Anyone who reads with purpose he or she has not yet defined, as I do, struggles to express the findings such that people can understand the work in progress. I appreciate people and perceive that most persons strive to be appreciated rather than attract hatred. In this expression, "civic" means a citizen who behaves for the people more than for the city. In other words, a civic person collaborates for mutual, responsible living during every decade of his or her life. I am not alone. Nelson Mandela said, “People must learn to hate . . . for love comes more naturally to the human heart than its opposite.” In Mandela's thought, I prefer "appreciation" to "love," which is sometimes overboard or uninvited.
I ask: with such a promising world and nation, why do Americans vie for dominant political opinion rather than collaborate for civic morality? I do not like to pose a question without offering an answer for iterative collaboration, so I propose for discussion: Establishing civic morality has never before been promoted. I think what people want is voluntary public integrity. In other words, comprehensive safety and security for willing people. In other words, civic justice.
Some British colonists, about 40% of free citizens, realized they were being enslaved by England, changed their style from colonies to states, and declared independence. After the thirteen states won independence, about 2/3 of patriotic representatives to the constitutional convention perceived that a new form of governance was needed. They stated, in the preamble to the constitution for the USA, in 1787, the organization and laws of a new, tripartite nation that would serve the goals of the people in their states. The limitations of the USA were stated in the articles that follow the preamble.
Each state's particular goals would be left to the people in their states, and both private rights and states' rights were preserved. (Note that the right of private integrity is inalienable, regardless of how liberal a Supreme Court majority may be. In other words, for example, the Supreme Court may outlaw human thought but cannot stop it.) Some of the 1/3 who dissented objected to the preamble itself, preferring to advance their views of Blackstone and/or the confederation of States or for reasons only they perceived. Blackstone included factional Protestant views. Only 6% of citizens could vote, but the 99% of factional Protestants provided popular opinion that empowered both 1) neglect of the preamble and 2) a popular civic morality based on Bible interpretation of accepted error---call it American theism. If anything, the preamble was repressed as secular or areligious rather than both neutral to religion and civic.
An institution's reform of religious doctrine is a continual necessity as each discovery of the-objective-truth occurs. For example, as soon as the earth's globe shape is discovered, the doctrine of flatness is discarded without revising the scripture. However, it is prudent to develop a theory that interconnects the-discovered-objective-truth.
In our meetings, we invite newcomers to know they may introduce private pursuits as background toward the work and then fully participate in the civic collaboration. For example, a Baptist may say, "I am Baptist and want civic morality, so I came to the meeting." Or a movie goer may say, "I spend my leisure resources for movies and want civic morality, so I came to the meeting." Or "I think Phil Beaver is a hypocrite, but think a civic people can establish civic moraltiy anyway."
By definition, A Civic People of the United States (ACP-US) is comprised of the inhabitants who use the literal preamble to the draft constitution for the USA to coordinate civic morality. They continually, collaboratively update the ACP-US statement of the preamble for current living. Although the 1787 preamble remains official for the USA, ACP-US publishes and promotes updates.