so as to take advantage of the human psychological power to reject nonsense on both sides of a conversation and use it for opportunity for goodwill or civic morality or mutual responsible freedom.

Incident resolution

The situation was resolved when Pamela Sharpley was asked to offer care; seated in the hallway between the two doctor’s suite schedulers. (A policeman might imagine that if the patient suffered a stroke it would be best for the public to witness the preceding dialogue. The patient would prefer appreciation as a patient, agitated as he may be.)
Pamela and I patiently spent the time it took to mutually understand the two issues: 1) patient communications including a phone-tree that can leave a patient in indefinite wait and 2) completing the December 15 appointment. She not only reached understanding of both problems, she created a new option for Dr. Janes’s emergency absence: examine me for the vital data so that when Dr. Janes arrived, the appointment could be expedited. Then, Pamela contacted Dr. Green’s nurse at BR Clinic (overcoming my equivocation that he is at OLOL) to clarify the needle-biopsy needs; four days without Plavix. However, my expected blood pressure could not be measured, because the actual data was 160/90. A check at the end of the exam was the same. Dr. Janes knows me and was not concerned with the emotionally elevated blood pressure. On December 20, my blood pressure was 134/72.

Summary

The person who made the decision to call me about my cancelled appointment had the patient in mind, but no idea the chaos I, the patient, was calmly handling. When I hung up on the stalled, automated phone-tree, I was only driving less than a mile and would be on time for my appointment. No problem, so far. However, when the same people could not see their way to call me again, things became psychologically challenging to me to the point of emotional blood pressure.
Pamela patiently listened to me suggest a better way. It’s based both on experiences and observations and on reading Rose Wilder Lane’s 1943 book, “The Discovery of Freedom.” Read it in PDF at mises.org/library/discovery-freedom, perhaps on library loan, or consider purchase options at amazon.com/Discovery-Freedom-Struggle-Against-Authority/dp/1503117553.
The point in this example is that when all that matters is human, civic collaboration, as in “I called you before, so I can call you again,” the direct caregiver can and may take authority rather than call in a third party. Pamela took complete authority and the results, which seem unusual by today’s institutional standards, can become the normal, better future at all levels of hospital services.

The hospital message

The message from my reading Lane’s book is this: The hospital’s hierarchy of personnel has direct authority for medical care. The hospital, intending to effect favorable outcome, takes the risk of causing unfortunate fate. Each caretaker in the hospital has human authority to take responsibility for just connections---good will---with patients and visitors. The judge in human connections is mutual responsible freedom---in other words, appreciation by both parties in the connection. When someone responds to one patient’s emergency, the routine patient may also be viewed as a human with the potential for emergency. His/her reasonable request in the face of options he/she deems nonsensical (“I called once but cannot call twice”) ought to be considered by the caregiver. The-objective-truth is that humans are too psychologically powerful to collaborate on nonsense. This principle applies to both parties in the transaction. Just as the patient will not accept nonsense, the care-giver who is not repressed to take authority does not offer nonsense. The psychologically powerful care-giver who nevertheless yields to repression regrets forcing nonsense. This no nonsense civic morality can be taught and coached. As in all things, there will be some bad events outweighed by more good consequences.
If this concept is useful, the actual training principles must be developed. The goal is most providers and patients completing connections with mutual appreciation. With future practice, frequency of mutual appreciation will increase.

A simpler example

            A couple went to dinner to celebrate a 48th wedding anniversary. The restaurant was very crowded but so large that they were seated right away. One member of the party needed assistance to maneuver the busy isles and take a seat. The party of four used a spare chair to hold heavy coats and hats. Later, a server demanded the chair, but the waitress intervened. The party of four, by agreement, each ordered what they wanted when they wanted it. One party ordered an entrĂ©e later than the rest so as to complete the preliminaries and not overeat. The waitress took complete charge of the extended service, and every need was met. She empowered a celebration that could not have happened without her authoritative approvals of off-menu orders.
            I realize that to some waitresses and waiters such service is commonplace, yet I had not expected it. When service is so civic, it demands appreciation.


Copyright©2018 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, November 20, 2017

More erroneous NFL

          
Yesterday, we were informed that the NFL flag-and-anthem-kneeling stunt came as what Jesus would do.[1] The NFL seems in jeopardy due to "religious" beliefs of a few players!
Is there an entity, “erroneous religious belief,” or is religious belief an erroneous public pursuit? Can a human being add to his or her person by belief? Is belief more important than fidelity to the-objective-truth?[2] Can virtue supplant humility? Is belief the gullibility to one’s own wisdom? The NFL anthem-kneel poses such questions. I do not know the-objective-truth, but history seems to inform that fidelity to discovery is preferred to belief in ideas.

Fundamental cultural evolutions

            Perhaps human ancestors grunted for expression starting 2 to 3 million years ago. Culture-developing “language must have emerged sometime after 200,000 years ago and prior to this cultural ‘big bang’, some 50,000 years ago.”[3] Grammar might be 10,000 years old.[4]
            Discovery is a slow process, so we still don’t know the oldest tool. A 2015 report claims 3.3 million years old.[5] We may guess that humans were continually discovering how to survive long before they made the first tools. And before that, they discovered that sun overexposure could kill and, therefore, considered it a higher power long before it was called “the sun”.
            Some tribes imagined the sun’s power could be harnessed for favor in civic living so developed theories for benefits. Timing agriculture on the seasons---planting after winter and harvesting before winter proved out. Naming the sun a god was thought to help tribes in war. Human sacrifice to appease a god never seemed promising and eventually was deemed immoral. Eventually, humankind discovered that the Sun is a natural nuclear reactor. Sun gods became obsolete. Discovery accelerated, and in 2016, Einstein’s general theory of relativity was affirmed.[6] However, most cultures continue to develop particular god constructs.

Monotheism

            Perhaps 4,000 years ago, some cultures asserted monotheism. Their god was God, and they were chosen people. This practice continues, and today, believers have personal God with character that only partially conforms to the God of an institution: each person has his or her particulars. Thus, while there are perhaps 10,000 theistic institutions, God is characterized by the individual believer.
            Also, there are many people who, on considering humankind’s discoveries, question the existence of God. They are motivated and inspired by the-discovered-objective-truth and collaborate for more discovery. They consider their work equally applicable in the physical and in the ethical.[7] They have no problem with belief in God as long as believers don’t try to oppose or reverse discovery, as Michael Polyani may have attempted.[8] A person’s hopes for the hereafter may enhance fidelity to civic peace. In other words, we can appreciate believers if they behave with civic morality.
            In summary, starting with no ideas about God, humankind has evolved into various cultures having three characteristic beliefs:  God, no God, or it is acceptable to wait for discovery. There may be a more erroneous belief, depending on whether or not the belief is held in civic peace.

Freedom of religion

Of course this cultural evolution affects the world, but it is especially evident in the United States of America, where there’s great pride in freedom of religion rather than celebration of opportunity to exercise powerful human psychology. That is, celebrate the opportunity to responsibly pursue personal dreams rather than conform to someone else’s plan for you. From a British colony, the USA evolved into a celebrated refuge for oppressed, civic individuals. By “civic” I mean persons who collaborate for mutual, comprehensive safety and security, in other words domestic, civic peace. People who are dissident to civic peace, or justice, are constrained by the rule of statutory law. The tension between civic citizens and dissidents to justice is expressed by the agreement offered by the preamble to the constitution for the USA, which is neutral to religion.

