Consider slavery, for example. Thomas Paine, on March 8, 1775, objected to the injustice of slavery, imposed on the colonies by England along with other Atlantic Slave Traders, joined later by some colonies. He castigated “Christianized people” who participated. “Most shocking of all is alledging the sacred scriptures to favour this wicked practice.” After describing the reckoning that perpetrators face, Paine closed with “These are the sentiments of justice and humanity.” Yet the Supreme Court in a 2014 decision, Greece v Galloway, takes for granted tyranny in the governance of both theistic and non-theistic inhabitants: 244 million people and 73 million people, respectively.
ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or
goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; . . . all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of
religion, and . . . the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil
The signers provided a constitution predicated on civic governance. However, the First Congress changed that, I think unconstitutionally, hiring ministers for their use in May, 1789. They elected divinity on par with Parliament's divinity. The First Amendment and its religion clauses came as a draft a month later. But the traditional definition of religion has not changed: it was defined during the 1776 decade. The tradition was upheld in Greece v Galloway as legislative prayer--none of the people's business. According to Justice Kennedy, I am niggling to object.
paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and
immunities of free citizens in the several States [emphasis mine].
Whatever it meant to Washington, their god has become ceremonial in the Supreme Court’s opinion. Today, Americans are extremely diverse and every citizen has “equal” standing with respect to citizenship, but not with respect to consequences, which no one can warrant or guarantee. Washington’s appeal to “forget . . . local prejudices and policies,” still holds, especially for the non-theistic minority, about 73 million Americans. Non-theists are expected to accept that they live among a majority who are theists. No other minority suffers such an onerous oppression. And the cost of theism's lawsuits and violence--one theist suing another over theism---the cost that is born equally by non-theists, over 229 years of tradition is staggering!
The Federalist Papers reveal why repress the preamble: the elite members of society do not trust the people to discover and adopt good conduct among themselves. Clearly the “elite members of society” are the legislators and other elected officials. What is new in this proposal of a civic people who use the preamble is that the people themselves, by virtue of direct communications--talk--would provide the discipline that is essential and necessary in civic integrity.
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.
As a non-theist, I consider Madison a despot. And after two and a quarter centuries, the government he set up has turned to liberal democracy bemused by factional Christian religion as the accepted political morality. However, by taking the preamble seriously, a civic people can establish a cooperative republic that cultivates the law to accommodate the diverse views of liberty and goodwill that just citizens hold. Abraham Lincoln envisioned such a development, but allowed political ambition to spoil his chance to initiate it.
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.
As a profound statement, it must mean that each human is equally of the highest species of animals. A Clintonian might even debate that it depends on the definition of "men" or "human." Additionally, the American slaves were human. Every human has the opportunity---the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority to develop integrity.
Lincoln carried this revisionist trumping of the US Constitution throughout his presidency, and codified the preeminence of the Declaration when he admitted Nevada as a state. Congress approved Lincoln’s condition. Quoting the March 12, 1864 Act of Congress: “Provided, That the constitution, when formed, shall be republican, and not repugnant to the constitution of the United States, and the principles of the Declaration of Independence.” Nevada was the 36th State, so 15 of 50 states were admitted with this stipulation. John Eastman in “The Declaration of Independence As Viewed From the States,” March 27, 2014, suggests what those principles are:
- First, that all men, all human beings, are created equal, a proposition portrayed in the Declaration as self-evidently true, knowable both by human reason and by divine revelation (the “nature and nature’s God” of the Declaration’s opening paragraph);
- Second, that all human beings are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights merely by virtue of the fact that they are equally created by God as human beings and not as lesser animals;
- Third, that among these unalienable rights are the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, which was Thomas Jefferson’s eloquent rephrasing of John Locke’s statement of the fundamental rights in life, liberty, and property that at once elevated and expanded Locke’s conception of rights;
- Fourth, that the sole purpose of government is to secure these unalienable rights;
- Fifth, that the only just governments are those founded on the consent of the governed, which means that ultimately political power originates from the people; and
- Sixth, that whenever government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was formed, namely, the securing of the people’s unalienable rights, the people have the right to alter or abolish the government, replacing it with a new government that they believe will be most likely to secure their rights.
There is no evidence that humans are created, and after they are born, their consequences directly depend on their caretakers until the children are aware enough to act for themselves. From then on, the consequences of their lives depends on how well they comprehended the objective truth and how closely the benefit. The purpose of civic discipline is stated in the preamble to the constitution for the USA, and several goals are involved. In just governance, people who flee justice suffer the law whether they consent or not. It is up to a civic people, as defined in the preamble, to undo Abraham Lincoln’s harm to the constitution for the USA. And the harm is obvious in 2018 in Supreme Court decisions.