Thursday, August 23, 2018

Draft presentation for Constitution Day events September 22, 2018

Constitution Day celebration is free to the public
For venues, dates and times, please see for each 9/17, 9/18, 9/19, 9/20, 9/21 and 9/22.
Email Phil Beaver,, or call
225-766-7365 for information, to share intent to attend, or to express a suggestion.
The  following presentation draft is for interest and comments..
5th Annual Constitution Day Celebrations
September 22, 2018, Baton Rouge, LA, six venues:

9/ 22, Ascension Parish Library, 708 South Irma Blvd, Gonzales 70737, 10:00 AM until noon,
Public discussion: 1) brief 5-year review, 2) U.S. myths and 3) an achievable, better future.
Sponsored by Citizens for A Civic People of the United States
Please, visit
Draft presentation after Carver Library meeting on 9/17/18
Meeting plan
1.Five years’ “preambling” progress: the leading edge
2.Fellow citizens celebrate Constitution Day
3.Presentation: American myths within global myths
4.Clarification and collaboration
5.Next planned library meeting
The leading edge of five years’ collaboration
(Review for future collaboration more than for today.)
The Preamble to the U.S. Constitution on June 21, 1788
“We the People of the [nine] United States,
in Order to
form a more perfect Union,
establish Justice,
insure domestic Tranquility,
provide for the common defense,
promote the general Welfare, and
secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and
our [grandchildren],
do ordain and establish this
Constitution for the United States of America.”
The 1788 preamble legally dissolved the Confederation of 13 states and established the Union of 9 states.
The preamble addresses both civil authority and voluntary self-discipline among fellow citizens.
Under the preamble’s agreement, equal citizens divide: willing, passive, dissident, rebel, alien, and enemy.
It’s an agreement for the individual civic-discipline to manage governance so as to provide impartiality.
Each human being has the individual power,the individual energy, and the individual authority (IPEA)
to either develop integrity or not.
With civic integrity, the individual commits to neither initiate nor tolerate harm to or from any person or civic institution: actual harm is resisted.
Mindfulness seems a civic more than spiritual practice.
The preamble’s agreement invites fellow citizens to develop individual happiness with civic integrity.
Developing integrity, the individual may discover and embrace fidelity to the-objective-truth,
yet may humbly pursue personal happiness rather than yield to another’s burdens, fears, or plans.
The human being is so powerful that it takes about 3 decades for an infant-person to develop the understanding and intent to live a complete life.
Complete human development---self discovery---typically takes beyond 6 decades, if at all.
The fellow citizen owns his or her person and uses IPEA to manage lesser powers: appetites (banality), societies (coercion), and governments (force) for good or for evil.
The five-year, leading-edge update has been presented.
(Take ten minutes for clarification then a five minute break?)
Civic individuals develop a wonderful world.
The National Anthem
Sung by Phil Beaver
Presentation we prepared for collaboration today
I.What history-myths about America bother you the most?
II.Four fellow-citizen opportunities
1) We may overcome the civic impacts of global slavery
2) We may yet reform from British colonization of the eastern seaboard, especially civiltheism
3) We may stop neglecting a dream: the opportunity to pursue individual happiness with civic integrity
III. A civic concern you’d like fellow citizens to consider
IV. What do you propose so as to resolve the concerns?
V. How can a better immediate future happen? De-mystify American history with global view
Overview, 1760 BCE to 2018 CE(3,778 years)
•Highlights detailed in three segments to follow

•1760 BCE to 1573 CE (3,333 years; global)
•1692 to 1787 (65 years; North America’s eastern seaboard)
•1788 to 2018 (230 years; the U.S. under British tradition)

       Louisiana was primarily a French colony until 1803
Consider Individual Independence Day each June 21.

oTo promote individual happiness with civic integrity
After the following history presentation, please express observations and concerns.
U.S. Slavery: 1600 years’ erroneous Christian Church
1760 BCE: Code of Hammurabi embraces slavery
1400 BCE: “God” frees Israeli “enslavement” in Egypt
431 BCE Thucydides: human beings under the law are equal
405 CE: New Testament erroneously condones slave practices
430: Bishop of Hippo: slavery a consequence of the slave’s sin
1455: The pope “authorizes” African-slave trade to use the African “commodity” to colonize the Americas
1573-1807: England dominates African-slave trade
Fellow-Citizens discover need to prevent Christian law
1692: Salem minister-politicians kill 20 of 200 “witches”
1763: Colonists sense enslavement under British Christianity
1774: Farmers take civic authority to liberate Worcester, MA
1774: 13 eastern colonies order state constitutions
1776: Leaders regress to “Nature’s God” authority
1778: France and 13 colonies combine wars against England
1781: France and colonies defeat England at Yorktown, VA
1783: George Washington proposes a resilient, civic nation
1784: 13 free &independent states ratify 1783 Paris Treaty
1787: Shay’s rebellion against the Articles of Confederation
1787: 1/3 of delegates won’t sign the U.S. Constitution
Developments after 1789 Congress restores British Tradition
(1788, June 21: 9 states under the preamble w/o theism)
1789: 10-state 1st Congress re-institutes Blackstone & theism
1791: 14-state 1st Congress ratifies theism in the Bill of Rights
1803: France sells Louisiana territory to the U.S.
1856: R. E. Lee: blacks to be slaves until they become Christian
1861: 7 southern states attack for “more erroneous” theism
1863: Lincoln could have spoken about self-discipline
1941: Einstein asserts that integrity emerges from physics
1964: no discrimination on race, color, sex, or ethnic origin
1968: “African-American Christianity” emerges
2018: African-American Christianity touches royal wedding
Conclusion offered for collaboration
Fellow citizens may regard the signers of the 1787 Constitution as the providing the opportunity for freedom-from British tradition. Fellow citizens may deny “founders” impositions against the liberty-to develop civic integrity.
Fellow citizens may collaborate for individual happiness with civic integrity, which may be discovered using IPEA, the preamble’s civic agreement, and the-objective-truth.
Discussion (both clarifying and collaborating)
One speaker at a time.
Please limit each discussion to 5 minutes.
Next: Why Individual Independence Day Each June 21?
1.The U.S. has not yet reformed from British colonialism.
2.The U.S. empowers civic collaboration for happiness by constraining continuous, essential, individual discovery
3.The preamble’s agreement invites civic collaboration

1)Citizens discover the-objective-truth and its benefits
4.Each human has individual power, energy and authority (IPEA) to either develop integrity or not

