The U.S. Preamble proposes humility toward whatever-God-is

                Some people are asking how citizens can rise above the “us v them” attitude. One solution is to accept that there will never be a utopia of like-minded-citizens, yet a supermajority of fellow citizens want mutual, comprehensive safety and security so individuals can live in peace even though some may be dissident to justice. It seems prudent to aim for a majority who behave for human intendance with civic integrity. Thereby, fellow citizens may responsibly pursue the happiness each wants rather than settle for the dictates of someone else. Civic citizens’ success may encourage dissidents to reform out of perceived self-interest.

Practicing individual interpretation of the abstract proposition in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution offers an achievable better future. Thereby, civic citizens can establish the U.S. Great Seal’s E-pluribus-unum in both civic unity and in private spiritual hopes and thereby happily encourage dissidents to join.

Knowing “God” or not is at the heart of human conflict. Could fellow citizens connect more readily if each individual maintained hope and comfort in a personal God or none and also reserved sufficient humility toward whatever-God-is? One believer would not want to tell a fellow citizen, “Sooner or later you’ll accept my personal God” only to discover that the citizen actually believes whatever-God-is; that is, the other citizen’s personal God is whatever-God-is. The better personal God is not likely to be resolved in the near future, and any consequence of misleading other humans is undetermined.

It’s regrettable to influence a fellow citizen to accept financial loss, but no-one would actually influence someone to neglect their actually-real soul. In other words, if anyone ever recorded a soul suffering damnation, the mystery of soul would be resolved. Yet, declaring that there is no such thing as soul is a leap of faith. Both believers and non-believers must accept their trusts and commitments through personal independence. After six decades struggle, I accepted my person and his afterdeath.

Some people believe that life after death is a mystery they’re obliged to solve. Others leave it to the unknown. Much as they know not of their generation in their mom’s womb, they cannot, during life, take responsibility for their afterdeath. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_mystery_of_faith. Some citizens accept the termination of body, mind, and person without attempting to know what they cannot know. We can choose to be humble toward fellow citizens as well as toward whatever-God-is.

Why developing the rule of law unto human justice is necessary

Many people struggle with the evidence that most people want peace and the claim that only a personal God can motivate good behavior. Some nations tout separation of church and state yet maintain a Chapter XI Machiavellianism---oppressing all citizens, non-believers and believers; meanwhile political regimes compete for dominance. In the USA, there’s competitive elite politics of Judeo-Christianity, Catholicism, various fundamentalisms, and the exclusive African-American Christianity of Cornel West. Non-believers have no standing in the U.S. The U.S. Supreme Court in Greece v Galloway (2014) erroneously judged niggling any objection to the Chapter XI tyranny.

Most human beings have faith, meaning trust-in and commitment-to a power that is higher than HIPEA---human individual power, energy, and authority. It seems self-evident that whatever that power is leaves it to human beings to develop self-control or not. Accepting this actual-reality is not easy, as evidenced by wide-spread infidelity. Most people can see that whatever-God-is assigned the establishment of peace to humankind, and most cultures have established the rule of law as the means to encourage civic behavior. In the U.S., the rule of written law is conflicted by “freedom of religion.” Citizens need freedom to develop human integrity.

A proposition for civic, civil, and legal human integrity

Apparently, without covert expression, the 1787 constitutional framers discovered a principle colonial British-Americans had overlooked: developing human integrity. In summary, the framers debated what I call responsible human independence (RHI). The Committee of Detail issued a draft preamble with the subject being the 13 free and independent states of 1784. Later, the 5-person Committee of Style added a proposition that abstractly expresses domestic discipline to encourage RHI.

The U.S. citizen is free to neglect or oppose joining We the People of the United States. However, it is in the individual’s self-interest to interpret the preamble so as to order civic living. The U.S. future rests on most fellow citizens adopting the U.S. Preamble for civic, civil, and legal order under whatever-God-is and developing statutory justice according to the-literal-truth, while pursuing their personal God or none for spiritual order.

