Pelosi holiday from the rule of law: Judeo-Catholic theism

            About 20 months ago, Joe Lieberman called public attention to his seasonal celebration of the 10 commandments, titled, “A Holiday for the Rule of Law.” The phrase seems ironic for January 22, 2020’s unlawful exhibition by Adam Schiff when the Democratic Party’s Nancy-Pelosi unlawful impeachment of President Trump threatened to lessen the U.S. Senate.

Lieberman’s 2018 appeal to theism instead of responsible human liberty reflects America’s fairly rapid decline and potential to reform to the U.S. Preamble's 1788 proposition. Human responsibility cannot emerge from dependence on whatever-God-is, or government, or partnership of the two: it must come from the civic citizens---the entity We the People of the United States. 

The U.S. Preamble specifies the 5 public disciplines of the American dream: personal happiness with civic integrity rather than subjugation to tyranny, doctrine, or unity; in other words, human liberty grounded in the preamble’s 5 disciplines. Congress has not the power to consign to whatever-God-is the responsibility for human justice. Congress’s attempt to usurp whatever-God-is must ultimately be corrected.

                Perhaps justifiably, Lieberman draws attention to lawyers rather than the clergy to claim “a good legal system makes the difference between a civilized society and a chaotic one.” During the evolution of Western culture, lawyers have been instrumental in key events: Magna Carta, 1215, granting a church-Lords partnership political power previously held by the King of England; suppressing Nicolo Machiavelli’s irony in “The Prince,” Chapter XI; ratifying the U.S. Bill of Rights features that repress as much as possible the U.S. Preamble. Amendment I established American church-state tradition on par with England’s constitutional church-state partnership. Unfortunately, since each religious sect if not religious person has doctrinal definition of whatever-God-is (or is not), church-state partnership guarantees chaos. Civil theism assures chaos. The citizen’s liberty-to develop integrity must overrule freedom-of civil religion.

                Chapter XI Machiavellianism concludes that since the people are theists, their church-state partnership assures the clergy and political officials can live high on the hog and the theistic people will neither leave the country nor rebel: believers hope whatever-God-is will save them from the discipline required for responsible human liberty. The idea of discipline so as to earn human liberty is so unpopular that most people are willing to suffer the tyranny of coercion and force under high taxation.

In the USA, the U.S. Preamble is suppressed as “secular” whereas it is neutral to religion. It seems self-evident that whatever-God-is has assigned to humankind the responsibility for civic integrity. This possible interpretation of the U.S. Preamble cannot be discovered by someone steeped in his or her scripture about whatever-God-is. Thus, Lieberman honestly expressed infidelity to civic integrity as a member of We the People of the United States according to Lieberman’s interpretation of the U.S. Preamble (not my interpretation).

For spiritual integrity Lieberman perhaps hopes for the Jewish messiah with humility toward whatever-God-is. By mentioning Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin, perhaps Lieberman has expressed his view of Judeo-Christianity, which seems an oxymoron to me. I wonder how whatever-God-is views the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Jesus or the God of Abraham and Ishmael or the God of Ethiopia.

                If the U.S. Senate is the wisest forum on earth, perhaps it will reform. Three changes are sorely needed in the U.S. Senate daily rules. First, the 100 senators should recite in unison the U.S. Preamble, verbatim, each individual reflecting on his or her interpretation of those 52 words. Second, their pledge of allegiance should say, “under whatever-God-is,” rather than “under God.” Third, in humility to both whatever-God-is’s powers and in acceptance of responsible human liberty, any prayers should express appreciation, perhaps for self-discipline, but no entreaty: Whatever-God-is is in charge and seems to hold elected officials responsible for their public office. Election to public office does not come with the power of consignment of the responsibilities to a supernatural power. Civic integrity by the U.S. Senate could influence the House of Representatives, the administration, the judiciary, the irresponsible press, and all fellow citizens to connect for an achievable better future.