1)Integrity empowers comprehensive fidelity
5.An attainable, better future may start and be celebrated each September 17 in the U.S. and abroad
Collaboration is gratefully acknowledged.
All pages are copyrighted August 23, 2018 by Phillip R. Beaver to protect rights to express the collaborative ideas again. Ideas may be shared on permission. The essential theory: A civic people can live private lives, candidlyusing both the preamble to the constitution for the U.S. and the-objective-truth; members collaborate for comprehensive safety and security.The theory is lived with my wife, Cynthia and family; discussed continually with KishonSeth, Henry Soniat, Hector & Mari Presedo, Gordon Totty, Woody Wilson; advanced first with Hugh Finkleaand Holly Beaver with the National Anthem sung by Rebekah Beaver on Individual Independence Day, 6/21/14; 9/17 with Dennis Eilers, Joyce Murray, and Mona Sevilla;Mint Marionneaux10/26; Kelley Young 12/11; BrijMohan, PremMohan, Gordon, Satish Verma, and Shawn Hanscom 12/15/14. Diana Dorroh1/29; Jeremiah Wright 2/19; Daniel Liebeskind3/7; Dona Bean 3/18; Katherine Shurik, ChCEHarelson, Doug Johnson, Mark Logan, Richard Martin, Ron Sammonds, Tom Hannie, Elizabeth Johnson and Roger Alexander, 4/8; Austin Guidry 4/19; Rich 5/13; Alex Townsend 6/20; Rebekah Beaver 7/20; Jay Vicknair7/29; Jacob Irving 8/6; Anna Fogle9/14; Erick Martin 9/14/2015. Bob Souvestre 2/2; ShahedKhan 2/29; David Earle 4/19; Kate Gladstone 5/17; John Earle 5/18; Joyce Goldner6/21/16; Lorraine Davidson 6/21; Ruth Finklea, Connie Holmes, John Howe, Rose Howe, 9/6. Charlotte Burns, Scott Courtright, Nancy Kunen9/20/17. Tyler Roberson, 5/22; Shed Duplessis, 8/14; Diana Dorroh9/17/18. Participants and Mary Stein, EBRPL Director, receive revised presentations.
Citizens for A Civic People of the United States, Baton Rouge, LA
A personal preamble by/for Phil Beaver
Willing people in our statehabitually collaborate for mutual, comprehensive safety and security:
continuity(for self, children, grandchildren & beyond)
integrity(fidelity to the-objective-truth & wholeness)
justice(freedom-from oppression)
defense(prevent or constrain actual harm)
prosperity(earn the liberty-to responsibly pursue choices)
privacy(responsibly pursue individual happiness)
lawfulness(obey the law while reforming injustices);
and to cultivate justiceinthe constitution for the U.S.
Integrity* is a practice
1.Do the work to discover the-objective-truth.**
2.Learn how to benefit from the discovery.
3.Behaveso as to benefit: practice fidelity.
4.Publically expressthe benefits of fidelity.
5.Listento public response so as to collaborate and mutually improve the practice.
6.Remain openminded to future discovery that demands change in behavior.
* Honesty may neglect understanding and thus fail integrity.
** The-objective-truth exists and can only be discovered.
Vocabulary for comprehending contents
“Civic citizens”,during their individual lives, collaborate formutual justice more than for tradition or society.
Mutual, comprehensive safety and security is for the adults (including dissidents), children, grandchildren and beyond.
Humans may in integrity collaboratefor the-objective-truth.
The-objective-truth is actual reality, which willing humans work to discover and use for individual and mutual security.
Willing citizens use the preamble to classify civic issues; dissident fellow citizens differentiate themselves by inviting actual harm.
The world I experience and observe.
Online forums
Public library meetings
A preambler’s dream
For more understanding of the three history pages and for the published report (to be revised by collaboration)
1760 BCE The Code of Hammurabi treats slavery as an established and accepted institution
1400 BCE Writers controversially express that God freed Israel from enslavement in Egypt
431 BCE Thucydides expresses that merit under the law is not lessened by status or poverty
405 CE Final 27-book New Testament canon includes passages that condone slavery; 1 Peter 2:18-21
430 Catholic Bishop Augustine of Hippo: slavery has arisen as the result of sin
1455 Pope Nicholas V “granted” Portugal the right to enslave sub-Saharan Africans
1573 Sir John Hawkins under Elizabeth I led England to dominate Atlantic slave trade through 1807
1692 Clergy-political officials in Salem, Massachusetts executed 20 of 200 accused “witches”
1763 Colonists perceive they are personally enslaved under Blackstone and Canterbury
1774 Farmer’s militia takes authority and liberates Worcester, MA: kicks British officials out
1774 Eastern colonial representatives change “colonies” to “states” and form a 13-state confederation
1776 States declare war for independence under the constructed authority “Nature and Nature’s God”
1778 France, already at war with England, adds the American war for independence
1781 England surrenders to France and the confederation of thirteen states at Yorktown, VA
1783 George Washington suggests four civic “pillars” to form a nation with resilience that may survive
1784 Having won in war, thirteen free and independent states ratify the Treaty of Paris
1787 2/3 of delegates to Philadelphia sign the preamble in the constitution for the USA;1/3 dissidents
1788 June 21 nine states establish the U.S. under civic people rather than under Blackstone or states
1789 the first Congress, with ten states, reinstitute Blackstone common law and theism
1789-91 the remaining three dissident (one rebel) states join the USA
1791 Congress, with 14 states, ratifies the Bill of Rights, completing the politically amended constitution
1803 France sells Louisiana territory to the U.S. Louisiana has few British passions if any.
1856 Robert E. Lee: African slaves being subjugated by the Almighty until conversion to Christianity
1861 Seven southern states, under “a more erroneous” theism, attacks the U.S. (27 Union states)
1863: Lincoln could have spoken at Gettysburg about self-discipline rather than governance of by and for the people
1941 Albert Einstein asserts that physics and integrity have the same source (my paraphrase)
1964 Congressional acts against discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, or ethnic origin
1970 African-American Christianity emerges in domestic debate and, ironically, in 2018 England

2018 Perhaps the U.S. has reached a political extremity and ascent toward civic integrity is possible

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.  Updated on 9/18/18.

Tuesday, July 17, 2018

Unanimous verdicts

Impartial-Majority Verdicts: Louisiana Led Reform
England’s unanimous juries reformed by Louisiana in 1880 then by England in 1967

In 2018, it seems evident that social opinion, or emotional politics, threatens the 1787 U.S. Constitution’s civic[1] promise: individual liberty with civic morality. The purpose of this essay is to 1) alert Louisiana residents to November’s opportunity to preserve singular independence from the obsolete English tyranny of unanimous rather than majority juries; specifically Louisiana’s 10:2 unanimous-majority verdicts and 2) suggest that a jury of peers is characterized as We the People of the United States rather than some faction of the population, popularly called “special interest group.”
The 2018 Louisiana Legislature, in Act 493, unconstitutionally created a popular vote to upend the state’s unique provision toward impartial juries. Among the 50 states, Louisiana conforms to U.S. Amendment VI. Oregon does, too. The other 48 states require British traditional 12:0 unanimity and thereby often fail impartiality.
Act 493 further threatens civil justice by breaching U.S. Amendment XIV.1. There’s no reason to think the Louisiana Legislature, the governor, and the capital city newspaper, The Advocate, are insincere in their actions against America’s representative republic. Perhaps they favor liberal democracy or socialism. Yet, it seems significant that The Advocate does not report opinion from the LSU Law Center, who contractually advises the Louisiana Legislature. Perhaps they are letting Ed Tarpley speak for them. However, the people of Louisiana may act in their own best interest by voting, in November, to preserve Louisiana’s constitutional impartiality by providing the 10:2 majority verdict. Impartial 10:2 verdicts are especially important to black fellow citizens, because blacks disproportionately attack blacks.
Residual English oppression of U.S. citizens runs deep and long. The 1787 Constitution’s promise to posterity starts in the preamble, which nine states ratified on June 21, 1788. But when federal operations began in 1789 with ten states, Congress, a political regime that knew only Blackstone common law and Canterbury partnership lessened the Revolutionary War victory by re-instituting English practices We the People of the United States still struggle to terminate. England in 1967 rendered obsolete their unanimous verdicts, but the tyranny remains in 48 U.S. states.
Many people accept this country’s challenge, but few articulate that the heart of the U.S. citizen’s promise is individual opportunity to discover and develop integrity during his or her one and only human lifetime. Here, each citizen has the authority to responsibly develop individual happiness rather than accept the dictates of another entity.

