U.S. civic citizens can and may overcome British Judeo-Christian competition.

                I appreciate Roger Kimball for sharing in “Tooting Your Own Horn”, The Epoch Times, December 6-12, 2023. He promotes opinions about John Fletcher Moulton’s speech in London at the outbreak of WW1.

                Moulton struggled for political philosophy to thegood, which is offered for acceptance in Genesis 1:26-28. In my view its message is:  Civic citizens on earth independently rule to thegood (my contraction to effect singularity). In civic integrity, fellow citizens are reliably responsible in connections and transactions. Thus, they neither initiate nor accommodate harm to or from anyone. In the continuum of life, past consequences caution choices by the present and future generations – “ourselves and our Posterity”, quoting the preamble to the United States Constitution. Unfortunately, most citizens do not accept the authority expressed in Genesis 1:26-28 and accommodated by the Constitution. Humankind cannot construct laws that must be obeyed, so there are always lawbreakers.So far, civilizations have constructed competitive monotheisms to attempt to dominate nations rather than to collaborate with humankind.

                Moulton expresses “obedience to the unenforceable” as a middle ground between Solon’s few, strict laws and “free choice”. Moulton labels this middle ground “manners” to resolve can do versus may do something simply because no law prohibits it. The speech was reported twice as “Law and Manners” in The Atlantic.

                Experienced in British law, Moulton unfortunately promotes human action limited by three failures, which I paraphrase: law, consciousness, and freedom. Moulton’s consciousness employs duty, public spirit, and good form, which define “obedience to the unenforceable”. When citizens voluntarily practice consciousness, they employ manners. Thus, law and manners mysteriously facilitate utopia. I think the failure in this analysis is British law. It was constructed by judges. Also, it yields to church and state partnership. (Parliament’s House of Lords has 26 permanent seats for bishops of the Church of England.) Instead, I think the civic citizen collaborates to thegood, to necessity, and to acceptance.

                My opinion is grounded in a couple years’ focus on the authorization I perceive in Genesis 1:26-28: female and male humankind has the power to constrain chaos on earth. I like Genesis-1 interpretations featuring “rule over”. Quoting Genesis 1:26-28, Complete Jewish Bible, with my emphasis,

Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, in the likeness of ourselves; and let them rule over the fish in the sea, the birds in the air, the animals, and over all the earth, and over every crawling creature that crawls on the earth.” So God created humankind in his own image; in the image of God he created him: male and female he created them. God blessed them: God said to them, “Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea, the birds in the air and every living creature that crawls on the earth.”

This literature, Genesis 1, seems recorded 3000 years ago, long before humankind discovered that the merciless sun is a nuclear reactor rather than a god. The grounding polytheism, physics, and political philosophy emerged in Mesopotamia, 5500 years ago. The philosophy and its source appreciates humankind’s powers without favoritism except to thegood. If accepted, its impact would ineluctably improve the future.

                Not to deny humility to theGod -- whatever power the doctrinal Gods must accommodate, I perceive modern evidence supporting Genesis 1:26-28 in four concepts. First, the species on earth – wave, mineral, bacteria, vegetable, fowl, animal, and spirit can effect ruin and evil. Only humankind has research and grammar by which to discover and constrain the bad, in order to accept and effect thegood on earth. Second, among human-beings, the female generates ova and the male fertilizes the ova to produce a fetus, which may be gestated unto a baby. While it takes a thoroughbred horse 3 years to mature, the human-being is so powerful it takes a quarter century for a newborn to acquire the comprehension and intention to pursue human being (verb). A few years of independent living add wisdom to the pursuit of thegood, and 2 or three more quarter centuries may bring maturity (perhaps 85 years total). Civic mates are collaborative partners who want responsibility to thegood to themselves and to their descendants. Third, only intentional adults have the integrity to commit to a mate for life with children, so as to share pursuit of thegood to grandchildren and beyond. Unfortunate are the people who are not aware of their opportunity to develop their human being (verb). Fourth, so far, no civilization has taught these principles to their adults and youth (“ourselves and our Posterity”, quoting the United States Constitution). Accepting these principles as the basis of public education may and can effect an achievable better future.

                This simplistic analysis of opportunities on earth might seem useful if it could be expressed immediately to the 8 billion people. Then, there might be hope for civic integrity in just a few years. However, probably 80% of humankind believes-not the God depicted in Genesis 1, which I label “theGod”, for singularity. Therefore, impacting, let alone reversing, the momentum toward chaos seems unlikely. It may seem I have wandered far from British law and Moulton’s idea. Let me re-connect.

                Words convey ideas. Genesis 1’s idea would replace Moulton’s “Obedience to the Unenforceable” with civic integrity, where “civic” refers to reliable responsibility in human connections and transactions. Humankind divides itself on the individual choice to pursue thegood or not. Civic citizens aid continual development of statutory justice with its enforcement. Civic citizens publically practice, encourage, and facilitate thegood in self-interest rather than as a discipline. People who do not pursue thegood are constrained to reform and those who hold to evil are eliminated.

                Returning to Moulton’s British view 100 years ago, I perceive seven opportunities for improvement. First, law exists in order to practice, facilitate, and encourage to constrain public error; to motivate erroneous citizens to reform; and to annihilate evil. Second, free choice is not a human option, because the forces on earth are merciless: exposure to the elements can kill, adultery ruins lives, unwillingness to work invites starvation, and not voting in self-interest in the republic leaves governance to democracy, Moulton’s economic nightmare. Third, responsible debate is essential to civil collaboration, and allowing agents to lie empowers civic citizens to discover liars. Fourth, only 1920 British pride would advocate democracy’s rule of the majority after America had, in 1787, specified a republic to preserve privacy, such as whether to pursue religion or not. (Unfortunately, Congress re-established Anglo-American religious freedom to itself in the First Amendment. That injustice may and can be corrected by changing “prohibiting” to “promoting”.) Fifth, the fact that Parliament can and therefore may legislate tyranny is the reason the United States Constitution limits powers of three branches: Congress, the courts, and the administration. The U.S. Constitution affirms that the civic faction, We the People of the United States, may rule and limits what central government and states can do, even if the people default. Competitive churches and the press can lie to civic citizens, thereby proving most churches and most reporters are liars. Sixth, whereas Britain touts freedom and liberty, the U.S. Constitution intends reliable responsibility. Therefore, it is necessary for Americans to accept the independence from Britain that the 1781 victory at Yorktown won with aid to America from France and Spain against England with German mercenaries. Seventh, Moulton’s fear that civic citizens would never perceive the necessity of independence is, so far, confirmed by Americans, who do not accept that voting in their self-interest to thegood is the only process to happiness to themselves and their descendants. The evil of wealth and war at the expense of children can be constrained only by civic adults rather than by a god or by a government. The civic citizen earns their way of living and happily pays taxes for infrastructure, including statutory justice. Eighth, Moulton’s idea of mysterious manners motivating and inspiring human-beings to enact thegood retreats before the message in Genesis 1:26-28:  Female and male human-being is charged to rule to thegood on earth. Fellow citizens may and can, in self-interest, accept reliable responsibility to civic integrity and thereby pursue happiness to all.

In conclusion, civic citizens accept the authority to pursue thegood, not as an imposition, but in self-interest for happiness “to ourselves and our Posterity”. Collaboration on Genesis 1:26-28’s authorization to thegood and to the republic proffered by the 1787 U.S. Constitution offers humankind an achievable better future that can progress in time to colonize a neighboring planet. It’s possible for another nation to lead. However, the faction We the People of the United States could . . . should reform quickly.

#USpreambler

Copyright©2023 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.