Preface
I write to support/unpack
the following key statements then learn from the reader:
The first requisite to achieve a civic
culture is for most individuals to have personal desire-for, behavior-for, and
fidelity-to mutual comprehensive-civic-safety-and-security, hereafter, SECURITY.
The civic citizens urge dissident inhabitants to reform.
The second requisite to achieve a civic
culture is for most individuals to want to effect civic integrity, keeping religious
morality private.
The third requisite to achieve a civic
culture is for most individuals to trust and commit to the preamble to the
constitution for the USA for coordinating iterative civic collaboration to connect.
The fourth requisite to achieve a civic
culture is for most persons to iteratively collaborate for civic-integrity based on the-objective-truth if not
the-literal-truth.[1]
Note: humankind continually invents new tools for
perception so as to better comprehend the-objective-truth and ultimately
approach the-literal-truth.
Civic-integrity
There
has emerged, from public meetings at libraries in Baton Rouge and other talk,[2] a proposal to freely
establish a civic culture wherein at least 2/3 of citizens both practice and
promote civic-integrity as private-independence-with-civic-justice.[3], [4] Since they are human,
persons cannot reliably deliver justice and can only intend to behave
responsibly. Thus, justice is a mutual discovery, just as falling in love
requires mutual appreciation.
We think most citizens want a
civic culture but the public will
is not apparent, because achievability has not been articulated. Societies coerce citizens to be civil rather
than civic, compliant rather than connected, and coercive rather than reserved:
humble to the society.
Western civilization’s
erroneous message is that humans are born with a tendency toward evil behavior
rather than with the underlying desire to perfect their unique personal
abilities and choices. In a culture of civic-integrity, each child is coached
to prepare for early adulthood possessing both comprehension and intentions to perfect his or her person during a complete
human lifetime. Acquiring
education during the entire life is taken as a private, self-interested duty
and responsibility. An authentic human separates from self-education
unwillingly.
Civic connections
“Civic”
represents willing human connections, whether direct or indirect, by persons
who live now and here---during the same time in the same place. In other words,
civic persons both offer and seek SECURITY.
Connected persons willingly transact needed goods, services, and ideas and
protect privacy. Civic differs from social, which implies conforming to or submitting
to preference or class. Some
citizens mutually urge civility, but no one wants civilization imposed
on their person. Western culture tries to substitute freedom-from and/or
liberty-to for responsible human independence. The human being is too powerful
to accept substitutes for the opportunity to develop individual integrity.
Persons who neglect developing integrity invite if not beg woe.
A
society has conventions or rules to which a member must conform. For example, a
person cannot arbitrarily join a
country club: the applicant may be recommended by members who agree that he or
she may conform to club rules. Again, a person cannot simply say, “I want to be
a Catholic,” and join. The applicant may take Catholic education then commit to
the Church and be accepted. However, most citizens are unwilling to compromise SECURITY,
and fidelity to that affinity defines a civic citizen. The
first requisite to achieve a civic culture is for most individuals
to have personal desire-for, behavior-for, and fidelity-to SECURITY. The civic
citizens urge dissident inhabitants to reform.
Humankind
As
cultures evolved so far, humankind discovers physics and its progeny more
rapidly than it accepts reliable psychology. I attribute the Western lag to
scholarly competition promoting a continuing, constructed reason versus revelation
debate. Tradition obfuscates the ineluctable evidence that physics and
psychology conform to the same laws, as suggested by Albert Einstein. Accepting
invitations to speak, he cooperated with the erroneous expressions “science”
and “ethics”[5]
when “physics” and “integrity” are humankind’s objects of each 1) ineluctable
evidentiary research of physics and its progeny (scientific studies) and 2) reliable
journals of research-findings/discovery (ethics). It seems to me Einstein
expressed in popular language that physics and integrity have the same source,
unintentionally obfuscating his individual comprehension. Of course, I could be
wrong about Einstein’s intentions, in which case my experiences, observations,
and assertions stand on their own.