Whatever-God-is makes it plain that the human being can choose to aid public discipline or not. It’s a matter of individual acceptance that discipline is in the person’s best interest.

It seems self-evident that despite the U.S. Preamble’s proposition, neither most U.S. parents nor government officials have accepted inculcating self-discipline as their primary obligation to their posterity (children, grandchildren, and beyond). Consider the national debt, approaching 30 billion dollars for living-adult satisfaction on the futures of our posterity.

I share opinion, knowing I don’t know the-literal-truth

 know I do not know the-literal-truth.

I was reared Southern Baptist and fell in love with a Louisiana French-Catholic school teacher. I did not know it then, but her serene confidence attracted my attention, my courtship, my commitment, and our marriage with three children now into our sixth decade.

I attended Mass with my family and also belonged to my nearest Baptist church for two decades. The experience of accepting her religion for her and each of my children’s religions for them influenced my discovery that I trust and commit-to whatever-God-is; in other words my unique, infantile “I don’t know” has come full circle to an adult “I don’t know.” We could say that seriously considering two doctrines I thought were one religion taught me that E-pluribus-unum applies to personal Gods as well as to fellow citizens.

There was an epiphany after a quarter-century into our marriage, now beginning the 6^th decade. For about 15 years, I worshipped with my family in Catholic Church, never taking the Eucharist yet sincerely participating in our 3 children’s Christenings. Their individual faiths for them was precious to me, and I defended Catholicism when my Sunday school classmates disparaged it.

Finally, I felt alienated during the liturgy of the mass. I approached my favorite priest and asked him to provide a host for me to take in remembrance when my family took the Eucharist. He offered to meet and discuss. He taught me transubstantiation, and I responded, “That puts you between me and God, and I could not accept that.”

He responded, “That’s what’s required to join the Catholic Church, and she’s too precious to me to compromise for you.”

We no longer met. That experience enabled me to accept my faith for me. I trust-in and commit-to the-literal-truth, discovered either with humankind or through self-reliance. Otherwise, I accept that I do not know. It took another decade to become comfortable with faith in physics and its progeny yet for all I know Jesus will judge me in my afterdeath.

I think I am prepared to be judged. However, I do not want to persuade anyone to apply my preparation:  I do not know the-literal-truth. Yet my experience---discovering my person by experiencing two Christian religions---is rare, and some people may benefit from the story.

For example, the citizens who recommending to learn other citizens’ faiths as a bid to create more unity have not considered the massive amount of doctrine involved in each religion. I think we can reach integrity faster by accepting fellow citizens as they are without examining their spiritual lives. If they misbehave, let them discover why, but do not bring their religion into the civic, civil, and legal forum.

A suggested, achievable better future with reformed education

Ancient thinkers expressed that psychological error is passed on to the third generation. Many cultures are held hostage to that guidance. Kahlil Gibran resisted, incorporating theism, in “On Children” from The Prophet:  It’s permissible to mimic your children but not acceptable to force on them your insufficient preparation for their future. I don’t know that Gibran suggested a remedy, but “leave those kids alone” is unpromising. It takes about 3 decades for an encouraged and coached human infant to transition into a responsible human individual.

So far, the U.S. political regimes have imposed Chapter XI Machiavellianism featuring changing theisms. Citizens who have personal Gods can be bemused to support the lavish church-state partnership and neither rebel nor leave the country. The possibility that E-pluribus-unum applies to personal Gods could break the U.S.-Chapter-XI captivity. We the People of the United States can encourage humility toward whatever-God-is with a nest of acceptances that are coached and encouraged by the departments of education.

Educators design a system to encourage and coach independent child-integrity in acquiring the comprehension and intention to live a complete human life. By complete, I mean to develop into the mature adult allowed by the infant’s abilities, path, and choices. I do not pretend to know the design but know the principles I offer for consideration and public improvement.

Human acceptances

To chronologically accelerate a path toward psychological maturity requires several acceptances, and the earlier the person discovers and embraces the acceptances the more perfectly he or she may achieve the happiness he or she would have chosen at birth if he or she had known the mature-adult preferences he or she would develop. In other words, early in life, a coached and encouraged person can take charge of a trajectory to his or her unique fulfillment: integrity rather than infidelity.

