Nancy Pelosi could accept the U.S. Preamble to lessen American hate

Reference:  E.J. DIONNE JR, https://siouxcityjournal.com/e-j-dionne-jr-can-no-one-be-persuaded-of/article_cff2e704-1784-5bd1-b12f-9648f9cfee22.html. My opposition to Dionne’s exaltation of Nancy Pelosi’s civic arrogance toward James Rosen motivated this essay. Dionne seems another writer who does not grasp civic need to journal humankind’s quest for statutory justice. I write to suggest reform from traditional colonial-English conflict to the proposed and possible American integrity.

Introduction

E.J. Dionne’s column about Nancy Pelosi’s recent faith statement addressing hate begs a heretofore untried politics (“politics” as the debate or conflict among individuals or parties having or hoping to achieve power). Dionne addresses the problem but offers no solution.

Fortunately, disturbed by my local newspaper’s caption “American public open to impeachment issues,” I considered writing a message to Dionne and therefore searched online and found the caption “Can no one be persuaded of anything anymore?” (https://siouxcityjournal.com/e-j-dionne-jr-can-no-one-be-persuaded-of/article_cff2e704-1784-5bd1-b12f-9648f9cfee22.html). The latter caption is amenable to my premise:  I think many if not most Americans would gladly join the entity We the People of the United States---if most would 1) contemplate the U.S. Preamble’s proposition and 2) write their individual interpretation by which to pursue private happiness while establishing and maintaining civic integrity. By “private happiness” I mean happiness according to personal opinion rather than the opinion someone or an institution would impose, and by “civic integrity” I mean neither initiating nor tolerating harm to or from any person (including self) or institution.

The American citizen ought to consider the controversies in the U.S. Preamble

Citizens may question why the U.S. Preamble is not promoted by political regimes and choose to study the 52-word sentence to gain personal comprehension, understanding, and establish individual opinion. Perhaps the world’s most profound political sentence is:

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 words are so honored that even the 1787 spelling of “defense” is preserved. However, the phrase “to ourselves and our Posterity” obligates the continuum of living citizens to consider the USA’s version of the agreement to practice human equity under statutory justice, a worthy goal.

My interpretation of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition today for my person is:  We the People of the United States consider, communicate, collaborate, and connect to practice 5 public disciplines in order to encourage responsible human liberty to the continuum of living citizens. The 5 disciplines are: integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity (updating to my person the original 5 goals: Union, Justice, Tranquillity, defence, and Welfare, respectively). The U.S. Preamble does not specify standards of achievement:  Perhaps at any moment the 5 disciplines may be judged by the nation’s (the people's) collective approach toward responsible human liberty. In any case, an individual’s God is not held responsible for civic integrity. In other words, the U.S. Preamble does not appeal to whatever-God-is to usurp responsible human liberty.

Pelosi, much as her honesty outweighs her integrity, cannot, much as she tries, consign her anger toward reporter James Rosen to either the Catholic Church, her God, or her government. It's her wrath. Rosen asked, “Do you hate the president, Madame Speaker?” Pelosi’s spiritualism does not empower her to tolerate Rosen. Rosen’s civic status demands Pelosi’s integrity rather than honesty.

Why Pelosi civilly errs and believes civic citizens should tolerate her God

                Political regimes have repressed the U.S. Preamble as “secular,” meaning at best “without religion,” whereas the proposition is neutral to religion. A republican oligarchy of 5 delegates, the 1787 Constitutional Convention’s Committee of Style, crafted the U.S. Preamble’s people’s proposition during September 8-12, 1787. Perhaps they intended to represent the results of the 55 delegates’ debates---the framer’s controversial conclusions. For individual reasons 16 framers opposed the 1787 Constitution, so only 39 delegates signed it. Some framers passionately opposed the change from “We the People of the States” (listing the 13 former British colonies) to “We the People of the United States.” Some delegates opposed both the atypical American omission of religion from the preamble and the consequential provisions in the articles. The framers discussed prior patriots’ opinions and often rejected obsolete errors---errors of so-called “founders.” Some "founders" were British loyalists.

                The U.S. Preamble would codify the end of colonial-British tradition in America, but the nation was not psychologically prepared to establish the political independence the Revolutionary War enabled. Of the 80% free inhabitants about 99% were factional-American Protestants, most with aversions to both Canterbury partnership in England and Catholic influence in Quebec. The First Congress, 1789-1793, beginning with only 11 states, re-established as much colonial-British tradition as they could and replaced English-constitutional Canterbury-reformed Catholicism with traditional factional-American-Protestantism. Religion has woefully harmed the USA ever since.