Social coercion
Instead
of integrity, so far, human groups develop social coercion and force. Most natural-law
scholars consider theism to be essential for the propriety to discuss human
connections. To the scholars, behavior is civil
rather than civic: the civilized person conforms to the scholars’
norms.[6] Civil censorship is
tyranny against humankind, which depends upon the individual to advance the
leading edge of discovery, whether in physics or in psychology.
In 1785, speaking in
Virginia against taxation to support Christian ministers, James Madison said,
Before any man can be
considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of
the Governour of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, do it with a
saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign.[7]
Madison’s substitutes for “God” attest to natural law[8] rather than institutional
religion beyond Madison’s deist-urge for theism. However, in the Confederation
of States, including Madison’s Virginia, 99% of the free inhabitants were sectarian
Protestant: Practical theism was factional, Protestant Christianity. Political
Madison, in the same speech, persuaded the majority: “Because the policy . . .
is adverse to the diffusion of the light of Christianity. The first wish of
those who enjoy this precious gift ought to be that it may be imparted to the
whole race of mankind.” Perhaps deist, Madison spoke such that Christians could
perceive he represented them: “those who enjoy this precious gift” did not
necessarily include Madison.
Today, few Americans earnestly
ponder Madison’s concern about other people’s religion, let alone a theism they
do not follow. The people’s religious practices are private, not civic. For
persons either born or naturalized in the USA, there is no religious
restriction on civic propriety---at least, according to inalienable, human
thought. Civic Americans (and other civic nationals) do not want to take issue
with other people’s heartfelt concerns, comforts and hopes. However, an
evolving tradition---theism---is imposed by the tyranny of US civilization. I
work for reform.
A person who can
articulate his or her peace, by nature, loathes to tell another person what to think, possible soul concerns to
ponder, or what to do with their unique lifetime. I do not even want to write
about religion but have no choice, because I want to defend privacy in real-no-harm religious
practices. Many peaceful people want religion. Who
would deny a peaceful person their inspiration and motivation for life?
Ceremonial theism
Yet peaceful
individual theism psychologically divides a conflicted world and therefore many
theists cannot find each other---cannot connect. Potentially agreeable people live
in a state of conflict over what no one
knows: Is theism true? What are the characteristics and demands of whatever-God-is?
The US Supreme Court
unconstitutionally divides citizens over ceremonial, traditional theism
legislated by Congress. The first federal legislators imposed theism as American
tradition. Elected representatives, in May, 1788 hired chaplains to deify
Congress on par with the English Parliament at the expense of the citizens. It’s
been that way ever since.
However, just as each
person demands religious privacy, humankind is too alert to submit to religious
imposition by a government, so courageous citizens have sued over legislative
prayer. The latest majority opinion, in Greece vs Galloway (2014), invites the civic
culture’s rebuke. Justice Kennedy wrote, “If circumstances arise in which the pattern and practice of
ceremonial, legislative prayer is alleged to be a means to coerce or intimidate
others, the objection can be addressed in the regular course.”[9]
What does “regular course” mean if not the court negating unconstitutional
legislation such as the First Amendment’s religion clauses? Since the Galloway complaint
was not sufficient for the court’s majority opinion, how and when can the citizen’s
legal religious-privacy prevail? When will U.S. traditional-tyranny be
terminated?
Regarding ceremonial prayer, the USA is in tension with the
majority-group: citizens without institutional religion. That is, beyond 2014,
the religious “nones” grow beyond 22.8% of the population and are the largest group,
with Catholic at 20.8% second, and next Southern Baptist Convention at 5.3%.[10]
Since all theisms are factious, any
clergyman who conducts a prayer for a legislative body represents a minority-group!