More erroneous religious belief

            The civic/dissidence tension is illustrated explicitly by humankind’s struggle over slavery. It was taken for granted 3800 years ago in the Code of Hammurabi.[9] The Church took slavery for granted when it canonized the Holy Bible 1620 years ago.[10] Popes authorized slavery[11], African slave trade[12], and colonization[13]. Colonization of North America in the 16th and 17th centuries involved the Atlantic slave trade. “The major Atlantic slave trading nations, ordered by trade volume, were: the Portuguese, the British, the French, the Spanish, and the Dutch Empires.”[14]
            In this country, colonization met its end when British-American subjects in the thirteen eastern seaboard colonies decided England would not respond to pleas for relief from oppression and changed their style from colonists to statesmen.[15] Revolutionary war soon broke out and in 1781, France helped the Americans defeat the British. Thirteen free and independent states ratified their treaty with England on January 14, 1784.[16] Many statesmen, such as Benjamin Franklin,[17] intended to free the slaves.[18]
The confederation of free and independent states was not viable, especially when 8 of 13 or 60% were slave states. Consequently, 12 states sent delegates to the 1787 constitutional convention. A nation predicated on supervision by the people in their states rather than by the state governments was proposed. Establishment required approval by the Continental Congress, then individual state conventions, and ratification, by the people in 9 of 13 states; the first Congress would add a bill of rights. On June 21, 1788, nine states establishing a nation of people, the USA. Four states remained free and independent. Three states remained dissident after the USA began operation with 10 states on March 4, 1789. They had joined by the time the Bill of Rights was ratified on December 15, 1791.

Future emancipation from slavery’s consequences

Both the preamble and the articles of the 1787 draft constitution established the words for seamless transition to a nation without slavery and English common law (classism). The 2/3 of states representatives who signed the draft constitution envisioned a nation that would be inviting for all inhabitants and would establish civic peace. The draft constitution completed General George Washington’s 1783 four pillars for survival as a nation,[19] and likewise did not impose religion.
However, the first Congress, by May 1789, established legislative prayer, or American theism, bringing the Holy Bible’s affirmation of slavery back into civil debate. Legislative prayer imposed the erroneous Christian impression that government is of God[20] and legislators have divinity. The first Congress made dominant the erroneous re-institution of American theism by the religion clauses of the First Amendment to the constitution.[21]
Frederick Douglass, in 1852, sixty-four years after the people ratified the preamble and established the USA, railed against American theism, stating, “America is false to the past, false to the present, and solemnly binds herself to be false to the future. There is not a man beneath the canopy of heaven who does not know that slavery is wrong for him.”[22] After extensive argument, Douglass asked:
What, then, remains to be argued? Is it that slavery is not divine; that God did not establish it; that our doctors of divinity are mistaken? There is blasphemy in the thought. That which is inhuman cannot be divine. Who can reason on such a proposition? They that can, may - I cannot.
Only four year later, Robert E. Lee, lamenting the abolitionists, without sympathy for African slaves, spoke the erroneous proposition. Refuting Douglass’s no “man beneath the canopy of heaven,” Lee looked past civic morality to eternal, Christian work under Jesus:
There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race. While my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more deeply engaged for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially.
The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influences of Christianity than from the storm and tempest of fiery controversy.
This influence, though slow, is sure. The doctrines and miracles of our Saviour have required nearly two thousand years to convert but a small portion of the human race, and even among Christian nations what gross errors still exist! While we see the course of the final abolition of human slavery is still onward, and give it the aid of our prayers, let us leave the progress as well as the results in the hands of Him who, chooses to work by slow influences, and with whom a thousand years are but as a single day.
Although the abolitionist must know this, must know that he has neither the right not the power of operating, except by moral means; that to benefit the slave he must not excite angry feelings in the master; that, although he may not approve the mode by which Providence accomplishes its purpose, the results will be the same.
Without erroneous Christian beliefs, Lee might have sold all his property and moved to a non-slave state or territory before his liberty to do so was eliminated when the CSA fired on Fort Sumter. Lee’s concern was abolitionists interfering with what Jesus was doing rather than inhumane slavery!
            There is false belief rather than irony in the Confederate States of America, four years later, making a long list of issues that might have been settled by collaboration for civic peace and concluding that diplomacy was impossible because Abraham Lincoln was elected president:
The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.
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.[23] (Emphasis mine.)
Before the first shot was fired, President Lincoln cited a civic people as the hope for justice:
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.
The history of slavery shows that its effect on American history is an indication that religious hopes, for example, favorable personal afterdeath, must be secondary to civic peace. To be an island of justice in a conflicted world, civic citizens must protect collaboration for mutual, comprehensive safety and security---must not yield to religion. Religious beliefs must not be imposed on civic morality.

Erroneous Jesus beliefs

            I have no idea what Jesus was like or said, but have personal views that can easily touch my deepest emotions. However, “the doctrines and miracles of our Saviour” Robert E. Lee spoke of where in his mind, not the mind of Jesus. Lee embraced the sermons of Virginia ministers and the distortions of his own integrity[24] to beg personal woe. Jesus is not to blame for Lee’s folly, because every person has the psychological power to sense gullibility to personal wisdom, hubris, and pride, and ward them off using humility.
            Yet powerful people keep making the mistake of attributing personal error to God and on that gullibility inviting woe. Roy Moore, of Ten Commandments monument fame,[25] has dedicated his life to imposing Christian values onto American life so severely that he seems clearly opposed to civic morality. He seems to have never considered collaboration for civic peace so that every person may pursue the happiness they prefer instead of the values Moore wants for them. If he cannot be elected or serve in the US Senate, he may perceive he begged and received woe; I do not know, but he does know. But he inspired current Christian controversy invoking claims against virgin birth, a founding Christian miracle.[26] You might call such hypocrisy the abuse of Jesus.
            I have long objected to Fellowship of Christian Athletes[27] and Bible based prison ministries,[28] because the ministers prey on captive people. The former is especially egregious, because the subjects are young. We know that the human body does not complete the wisdom building parts of the brain until 25 years old,[29] a quarter century, and it takes a few more years for experience and observation of misery and loss before the need for wisdom to become vital to a person. If fidelity to belief is too deeply inculcated, the chances to develop fidelity to the-objective-truth are lessened if not prevented. Of course good coaching, as a person successively discovers personal autonomy, collaborative association, and intent to live a full human life can instill the intention to fidelity rather than beliefs.
            We learned today (Footnote 1) that Christianity is egregiously involved in the NFL disruption of civic morality over flag-and-anthem-kneeling. Colin Kaepernick had his reasons to sit. Then Eric Reid and Nate Boyer erroneously stepped in to assert what Jesus would do is kneel.[30]
They said, “We all have a love for people.” Love? How about appreciation? Their love-idea does not appeal to me at all. As a civic person, I want them to behave so as to warrant appreciation---collaborate for civic peace. These three relatively young persons have distinguished themselves as erroneous Jesus persons---people who use “Jesus” to impose their opinion on civic citizens. Like Robert E. Lee, they are victims of personal gullibility, and the remedy is humility. Hubris begs woe: humility inspires fidelity.