                The most egregious harm is elected officials’ claiming divine grace and antinomianism based on the majority vote; in the case of President, the majority electoral vote. The Electoral College is one of many provisions to assure that under the rule of law the USA will not become a democracy under populism’s inevitable chaos.

With the familiar, unconstitutional yet traditional phrase, “So help me God,” elected and appointed officials at the same time claim 1) divine grace and 2) the electorate’s risk that the official, under the influence of whatever-God-is will abdicate the constitutional duties of the office. By the grace of God, he or she may honestly fail the integrity of the office. Grace taught some hearts to fear integrity. In a culture of citizens most of whom are comfortable with the phrase “whatever-God-is” this civil power to deceive would be deflated by civic standards. Civic citizens would benefit from oaths to office based on the U.S. Preamble’s proposition rather than the official’s religious scripture.

Establishing the USA under the civic, civil, and legal agreement stated in the U.S. Preamble is up to the entity We the People of the United States as defined therein. Every citizen has the obligation to accept responsible human liberty. It is a matter of free choice, and there will always be dissidents who risk the constraints of statutory justice.

Accepting the U.S. Preamble, the people’s proposition

There are two acceptances beyond HIPEA that U.S. citizens may voluntarily consider:  1) the U.S. Preamble assigns civic responsibility for 5 named disciplines to “ourselves and our Posterity”---living adults, their children, and beyond and 2) religion, being an individual human choice, is not among the 5 public disciplines for responsible liberty. That is, America, humble to whatever-God-is, intends to mimic neither England’s Canterbury-Parliament-Monarchy partnership nor any church-state partnership.

Moreover, the U.S. Preamble assigns to elected and appointed officials the obligation to encourage responsible human liberty rather than a humanly-constructed God that may oppose whatever-God-is. In other words, government officials ought to be first and foremost individuals in the entity We the People of the Untied States. So far, officials of neither the federal branches---judicial, legislative, and administrative---nor the state governments nor the press have required individuals in their groups to demonstrate that each accepts the U.S. Preamble’s proposition as the person interprets its 52 words for the living continuum We the People of the United States. Let me restate that:  As a provision to run for elected or appointed office, the U.S. ought to require the candidate or applicant to demonstrate past communications, collaboration, and connection to advance the U.S. Preamble’s proposition. Indeed, citizens who do not trust-in and commit-to the U.S. Preamble’s proposition ought not be allowed to vote.

Anytime an official sites “the Founding Fathers” or “God” to try to persuade fellow citizens, We the People of the United States innately applies the civic, civil, and legal power the U.S. Preamble establishes. However, few people articulate the U.S. Preamble’s proposition, because many citizens have not developed their own interpretation of the U.S. Preamble. So far, no U.S. political regime has promoted the U.S. Preamble. Past regimes labeled the U.S. Preamble “secular” which is at best “areligious,” whereas the U.S. Preamble assigns religion to the privacy of the responsibly liberal human being. Fortuitously, the U.S. Preamble does not encourage citizens to turn their backs on whatever-God-is. That the U.S. Supreme court is not committed to the U.S. Preamble’s proposition is shocking!

A tyranny only the individual citizen can resist

As a consequence of past and current political regimes, fellow citizens labor under the motto “In God we trust” to persuade We the People of the United States to turn our backs on whatever-God-is. Each of us has the human individual power, energy, and authority (HIPEA) to choose humility to whatever-God-is while maintaining private hopes and comforts about the-literal-truth no one knows. Only with the individual freedom-from oppression such as institutional religion or political bias can a person discover HIPEA and practice the liberty-to pursue integrity rather than nourish infidelity. 

The 1954 modification of the U.S. pledge of allegiance, “under God,” is so spiritually violent I will not take part so as not to risk my commitment to whatever-God-is. Furthermore, the existing pledge represents civil submission more than integrity. I propose doing away with the pledge and replacing it with civil, unison reading of the U.S. Preamble---to encourage trust-in and commitment-to responsible human liberty. Further, I propose lessening celebration of July 4, 1776, Independence Day, which commemorates the declaration of war against England, to promote June 21, 1788, Responsible Human Liberty Day, when 9 of 13 states established the global nation called the USA.

More importantly, harms done to the U.S. Constitution by the First Congress and maintained thereafter may be amended. Particularly, the First Amendment may be revised in two important ways: 1) the religion clauses may be reformed to promote the honest practice of integrity rather than religion, and 2) the speech clauses may be modified to freedom under the goals and practices the people develop under the U.S. Preamble. Whereas all other factions of governance---the three federal branches, state governments, local governments, and We the People of the United States under the-liberal-truth---have checks and balances, the press can be purchased by aliens and traitors so as to ruin the USA.