Let me say that again: In 2020 America, the majority group of citizens do not
claim a religion, let alone a theism. Also, no two theisms are in agreement, so
legislative prayer misrepresents the majority of Americans---probably the majority
of legislators, judges, and administrators in governments---local, state, and
national.
A civic culture may express civic-integrity,
putting government in its public
place and religion in its private
place. Separation of civic integrity
from religious morality is the
individual person’s obligation to self rather than a government function: each
person’s public behavior is a civic matter, while his or her comfort and hope
respecting heartfelt unknowns is private. One citizen’s heartfelt concerns may
not be meaningful in another citizen’s life. Before civic-integrity can happen,
most persons perceive importance to separate his or her religious pursuits from his or her civic pursuits. The second requisite to achieve a civic culture is for most individuals
to want to effect civic integrity, keeping religious morality private.
Perhaps 1/3 of citizens develop
and another 1/3 feel civic-integrity
One deterrent
to civic integrity as that some societies not only imagine but expect an
eventual world with 100% agreement---universal social morality.
For example, the phrase
“We the People of the United States” seems
to depict a totality. Our speculation that perhaps 2/3 of inhabitants expect or
collaborate for civic-integrity originates from the fact that 70% of delegates
from 12 states, in effect 2/3 including the proportionate 13th state
representatives, in 1787 signed the preamble and the rest of the draft
constitution for the USA. In other words, matter-of-fact collaboration in 1787
Philadelphia resulted in only 2/3 commitment by the framers, leaving 1/3 who
wanted amendment: to legal theism, or to “We the States,” or to add a Bill of
Rights, or other changes to the draft constitution. The point is: It is
not necessary for everyone to be civic in order to have a civic people, a
civic culture, even a civic nation. A willing super-majority of citizens is
sufficient to establish a civic culture. That is so especially when citizens
hold elected and appointed officials accountable for accepting the
self-interest of being civic citizens.
According to the draft
constitution’s signers, all responsible human thought, including religious hope,
was an inalienable, individual right and duty. The preamble, a civic agreement
by willing citizens, made no attempt to restrict inalienable rights. However, the
Bill of Rights, required for 1788 ratification, and negotiated by the 1789
Congress, protected religion, a chosen business institution,
rather than integrity, an inalienable human opportunity.
Subsequently, the preamble, which is neutral to religion, was falsely labeled
“secular,” which means separated from religion. The preamble does not impose religion on the
people yet allows them privacy in the pursuit of happiness.
The preamble with its
1787 articles states that willing citizens, keeping their respective state
constitutions, authorize a nation with specific purposes and organization. The
intent “to form a more perfect union” invokes public integrity, both as
wholeness and as understanding by the citizens. The nation’s legislation has
regressed outside the articles that follow the preamble, but the preamble and the citizen’s opportunity to establish civic-integrity
is unchanged. Past
generations have left to this generation the privilege to reform under the
preamble. The third requisite to achieve a civic
culture is for most individuals to trust and commit to the preamble to the
constitution for the USA for coordinating iterative civic collaboration to connect.
History
shows that there may always be dissidents against SECURITY. Some people think
crime or tyranny pays. Therefore, we hope to motivate 2/3 of inhabitants to not
only practice but to articulate private-independence-with-civic integrity,
thereby establishing a civic culture. The civic culture would continue to
utilize statutory law and monopolies on
force to constrain the 1/3 who are dissident for reasons only they may
understand. Civic citizens encourage dissident fellow citizens to reform to
responsible human independence. Perhaps the civic culture would establish the
deliberate, articulated path to a civic nation approaching statutory justice.
The public
The
public is comprised of both a civic people and dissidents against a civic
culture. The civic culture already exists but is neither recognized nor
promoted. Criminals, evils, civic dissidents and other harmful groups comprise
the 1/3 or less. The 2/3 who work for SECURITY may be distributed in each
sub-culture; in other words, among criminals there may be some individuals who
perceive self-interest in developing integrity. The criminal society can be
offset by civic societies attended by a majority who are civic citizens. Thus, 2/3
of members of every real-no-harm religious group may practice civic-integrity
as both civic responsibility and personal
spirituality.