As an infant, a person may discern by example that human beings are, due to awareness and expression the most powerful living species. Grammar extends the power of speech. Parents and care takers can coach and encourage the child to consider individual, human powers.

 The leading edge of knowledge is held by collective humankind and is exponentially unknowable by most individuals. That is, knowledge increases faster than the individual can discern. With a current global population of 7.8 billion people, it is practically impossible for the individual to understand the leading-edge basic knowledge as well as to comprehend the daily discoveries. People tend to specialize their interests. Each individual may balance acquiring basic knowledge with comprehending the latest discoveries as time progresses during the usual 2 to 3 decades from infant to young adult.

Before young adulthood, the person is prudent to accept that the human being has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (HIPEA) to either develop integrity to the-literal-truth or to tolerate infidelity. Developing integrity, the practice of reliably lessening infancy’s unlimited I-don’t-knows, is in the person’s self-interest. Here’s where there’s opportunity to lessen the 3 generation habit of ignorance: parents and caretakers accept the directive that if you don’t know, say “I don’t know” then help the child search for the facts.

In a related issue, many cultures develop a doctrine of God. Diverse believers debate the God’s character and power not realizing their discussion is babble because the personal God for each is particular, even though they may consider an institutional doctrine. In other words, members of the same institutional religion have individual personal Gods. One Christian may represent their particular “Trinity” while the other represents their “The Father.” Still another may represent their “The Son” and another their “The Holy Ghost/Spirit.” Internal controversy divides the Jews, the Muslims, the Hindus, the atheists and the others. This lack of humility towards a fellow citizen’s personal God may also be accepted as arrogance toward the God that does not appreciate false constraints. For example, the God may not appreciate the constraint “God is love.” Perhaps love is subordinate to appreciation. This problem may be lessened by the term “whatever-God-is” so as to express humility as well as encourage human integrity.

A government is using the tyranny of Chapter XI Machiavellianism when it encourages diverse beliefs in personal Gods. It would be better if civil/legal theism had never begun. It is constitutional tyranny in England and English-tradition in the U.S. In the U.S., the tyranny was imposed when the First Congress, during March to May, 1789, unconstitutionally hired factional-American-Protestant-chaplains so as to compete with England’s constitutional seats for the Church of England in Parliament. Thereby, Congress repressed the U.S. Preamble’s assignment of religious/spiritual/motivational concerns to privacy.

For initial reform of this tyranny I suggest that all oaths of office be revised from “so help me God” to “so help me whatever-God-is” or better expression of humility and civic unity. I chose “is” out of appreciation for the idea that humankind, despite HIPEA, must conform to actual-reality in order to thrive. For all I know, the God is potential energy and the laws of conservation as kinetic energy and mass. Yet I am prepared to be evaluated by Jesus or other afterdeath-judge. I do not know the-literal-truth.

Conclusion

Most humans want mutual, comprehensive safety and security so that they may responsibly pursue the happiness they want rather than submit to someone else’s plan for them. The U.S. came into existence during the 101 years from the English revolution of 1689, then to the American revolution of 1774, and to the French revolution of 1789. “Liberty” was a key goal of bloodshed in each revolution. However, the internal establishment of the U.S. federal republic was a proposition for 5 public disciplines to encourage responsible human independence to living citizens rather than a bloody confrontation. The U.S. Constitution is a proposal for discipline of by and for fellow citizens rather than for perpetual conflict.

The candidates to establish responsible human independence in this country are We the People of the United States as specified in the U.S. Preamble. The standards for achieving the preamble’s goals and purpose may be discovered by posterity’s posterity, much as a well-coached and encouraged human infant may develop his or her ultimately perfected person. E-pluribus-Unum may ultimately apply to both public integrity and to private humility. Our generation has the opportunity to replace colonial English-American tradition with U.S. tradition under the U.S. Preamble.

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.