The First Congress re-instituted erroneous English traditions

In the years 1789-1791, Congress empowered colonial politics that had been minority opinion during the constitutional convention in Philadelphia and admitted four states to the beginning ten states. The signers had framed explicit separation from England, and the generations since then have left it to us to effect needed reforms.
In 1789, perhaps 5% of free citizens (80% of the people) could vote and 99% were American factional Protestants. Therefore, English traditions the First Congress re-instituted were not at odds with most free citizens. Among them was the unanimous jury verdict, which, England, reformed in 1967 to judge-managed unanimous-majority verdicts (11:1 and 10:2) to accomplish practicality and impartiality despite organized crime impositions and bigotry.[2]
Moreover, America’s evolving church-state partnership, originally mimicking England’s Protestantism[3] but with factional Protestant ministers, empowers U.S. civic misery and loss. England’s Canterbury-Parliament partnership is constitutional while America’s is traditional, according to Greece v Galloway (2014). Today, America’s Judeo-Christian ”tradition” is represented by 6 Catholic and 3 Jewish Supreme Court justices.
 Now, with 50 states and 6 territories, only 14% attend the traditional Protestant churches, and 100% of non-felon adults may vote. Also, there’s a new church that calls itself African-American Christians, a divisive title preferably kept private with good civic behavior.[4] The largest oppressed minority in 2018 is the non-theist or “unchurched” people, about 25%[5] of the people, or 82 million traditionally subjugated[6] citizens.
It seems in all ages nobody wants to be governed, but many people desire self-discipline. Yet some people practice immorality. Some people use their humanity for crime and are “street smart.” The citizen who never expects to be the object of a criminal court, whether the victim or the accused, may not pay much attention to the provision of impartial juries. However, the civic citizen wants his or her authorized statutory-law enforcers to provide impartiality to both the victim and the accused.
How can most people collaborate for civic morality? The civic agreement that is offered in the preamble to the U.S. constitution invites citizens to develop civic integrity. Widespread use of the preamble’s agreement has been available for 230 years, but the agreement has been neglected if not repressed. Perhaps the preamble’s time has come.

The preamble’s power: mutual civic discipline

The first legal statement in the U.S. constitution is the preamble. It is legal on at least two grounds, one a federal purpose, and the other an individual choice. Some fellow citizens take the other side of this argument, but I do not encourage it.
First, the preamble states the purpose and goals of the United States. Second, it offers a civil contract for mutual self-discipline that citizens may use to both empower the nation to survive and to collaborate for the benefits. The articles the preamble empowers limits the United States’ services to the people in their states. The people discipline both their individual state and the United States.
Citizens who are dissident to the agreement have equal liberty and dignity unless they cause actual harm that is observed. The offender may then suffer statutory law enforcement. The willing citizens behave for civic morality, and some of them, call them civic citizens[7], collaborate for statutory human justice. Eventually, statutory justice may conform to actual reality. Hopefully, the preamble empowers the people to discover and practice human justice; in other words, create civic integrity. The military result of the Civil War is an example of the ineluctable march to human justice.
These two legal provisions in the preamble are hidden by political regimes and factions. Resolution of my controversial opinion might require a Supreme Court case. Promoting integrity is perhaps the most important idea in this essay. The attainability of civic integrity refutes 400 years of Western scholarship that asserts that the human being is naturally bad and good: conflicted. On acceptance of human authority, each individual may choose to develop integrity or not. Perhaps an experiment in trusting the preamble would demonstrate that a better future is achievable: most people would choose to develop integrity rather than nourish infidelity.

The preamble’s offer to each citizen

The preamble offers this voluntary agreement:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The nation serves the states according to the state constitutions, and a civic people discipline both state and national governments.
Discipline rather than governance is critical to voluntary collaboration: No one wants governance, but many people want individual self-discipline. Since few citizens consider, much less adopt, the preamble’s agreement, individual liberty with civic morality has regressed in recent half-centuries, especially the latest, during which “civil rights” have been at the same time extolled and lessened. The foremost human right is the opportunity to develop integrity rather than submit to lesser, oppressive authorities.

Paraphrasing the preamble for personal use in modern times

To perhaps facilitate collaboration, I convert predicate phrases to nouns and today paraphrase the preamble as follows:
We willing citizens of the U.S. collaborate for mutual self-discipline regarding integrity, justice, goodwill, defense, prosperity, liberty, and children and, using the amendable U.S. constitution, restrain both the nation and our state in services to the people.
I work to collaborate with fellow citizens to incorporate their improvements on this paraphrase yet preserve the original, 1787, text, unless it is amended by the people.
I speak of collaboration. It’s an iterative process to discover mutual, comprehensive safety and security for all citizens, both civic citizens and dissidents. “The people,” both civic and dissident, never adopted the preamble, perhaps because it was never viewed as an opportunity for mutual self-discipline rather than governance. I do not think civic collaboration has ever been viewed as a tool for responsibly pursuing individual happiness with civic morality rather than personally submitting to a social authority.

Individual human power, energy and authority (IPEA)

The preamble tacitly asserts a revolutionary vision of the human being that seems refuted by 400 years of European scholarship.[8] The sentence asserts that the reader is capable to consider, commit to, and perform the agreement. That is, the reader is an authentic human. If not, perhaps the act of considering the preamble’s agreement will motivate the individual to develop authenticity. The phrase “We the People” is generic, but the modifier “of the United States” appropriately limits to citizens the opportunity that is offered.
Every human being has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (IPEA) to either develop integrity or not.[9] Personal opinion may be honest, but integrity requires the work to discover and comprehend the-objective-truth or actual reality. Integrity is a process: the individual uses actual evidence to continually acquire understanding that often negates the old comprehension. Humankind collectively discovers the-objective-truth. The-objective-truth, discovered or not, does not respond to human constructs such as reason, revelation, doctrine, coercion, or force. Fellow-humans reduce misery and loss by collaborating (without deceit[10]) to discover the-objective-truth.
The signers of the 1787 Constitution nourished collaboration for individual happiness with civic morality. Recognizing but not articulating that not every person during every decade of their life’s journey would employ IPEA to develop integrity, the signers specified broad yet sufficient goals for the laws and institutions they imagined. The signers did so between May and September 1787.
The preamble’s unique, civic proposal is one of the most promising political statements ever written. It is a legal statement that is neutral to gender, to race, to ethnicity, to religious beliefs, and to responsible personal preferences---responsible individual happiness. It offers the civic agreement to the individual more than to his or her state.[11] For this reason, the U.S. protects each person from tyranny within or by his or her state.[12]
The preamble is legal in that the willing people, call them civic people, ineluctably[13] collaborate to discover human injustice and amend the law so as to develop statutory justice. The collaboration does not diminish the citizenship of the unwilling/dissidents beyond the fact that dissidents do not express civic preferences. Someone else is acting on the dissident’s behalf, perhaps not in the dissident’s best individual interest. Much as not attending to water can lead to dehydration, not collaborating for civic morality more than religious hope,[14] begs woe.
The preamble’s civil and legal power is suppressed by the political regimes, with complicity by the people. This has been exacerbated by those Western scholars who have during the past 800 years used “nature” to represent the-objective-truth and “reason” to represent scholarly, proprietary wisdom, often sophistry. By proprietary I mean using IPEA to impose dominant opinion on unsuspecting people. The education system discourages IPEA to develop integrity. Indolent people and innocents subjugate-to or cooperate-with this Machiavellian tyranny.

Massachusetts: from English common law toward individual liberty with civic morality

Massachusetts was still under and sympathetic-to British common law when the state issued its 1780 Constitution.[15] The Massachusetts’ constitution uses “impartial” six times, does not include the word “unanimous,” and thus does not refute Glasser’s bid for impartiality using unanimous-majority verdicts rather than absolutely unanimous verdicts. [16]
Massachusetts’s controversial declaration of human equality was the official break from its origins as the first slave colony and major African trader, perhaps dating from 1624.[17] Farmers in the militia liberated Worcester from the British on September 6, 1774,[18] and the British attacked Concord and Lexington on April 19, 1775.[19] In other words, the military revolution started in Worcester. Some Massachusetts citizens became major abolitionists and a group created Lawrence, Kansas, and became the focus of “Bleeding Kansas” in 1856.[20]