In a civic culture,
social thought may flourish. Black church may think God is black; Amerindians may
think God is red; some people may think God has no color; others may think
there is no God. In a civic culture, every real-no-harm
religion or other sub-culture may flourish according to believers’ private
hopes and comforts. However, at least 2/3 of each believers’ group may admit to
themselves that history shows that whatever-God-is, if not their personal God,
holds them personally responsible for developing SECURITY. Let me restate that
thought: The God hypothesis is not disproven, and the evidence so far shows
that whatever-God-is holds the person
responsible for civic integrity.[11] If a religious practice does
not contribute to SECURITY, it may be religiously civil but not civic and
therefore might not be legal in a civic culture, depending on how civic the
justice system is.
Human acceptances
Justice comes with a nest
of individual human acceptances. With 2/3 of citizens developing these
acceptances, a civic culture may be achievable.
First the person must
accept that he or she is a human being. The human species is so powerful that
it takes about 3 decades to start accumulating human wisdom. The human body
does not complete the wisdom parts of the brain before about a quarter century
and a few more years of experience and observation are needed to inspire
self-interest in developing integrity. Compare the fold, who can walk within 3
hours of birth and find’s it mom’s tit soon thereafter. The infant must be
helped to the tit and may take a year to learn to walk.
Second, the human person
must accept the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual
authority (HIPEA) to develop integrity rather than to tolerate infidelity.
Since no culture inculcates these principles to its citizens, chances of a
person discovering humanity, HIPEA, and integrity are slim to almost none.
Too often, persons
develop HIPEA hoping crime or tyranny pays, only to discover woe. In other
words, humankind has developed psychological maturity slower than technology,
and consequently misery and loss dominate human life. However, each newborn is
unique, and with encouragement and coaching he or she can accept the above
principles. We work to encourage education departments to consider encouraging
and coaching development of intentions to integrity in young adulthood more
than inculcating traditional information.
Third, the person must
accept that he or she is not the only human being with HIPEA, either for
integrity or not. To foster SECURITY, he or she must aid the development of a
civic culture. The individual pursues equity under statutory justice
accepting that other humans are doing the same, in their time and their status
in developing integrity. He or she is resolved that integrity is in his or her
self-interest regardless of external and internal constraints. He or she may
honestly feel threatened but will not volunteer infidelity.
Human equity
Beyond popular claims,
the human being starts as a unique viable ovum in its unique mom’s body. The
unique dad’s unique spermatozoon fertilizes the ovum unto a single-cell embryo.
Neither gestation, delivery, infancy, adolescence, schooling, nor learning
lessens the young adult’s uniqueness. The idea that some entity can make unique
humans equal seems opposed to the-objective-truth. The person who works to earn
the responsible lifestyle he or she wants to live can’t also pay for the lives
of persons who oppose justice.
Therefore, a civic culture pursues equity
rather than equality.
The person who opposes
equity under justice may nevertheless develop HIPEA and have the human authority
to reject arbitrary-law-enforcement. Therefore, written law can only serve when
injustice is discovered and remedied according to the-objective-truth if not
the-literal-truth rather than under a human construct such as reason or
revelation. By efficient reform a civic culture can approach statutory justice,
the worthy goal of responsible human liberty. I know of no culture that
operates under these principles, but one is proposed to U.S. citizens.
The 1787 U.S. Constitution’s proposal
The preamble to the U.S.
Constitution (the U.S. Preamble) is an abstract proposal, and it’s in every
citizen’s self-interest to interpret it so as to order his or her civic, civil,
and legal living. The sentence has a thought: citizens authorize and maintain a
constitution for the USA, which through its articles, citizens may amend.