These ideas may seem shocking because they have not been expressed before in one essay. But, not my thoughts, rather the actually needed reforms can happen very fast under the entity We the People of the United States as defined in the U.S. Preamble and pursuant to the-literal-truth.

Has Pelosi applied HIPEA to the scripture she read?

Perhaps expressing that she does not have a personal interpretation of the U.S. Preamble, the Speaker of the House without a sense of civic equity warned a reporter not to mess with her Catholic commitment against hate. She may not be familiar with the Holy Bible's tolerance if not promotion of "hate" and wrath. 

There’s no excuse for the hate passages in the Bible. Some passages portray the human-hate of God’s wrath and others inspire believers to express enmity, hate, and rage. Of the hate passages I noticed, I most oppose three.

First, referring to Genesis 22:2, if any being either physically or psychologically approached me and told me to kill my son, I would reject that being’s influence immediately. If it was a dream, I’d go back to sleep using deep-breathing techniques to regain discipline over my emotions.

Second, a saint wrote about Jesus in Luke 14:26, NIV “If anyone comes to me and does not [love less] father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple.” I defy the God who is so weak as to compete for appreciation against my family members. If I am to be a disciple would I too pit may family members against each other? Not on my watch. Further, I appreciate my civic neighbor, whether he or she is Christian or not. Also, I encourage by example my non-civic neighbor to reform for his or her sake. I cherish for him or her the hopes and comforts that inspire a fellow citizen to practice the U.S. Preamble. However, I do not accept even one fellow citizen's Christian opinion that I hate. I encourage Pelosi to consider the civic violence with which she honestly expressed her spirituality without humility in response to Rosen. Trusting that she has HIPEA, she expresses privation of civic integrity.

Third, the Apostle John, in John 15:18-23, constructs this idea: “I [(Jesus)] have chosen you [disciples] out of the world. That is why the world hates you.” John concludes that citizens whom Jesus did not elect, such as me, hate God. I reject John’s obsolete claim that I hate Christians, Jesus, and whatever-God-is. It may be true that Jesus did not choose me. But I do not fear my faith in the-literal-truth, whatever that truth is.

By John’s hate instruction, there would be no incentive to profess Jesus, because a person is either chosen or not: what he or she says and does matters not, provided Jesus chose him or her, because Jesus is reliable. This idea reminds me of antinomianism. However, I do not accept the Apostle John’s claim that because I am not antinomian I hate whatever-God-is. On the contrary, I am too humble to claim I have the judgement to choose God:  I trust whatever-God-is. Lastly, I doubt anyone's qualification to judge that they were chosen by Jesus to be a disciple.

The Holy Bible is a human construct. Maybe Pelosi does not accept that the Holy Bible was canonized in 382 AD or about 4 centuries after Jesus died, without writing. Clerics selected the books and interpreted the passages, some to favor the Jews as chosen people and others to enable gentiles to compete as chosen people. If an idea in the Holy Bible makes no sense, a human ought not try to use the nonsense. By all means, a fellow citizen ought not try to impose nonsense on other citizens. This may be the reason the signers left religion out of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition. Separation of state from church may be the key as to why civic individualism requires the spiritual freedom for integrity.

Can most Americans accept the U.S. Preamble’s proposition?

Dionne posits “the assumption that nobody can be persuaded of anything anymore.” He follows, “This idea radically undermines liberal democracy.” Pelosi seems prone to the similar claim, “Our democracy is what is at stake.” However, the USA is a republic under the rule of law. The USA empowers civic citizens to hold local, state, and national governments accountable to the rule of law. By “civic citizens” I mean inhabitants who practice and promote responsible human liberty as proposed in the U.S. Preamble: under the U.S. Constitution, 5 public disciplines secure human liberty. Responsible liberty is a natural human state, and many citizens perceive human liberty even though they may not articulate it. The Google ngram viewer shows minimal book usage “responsible liberty” from 1834 through 2008. The grammar in the U.S. Preamble groups the 5 public disciplines as the collective freedom-from oppression to secure the liberty-to individually develop the innate human condition: responsible liberty. Citizens who choose infidelity to responsible human liberty risk statutory law enforcement.

Is democracy even possible?

                Dionne invokes identity politics in “Voting our identities is nothing new.” In Phil Beaver’s youth, family and community imposed “the Christian thing to do.” I learned to grab my wallet when someone professed being "born again". I often found Christian conflicts with human justice, so over 5 decades drifted away from theism. (My mom and dad were such good lower-middle class providers it was difficult to reform from the conflicted images each imposed on me.) As an adult, I seem to be accused by some of Christian hate expressed by John the Apostle, as mentioned above. As long as I can practice and promote responsible human liberty, being the object of spiritual hate is more a concern than a burden. But I do work to open minds to whatever-God-is.