Proposed remedy

            For readers to whom the above review of erroneous beliefs ind history and current events, there remains the question of what a person may do about it. I think a person may separate fidelity for living from hopes for the hereafter. For living, civic citizens, whether American or not, may trust and commit to the preamble to the constitution for the USA to order public connections. Civic citizens collaborate for mutual, comprehensive safety and security, in other words, civic peace, using the-objective-truth, which can only be discovered. With civic peace, each person may pursue the happiness they perceive, rather than the dream someone else has for them. A civic people motivate dissidents to reform so as not to risk woe they may invite.

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] Rob Maaddi, “Christian players frustrated by criticism for anthem protest,” AP, Nov 13, 2017, abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory/christian-players-frustrated-criticism-anthem-protest-51107965
[2] The-objective-truth is the expression I use for reality that can only be discovered be evidence that can be repeated. In other words, it is not truth someone expressed but no one can experience or observe.
[3] Vyv Evans, “How Old is Language?” psychologytoday.com/blog/language-in-the-mind/201502/how-old-is-language.
[4] reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/52ovzj/how_old_is_grammar/.
[5] Lowmekwi, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lomekwi.
[6] Confirmation of general theory of relativity 100 years later, ligo.caltech.edu/news/ligo20160211
[7] Albert Einstein, “The Laws of Science and The Laws of Ethics,” 1941, samharris.org/blog/item/my-friend-einstein. Note: “science” is a study and its object is discovery. Einstein spoke a conference on science and religion.
[8] Michael Polyani, Personal Knowledge, The University of Chicago Press, 1958.
[9] Code of Hammurabi, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi.
[10] Bible canon en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Christian_biblical_canon#Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Councils_of_Carthage.
[11] Dum Diversas, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dum_Diversas
[12] Romanus Pontifex, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanus_Pontifex
[13] Inter caetera, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter_caetera
[14] Atlantic slave trade, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade
[15] First Continental Congress, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Continental_Congress
[16] Ratification of the Treaty of Paris, msa.maryland.gov/msa/educ/exhibits/treaty/treaty.html
[17] Philadelphia abolition society, history.com/this-day-in-history/first-american-abolition-society-founded-in-philadelphia.
[18] Petition to congress for abolition of slavery, loc.gov/rr/program/bib/franklin/loc.html
[19] Circular farewell, June 8, 1783, loc.gov/teachers/classroommaterials/presentationsandactivities/presentations/timeline/amrev/peace/circular.html
[20] James R. Rogers, “One and a Half Cheers for More Civics Education”, November 11, 2017,
 libertylawsite.org/2017/11/17/one-and-a-half-cheers-for-more-civics-education
[21] The First Amendment religion clauses may be reformed to protect responsible thought or fidelity to the-objective-truth or better.
[22] Frederick Douglass, “The Hypocrisy of American Slavery,” July 4, 1852, historyplace.com/speeches/douglass.htm
[23] Declaration of Secession, avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp
[24] The physics of slavery---chains, whips, brutality and rape to slaves with physical and psychological burdens to overseers and guilt to owners---make the evil of slavery self-evident.
[25] Roy Moore, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Moore
[26] Christopher A. Frilingos, “Did early Christians believe that Mary was a teenager? It’s complicated,” RNS, theconversation.com/did-early-christians-believe-that-mary-was-a-teenager-its-complicated-87422
[27] Fellowship of Christian Athletes, fca.org
[28] Prison Fellowship, prisonfellowship.org/about/chuckcolson/.
[29] David Dobbs, “Teenage Brains,” 2011, ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/10/teenage-brains/dobbs-text

Wednesday, November 15, 2017

Sincere Liberty 011618

An original play, now for reading only: "Sincere Liberty", by Phil Beaver

Outline:
            Prologue: vocabulary and comprehending the-objective-truth; 1054 words, Phil, narrator
            Prelude, The Star Spangled Banner, Rebekah
            The George Washington scene, Phil
            The Star Spangled Banner reprise, Rebekah
            George Washington: integrity, justice, law, and good will; 236 words, Gordon
                        Narrator
            James Madison:  G. Washington implied theism as private; 231, Hugh
            Benjamin Franklin: delegates did not agree with “prayer unites us”; 150, Connie
                        Narrator
            We the People of the United States: the willing vs dissidents; 66, Connie 
            Thomas Jefferson: opposing the Federalist Party; 79, new role. 
            The first Congress: the first amendment; 50, Rose
            Ralph Waldo Emerson: persons may cultivate fidelity to the-objective-truth; 885, Holly
            Frederick Douglass: physics and psychology of slavery are evil; 1730 Diana
            Robert E. Lee: on the-objective-truth decides to move to a free state; 218, Charlotte
                        Narrator
            The CSA: declaration of secession from the USA; 59, new role
            Abraham Lincoln: willing people (not theism or government) offer civic justice; 97, Scott
            Albert Einstein: civic people do not lie so that others need not address lies; 1034, John
                        Narrator
Epilogue: 556, Nancy


Each human being is obligated to develop fidelity to the-objective-truth. (Modified Sartre)

Comprehending the-objective-truth, 1216 words (introducing narrator, Phil):