Additionally, there’s a subordinate predicate-clause to specify public
disciplines and purpose. The object of that clause is “ourselves and our
Posterity.” At any moment, the living families are “ourselves” to future
citizens including each family’s decedents. The family that attends to their
life satisfactions without preserving the preamble’s proposition for posterity
invites woe to their descendants. With 50% plus one family neglecting
descendants, the proposition may fail unless restored quickly. Every member of
every family and society has it in their self-interest to own an individual
interpretation of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition.
My interpretation awaits
the reader’s collaboration for improvements, but for today’s living by me it
is: Civic Citizens of the United States
continually develop and practice 5 domestic disciplines---integrity, justice,
peace, strength, and prosperity[12]---in
order to encourage to fellow-inhabitants responsible human independence.[13]
Note: neither my interpretation nor the U.S. Preamble suggests
standards for the disciplines or for responsible human independence, implying
that today’s adult generation ought to practice leading edge integrity.
Especially see Footnote 12 for some other critical issues.
Developing the above
interpretation took about 2 decades, first random study then six years of
meetings producing identified improvements from over 70 participants, as listed
in any of the recent meeting presentations.[14] Responsible human
independence seems a heretofore unarticulated yet partially developed goal that
cannot be constrained by an individual or a society.
Integrity as a practice
Honesty
is insufficient. A civic culture requires integrity. Civic-integrity requires five
activities by the practitioner:
•
Appreciate and comprehend
the-ineluctable-evidence respecting the actually-real civic issue: is SECURITY
being served? Apparent mirages are shelved for future evidence.
•
Personally act according to the
consequential understanding
•
Civically endorse and iteratively
collaborate to benefit from the understanding; if necessary, urge for a statutory
law
•
Remain alert for change in the
understanding as reliable perspectives are discovered, often by invention of
new instruments of perception
•
With new understanding, amend
behavior, endorsement, and collaboration and perhaps urge legislative reform.
With super-majority understanding
and fidelity, civic-integrity or “a more perfect union” seems achievable.
“Public
integrity” was not expressed often during the years 1800 to 2000. Reviewing
phrases with adjectives and “integrity”[15]
shows usage frequency during 2000 as follows: personal, national, political,
individual, public, private, and
factual at relative usage 330, 75, 50, 35, 11,
2, 0.7, respectively in 2000. “National integrity” peaked in 1918 at 150, and “political
integrity” peaked in 1835 at 150. “Public integrity” peaked in 1815 at 50 and
declined to 6 by 1920, remaining flat until 1993 then increased to 11 in 2000.
(Relative use of “integrity” fell to 10,000 in 1926 and increased to 20,000 in
2000.) Perhaps no books expressed public integrity as private liberty with
civic integrity. Another interesting study involves personal integrity, personal
liberty, personal independence, and responsible liberty, the latter having no
usage, and the middle 2 peaking from 1860 through 1920.
Private living in non-proprietary language
Private
living seems paramount in practice yet underappreciated in articulation. The
politicians want everyone to think like them: think “together,” pray
“together,” act “together,” reform together. Many scholars suggest that humankind is managed
by natural law for the overall good, whatever “good” means. Both natural law
and “the good” are controversial. “Liberty” is often taken as license to damage
and injure. “Self-rule” or “self-governance” encourage an adversarial
relationship between privacy and government encouragement to self-discipline.
Some scholars believe thought is more important than fact. Scholars muddle the facts with “science,”
a study method: reason seems ultimately important to them. However, the-literal-truth exists,
and humankind works to discover and comprehend
the ineluctable evidence or the-objective-truth. By inventing new tools for
perception, humankind uses the-objective-truth to approach and perhaps achieve
the-literal-truth. For example, a human cannot fly like a bird but can use
aerodynamics and/or jet propulsion to take fight.