                In “civil rights movement . . . Occupy Wall Street . . . feminist movement . . . LGBTQ rights . . . sexual identity . . . debate about guns,” the Dionne construct supports Alinsky-Marxist organizations (AMO) in competition with the Judeo-Christian standards now unfortunately established in the US Supreme Court. Judeo-Christianity seems supported by the Trump administration but perhaps not by African-American Christianity. AMO methods involve the coercion, force, and violence of disruption of We the People of the United States without addressing the standard that opposes democracy: physics and its progeny, the objects more than their studies.

Viable standards for responsible human liberty

                Physics and its progeny, mathematics, chemistry, biology, psychology, fiction, and so on, exist and do not respond to human reason. Reason helps guide discovery of physics’ progeny and can re-direct discovery's progress for a time, but physics laws prevail. For example, President G.W. Bush, expressing trust in his God, erroneously invaded Iraq, re-directing subsequent consequences of the laws of physics and its progeny. We the People of the United States and the rest of the world are still suffering the enormous cost of defying whatever-God-is based on trust-in a personal God.

Citizens’ individual responses to physics and its progeny vary from responsible, to honestly passive, to ignorant, to defiant. Consequential demographic groups include civic citizens, passive people, dissidents, and aliens/traitors. Civic citizens admit to themselves that their first obligation to We the People of the United States is to maintain personal, responsible liberty. The second civic obligation is to help fellow citizens who cannot care for themselves. Fellow citizens who can but will not take responsibility may lose, not from civic judgement but according to the risks they take. Civic citizens by example more than exhortation encourage irresponsible citizens to reform.

A few examples should suffice to clarify the concept of benefiting from the discovery of physics and its progeny. First, when the weather service orders an evacuation because of a Category 5 Hurricane, prepared citizens evacuate under civic direction; passive citizens may risk un-prepared evacuation; and dissident citizens invite misery and loss, perhaps death. Second, the tyrant who senses success by lying may decide he is king and prevail for a time. However, if he or she claims knowledge or command of whatever-God-is, he or she begs ruin. Third, the person or institution that proclaims lordship of human dignity and equality and does not consider the viable human ovum begs woe.

To expand on the issue of lying:  Pelosi seems to hold that both “insecure imposter” President Trump and the people who elected Trump/Pence are liars. However, she overlooks the possibility that Trump, through his lifetime, has acquired valid methods for dealing with liars. As President of the U.S., he needs presidential skills to protect information that is critical to U.S. citizens first, U.S. allies second, and lastly, the rest of the world’s population. Trump uses unique skills to protect the American people from deceit and deceivers. One of Trump’s techniques is to suggest an alternative concern that the deceiver perceives to be a lie. The deceiver goes away to prove Trump lied, neglecting the information the deceiver sought to obtain by tricking Trump. One of my favorite statements by President Trump is “We’ll see how it turns out.” Someone has collected a list of thousands of Trump lies, but I doubt I can judge Trump’s statements---not even one of them. For example, I believe his view that some women throw their bodies before celebrities and have no desire to explore his privacy. Pelosi, contrary to her boasts, cannot judge Trump's intentions.

Democracy an unconstitutional ploy

I care nothing about Trump’s past, am focused on the statements in his first inaugural address, and am please with his performance. So far, he has delivered beyond my dreams of what he could do in the midst of domestic and foreign collaborative opposition. Dionne alone is responsible for his arrogant conviction of Trump for “abuse of power and constitutional violations” and belief “[Trump] poses a real threat to our system.” Dionne and Pelosi have the wrong system: democracy.

I am responsible for my opinion that Pelosi is the abuser of both the U.S. Constitution and We the People of the United States as defined in the U.S. Preamble. Both Dionne and Pelosi make the mistake that the U.S. is influenced by social democracy more than civic integrity as proposed in the U.S. Preamble.

It seems self-evident that whatever-God-is assigns to humans the responsibility for equity under statutory justice. It’s doubtful that responsible human liberty is influenced by entreaty to a personal God. Liberal democracy opposes the-literal-truth.

Gratitude

I am grateful to Dionne and Pelosi for creating opportunity for me to express my view of the civic-integrity practice, at risk because some citizens construct and nourish beliefs when they could pursue and accept the-literal-truth. I hope some readers are persuaded to consider the U.S. Preamble’s people’s proposition. I work to persuade people to interpret the U.S. Preamble and practice the human liberty to pursue individual happiness with civic integrity. Every citizen has that freedom.

Copyright©2019 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 12/15/2019.