                As a civic influence, the 10 commandments cannot compete with the U.S. Preamble’s proposition as each civic citizen interprets the literal preamble (not according to my interpretation). The first consideration is that in the continuum of time, “Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,” is a moving connection among living citizens, present and future. That is, today, “ourselves” is living families and individuals and “our Posterity” is our future grandchildren and beyond.

The framers and signers of the 1787 US Constitution missed all that the successive generations discovered about civic, civil, and legal injustice and options for reform. My interpretation of the U.S. Preamble for my lifestyle today is:  We the People of the United States voluntarily consider, communicate, collaborate, and connect so as to establish and maintain 5 public disciplines in order to encourage responsible human liberty to living citizens. No standards are specified. Perhaps the extent and quality of responsible human liberty is the measure of future success.

                The 10 Commandments may be good for ancient Israel and for modern Jewish motivation and inspiration. However, as a civil proposition, its promotion cannot compare with a simple directive: civic citizens pursue equity under statutory justice. Statutory justice is perfect, written, law enforcement. In the USA, that proposition is stated in the U.S. Preamble, and each citizen owes it to himself or herself to interpret the preamble to guide his or her civic integrity and avoid infidelity.

                Every time I hear a member of Congress invoke “we, the people,” the rest of what he or she says may convince me that he or she is not of We the People of the United States as defined in the U.S. Preamble. For example, Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, and Gerry Nadler convince me that they have no interpretation of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition. Unfortunately, Lieberman’s imposition of his theism as a civic interest influences me to think he has not considered the U.S. Preamble’s proposition. I address not Lieberman’s person or his God but his public expression.

        I name these persons only to illustrate the general malaise or chaos the U.S. Government has fallen into by ratifying the 1788 proposition for responsible human liberty under five public disciplines but then allowing Congress to attempt consignment of the responsibility to whatever-God-is. Not only is the theism excluded from the 5 disciplines listed in the U.S. Preamble, the articles that follow the preamble specifically exclude the imposition of theism. For example, Article II, Section 1 specifies the presidential oath of office, and it does not call for theism. In the oaths I have heard, the Supreme Court Chief Justice traditionally presents the personal interrogative “. . . so help you God?” If he presented “. . . so help you whatever-God-is?” the offered humility could be followed by the President’s choice, such as “So help me Allah.” But I would prefer the opportunity to vote for Presidents who simply use the U.S. Constitution with no attempt to consign responsibility or imply that whatever-God-is may be absent unless prayed to. Article IV says “. . . no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” Civic citizenship is a public trust, and I do not submit to religious tests. Thus, I do not stand for public appeals to whatever-God-is.

                     It is not easy to accept that the First Congress’s “freedom of religion” is the impostion of theism. However, the makeup of the U.S. Supreme court is substantially Judeo-Christian if not Judeo-Catholic, and the justices often express in their propriety that their God demanded their actions. In the impeachment heardings today, one speaker attributed the errors of his expressions to British colonialism. Freedom of religion is a colonial tradition that must ultimately give way to encouragement to develop integrity.

                     Consideration of the U.S. Preamble’s object, “ourselves and our Posterity,” makes it clear that living citizens are oppressed by the systematic repression of the preamble’s 5 public disciplines that impower responsible human liberty. We the People of the United States have the civic, civil, and legal power to require political reform by voting only for politicians whose platform features their contributions to the achievable better future under the U.S. Preamble’s proposition and the-objective-truth if not the-literal-truth. A person’s or institution’s spiritual pursuits are a private matter according to the U.S. Preamble’s propostion for responsible human liberty.

                     Fellow citizens who oppose when they could puruse improving the U.S. Preamble are aliens at least and traitors at worst. In the 2020 Donald Trump impeachement hearings, some speakers beg constraint and some beg expulsion. The Senate proceedure begs reform so as to begin with recitation of the U.S. Preamble in unison.  

Copyright©2020 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.