A civic culture discovers
the
facts rather than promotes opinion about the facts. Our theory holds that humankind
iteratively collaborates for SECURITY, and the necessary work may be conducted
by the civic citizens---those who address the facts that prevail during their lives. For example, civic
citizens should comprehend that the U.S. Civil war seems fought by white
Christians whose personal God was on a schedule to punish black people’s
ancient sins versus white Christians whose personal God assigned blacks human
equity. To consider this perception, review the declaration of secession’s
phrase “more erroneous religious belief,”[16] the
1856 anti-abolitionist-sacking of Lawrence, Kansas,[17] and a general’s letter to
his wife erroneously claiming abolitionist-evil.[18] Individuals in each
generation face the unfolding of reality as discovery increases, and I feel the
U.S. Civil War was a Christian travesty. And the offending states had the
unfavorable strength ratio 7:27. It is the clearest evidence that the U.S.
First Amendment should be reformed to address integrity rather than religion.
Destroying the records of
the un-just U.S. Civil War invites repetition. However, this time it could be
African-American Christianity vs white Christianity, with a strength ratio
perhaps 8:62 instead of 7:27. America’s HIPEA could be focused on establishing
a civic culture under the U.S. Preamble and the-objective-truth.
Some writers claim that natural law emerges
from a supernatural power that involves, one way or another,
a creator---lower case to indicate no human bargaining. Some hope that humankind
can influence The Creator. Human sacrifices to sun Gods never returned profit (other
than scarce protein for some clergy) so it seems prudent to not pray to change
whatever-God-is. However, we hold that the creator-hypothesis cannot be
disproved, because humankind does not yet know human-perception limits. Thus,
the fact that humankind has not discovered a creator may only mean that the
tools necessary for the discovery have not been invented. History shows that
responsibility for SECURITY rests with each person, and
collectively, with humankind. In other words, whatever-God-is assigned to
humans the opportunity to establish and maintain SECURITY.
When constructs
derived from the Creator-hypothesis are proved wrong, the facts should be accepted.
Thus, an anachronistic young-earth society is regarded as a private association
that does not influence a civic culture. On the other hand, harmful ideas from
the past may be constrained by statutory law. For example, ceremonial human
sacrifice is regarded as murder, subject to the rule of law regardless of religious
beliefs. Also, in civic-integrity, no person submits to social morality that
involves, for example, vigilantism. No civic person let alone civic citizen
will pretend to be accuser, judge, jury, and executioner.
Ideas
that a people with differing yet harmless
religious views may be banished or killed are obsolete and illegal in the civic
culture, yet prevail among some societies. Deadly beliefs among some groups
that spread world-wide as Abraham’s diverse ancestors unjustly occupy the
world’s attention, yet most individuals want SECURITY.
Income equity
Morality
as “the degree to which something is right and good” has traditionally been
expressed in social terms. The imposition of society’s values is erroneously
taken for granted by citizens who are busy earning their living and trying to
build financial security. Some individuals doubt a specific social value, yet
conform---merely to feel “civilized.” Most people loathe to challenge another’s
beliefs. However, most human beings are too aware and too psychologically
powerful to either brook or impose civic injustice, and that cognitive
excellence creates conflicts among society, excepting within one culture: the people
who work for SECURITY, or civic integrity. Civic integrity seems a solely human
responsibility. Just as a person may earn his or her living, each person may
collaborate for a civic culture. If not, they invite woe to their descendants.
Income
equity[19] illustrates opportunity
for SECURITY. It is this essay’s
first application of the modifier "comprehensive" in “SECURITY.” History suggests that capitalism is the best economic
system. Most people are averse to the monumental task of
entrepreneurship---perceiving a need, imagining a product or service, inventing
the supply, and creating the means. The people happily keep entrepreneurs rewarded
for taking these generally unwanted risks. But America has not managed
capitalism to increase the middle and upper classes and lessen the poor class
while adequately rewarding the builders of enterprise.