English colonialism reflected in the Massachusetts preamble

            We advocate the agreement offered in the 52 word preamble to the U.S. Constitution as goals for collaborating for civic integrity. English colonial past seems expressed in the 263 word preamble to the Massachusetts Constitution (my emphasis in the following quote):
The [purpose] of the institution, maintenance, and administration of government, is to secure the existence of the body politic, to protect it, and to furnish the individuals who compose it with the power of enjoying in safety and tranquility their natural rights, and the blessings of life: and whenever these great objects are not obtained, the people have a right to alter the government, and to take measures necessary for their safety, prosperity and happiness.
The body politic is formed by a voluntary association of individuals: it is a social compact, by which the whole people covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that all shall be governed by certain laws for the common good. It is the duty of the people, therefore, in framing a constitution of government, to provide for an equitable mode of making laws, as well as for an impartial interpretation, and a faithful execution of them; that every man may, at all times, find his security in them.
We, therefore, the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the goodness of the great Legislator of the universe, in affording us, in the course of His providence, an opportunity, deliberately and peaceably, without fraud, violence or surprise, of entering into an original, explicit, and solemn compact with each other; and of forming a new constitution of civil government, for ourselves and posterity; and devoutly imploring His direction in so interesting a design, do agree upon, ordain and establish the following Declaration of Rights, and Frame of Government, as the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.[21]
The U.S. preamble is devoid of all I refute in the above prose. The Massachusetts preamble, in that last paragraph, reflects John Adams using personal god mystery to dismiss IPEA. Government may respond to but cannot grant IPEA. The last paragraph egregiously imposes theism into the civic contract when what the people need is integrity.
            Comparing the two preambles, the U.S. sentence seems advantageously brief, understanding, whole, and humble. The 1787 signers, specifying a national government to serve the people in their states, chose not to address recourse when the purpose is not met, leaving it to the people. The voluntary association is expressed as “We the People of the United States” plus the predicate “in order to” and the goals. Equity, impartiality, and fidelity are granted to those who adopt the agreement and are offered for those who dissent but do no harm. The 1787 signers invoked no authority beyond the people and their agreement. Thus, the preamble to the U.S. Constitution both admits to the people’s authority in their states and limits powers of the nation. Both preambles tacitly admit to IPEA, the signers citing only the people and Massachusetts citing “the great Legislator of the universe,” a mystery that may motivate IPEA but I doubt mystery motivates integrity. [22]
            In his first inaugural address, Abraham Lincoln, unintentionally expressed collective IPEA as “the people”. Slyly confronting the Confederate States of America, he expressed a mystery of the people, perhaps manifest as military power:
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.[23]
Lincoln’s “the Almighty . . .” equivocated to “great tribunal of the American people” and emerged as military power rather than divine power. Lincoln reflected on the preamble again at Gettysburg: “. . . and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” I think we would be better off if Lincoln had said, “mutual self-discipline” rather than “government.” Anyone who approaches me to govern is offensive but motivation/inspiration for me to discipline myself is always welcomed: neither coercion nor force nor love substitutes for mutual appreciation. Collaborating for civic morality is better than mindfulness for love.

Christianization of Africans sold into slavery by Africans

            England was the largest slave trader and also competitor with the Catholic doctrine of discovery[24] with the Catholic-African-slave trade.[25] Many writers in America before 1688 objected to slavery,[26] but none more famous than Thomas Paine. Born in Thetford, England[27] and moving to Philadelphia in 1774, Paine wrote:
That some desperate wretches should be willing to steal and enslave men by violence and murder for gain, is rather lamentable than strange. But that many civilized, nay, Christianized people should approve, and be concerned in the savage practice, is surprising. [28]
In this regard, “Americanized” seems synonymous with Catholic “Christianized.” But there were many new factions throughout the centuries and half-centuries, perhaps the latest, the divisive African-American Christianity,[29] whatever the title means to the speaker.

Christianization continually arrests America, but a better future is achievable

            Christianization seems an art of constructed power using fabricated fear. The circular, psychological harm is expressed by John Newton in his song “Amazing Grace.” [30] Newton’s expression reverses Christianity’s formula in the second stanza: “’Twas grace that taught my heart to fear.” It’s an imposed fear of life then a hope for everlasting life in the afterdeath.[31] I once suffered that fear. When the believer adopts fear of the afterdeath, he or she may be influenced to foolishly rebuke actual reality during life. There’s no example more sincere than the Civil War.[32] Believers gave their all for the Holy Bible’s approval of slavery.

An alternative to U.S. participation in global theism wars

There is, among the community of theists a global competition regarding “chosen people.” It’s a racial conflict: the Jews, the Arabs, the Caucasians, and the African-Americans each compete. Non-theists are excluded from the god wars, not by civic choice but by default. In other words, the individuals who do not claim to have a personal god suffer popular god wars yet have no war-champion.
Non-theism crosses all racial and gender lines, and in America, non-theists are the largest oppressed minority, about 25% of the population or 82 million people.5 What could create a supermajority who individually nourish their spirituality, whether alone or in association, yet collaborate for mutual civic discipline? I propose an existing, legal, civic contract: the preamble to the U.S. Constitution combined with collaboration using the-objective-truth rather than competition for dominant opinion.


            So far, I attempted to present the impact of America’s eastern seaboard revolt and war against England’s oppression, then erroneous re-establishment of the way of living the English colonials knew. The nine states that ratified the 1787 U.S. Constitution established the offer of mutual civic discipline with federal laws and institutions by which willing citizens may discipline both their state and the nation. But the First Congress erroneously undid the promises by re-establishing Blackstone and a Canterbury surrogate. People in territories south and west of the eastern seaboard did not contend with the British colonial errors until they applied for statehood. That included Louisiana.   

Louisiana, a unique past

            It seems clear that framers of the Massachusetts Constitution (1780) influenced the 1787 U.S. Constitution, sometimes negatively, especially denying IPEA. However, during that era, Louisiana was fought colonized by France, England, and Spain. Louisiana was dominated by French colonization from 1724 until 1803, when the U.S. bought Louisiana from France. When the U.S. admitted Louisiana to statehood in 1812,[33] only 24 years after nine states established the U.S., Louisiana political treatment of both slaves and free blacks was under France’s Code Noir:
[Louisiana] colonial officials in 1724 implemented Louis XIV of France's Code Noir, which regulated the slave trade and the institution of slavery in New France and French Caribbean colonies. This resulted in a different pattern of slavery in Louisiana . . . compared to the rest of the United States.[30] As written, the Code Noir gave some rights to slaves, including the right to marry. Although it authorized and codified cruel corporal punishment against slaves under certain conditions, it forbade slave owners to torture them or to separate married couples (or to separate young children from their mothers). It also required the owners to instruct slaves in the Catholic faith.[34]
When the thirteen Eastern seaboard colonies mostly detested religion other than American factional Protestantism, Louisiana was substantially Catholic. Additionally, Louisiana is unique with its French-Catholic Cajun population: “The Acadians' migration from Canada was spurred by the Treaty of Paris (1763).” [35]  The relationships between ethnic peoples in Louisiana was unlike anywhere else in either the USA or in the former Confederate States of America after the Civil War.
            For a humble[36] non-theist, the preamble to Louisiana’s constitution contains both a contradiction and tyranny against non-believers:
We, the people of Louisiana, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political, economic, and religious liberties we enjoy, and desiring to protect individual rights to life, liberty, and property; afford opportunity for the fullest development of the individual; assure equality of rights.[37]
“Opportunity for the fullest development of the individual,” especially to develop integrity more than honesty is constrained by “grateful to Almighty God,” a controversial mystery. It is difficult for theists to imagine the tyranny over non-theists in both that sentence and the “freedom of religion” provision in the declaration of rights that follows. I would like to see civil appreciation for the opportunity to develop integrity. Otherwise, the Louisiana preamble seems brief, like the nation’s preamble, which, again, is neutral to race, religion, and gender.
Two notes about pertinent articles in Louisiana’s constitution:  First, an excellent feature of Louisiana’s “freedom of expression” is reference to responsibility for abuse.[38] Second, a unique provision is 10:2 unanimous-majority verdicts to provide impartiality[39] in non-capital criminal jury trials.[40] Only Oregon provides similar impartiality. The other 48 states are at a significant disadvantage in their U.S. constitutional[41] obligation, requiring obsolete-British absolutely-unanimous consensus rather than unanimous-majority verdicts.

