Alito-pride touts Catholic tyranny against U.S. civic citizens

On July 28, 2022 in Rome, Italy, Justice Samuel Alito made mockery of the U.S. Supreme Court by touting an opinion he authored and 2/3 of U.S. citizens oppose. Civic-citizens wish to preserve the opportunity for viable human ova and moreover want to protect the woman’s responsibility to continually consider the evidence in deciding whether to remain pregnant or not. Dependent fellow-citizens want someone else to dictate to the woman but would neither police her gestation& delivery nor warrant her child’s appreciation during life. Alito expressed guilt in holding the Catholic Church exempt from ineluctable responsibilities.  To impose Catholic pride onto America is tyranny.

Recently, we recognized an ancient opportunity to reform to both individual& collective responsible-human-independence (RHI). The human intention is to pursue safety& security on earth with extensions to other planets. The principles that support the proposal make Justice Samuel Alito’s pride seem like the glow of an adolescent civic-thinker. By adolescent I mean his consideration assumes viability of a mystic psychological-construct originated 2-thousand years ago (tya). The Church diverged into 45,000 mystical schools in a political-field that emerged 10 tya and pursues order& prosperity. Alito’s July 2022 speech touting to the world his defeat of Roe v. Wade advocates “religious liberty” when human-being resiliently pursues civic-integrity. The U.S. Supreme Court imposed tyranny on U.S. civic-citizens, exacerbating the 2022 divergent-chaos.

          The RHI opportunity may be viewed in modern times as an alternative to the religious proliferation that has occurred since the Sumer civilization that developed from about 10 tya until Babylonian defeat 4 tya. A succession of Sumerian kings developed political philosophy that assumed their pantheon of Gods would not provide safety& security for living, so society must independently pursue order& prosperity on earth. They originated and successively improved law codes that were both civil (constraining dependent fellow citizens) and civic (protecting civic victims -- widows and orphans, for example). The kings’ codes organized slaves, workers, artisans, and administrators. Some legal penalties rendered the dependent incapacitated, lessening incentives for reform. The civilization seemed successful, inventing the wheel, writing, agriculture, irrigation, and many other wonders for the era. Not having a supply of iron hastened their demise, as warring neighbors gained advantage. Also, it seems they overlooked accumulation of salt-in-soil due to irrigation with briny water.

          Concurrently the civil quest for advantage inspired some tribes to develop political philosophies with monotheisms. A tribal-God would grant the group advantage in securing safety& security, including defense in war. “Our God is a powerful God.” The people would worship, praise, and sacrifice-to their-God. Without global communications except by caravan to some places, idea-exchange& and negotiations toward safety& security were rare. Soon diverse monotheisms mostly supplanted polytheism and competed with non-religious political-philosophies, especially in the Middle East and in the west. In the Middle East, five political-philosophies developed: Islam, Judaism, Christianity, polytheism, and non-religious politics.

          Modern politicians have the opportunity to improve on the developments since Sumer by applying humankind’s experiences& observations since then. Alito seems to demand that the world accept Christianity, specifically the Catholic Church. There’s another way. Nations can create constitutions that accept responsibility for safety& security in civic-living, keeping private each person’s choice to be religious or not. This proposal seems an improvement on the Sumerian development.

          If so, the improvement has been suggested before. The 1787 U.S. Constitution proposes& facilitates the opportunity for civic-citizens to develop RHI under three provisions. First, it specifies the means for posterity to amend the constitution, or free itself from erroneous tradition. Second, it asserts that civic-citizens limit the federal government and guarantees republicanism, or the-rule-of-law, to the states. Third, it defines civic-citizens as those who pursue 5 public disciplines – integrity, justice, safety, strength, and prosperity, in order to practice, facilitate, and encourage RHI “to ourselves and our Posterity”. Religion is not among the disciplines, as the choice to be religious is private. Norms are not given, so that posterity is not bound to traditional injustice.

It is tragic that Alito does not own a preamble-perspective that is civically-superior to mine. If he did, his speech might not have neglected the un-constitutional 1791 Bill of Rights, which grants Congress exclusive religious liberty at the expense of the civic-citizens. Let me repeat that: Congress has freedom of religion, and We the People of the United States does not have religious liberty. Alito could-have, should-have, suggested revisions of the First Amendment, especially the religious-practice clause. I suggest, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or [promoting] the free exercise thereof”. Of course, my suggestion to amend the Constitution is to the civic-citizens and to Congress itself. The Supreme Court commits tyranny when it does not uphold the Constitution.