In income equity, the
gross national product or GNP may be distributed so that each adult who
supplies a wanted service or product earns a living plus enough to save and
invest for personal financial-security and retirement. Again, the entrepreneurs
who supply jobs cannot be depreciated. In turn, the equitable person saves and
invests. Perhaps the save-and-invest-funds
must be held in a government account, like social security could have been
managed, because not every citizen has the discipline to limit living-style to
only a part of earnings.
The present system
heavily favors the entrepreneur, by encouraging consumption, leaving “work and
save” to the consumer’s discretion. To save and build financial security is
impoverishing for persons with below median income. In the present system, GNP
redistributed to the poor, disguised as a “safety net,” subsidizes the
consumerism the government needs for its income. That income is used to sustain
the Chapter XI Machiavellian high-hog-living for the clergy-government-official
partnership. American capitalism may be reformed. How to accomplish the reform for
income equity is an object of iterative collaboration within the civic culture.[20] That is, achievable as it
is, one person such as Phil Beaver cannot specify the method: It must be
collaborative work. Government has shown it will not undertake income equity,
and churches oppose it, so the reform awaits a super-majority civic citizens.
Iterative collaboration in order to civically connect
In
iterative collaboration respecting the facts, a willing speaker does the work
to explicitly state a civic concern with well-grounded remedy-suggestion and
presents to willing listener. The listener clarifies words, phrases, and ideas,
and speaker responds until all statements are mutually understood. Then roles
swap: listener becomes speaker. New speaker expresses the concern or a
directly-related alternate and a solution that accommodates his or her personal
experiences, observations, and preferences. Former speaker listens and questions
as needed. A connecting concern and remedy may emerge. The process may continue
until both parties consider the connecting solution serves each party’s self-interest.
Thus, Concern A may have morphed to Concern B, C, D, and so on with
satisfaction to both parties and the-objective-truth.
Neither party has either
compromised, cooperated, or subjugated beyond mutually focusing on discovered
and understood facts. The parties iteratively collaborated a mutually
satisfactory solution to a shared concern. During the work, neither party
suggested that their personal God knows better than whatever-God-is already
enacted. If the parties agree that reform is warranted according to
the-objective-truth, they outline activities to accomplish public support for
civic change. The fourth requisite to achieve a civic
culture is for most persons to iteratively collaborate for civic-integrity
based on the-objective-truth if not the-literal-truth.
Government
A
civic culture is a voluntary practice, and only when there is harmful
resistance to civic integrity is legislation needed. For example, there is no
need for domestic ordinances regarding queueing to render tickets to the
symphony, rock concert, or sports event. The occasional disturbance can be
handled under “disturbance of the peace” legislation. However, the notion that
freedom of speech justifies recruiting citizens and aliens for emotional crowd
actions that may escalate to violence is controversial and could become the
object of lawful constraint. Additionally, civic harm begs public reaction and,
again, constraint may be required. It seems that for the foreseeable future,
the rule of law is necessary. Government seems necessary, because some people are dissident to justice.
However, un-just laws must be discovered and reformed toward statutory justice.
Conclusion
We
promote personal incentive, practice, and fidelity for civic-integrity as private-independence-with-civic-justice. The
preamble to the constitution for the USA offers sufficient civic agreement for
willing citizens. Civic integrity may be established by iterative collaboration
to discover, understand, and utilize the-objective-truth---the discovered understanding. Often, the
understanding is stated as “After researching for ineluctable evidence, we
don’t know.” SECURITY would allow private-independence for each
person’s lifetime in personal-pursuits such as chosen religion/philosophy
rather than an imposed tradition. We feel that 2/3 of living citizens would
like to live in a culture with civic-integrity. A
civic culture has not been articulated before now, and there is no
evidence it is not achievable.
With fidelity to a civic
culture, the U.S. Preamble’s abstract entity Civic Citizens of the United
States may develop a super-majority and perhaps ultimately approach the
totality We the People of the United States.