How unanimous majority provides an impartial jury

            We have asserted that the U.S., through its first legal statement, the preamble, is specified for both voluntarily civic citizens and dissidents to the extent they cause no actual harm. Offenders beg subjugation to statutory law. All citizens, each with diverse IPEA, knowingly or not, collaborate for statutory justice using actual reality rather than dominant opinion. Habitually impartial people collaborate for mutual civic discipline, and authorize officers to constrain fellow citizens who dissent or offend for reasons from ignorance to criminality and worse.
The intention is that willing citizens discover injustice and amend laws for statutory justice according to actual reality. Fellow citizens, whether passive, dissident, or criminal, develop/reform so that posterity approaches the totality, We the People of the United States. In other words, the intention of the agreement in the preamble is progress rather than regress.
            Yet everyone is aware of factions within the fellow citizens. It seems since 1788 the factional intensity has increased rather than lessened. Thus, whereas the fraction of the people’s representatives who signed the 1787 Constitution were about 2/3 of delegates, and people’s delegates in 2/3 of the 12 attending states ratified the constitution, the 2016 presidential election had a 51.1% popular majority between the top two candidates. Subsequently, for the first time in history, many men and women in the popular majority are in political rebellion. How is jury impartiality possible with the unwillingness of fellow citizens to collaborate for civic morality? The negation of bigotry is evident, but what is possible if there is only passive dissidence?

Predicting an impartial jury

            One data point: including those 48 states that require 12:0 jury unanimity for criminal trials, 87% of verdicts are accurate according to the judge.[42] Most citizens aren’t affected by the 13% inaccuracy, because they are neither criminals nor victims nor family. However, for every criminal there’s a victim and when the wrong verdict is reached, both the victim suffers and the people lose, contrary to a civic culture’s intentions. A civic people’s obligations do not stop with defending criminals, rather start with preventing victimization---protecting the public. Learning twenty years later that the wrong person was accused, indicted, and convicted is double victimization, both for the victim and for the public are victims.
            Using the 87% accuracy, we may expect unanimous-majority verdicts fail at 12:0 and 11:1, but succeed at 10:2. (To require an impartial unanimous-majority of 12 requires a 14 person jury or 17% added expense.) The unanimous-majority must be reduced by one for each bigoted juror to be accommodated. Thus, the unanimous-majority for impartiality would be 7:55 with 3 bigoted jurors.
Recalling the practical U.S. preamble more than un-civic (theistic) preamble to the Massachusetts Constitution, it seems imperative that each of the 48 states who do not provide unanimous-majority verdicts for impartiality may benefit from a statistical study in their state. To do so, they need the data for their state:  How frequently does the jury reach the wrong verdict?
I have no idea how someone in Louisiana in 1779 derived the 9:3 unanimous majority rule, but it is brilliant. Data that is blind to race might show that Louisiana should keep its 10:2 unanimous majority for now and consider restoring the 9:3 verdict. Revision to 7:5 unanimous-majority may be considered and preferred. Glasser18 presents qualitative arguments for unanimous majorities in all jury functions, reasoning 11:1 for capital cases and 8:4 for civil cases.

Actually real crime numbers

            I hope I have made the case that the U.S. is plagued by freedom of religion whereas there should be opportunity and encouragement to develop integrity. The preamble, being neutral to religion is a civic rather than secular civil agreement. It also seems clear that “freedom of the press” is a fundamental flaw in the First Amendment. The press ought to develop integrity both internally and publically and if not, suffer penalties according to statutory justice: freedom does not come without responsibility.
There is widespread debate from “journalism” and political science schools who teach[43] that public policy springs from liberal democracy and the media determine liberal opinion. There’s no place for integrity. Also social “sciences” have promulgated policy-based evidence construction.[44] Modern proprietary scholars don’t seem to like “statistics.”[45] However, according to actual reality, statistics can be manipulated to refute the simple numbers in an issue.
Personnel who work for the Baton Rouge newspaper The Advocate published on April fool’s, 2018 and thereafter for a few weeks an elaborate public hoax asserting that statistics show Louisiana’s 10:2 jury rule has been maintained to disadvantage black citizens[46] rather than to provide impartial juries, as constitutionally required. Their emotional sensationalism is that the jury impartiality Louisiana offers through the unanimous-majority verdict, which the U.S. Supreme Court approves, is Jim Crow’s last stand.[47] The entire scheme by The Advocate seems like collaboration with partisan non-profit groups that have fought for decades to negate the unanimous majority rule for reasons they may or may not understand.[48] For example, one article had contributions from Maurice Chammah, of The Marshall Project.[49]
I cannot imagine why the Louisiana Legislature is so willing to forsake the unanimous majority provision for jury impartiality and rebuke U.S. Amendment VIX.1. However, the legislature routinely exhibits adolescent camaraderie, and they could easily be fooled by The Advocate partnering with the partisan non-profits to form a bigoted faction.
Other Louisianans can be glad they did not create a resolution like the one Ed Tarpley presented to the Louisiana State Bar Association.[50] It ignores that Louisiana’s 9:3 impartial-majority verdicts are constitutional according to both the Great State of Louisiana and the U.S. Supreme Court. It overlooks that U.S. Amendment XIV.1 prevents a state from imposing injustice when justice is established.
Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry announced[51] preference for the 10:2 impartial-majority. “While [10:2] lowers the bar for acquittal as well as conviction, most lawyers see it as an advantage for the state because juries tend to convict far more often than they acquit. [P]icking juries is more efficient . . . because lawyers on both sides don’t have to worry about the possibility that one stubborn juror might keep a trial from ending in a verdict.”

The 12:0 unanimity rule disproportionally hurts black fellow citizens

            Black victims, because of cultural vigilantism, suffer disproportionally the 13% error-effect of 12:0 verdict requirements in the 48 states (outside Louisiana and Oregon). Blacks who collaborate for civic justice would be disproportionally hurt by approval of Act 493, contrary to The Advocate’s “Our Views” on August 12, 2018. [52]
Consider FBI data on 12,253 murder reports in 2013.[53] Of 5500 reports involving blacks and whites, 3009 victims were white, with 409 black offenders and 2509 white offenders; 2491 victims were black, with 2245 black offenders and 189 white offenders. Black offenders victimized a black 84.6% of the time, and 90.1% of black victims suffered a black offender. White offenders victimized a black 7% of the time.
The population in 2013 was 73.7% white and 12.6% black.[54] Yet among murder victims who were either black or white, 45.3% were black and 48.2% of murders were black.
If we apply the 13% U.S. inaccuracy to acquittals in these cases, then 61 and 337 black offenders, respectively, (398 total),  were erroneously acquitted. If so, 1.8% of white victims and 11.7% of black victims, respectively, suffered trial injustice. That’s 665% more trial injustice to black victims than to white victims. If all 398 dis-agreements were convictions, black victims increased to 2889 or by 13.8%. Accounting for demographics, blacks practice black on black vigilantism 600% more frequently than whites practice white on white vigilantism. As mentioned above, in 1967, England reduced vigilantism by allowing 10:2 majority verdicts.
            In other words, the importance of Louisiana providing impartial juries is more vital to blacks than to whites, because whites don’t offend each other as frequently. Civic citizens, especially blacks, will vote to preserve Louisiana’s 10:2 unanimous majority verdicts.
            What the judicial system needs to work on is persuading blacks not to offend fellow humans regardless of skin color. When blacks read Frederick Douglass, they may consider Douglass’s warm humanity, ferocious opposition to domestic slavery, acceptance of IPEA, and approval of both the preamble and the body of the U.S. Constitution. Divisive blacks may decide they are human beings with IPEA and collaborate with We the People of the United States for the mutual discipline required for individual liberty with civic morality.

Civic integrity despite factions

            Never has it been more evident that a civic culture constrains its factions. Sound principles are a starting point, but the people may neither willfully nor indolently allow political regimes to suppress or abuse civic integrity. Largely through the use of conflicting definitions of singular terms, a major faction is attacking, to institute social democracy, the republican form of government the U.S. Constitution stipulates.
            “Democracy” in America means one qualified citizen, one vote. However, a vote for Senator in Wyoming is 68 times more politically influential than a vote for Senator in California. The U.S. Constitution deliberately disrupts popular vote. The purpose, to prevent the majority from abusing minorities and vice versa is discussed in Federalist 51,[55] Federalist 9[56] and Federalist 10.[57] The U.S. representative republic purposefully disrupts both democracy and monarchy.