Vocabulary for comprehending the play
       “Civic citizens”: persons who collaborate for mutual, comprehensive safety and security both for the public and for private hopes. Humankind is divided: civic citizens versus dissidents.
       Civic citizens trust and commit to “Comprehensive safety and security for living” for the adults, for the children, and for posterity including dissidents.
       Humankind ineluctably collaborates to discover and use the-objective-truth; resistance begs woe---misery and loss. Neither subjugation to another human nor compromise is sufficient for fidelity to the-objective-truth.
       The-objective-truth is existing reality, which willing humans work to discover and use for personal and civic benefits. The unfolding of the universe is controlled by the-objective-truth.
       Willing citizens use the preamble to classify civic issues toward justice. Dissidents differentiate themselves by taking arbitrary risk or being passive to actual harm.
Narrator’s speech to explain the-objective-truth:
In the play, “Sincere Liberty,” soon to unfold, it is essential to the audience to appreciate “the-objective-truth,” so listen up, as I explain it.
The-objective-truth exists. Humankind works to discover it and make best use of it. (For example, most people don’t know if there is extraterrestrial life and would not act on belief there is extraterrestrial life.) The goal of discovery is mutual, human, comprehensive safety and security. Discovery works equally in physics and in psychology.
Aware of the ineluctable march of discovery, it is not necessary to have faith, for example, faith in extraterrestrial life. We trust and commit to the existing fact about extraterrestrial life, even though we have not yet discovered the-objective-truth about extraterrestrial life. However, there seems no harm in someone privately believing in extraterrestrial life.
Civic citizens, while responsibly pursuing personal preferences or happiness, appreciate the-objective-truth and therefore do not publically sponsor opinion that may be doubted or action on such opinion. For example, it is not reasonable to tax the people so as to create and stream messages to extraterrestrial beings. The civic citizen conforms to the-objective-truth while not yielding to opinion, even his own.
Civic citizens mutually discover public morality using the-objective-truth rather than submit to mysticism, dominant opinion, emotions, or political power. Humankind progresses not by force or coercion but by personal experience, by observations, and by practicing fidelity. They respond to what-is rather than what-may-be. Unwilling people are dissidents, whether innocently, passively, or intentionally. For example, in a civic culture, if the CDC reports evidence that smoking reduces life-span and secondary smoke kills innocent people, civic citizens stop smoking. But some dissidents do not stop.
When the-objective-truth is undiscovered, voluntary public integrity requires responses like, “I do not know,” or “I think so and don’t have to know in order to hold responsible hopes.” Regarding religion, both the believer and the non-believer collaborate for civic justice yet privately pursue personal preferences. Borrowing from Justice Antonin Scalia, civic “responsibility is the here, not the hereafter.”
An objective culture records discovered-objective-truth so that future generations may benefit from past discovery and efficiently correct errors upon new understanding. The objective journal is observed and preserved by a free and responsible press. Thereby, the person, both young and old, may acquire knowledge and understanding and make personal choices at the leading edge of moral discovery.
Key to civic morality is fidelity. I neither know nor can alone discover the-objective-truth, yet I can cultivate personal, comprehensive fidelity. Both respectively and collectively, the civic person develops fidelity to these entities: to the-objective-truth, to self, to family, to the people, to the nation, and to the world. With independence from dominant opinion about the-objective-truth, individuals may acquire the liberty to pursue personal preferences: Personal, comprehensive fidelity is made possible.
Civility can be un-civic. Humanity can be un-civic. Social convention is based on temporal civilization more than the-objective-truth. Statutory law can be unjust, especially if it is derived by coercion/force, arrogance, or dominant opinion. Some societies think crime pays. Most civilizations are based on dominant opinion, often that people behave only under force or coercion, a self-fulfilling convention.
Humankind’s collective quest for the liberty to live in peace is stifled by failure to promote freedom from arbitrary dominant opinion. In other words, civic citizens promote the personal liberty so each person may exercise human psychological power. Human maturity requires freedom from psychological tyranny. Some societies don’t admit that individuals may achieve comprehensive fidelity.
Personal independence is suppressed by the world’s misdirected quest for a socio-political regime that fosters freedom according to the “common good.” Unfortunately, much of the thought is dominated by theism---mysticism---rather than the-objective-truth---discoverable certainty. “Self-government” is possible through use of the-objective-truth.
These statements address civic morality. They reserve private concerns and hopes for personal pursuit. In a civic culture, no one is coerced to negotiate personal, heartfelt concerns and hopes. For example, no one can impose on another person concern for a “soul” or spiritualism.
A culture with voluntary public integrity coaches the newborn in three principles: 1) ignoring the-objective-truth invites woe, 2) collaborating for comprehensive safety and security is essential to each person, and 3) the human being may, through comprehensive fidelity, conform to the-objective-truth while privately developing personal hopes, arts, sports, hobbies, and other personal interests.
Because it springs from the-objective-truth, the civic culture seeks neither dominant opinion nor democracy nor mystery. Each willing person is in charge of personal preferences that do not conflict the-objective-truth. Yet each person may privately, responsibly test the universal unknowns. For example, be the first person to fly using aerodynamic principles. The freedom made possible by a culture that conforms to the-objective-truth facilitates the personal liberty to pursue private interests. Thus, the traditional “common good” becomes conformity to the-objective-truth rather than conflict over mysticism. Civic people accept public interference --- force and coercion --- only on the indisputable facts of reality. For example, no one accepts someone’s assertion that they spontaneously contacted extraterrestrial life; such reports must be confirmed by personal experience.
There will always be dissidents, some of whom cause harm. Lies, are often, erroneously asserted as the-objective-truth or facts. Justice may be achieved with iterative collaboration to discover the-objective-truth. Thereby, law enforcement by either arbitrary opinion or mystery is lessened, the liar cannot communicate, and the rule of statutory law, or republican governance, is continually improved.
Mysteries, such as religious beliefs that have not been disproven, should not be disparaged. However, mysticism has no standing in the collaboration for civic justice.
“Faith in reason” seems unwise. Science is a process for study and the student may reason based on false perceptions --- like a mirage. The object of study is discovery, and the product is the-objective-truth, which does not respond to reason. However, rational thought is essential to the acceptance that repeatable evidence represents a discovery rather than a subject of imagination. People may trust-in and commit-to the-objective-truth, the product of evidentiary discovery.
A civic culture may seem impossible, because it has never been attempted. But it has never been expressed as voluntary public integrity by civic citizens using the-objective-truth rather than competition for dominant-opinion. How could this concept have improved the history of the USA? How could it be used to improve future living in Baton Rouge? Those are the questions of the play, “Sincere Liberty.”
Fidelity to the-objective-truth empowers self-discovery.

Prelude: The Star Spangled Banner

After the presentation, narrator describes the scene of George Washington’s speech. Then a reprise of the first line of The Star Spangled Banner introduces our George-Washington player.

George Washington; Gordon steps forward with authority and immense public esteem


I speak to you, fellow citizens, your Excellency, the language of freedom and of sincerity. I am aware that those with opposing political views may remark that I am stepping out of line as General of the Army. But my past performance informs that I could have no egocentric views in freely expressing the opinions in the following address.
There are four things, which I humbly conceive, are essential to the well-being, even the existence of the United States as an independent power:
1.    An indissoluble Union of the States under one federal head.
2.    Commitment to public justice.
3.    The empowerment of peace.
4.    Prevalent goodwill, among the people of the United States, so as to overlook local prejudices and policies, to make mutual concessions for general prosperity, and to sacrifice individual advantages in order to establish a culture of integrity.
These are the pillars on which sincere liberty must be supported.
Liberty is the basis, and whoever would dare to sap the foundation, or overturn the structure, under whatever erroneous pretexts he may attempt it, will merit the bitterest insult, and the severest punishment which can be inflicted by his injured country. At the very least, he is a dissident.

Narrator after George Washington


Washington, a devout theist, sincerely appealed to citizens for integrity, justice, statutory law, and good will, leaving theism or none to personal privacy. He emphasized civic liberty and harsh regard for sincere dissidents. Yet as fellow-citizen and religiously devout individual, he prayed to his personal God for a good future. Washington’s four pillars seem to represent the-objective-truth.
Washington’s 1783 message influences the subsequent players to consider or encounter the-objective-truth. The players’ messages may influence today’s citizens to consider Albert Einstein’s 1941 civic integrity and Antonin Scalia’s 2013 separation of the here from the hereafter.