There’s nothing wrong with another country achieving this reform earlier than the United States might. Civic-integrity to safety& security is humankind’s duty.

Turning now to Alito’s adolescence, first it is unseemly to gloat about legislation by the judicial branch, especially to squabble with global leaders. Despite Alito’s dream, U.S. citizens have never been more un-civic, and I doubt that Europe is less unorderly. Religious liberty is yielding to divergent chaos, an ineluctable outcome when the philosophy is grounded in mystery. Ineluctable means “not to be avoided, changed, or resisted”.

The unearned-power of Christianity is giving way to persons more aware of religion’s fallacies, because of a technical innovation: the Internet. Fellow-citizens more quickly establish civic appreciation and don’t question religious influences. For example, many people accept their-God’s love. It is difficult to persuade people to talk religion when each appreciates the other person’s civic-morality. By “civic” I mean reliability in connections& transaction more than observance of civil codes& laws.

The new moral code is conformity to the laws of physics and its progeny: mathematics, economics, biology, psychology, safety, and security. Religious people privately nourish their comforts& hopes and still aid safety& security. Religious institutions deserve no political advantage over municipal symphonies, football stadiums, and parks. A liberal society is a civic society that accommodates religious& non-religious contributors to safety& security. Among citizens who pursue RHI in civic-integrity, happiness is a personal quest rather than a civil/market mandate.

Alito spoils reliability when he cites the Declaration (1776) as though the authors knew what controls the consequences of human choice and called it “our Creator”. He ignores the areligious 1787 U.S. Constitution and jumps to the United Nations document (1948), then back to 1776, then to American Law Institute (1923-1944), then to European Convention (1950). All that to say that religious liberty nonetheless must be constrained so as to prevent, for example, child sacrifice! Why did Alito say so much to hide the 1787 U.S. Constitution? I assert that he and other Anglo-American traditionalists fear republicanism: the rule of law that, under the U.S. intentions stated in the preamble, pursues RHI.

In RHI-constitutionalism, it is alright for Alito to be a Christian – even Catholic tyrant, as long as he aids safety& security to the living species and to the earth and its extensions. It should be obvious to Alito that the way he can convince football fans to protect religious privacy is to convince them that the religious people take safety& security as superior-to the mysteries of God’s love, Jesus’s peace, and soul salvation. Why impose the Catholic Church? Alito doesn’t realize it, but he answered: “the Constitution should be enough”.

Alito can& may consider history as he reviews his own speech. The U.S. has operated under Congress’s religious liberty since 1789, and the consequence in 2022 is divergent chaos rather than “domestic tranquility”. Charitable work is a civic rather than Catholic-Church duty. African-slave trade to America was “authorized” to Portugal and Spain, respectively, by Catholic-Church bulls of 1454 and 1493. Christianity’s practice in freedom of conscience, speech, and belief has produced 45,000 sects worldwide – hardly a denial of division in the church. The government demand of religious liberty is tyranny over safety& security, the human-duty on earth. To claim that religion can force the non-religious to accommodate public Christian prayer, when Jesus instructed fellows to pray in private (Matthew 6:1,5-6), is tyranny – not only civic-tyranny to the non-religious but also religious-tyranny to the Jesus-fellow. Alito can& may erroneously disagree: Alito can& may rebuke Jesus’ reported words.

Alito glosses over “what it means to be human”. According to Genesis 1:28, being human is accepting the independence to aid order and prosperity to the living species and to the earth. Dependencies include religious arrogance, indolence, crime, tyranny, and evil, each of which civic-citizens can& may constrain. Constraint requires republicanism, or the rule of statutory justice rather than democracy. The dignity the individual is owed is the opportunity to develop the civic-integrity that is required for RHI. The human-being has a panoply of responsibilities more than rights. Alito’s metaphor “as wise as serpents” evokes a negative mystery most citizens would not express:  But Alito expressed it. Alito spoke freely, and it was a sad day for the U.S. Supreme Court and for civic-citizens of the United States, I think We the People of the United States. We, the civic-citizens of the U.S. need not accommodate Alito’s tyranny: We can& may vote against candidates who demonstrate favor to the Catholic Church or any institutional religion.

Copyright©2022 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.