Louisiana Act 493 Violates U.S. Amendment XIV.1     

            In Federalist 10, Madison presents a civic dilemma without proposing a solution, an unforgettable political failing. However, U.S. Amendment XIV, Paragraph 1 seems to cover Madison’s problem:  No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges . . . of citizens of the United States . . . nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Amendment VI requires citizens of a state to provide an impartial jury. I am a citizen of Louisiana, which uniquely offers impartial juries. I do not want the people including me imposed on to approve an unconstitutional act by the Legislature.
Each citizen may accept or reject the civic, legal agreement that is offered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution, including the goals “establish justice” and “insure domestic tranquility.” The need for domestic justice is invoked when a citizen has actually harmed a fellow citizen---created a victim. The people intend the system that would exact justice to be impartial in actual reality rather than opinion, so that bias or bigotry is not a factor. Eliminating bias is difficult to achieve without qualified jurors. However, citizens who oppose justice ought not be allowed to serve on juries, and if they happen to be admitted, their influence should be negated by the impartial-majority jurors.
Elected officials in the U.S. are first citizens. There are no lords who may by opinion impose ideals that are not stipulated in the constitution, such as absolute jury concurrence when impartiality is the goal. The 2018 Louisiana Legislature passed and Gov. John Bel Edwards signed Act 493, which unconstitutionally changes the requirement for non-capital criminal 10:2 unanimous majority to 12:0 absolute concurrence for criminal jury trials, provided the people vote to so amend the Louisiana Constitution. This was an act of tyranny, because the Legislature is responsible to, by a 70% majority in both chambers, amend the constitution to remedy injustice rather than legislate a proposal for injustice to be approved by unsuspecting citizens.
The goal of impartial justice is not served when 13% of verdicts are wrong. The data based on judge-agreement with jury-verdicts predicts that neither 12:0 absolute consensus nor 11:1 unanimous majority offers an impartial jury when there are no bigoted jury members. When the jury has 1, 2, or 3 bigoted members, the allowable unanimous-majority must be 9, 8, or 7, respectively, to eliminate the 13% failures.
            The Louisiana Supreme Court upheld the 9:3 unanimous majority in Johnson v. Louisiana, and the U.S. Supreme court concurred in 1972. The history of judicial support for Louisiana’s provision of an impartial jury by allowing unanimous-majority verdicts is strong. The tyranny of 2018 Act 493 expresses, to the Louisiana public, Madison’s words “Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people.” But U.S. Amendment XIV.1 corrects Madison’s failure. The 2018 legislature rebuked their U.S. constitutional duty to the people by calling for a popular vote against Louisiana’s provision of an impartial jury.


            Louisiana’s unanimous majority jury verdict is the state’s unique provision toward an impartial jury. It is neutral to race, gender, and religion. It is as critical to one faction as to another. For example, in black on black murder, the unanimous majority is as important as in any other trial and it seems 665% more important than in a black on white trial.
The betrayal of Louisiana’s 10:2 unanimous majority violates the U.S. Constitution, Amendment XIV, and Paragraph 1, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” I request the Attorney General, Jeff Landry, to sue the Legislature and the Governor for relief from the referendum.


            This work suggests some longer term changes that may improve the achievability of a better future in the USA. Citizens do not have civic rights merely because their person exists. To enjoy individual liberty with civic morality, a citizen may collaborate for civic integrity. Each person may responsibly pursue the happiness they perceive rather than the dictates of another person or institution.

Qualification to serve on an impartial jury

            This review brings attention to another means by which a state may help provide an impartial jury. The preamble to the U.S. Constitution divides the people: citizens who voluntarily adopt the agreement that is offered and others. A jury of peers might be drawn from citizens who can demonstrate that they collaborate to achieve the goals of the preamble.
The question is how to validate their claim. I suggest a sequential qualification beginning with a simple statement of acceptance of the preamble’s agreement by the citizen and evidence that he or she understood his or her statement. After the fifth year on the voter roll perhaps prove state income-tax filing for the past three years. After the tenth year, review the record of voting in state and federal elections for the past three years.

Qualification to vote

            Perhaps no one who professes to be unwilling to collaborate for civic morality using the preamble to the U.S. Constitution should be allowed to vote in state or federal elections.[58]

Qualification to run for elected office or hold appointed office

            Qualification for official role in government may be more stringent than qualifications for jury duty.

Freedom of expression

            The Louisiana Constitution already stipulates that free expression can result in liabilities to the speaker. The statement includes expression by the press.
            It would be beneficial for the Legislature to put some enforcement behind this provision, so that hometown newspapers and other media would have reason to think twice before partnering with partisan non-profits to impose tyranny on the people.

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. Revised title August 28, 2018.

[1] “Civic” refers to mutual self-discipline for human justice more than attention to the city or other entity. The preamble to the U.S. constitution is falsely labeled “secular” to make it seem areligious, while it is neutral to religion. Referring to the preamble as a civic sentence expresses opposition to secular’s stigma. [Prompted on 7/20/2018 by Levy, 1986, page ix, “The establishment clause separates government and religion . . . “]
[2] Online at “England and Wales. The requirement that a jury verdict be reached by unanimity is centuries old, frequently dated back to a 1367 decision. Just as English law led the way in creating a rule adopted throughout the common law world, it led the way also in removing it, with the Criminal Justice Act 1967 permitting verdicts of 10:2 or 11:1 following at least two hours’ deliberation. A contemporary article explained the rationale for this change in the following terms: ‘In an age of highly organised crime there is evidence of bribery and intimidation (“nobbling”) of jurors in important cases involving professional criminals (“the big fish”), leading to disagreements.’”

[3] English Chapter XI Machiavellianism:  England’s Parliament is an official church-state-partnershipa about which the people were warned 500 years ago. Nicolo Machiavelli wrote, in The Prince, 1513, in irony to save his life, informing the people of various threats to individual liberty with civic morality. He warned of the church-state-partnership. b Because the partnership is made possible by the people’s personal gods, only a dreamer would complain, rebel or escape. In a civic culture, every no-harm religion flourishes at the pleasure of believers rather than through coercion and force.