James Madison, Phil


According to the theism by which I privately pursue spiritual hopes, it is the duty of every person to render to the Creator only the homage he/she believes to be privately acceptable rather than tribute that would be coerced by the government. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to collaboration for a civic culture. Neither society nor government may deny the citizen’s duty to the Creator. On the other hand, if a citizen enters into any institutional religion, he must uphold both his civic duty and his allegiance to the Creator. In other words, the religious institution can usurp neither government nor the Creator.
In summary, to me, it seems an undiscovered entity controls events, and a civic person ought to pay attention to that mystery. Many citizens believe the Trinity controls events.
Esteemed fellow-citizen George Washington, on June 8, 1783, asserted that the four pillars necessary for a nation to survive assign religion to privacy. That is, responsible religion is not a civic concern. How attention to the mystery of the universe is pursued and practiced is a personal matter.
Thus, the citizen who trusts and commits to the-objective-truth, without developing theism, is equally qualified to collaborate for comprehensive safety and security and statutory civil law. I join Mr. Washington in this civic morality and resist civil imposition of any popular theism such as factional Christianity. I advocate civic separation of church and state.

Benjamin Franklin, Connie


“I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth-that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that "except the Lord build the House they labor in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel....
I therefore beg leave to move-that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that service.”

Narrator after Benjamin Franklin

Franklin’s motion failed. Perhaps George Washington’s fourth pillar, civic goodwill, plus most delegates’ inclinations to appreciate each personal theism, none, or the-objective-truth, influenced the Philadelphia convention to take full responsibility for actions and decisions. A 2/3 majority signed the draft constitution, leaving 1/3 dissident for reason or none.

We the [Civic Citizens] of the United States, Connie

We willing people of the United States voluntarily commit to and trust in the purpose and goals stated herein --- integrity, justice, collaboration, defense, prosperity, liberty, and perpetuity --- and to cultivate limited services by the USA for the people in their states, beginning on June 21, 1788.
            Civic people in our nine United States hope the remaining four states in the confederacy of states will join the USA before national operations begin on March 4, 1789.

Thomas Jefferson letter to George Mason, new role


I look with great anxiety to maintain our liberty and to prevent it from falling back to that kind of Halfway-house, the English constitution. I still rely that most of the people is untainted by Federalist heresies. On this I build my hope that our experiment will still prove that men can govern using the-objective-truth.

When you say, “There is a particular circumstance, little attended to, which is continually sapping the republicanism of the United states,” I recall slavery.

Congress in the First Amendment, Rose Howe


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of thought, or prohibiting the free discovery and use of the-objective-truth; or abridging the freedom of responsible speech; or abridging the freedom of the responsible press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition government for a redress of grievances.

Narrator after the First Congress


In “Sincere Liberty”, the intentions of 2/3 of Philadelphia delegates who signed the 1787 draft constitution prevail over opinions of dissidents in the first Congress who in 1789-1791 bid to institutionalize legislative religion or American theism rather than the-objective-truth. Also, our Congress provided for both citizens and the press to use free and responsible expression.

Ralph Waldo Emerson, Holly

Humankind is constrained to appreciate the perfection of this world. It is well worth the work of willing persons to subdue it and enjoy life. The work to discover and understand the-objective-truth has motivated humankind in all ages.
Beauty appears when heart and mind open to the intention for fidelity to the-objective-truth, which can only be discovered. Then a person is instructed that humanity is psychologically powerful. To be good, to cultivate fidelity, the human is born, low as the infant lies in weakness. The potential the child appreciates is his own, though he has not recognized it yet. He ought, he knows, although he fails to entirely comprehend. When coached in innocence, or when by personal autonomy, he realizes, “I comprehend that the-objective-truth is reliable. Therefore, fidelity will I serve, day and night, in great, in small.” Then is the meaning of life answered.
The child amidst the toys of his decade, is learning the action of light, motion, gravity, muscular force. In civic connections: appreciation, fear, justice, appetite, and the good. We haven’t articulated these laws, yet we read them hourly in each other's faces; in each other's actions; in private remorse. Humans must comprehend and articulate the moral practices which maintain every fidelity. Yet, intention is the essence of all inspiration and motivation.
The intuition of moral intention is an insight of the perfect laws of the human person. These laws execute themselves. They are out of time, out of space, and not subject to circumstance. Thus; in the human person there is a justice whose retributions are instant and entire. He who does a good deed, is instantly ennobled. He who does a mean deed, is by the action itself contracted. If a man is just, then in so far is he the good. If a man pretends, he deceives himself, and goes out of acquaintance with his own being; the taint of vanity or the least attempt to make a good impression instantly spoils the outcome.
Fidelity rights wrongs, corrects appearances, and lifts thoughts to harmony with facts.  A humble man appreciates fidelity. Speak the-objective-truth, and all nature and listeners help with unexpected extension. Fidelity empowers appreciation, and becomes the law of willing people.
These facts have always suggested that the world is not the product of diverse power, but of one will: to discover the-objective-truth. Of one mind: fidelity. The willing person cultivates fidelity to the-objective-truth, to his person, to immediate family, to extended family and friends, to the people or nation, to the world, and to the universe.
Whatever opposes either physics or ethics begs woe, because things are made so, and not otherwise. As we are, so we associate. The reliable, by affinity, seek the reliable; the vile, by affinity, the vile; the dissident, by affinity, the dissident. Thus of their own volition, persons proceed into happiness or into misery. Evil is merely lacking, like cold, which is the privation of heat. Evil is so much death or nonentity. When a man strays from fidelity, he lessens his power; his being shrinks; he becomes less and less; a speck, a point, until absolute badness is absolute death.
Fidelity makes our highest happiness. Wonderful is its power to charm and to command. It is a mountain air. It is myrrh and fragrance and stimulant. By fidelity is the universe made safe and habitable more than by research or power.
Taking advantage of another’s fidelity may motivate unkindness and subjugation and find no purpose or integrity. But the return to fidelity gives and is the assurance that the-objective-truth is sovereign over all physics and psychology. The time, space, mass, energy, and motivation seem to celebrate.
Intention to fidelity corrects the capital mistake of the adolescent adult who seeks to be great by following the great, or hopes to derive advantages from another person. The reliable person demonstrates the fountain of all good to be in himself, and that he, equally with every man, is an inlet into the-objective-truth. When he says, "I ought." When appreciation and humility warm him. When, using the-objective-truth, he chooses the good and great deed; then, deep melodies from wisdom wander through his person. Then he can collaborate, and be enlarged by his listening with intention to fidelity.
The intention to listen lies at the foundation of civic morality, and successively creates all forms of collaboration. The principle of humility never dies out. If a man falls into superstition, into emotions, nevertheless he does not lose sight of the moral intention. The expressions of fidelity are reliable and permanent in proportion to their purity. The expressions of fidelity affect us more than all other works.
Discovering the-objective-truth never ceases, but it is guarded by one firm condition: It is a response. It is not instruction that I can receive from another person. What he announces, I must either confirm by experience and observation or reject. On his word, be he who he may, I can accept nothing. He may coach and affirm but not instruct.
On the contrary, the absence of authenticity is the presence of degradation. Let fidelity depart, and the things it made possible, become false and hurtful. Then falls hope, the state, art, letters, even life. The doctrine of the-objective-truth, being forgotten, a sickness infects and dwarfs the establishment and lessens humankind.