English bemusement by “freedom of religion” became official 800 years ago in Magna Carta, c  a “charter of liberties” written by Canterbury to partner with barons in order to constrain the king. “The political myth of Magna Carta and its protection of ancient personal liberties persisted after the Glorious Revolution of 1688 until well into the 19th century. It influenced the early American colonists in the Thirteen Colonies and the formation of the American Constitution in 1787 . . . the supreme law of the land in the new republic of the United States.” A key term in Magna Carta provisions for individual justice is “free man.” d I do not concur with the claimed influence on the 1787 Constitution.
The English Bill of Rights of 1689 begins, “Whereas the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons assembled at Westminster, lawfully, fully and freely representing all the estates of the people of this realm,” asserting the church-state government, states: “That jurors ought to be duly impanelled and returned, and jurors which pass upon men in trials for high treason ought to be freeholders.” e  A “freeolder” perhaps is a property owner yet subject to his lord. In Louisiana and the USA, I yield my IPEA to no one and consider elected officials fellow citizens who need the mutual discipline that is promised in the preamble.
a Online at,_Lords_and_Commons. “Currently, the Lords Spiritual consist of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Bishops of London, Durham and Winchester, and twenty-one other English diocesan bishops in seniority of appointment to a diocese.”
b Online at “It only remains now to speak of ecclesiastical principalities, touching which all difficulties are prior to getting possession, because they are acquired either by capacity or good fortune, and they can be held without either; for they are sustained by the ordinances of religion, which are so all-powerful, and of such a character that the principalities may be held no matter how their princes behave and live. These princes alone have states and do not defend them, they have subjects and do not rule them; and the states, although unguarded, are not taken from them, and the subjects, although not ruled, do not care, and they have neither the desire nor the ability to alienate themselves. Such principalities only are secure and happy. But being upheld by powers, to which the human mind cannot reach, I shall speak no more of them, because, being exalted and maintained by God, it would be the act of a presumptuous and rash man to discuss them.”
d Online at It seems “free man” was subject to his lord. Pertinent provisions: (34) The writ called precipe shall not in future be issued to anyone in respect of any holding of land, if a free man could thereby be deprived of the right of trial in his own lord's court. (36) In future nothing shall be paid or accepted for the issue of a writ of inquisition of life or limbs. It shall be given gratis, and not refused (38) In future no official shall place a man on trial upon his own unsupported statement, without producing credible witnesses to the truth of it. (39) No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land. (40) To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.
[4] In other words, their spiritual beliefs do no harm to me provided African-American Christians, too, are civic citizens as defined by the preamble to the U.S. Constitution.
[6] Untold billions of dollars and political energy is spent on the competition over theism: What group’s god is predominant in America’s obsession with freedom of religion? The history is traced in a timeline at Judeo-Christianity (1955) seems a reaction to communism. The entry at 1968 about Albert Cleage perhaps dates the origin of African-American Christianity during the year MLK Jr. was assassinated, but does not confirm my thought. England ironically experienced African-American Christianity in May, 2018: As a person who trusts in the-objective-truth, I feel oppressed by the god wars. I have been told that my view is condescending, but that’s an opinion rather than actual reality.
[7] George Washington, as retiring general and follow citizen in 1783 might have called civic citizens (those who adopt the civil agreement that is offered in the 1787 preamble), “sincere citizens” or “humble citizens.” See
[8] Online, typical article,
[9] This may be an original articulation if not a novel assertion. It is based on my own human experience so far. I stand by it for myself and attest that it applies to my wonderful wife (MWW). Ralph Waldo Emerson, in “Divinity School Address,” 1837, asserts the perfectibility of a person, which seems a step beyond using IPEA to develop integrity. I doubt perfectibility.
[10] The hubris of protecting freedom of religion more than freedom to develop integrity is systematic deceit, because the end of religion is mystery. The state protecting religion is Chapter XI Machiavellianism. Both Flannery O’Connor in Mystery and Manners, (1970, posthumous) and Michael Polanyi in Personal Knowledge, 1958, consider the dilemma without drawing impartial conclusions.
[11] The preamble was written by Governeur Morris during the last few days of the convention. Online at “Here is the draft version of the Preamble given to Morris in early August 1787: We the people of the states of New-Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North-Carolina, South-Carolina, and Georgia, do ordain, declare and establish the following constitution for the government of ourselves and our posterity.” Perhaps Rhode Island, who did not participate in the convention in Philadelphia unintentionally aided ratification of the preamble.
[12] U.S. Constitution, Amendement XIV, Paragraph 1: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”
[13] “Ineluctably” is chosen to express that the path toward human justice not known yet discovery is continual.
[14] A pertinent debate as to whether or not the entire U.S. Constitution is secular is online at The 1787 Constitution is neither secular nor religious, but is neutral, and on this date, July 16, 2018, I assert that the 1787 Constitution is civic rather than areligious (secular) or religious. Heretofore, I have argued that point for the preamble only; I erred to not realize that the entire document is civic, where “civic” refers to citizens collaborating for mutual self-control rather than governance, allowing privacy in spirituality or none. Leornard W. Levy, in The Establishment Clause, 1986, makes the case that the First Amendment’s religion clauses are unconstitutional; un-civic seems an easier sell. The first amendment ought to protect civic integrity rather than private religion. Being civic allows an individual to collaborate for civil order and legal constraint.
[15] Online at Pertinent provisions start in the Massachusetts preamble: “The body politic is formed by a voluntary association of individuals; it is a social compact by which the whole people covenants with each citizen and each citizen with the whole people that all shall be governed by certain laws for the common good.” Specifics about justice include: “Art. XI. Every subject of the commonwealth ought to find a certain remedy, by having recourse to the laws, for all injuries or wrongs which he may receive in his person, property, or character. He ought to obtain right and justice freely, and without being obliged to purchase it; completely, and without any denial; promptly, and without delay, conformably to the laws. Art. XII. No subject shall be held to answer for any crimes or no offence until the same if fully and plainly, substantially and formally, described to him; or be compelled to accuse, or furnish evidence against himself; and every subject shall have a right to produce all proofs that may be favorable to him; to meet the witnesses against him face to face, and to be fully heard in his defence by himself, or his counsel at his election. And no subject shall be arrested, imprisoned, despoiled, or deprived of his property, immunities, or privileges, put out of the protection of the law, exiled or deprived of his life, liberty, or estate, but by the judgment of his peers, or the law of the land. And the legislature shall not make any law that shall subject any person to a capital or infamous punishment, excepting for the government of the army and navy, without trial by jury. Art. XIII. In criminal prosecutions, the verification of facts, in the vicinity where they happen, is one of the greatest securities of the life, liberty, and property of the citizen. Art. XV. In all controversies concerning property, and in all suits between two or more persons, except in cases in which it has heretofore been otherways used and practised, the parties have a right to a trial by jury; and this method of procedure shall be held sacred. Art. III. And whereas by an act of the general court of the colony of Massachusetts Bay, passed in the year [1642], the governor and deputy governor for the time being, and all the magistrates of that jurisdiction, were, with the President, and a number of the clergy, is the said act described, constituted the overseers of Harvard College.”
[16] Michael H. Glasser, Letting the Supermajority Rule: Nonunanimous Jury Verdicts in Criminal Trials, 24 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 659 (1997) .
[17] Online at
[18] Online at
[19] Online at
[20] Online at,_Kansas.
[21] Online at
[22] Flannery O’Connor, Mystery and Manners, 1969. See
[23] Online at
[24] Online at
[25] Online regarding Bristol,
[26] Online at
[27] Online at
[28] Online at
[29] Online at African-American Christianity seems to have developed from black power and black theology since 1968.
[30] Online at
[31] The afterdeath is that vast time after body, mind, and person have stopped functioning.
[32] Imposed fear of afterdeath begs woe in life:  In the Civil War example, a faction, the Confederate States of America, CSA, started a war he could not win unless his god, at a 7:27 disadvantage, would overcome the defender’s god. In the Civil War Bible-interpreting Christians attacked actual-reality Christians, as portrayed in the Declaration of Secession a: “[A]ll hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanction of more erroneous religious belief.” Military power proved who had the more erroneous religious belief. Nearly 160 years later a faction of fellow citizens seem to be depending on African-American Christianity. The point is, religious conviction can beg disaster and ought to be considered with caution.
I am grateful to Frederick Douglass for his 1852 words, “There is not a man beneath the canopy of heaven, that does not know that slavery is wrong for him.”b  Yet Robert E. Lee, blinded by the grace of fear and his ministers’ Holy Bible interpretations wrote to his wife to oppose white abolitionists in 1856:
The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race . . . How long their subjugation may be necessary is Known & ordered by a wise & merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild & melting influence of Christianity, than . . . fiery Controversy.c
He went on to castigate abolitionists for being “intolerant of the spiritual liberty of others.” Lee helped in war against fellow Bible readers who nonetheless rejected slavery. That war started in Kansas in 1856, long before 1861’s attack on Fort Sumter. Lee had warning and time to save his family from defending slavery.
Lee believed arrogant ministers who rejected the-objective-truth in their own lives. Yet if Lee had separated church and state---addressed actual reality in life rather than afterdeath promises from a pulpit, he might have sold everything and moved to a free state for civic safety and security for his family and fortune. This seems the-objective-truth that should be attached as plaques on Civil War monuments, so that all citizens may know We the People of the United States includes them if they so choose.
A 1700 year old falsehood may be considered and rejected without loss:  Lee was not the first to fail the-objective-truth, and that actual reality may be faced now better than later. The Church who canonized the New Testament by 405 AD had all the information the priests needed to reject passages that approve of master-slave relationships. They knew what Frederick Douglass expressed. Consider, for example, 1 Peter 2:18-21, NIV:
Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. For it is commendable if someone bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because they are conscious of God. But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.
If Frederick Douglass’s claim is eternally valid, and I think it is, there is no excuse for the above “scripture” of coercion. A civilization cannot stand on such divisive principles, and it cannot hold the Holy Bible as a reliable resource wherein it does not conform to the-objective-truth. The Bible’s words cannot be changed, but its false teachings may be identified, publicized, and publically rejected. Only whatever controls actual reality, if anything, attests to the god, if it exists.
            Failure to confront the Holy Bible’s canonization by men has led to erroneous, voluntary segregation by a group: We the People of the United States seems rejected by some African-Americans. During the past six decades, African-American Christianity has emerged as a separate faction. Among the influential writers is Albert Cleage:
Black people cannot build dignity on their knees worshipping a white Christ. We must put down this white Jesus which the white man gave us in slavery and which has been tearing us to pieces… Jesus was a revolutionary black leader, a Zealot, seeking to lead a Black Nation to freedom, so the Black Church must carefully define the nature of the revolution. d
There are many black power writers including James Baldwin, James H. Cone, Cornel West, and Saul Alinsky. West recently wrote about African-American Christianity.e My ears heard Jeremiah Wright, Jr. in 2015 excuse militant black preaching as a response to white church.f Like Robert E. Lee’s ministers, black theologians beg woe. And likewise the woe will come to believers.
f  Online at