Frederick Douglass, Diana


That I am invited to speak at Corinthian Hall, Rochester, on the 4th of July, 1852 is, to me, a matter of astonishment as well as of gratitude. In many ways, I lived these 34 years to prepare for this speech. To prepare, I reviewed major events in our culture’s history. As you know, I am a former slave, an abolitionist and a free citizen. I speak for all Americans --- affected by the burden civic citizens did not want yet have not purged: American slavery.
British colonists declared independence from England. Thomas Paine, for example, wrote a scathing letter against African slavery and American theism. It was the colonies against the empire --- colonists and the slaves needing relief from the oppressor! With colonists’ success, the African slaves would also obtain liberty. American theism would overcome English theism. American law would overcome English law. Sincere liberty would be inevitable.
France, already at war with England, joined the colonists in the deciding battle at Yorktown, Virginia. Retiring from the Continental army, General George Washington envisioned a nation predicated on “four essential pillars.” In the fourth pillar, inhabitants voluntarily collaborate for mutual living.
In Paris, representatives signed the treaty that recognized 13 free and independent states. British-American colonists emerged American statesmen. Yet 8 states were slave states, and importation of slaves continued (until 1808).
During three years, the states’ confederation weakened. Statesmen, with George Washington presiding, drafted a national constitution predicated on collaboration by willing people. They provided for congressional representation of all inhabitants, scheduled the end of slave importation, and counted on future people for abolition of slavery. In these 64 years since ratification, emancipation of the slaves has not happened. Why?
The constitution is a sincere-liberty document. Read its preamble, consider its purposes. Is slavery among them? If the signers intended the Constitution to be a slavery instrument, why can neither slavery, slaveholding, nor slave be found in it? The constitution condones neither theism nor British common law. The signers of the constitution tacitly provided to discover the-objective-truth in order to reform injustices like slavery. On June 21, 1788, nine states ratified the constitution, establishing the USA as a nation under, hoping willing people in the other four states would join the USA.
Every American citizen has a right to form an opinion of the constitution and to express that opinion for acceptance by others. Without this right, the liberty of an American citizen would be insecure. George Washington inspired citizens with four pillars of civic morality: integrity, justice, statutory law, and good will. James Madison proposed personal theism. The-objective-truth is that theism proposes hope for the soul in death, whereas the people need mutual, comprehensive safety and security in life; in other words, civic peace. So Madison civically collaborated with Washington, and each continued their private religious practices.
However, the representatives in the 1st Congress arbitrarily interjected American theism into civic morality. Congress hired legislative ministers at the people’s expense. American theism supports slavery: Slave states unjustly increased from 8 to 15 while free states happily increased from 5 to 14. The increase in slave states happened on your watch and now mine, but I want no part of slavery. It is unfathomable that our American theism supports slavery.
The 1850 Fugitive Slave Act converts slave-states problems, such as Nat Turner's Rebellion in Virginia during August 1831, into a national disgrace. The power is prompted by the Star-Spangled Banner and American theism. The victims are We the People of the United States---you and me. No fewer than forty Americans have, within the past two years, been hunted down and, without a moment’s warning, hurried away in chains and excruciating torture. Some of these had wives and children dependent on them for bread; but no security was offered the family. In tyrant-killing, king-hating, people-loving, democratic, theistic America, the seats of justice are filled with judges who hold their offices under an open and noticeable bribe. Judges are bound, in deciding in the case of a man’s liberty to hear only his accusers! The Fugitive Slave Law stands alone in the annals of tyrannical legislation. I doubt if there is another nation on the globe, having the brass and the baseness to put such a law on the statute-book.
This is the 64th birthday of National Independence, and of your political freedom. I am glad, fellow-citizens, for in a nation’s youth there is hope. Hope is much needed, under the dark clouds which hover above the horizon. My personally acquired freedom is only 13 years old. But many slaves do not have my perseverance. If our subjugation to American slavery --- your subjugation and mine --- was even more mature, our oppression would be disheartening. Together we have the opportunity to end this woe.
Citizens, the British-colonists who declared independence from England were brave men. I unite with you to honor their memory. With them, nothing was “settled” that did not comport with the-objective-truth. With them, justice, liberty and humanity were “final;” not slavery and oppression. The same is true for the brave signers of the constitution. They scheduled the end of slave importation and expected you to end American slavery. Now, I carry that obligation with you, but having been a slave am more committed than you now are.
The Millard Fillmore administration tolerates slavery and lucrative enterprise on internal slave trading --- wasting the hard-earned fame of your fathers in order to cover your laziness. They convert the circumstance of slavery imposed on this land into a willful politic of racism.
In 1799, George Washington freed his slaves. Yet you began building his monument in 1848 by the price of human blood. Fellow-citizens, pardon me, but why am I called upon to speak here to-day if you will not listen and reform? What have I, or those I represent, to do with our national independence if the administration does not listen and respond to this citizen?
I call on the-objective-truth when I refer to us as fellow citizens. Who among us would not celebrate when all inhabitants of this land are free of oppression and have the opportunity to pursue liberty according to their preferences rather than someone else’s plans for them?

You exclude me from this glorious anniversary! This Fourth of July is yours, not mine. You may rejoice, I must mourn. Fellow-citizens; above your national, tumultuous joy, I hear the mournful wail of millions. Their chains, heavy and grievous yesterday, are, to-day, rendered more intolerable by the jubilee shouts that reach them!
I appeal to the-objective-truth when I declare that the character and conduct of this nation never looked bleaker to me than on this 4th of July! In the name of humanity which is outraged, in the name of liberty, which is fettered, in the name of the constitution and my Bible, which are disregarded and trampled upon, I dare to call in question and to denounce, with all the emphasis I can command, everything that serves to perpetuate racism — the great error and shame of America!
The-objective-truth is plain: “There is not a man beneath the canopy of heaven that does not know that slavery is wrong for him.” The physics and psychology of slavery is chains, whips, guns, brutality, blood, and rape. People who use the Bible to justify racism rebuke the-objective-truth. The Bible should not have such passages! Such arrogance begs woe.
What remains to be argued? Is it that racism is not divine; that most American doctors of divinity are mistaken? There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices, more shocking and bloody, than are the people of these United States, at this very hour. The old nations have reformed from the slave trade, slave-holding, and racism yet racism continues in America. Behold the practical operation the American slave-trade, sustained by American racism and American theism. Attend the auction; see men examined like horses; see the forms of women rudely and brutally exposed to the shocking gaze of American slave-buyers. Tell me, citizens, where you can witness a spectacle more fiendish and shocking, now carried out at midnight to avoid the antiracism agitation.
I consider the Fugitive Slave Act as one of the grossest infringements of Christian liberty. If the churches and ministers of our country were not stupidly blind, or most wickedly guilty, they, too, would so regard it. The fact that American theism does not behold “the Fugitive Slave Law” as a declaration of war against religious liberty, implies that the church regards religion simply as a form of worship, an empty ceremony, and not a vital principle, requiring active benevolence, justice, civic appreciation and good will towards man. But the church of this country is not only indifferent to the wrongs to the black race, it actually inspires the oppressors. It has made itself the bulwark of American racism and the shield of American slave-hunters. Many of its most eloquent ministers, have shamelessly given the sanction of religion and the Bible to racism.
I use the term American theism to describe the current perversion of religion which favors the rich against the poor; which exalts the proud above the humble; which divides mankind into two classes: tyrants and slaves; whites and blacks. It is an abomination against the-objective-truth. Americans: our republican politics, not less than our republican religion, are flagrantly inconsistent! We boast of love of liberty, our superior civilization, and our pure theism, while the whole political power of the nation (as embodied in the two great political parties), is solemnly pledged to support and perpetuate the enslavement of three millions of our countrymen. You are all on fire at the mention of liberty for France or for Ireland; but are as cold as an iceberg at the thought of liberty for the enslaved of America.
Fellow-citizens! I will not enlarge further on our national inconsistencies. The existence of racism in this country brands our republicanism as a sham, our humanity as a base pretense, and our theism as a lie.
In conclusion, notwithstanding the dark picture I have this day presented of the state of the nation, I do not despair of our country. There are forces in operation, foremost, the willing people’s march toward civic morality, which must inevitably work the downfall of racism. The-objective-truth is plain, and the doom of racism is certain. Let us now collaborate for reform.

Robert E Lee, Charlotte

My dear wife, I was displeased with President Pierce's state of the union message, in particular, his slant against the abolition of slavery. His views on slavery, while honestly expressed, lack integrity. Territories like Kansas should, without bloodshed, be admitted to the USA as free-states if that’s what the people want. There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery and moreover racism as an institution is civically immoral and a political evil.
Yet every Virginia-minster’s sermon I attend preaches that black slavery is an institution of God. I think many in the congregation disagree with the ministers. I agree with Frederick Douglass’s statement four years ago: “There is not a man beneath the canopy of heaven that does not know that slavery is wrong for him.” I would oppose a god who punished me for my skin-color or ethnicity. Black inhabitants, if freed, would be both physically and psychologically better off here than in Africa. Free-states are agitating for reform. Have ministers no regard for the-objective-truth?
Because the State of Virginia defends slavery and promotes racism despite what I take to be the-objective-truth --- for our family’s protection in light of Bloody Kansas --- I plan to sell everything and relocate to a free-state. I know you will be relieved to no longer be a slave-owner, and we will serenely, sincerely encourage our extended family to also move.

Narrator after Robert E. Lee

One flood experience can motivate a Louisiana homeowner to move or otherwise protect the family interests. Likewise, the common-sense of Frederick Douglass plus the lives lost in Bloody Kansas inspired our player, R. E. Lee, to sell all the family property and move from Virginia to a free state five years before the Civil War would prevent his liberty to choose---before he would fight a wrongful war to defend his home and property.

The CSA, a new role

Next March 4, the Republican Party will take possession of the USA. The South shall be excluded, and a war waged against slavery and God’s chosen race until it shall cease throughout the USA. 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.

 Abraham Lincoln, Scott


1861: Fellow citizens, seven of thirty-four states have declared secession and threatened war. 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.
1864: After three years’ civil war the nation's condition is not what either party, or any man devised, or expected. I attempt no compliment to my wisdom and admit that events have controlled me.  God alone can claim it. Whither it is tending seems plain. If God now wills the removal of a great wrong, and wills also that we of the North as well as you of the South, shall pay fairly for our complicity in that wrong, impartial history will find therein new cause to attest and revere the justice and goodness of God.

Albert Einstein, John


Humankind employs a process for understanding. It seems to apply equally in physics, mathematics, and psychology. Both humankind and each willing person, who would discover the-objective-truth, seek comprehension of relations which exist independently from the researcher. For example, extraterrestrial life either exists or does not, regardless of humankind’s expectations. In a civic culture, mutual appreciation is more satisfying than hate. “Civic” herein refers to citizens willingly collaborating to live in civic peace, allowing for difference of opinion within the theory of the-discovered-objective-truth.
In physics, statements of comprehension may be cosmic discoveries. For example, the universe seems to be expanding, yet may actually be shrinking or static.

Consider the elementary equation of mathematics: 2+2= 4. In physics, 2 apples + 2 oranges= 4 fruit. Now consider the illogical equation, 2+2=5, which can occur in art and in games; for example, the belief that team work can exceed the sum of each member’s contribution. This belief often motivates each team member to contribute more. This attitude may alter the physical or actual results.  A 6’ basketball forward with a 4’ leap cannot shoot the ball over a 7’ forward with a 4’ leap. A 6’ forward, motivated to play to the fullest by the team’s energy and support and his own natural ability may individually peak and move beyond the usual physical limitations, perhaps to encounter similar peaking by the 7’ forward.
                                                                                                                                    Statements of comprehension, such as integrity, are believed not to apply to the social or cultural sphere of ideas. In the struggle for dominant opinion, this idea could be expressed by the mathematical equation 1+1=1. For example, my theism plus your theism equals my theism. Restated, the one intending dominance expects the other to acknowledge inferiority. However, if the expressions of opinions is an honest communication, respecting the difference of each person’s traditions, chosen associations, and personal hopes, then the equation becomes 1+1=2. This can be restated as my theism plus your theism equals our theisms or, put another way, my theism is valid for me and your theism is valid for you. Civic justice is required.

The Dalai Lama has said: “The law of action and reaction is not exclusive to physics. If I act with goodness, I will receive goodness back. If I act with evil, I will receive evil back.“ However, in human relations, reciprocity often fails. The Dalai Lama is a forced exile.

Furthermore, understandings have a common characteristic: each one is true, false, or undetermined. Because we appreciate each other’s civic peace, despite our differing theisms or other beliefs, we are willing to collaborate to discover the-objective-truth, which may not be knowable to us individually, just as we don’t know if extraterrestrial life exists. Regardless, we each maintain personal hopes about our beliefs. But they are private hopes rather than civic concerns.

The process for understanding has another characteristic. The noble work toward comprehension and understanding does not include emotion. For the researcher and the collaborating citizen, there is only being. There is no wishing, no praising, no hidden agenda, no ideology, no pride, no contradiction, no goal beyond mutual, comprehensive safety and security. Each person who seeks understanding rejects coercion from anyone, and likewise behaves so as to not coerce anyone else. When we recognize self-persuasion, gullibility, pride, hubris, self-contradiction, we stop, in humility toward the-objective-truth.

Guided by understanding, we need not respond to doctrine like “Thou shalt not lie”. Yet, we do not claim that it is meaningless to ask questions such as: Why do we not lie. The reasoning might be as follows: Lying destroys confidence in the statements of other people. Without confidence, collaboration is made impossible, or at least very difficult. After a lie, the liar may fear future dialogue with the deceived party, who in turn, may sense the liar’s fear. Contemplating his own behavior, the liar may suspect the deceived party is also a liar. Listening may become impossible. The liar may disconnect himself from the communication, never recognizing that collaboration is essential to make human life possible and therefore good.
                                                                                                                                               
Our commitment to avoid lying can be traced back to these demands: Human life shall be preserved; pain and suffering shall be decreased as much as possible. The person with a high level of integrity gravitates toward human authenticity and collaborative association. He or she rejects fear and embraces appreciation for self among other willing persons. Liars cannot connect with others: they separate themselves, becoming dissidents.
                                                                                                                                                Thus, it seems the process for understanding can apply to psychology as well as to physics. Ethical directives can be made rational and coherent by logical thinking. If we can agree on some fundamental ethical propositions, then secondary propositions can be derived from them, provided the original premises are stated with sufficient precision. For example, people expect appreciation to overcome hatred.
                                                                                                                                                            But what is the origin of these ethical axioms? Are they arbitrary? Are they based on mere authority? Or do they stem from humankind’s experience and are they shaped by these experiences?    