[33] Online at
[34] Online at and
[35] Online at
[36] Having been reared Southern Baptist, I came to realize that my earned opinion is that I must admit to myself and in public that I do not actually know a god and therefore do not advocate a god. I trust-in and commit-to the-objective-truth, which exists and can only be discovered rather than constructed by reason, scholarship, fear or other human endeavor. I cannot again turn my back on actual reality. However, I do not disparage other people’s privacy in their pursuit of integrity. For example, I have no quarrel with Michael Polanyi beyond his contest with my commitment in his book Personal Knowledge, 1958. Also, for all I know, in my afterdeath, a soul will be judged, much as I doubt it; for all I know, for reincarnation, much as I doubt it.
[38] Online at Article I. Declaration of Rights. §7. Freedom of Expression Section 7. No law shall curtail or restrain the freedom of speech or of the press. Every person may speak, write, and publish his sentiments on any subject, but is responsible for abuse of that freedom.
[39] The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Johnson v. Louisiana (1972) that disagreement by a minority of jurors does not lessen the validity of the majority verdict. Online at Held: 1. The provisions of Louisiana law requiring less than unanimous jury verdicts in criminal cases do not violate the Due Process Clause for failure to satisfy the reasonable doubt standard. Pp. 406 U. S. 359-363. (a) The mere fact that three jurors vote to acquit does not mean that the nine who vote to convict have ignored their instructions concerning proof beyond a reasonable doubt, or that they do not honestly believe that guilt has been thus proved. Pp. 406 U. S. 360-362. (b) Want of jury unanimity does not alone establish reasonable doubt. Pp. 406 U. S. 362-363.
(A) Jury Trial in Criminal Cases. A criminal case in which the punishment may be capital shall be tried before a jury of twelve persons, all of whom must concur to render a verdict. A case in which the punishment is necessarily confinement at hard labor shall be tried before a jury of twelve persons, ten of whom must concur to render a verdict. A case in which the punishment may be confinement at hard labor or confinement without hard labor for more than six months shall be tried before a jury of six persons, all of whom must concur to render a verdict. The accused shall have a right to full voir dire examination of prospective jurors and to challenge jurors peremptorily. The number of challenges shall be fixed by law. Except in capital cases, a defendant may knowingly and intelligently waive his right to a trial by jury.
(B) Joinder of Felonies; Mode of Trial. Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, offenses in which punishment is necessarily confinement at hard labor may be charged in the same indictment or information with offenses in which the punishment may be confinement at hard labor; provided, however, that the joined offenses are of the same or similar character or are based on the same act or transaction or on two or more acts or transactions connected together or constituting parts of a common scheme or plan; and provided further, that cases so joined shall be tried by a jury composed of twelve jurors, ten of whom must concur to render a verdict. Acts 1997, No. 1502, §1, approved Oct. 3, 1998, eff. Nov. 5, 1998.
[41] U.S. Constittution, Amendment VI. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory  process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
[42] Online at
[43] Online at
[44] Online at
[45] Jerry Z. Muller. The Tyranny of Metrics. 2017. Also, see discussion at
[47] Thomas Aiello. Jim Crow’s Last Stand: Nonunanimous Criminal Jury Verdicts in Lousisiana. 2015.
[48] Online at
[49] Online at
[50] Online at
[51] Online at
[52] Online at
[54] Online at[21].
[55] Federalist 51, balancing powers:  James Madison elaborates on how the balance of powers protects the people against factions. Further, he explains the importance of federalism. Madison, erroneously, uses English scholarship in expressing each: ambition against ambition, if angels governed, govern the governed, and the general good. Federalism makes more sense when the goal is mutual self-discipline, since no one wants to be governed.
Madison’s hopes have not worked out. “In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates.” Congress disproved this by relegating its responsibilities to regulatory bodies with activist judges. The activist judges in effect refute the U.S. Supreme Court. Firmly as the Supreme Court may respond, Congress unconstitutionally places them in that corner.
He sees two advantages to a federalist government, where the state constitutions are also balanced. First, the people surrender certain powers to their state with its balanced offices and others to the nation, also with balanced offices. “The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.” Madison’s “spin” seems to leave the people out of governance. A civic people are aware that Madison’s dream is not working.
“Second. It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. There are but two methods of providing against this evil: the one by creating a will in the community independent of the majority -- that is, of the society itself; the other, by comprehending in the society so many separate descriptions of citizens as will render an unjust combination of a majority of the whole very improbable, if not impracticable. In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights. Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. In the extended republic of the United States, and among the great variety of interests, parties, and sects which it embraces, a coalition of a majority of the whole society could seldom take place on any other principles than those of justice and the general good.” (Emphasis mine, and I refute the statement: In a civic culture, government has no standing in actual no-harm religion.)
Madison contradicts himself in the above selections, and 231 years later, methods for reform seem self-evident. First, an additional method is for a civic culture to collaborate to discover and utilize the-objective-truth. Second, statutory justice cannot brook the confusion of religion. Third, a coalition of minorities, for example, a coalition of theologians may tyrannize a civic culture.
[56] Federalist 9:  Alexander Hamilton talks of checks by the states on each other and on the whole. "A FIRM Union [rather than a confederation of states] will be of the utmost moment to the peace and liberty of the States, as a barrier against domestic faction and insurrection. Should a popular insurrection happen in one of the confederate states the others are able to quell it.” Then, he states “. . . the more immediate design of this paper . . . is, to illustrate the tendency of the Union to repress domestic faction and insurrection.” Individuals join to create factions, so this last quote applies to individuals and their factional associations.
[57] Federalist 10:  Madison picks up from Hamilton’s Federalist 9. “By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.” Theists have dominated American politics since 1789 when the First Congress hired ministers to make Congressmen feel as divine as England’s Parliament members.
            “There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.” There is a third method: the factions may 1) collaborate using the preamble and 2) collaborate to discover justice according to the-objective-truth. Thereby, each no-harm faction both preserves its passion and maintains cooperative autonomy as a faction of We the People of the United States.
            “From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.” Individual liberty with civic morality necessitates diversity of results. For example, the person who strives to write but cannot write will not get rich. Customers happily pay profit to the entrepreneur who fulfills a need, but not the dreamer who would mask reality.
            “The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.” Perhaps the meaning is, with a Union of states, the people’s representatives at the state level collaborate with their representatives for the Union, and territories who want to become states know the republican constitution they must conform to.
“The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people.” Madison presented a dilemma but did not solve it. The consequence since 1789 is betrayal “of the interests, of the people.”
When legislators betray the people, the people may be alert and react. So far, the people have been indolent and perhaps dissuaded from civic integrity by the political regimes. 
[58] Online at