Using pure logic, all axioms seem arbitrary, including those of ethics. But they are by no means arbitrary from a psychological or genetic point of view. They derive from our inborn tendencies to avoid pain and annihilation, and from the accumulated reactions of individuals to the behavior of their neighbors. Just as physics exists and can only be discovered, likewise ethics exists only to be discovered. Just as physics may be vainly denied, ethics may only be harmfully denied.  
                                                                                                                                                                  Humankind has the psychological power to advance ethical axioms which are so comprehensive and well founded, that most persons will accept them as grounded in the historical mass of individual experience. Humankind’s experience has been accumulated from 100 billion lives over some two million years. Therefore, for an infant to learn ethics is a daunting quest, because humans are born totally uninformed. Nevertheless each person, on becoming informed, has the potential to enjoy some sixty years to discover and expand the ethical axioms of humankind. The gift of life presents this opportunity and the potential for such joyful meaning.

Ethical axioms are found and tested not very differently from the physical axioms. Understanding is what stands the test of experience and approaches the-objective-truth.

Narrator after Albert Einstein:

Perhaps Albert Einstein’s light on the-objective-truth can help civic citizens restore General George Washington’s four pillars of sincere liberty: integrity, justice, statutory law, and good will. Antonin Scalia admired Washington.

Antonin Scalia, 2013, new part


The-objective-truth informs us that “Government is not meant for saving souls, but for protecting life and property and assuring the conditions for physical prosperity. Its responsibility is the here, not the hereafter, and the needs of the two sometimes diverge.
It may well be, for example, that a governmental system which keeps its citizens in relative poverty will produce more saints. The rich, Christ said, have a harder time getting to heaven. But that would be a bad government nonetheless. This recognition of the separate spheres of church and state is not just a teaching of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. It is also, I think, the teaching of Jesus Christ who spoke of rendering to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s, and who is regarded as not having indicated any preference about government – except one: he did not want the people to make him king.”
Likewise, a civic person collaborates for civic justice rather than to be kind or demigod; or claim to know the-undiscovered-objective-truth.

Epilogue, read by Nancy

Tonight we considered how a 2017 possibility --- fidelity to the-objective-truth --- might have helped thinkers in the past, even changed their messages. Their intentions for civic morality might have been strengthened by the very phrase, “the-objective-truth.”
 
George Washington, 1783, sincerely appealed to fellow-citizens of the thirteen free and independent colonies to collaborate for liberty as integrity, justice, statutory law, and good will. He tacitly reserved theism or none for personal privacy. His fourth pillar negated classism or elitism. His principles suggest the-objective-truth. His hope at the dawn of American enlightenment, neglected and repressed by past generations, may be restored by our generation.
James Madison, 1785, expressed his deistic theism: a civil person is motivated by private concerns beyond civic morality. However, noting Washington’s 1783 message, Madison agreed that civic citizens who trust and commit to the-objective-truth are civilly appreciated equally with theists.
The delegates to the 1787 constitutional convention did not affirm Benjamin Franklin’s assertion that theism is essential to “the affairs of men.” The draft constitution, which 2/3 of delegates signed, omitted theism and proclaimed governance by willing citizens in their states. The willing citizens is the subject of the entire document, not merely the preamble.
The preamble to the constitution for the USA, as of 1788, offers the people self-governance according to the-objective-truth rather than conflicting opinions. Some people are willing to use the preamble to order civic morality, but, so far, the people impose civil division according to theism-political partnerships.
Thomas Jefferson, 1791, had encountered that faction that wanted to restore English common law and factional Protestantism, but had faith that the people would collaborate to discover and employ the-objective-truth.
The first amendment, 1791, could be improved by the-objective-truth rather than religion as well as responsibility in expressions, both by persons and by the press.
Ralph Waldo Emerson, 1838, transcended divisiveness and promoted the-objective-truth.
Had Frederick Douglass and the people in 1852 been empowered with our players’ appreciations for the-objective-truth, the people might have listened, pondered, and emancipated black slaves without civil war. It was a white-church-war for the-objective-truth rather than racism. The physics and psychology of slavery is evil. Racism is evil, regardless of Bible interpretation. That does not mean that civically moral believers cannot hope for spiritual salvation through the Bible’s message to them.
Robert E. Lee, 1856, upon considering the-objective-truth sold his property and moved to a free state five years before the Confederate States of America fired on Fort Sumter.
The CSA, 1860, asserted more erroneous religious beliefs and attempted secession from the USA.
Abraham Lincoln, 1861, asserted that neither theism nor politics could deliver civic justice. Comprehensive safety and security may come from willing people. In 1864, he, erroneously or not, ascribed to God the responsibility for the Civil War.
Albert Einstein, 1941, asserted that physical discovery and psychological fidelity come from the same source. His only example is that civic people do not lie so that civil people are not challenged to respond to a lie. Freed to speak of the-objective-truth, our Einstein seems more explicit and uses more examples.
Antonin Scalia, 2013, invited the devout Christian to collaborate for civic morality based on the-objective-truth, reserving faith in Jesus to save the soul. He opens the door to George Washington’s four pillars for a nation that may survive.
This was only a play: we claim to know neither the original speaker’s intentions during their lives nor the fictional extensions to our time.
We, in 2017, may behold and perhaps comprehend the discoveries of the past 234 years. We cannot speak for anyone. We may learn, from creative reviews of historical efforts, to establish civic morality. We may consider ideas for better communications. We may perceive public integrity as collaborating for mutually comprehensive safety and security or civic peace. We may create a culture wherein it is understood that each person can responsibly pursue the heartfelt concerns and dreams he or she actually holds rather than submit to ideas someone else has for him or her. We may use the preamble to distinguish the willing citizens from the dissident people.
References
  1. The Star Spangled Banner (tune, 1777; poem 1814), freepages.military.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~worldwarone/star-spangled.html
  2. George Washington, loc.gov/teachers/classroommaterials/presentationsandactivities/presentations/timeline/amrev/peace/circular.html
  3. James Madison, founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-08-02-0163
  4. B Franklin, scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1045&context=wmborj
  5. The preamble, constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/preamble
  6. Thomas Jefferson, founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-19-02-0020
  7. 1st Amendment, constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendments/amendment-I
  8. Ralph Waldo Emerson, americanunitarian.org/divinityschool.htm
  9. Frederick Douglass, historyplace.com/speeches/douglass.htm
  10. Robert E. Lee, civilwarhome.com/leepierce.htm and history.com/topics/bleeding-Kansas
  11. CSA, Declaration of Secession, avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp
  12. Abraham Lincoln, avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/lincoln1.asp and abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/hodges.htm
  13. Albert Einstein, samharris.org/blog/item/my-friend-einstein/
  14. Antonin Scalia, homespunvine.com/lecture-justice-antonin-scalia-on-capitalism-socialism-and-christian-virtue/
Copyright, Phillip R. Beaver, October 15, 2017, revised November 14, 2017.

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. Added Thomas Jefferson fiction on January 16, 2018