Copyright©2016
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 on June 12, 2020.
[1]
Humankind
continually invents new tools for perception so as to better comprehend
the-objective-truth and ultimately approach the-literal-truth.
[3] The dashed
phrases express compound, single thoughts. Thus, civic-integrity is synonymous
with private-independence-with-civic-justice.
[4] In
the 11/1/2016 version of this essay, we wrote “liberty” instead of
“independence.” In 2020, we realized that “liberty” is often taken as license
to do harm, for example, claiming egocentric “civil rights.” When the mob
starts doing harm, we want the independence to break “solidarity” and leave.
[5]
See “The Laws of Science and the Laws of Ethics” in an online post at https://samharris.org/my-friend-einstein/.
[6] To
my shock and disappointment, the conservative if not Anglo-American-theist
owners of libertylaw.org allowed me, a chemical engineer, to amass 100-200 searchable
essays to comment on their posts. I constantly stated that they were the most
reliable group I knew of to help develop a civic culture under the U.S.
Preamble’s proposition and the-objective-truth if not the-literal-truth.
Suddenly, in early 2020, they started answering my posts with “YOUR COMMENT
HAVE BEEN AUTOMATICALLY APPROVED AND POSTED.” However, I cannot find the posts
and can no longer search under my name for my past posts. Privation of
integrity begs woe. Maybe they think their blog empowers them to appropriate my
creative thought. If so, I consider it failed, attempted theft of property by
self-styled law professionals. Their argument may be that I write despite their
deceit: I think their deceit cannot stop my creativity.
[10]
Online at http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/
. See the drop downs for details. Indeed, there should be a drop down for
Catholic, since there are factions, such as French Catholic and charismatic Catholic.
[11]
Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861, “Why should there not be a patient confidence
in the ultimate justice of the people? Is there any better or equal hope in the
world?” Lincoln’s use of “the people” rather than “civic citizens” expresses a
British clergy-lords, Chapter XI Machiavellian arrogance toward the people.
[12]
The actual U.S. Preamble’s 5 disciplines are Unity, Justice, Tranquility,
defence, and Welfare, and they are fine for me for public, unison reading. “Liberty”
can be taken as license, which troubles me.
[13]
The actual U.S. Preamble’s purpose is “Liberty,” which for me is problematic.
The constitutional convention came in 1787 during a century of French versuss
English wars and each England and France’s civil wars. Objects of England’s
1689 Glorious Revolution, America’s 1774 war for independence from England, and
France’s 1789 Bloody Revolution were inspired by “the people” taking license in
the name of liberty. The U.S. constitutional convention produced a nation
predicated not on adversarial liberty to
the people but on discipline of by and for the citizen. The
proposed benefit is
responsible human independence. “The people” promotes an adversarial attitude
toward government, stemming from European politics like Magna Carta. The
English king agreed to relinquish powers of governance to the lords and the
clergy in Parliament, leaving no political power to “the people.” In the U.S.
under the preamble, government officials are foremost fellow citizens,
dissident as each may be. Officials who prove to be un-civic can be voted out
of office. The first Congress did not like civic citizenship, and Congress has
maintained traditional arrogance to this day. The civic citizens of the U.S. can
decide to end Anglo-American traditions that oppose the U.S. Preamble. In fact,
in the future, commitment to the U.S. Preamble’s proposition as the fellow citizen
responsibly interprets it may be a qualification for a license to vote, let
alone to run for office.
[14]
Online at promotethepreamble.blogspot.com, for example, “Constitution Day 2018
presentation,” posted on 9/24/2018.
[15]
Online at books.google.com/ngrams
[19]
Dr. Norman Francis at LSU’s “Moment or Movement?” October 4, 2016, said, “Equitable is not the same as equal.” I do not know his meaning. But
“income equality” is not the phrase I want to use here. I think, for example, a
medical doctor should receive more income than a ditch digger, but the ditch
digger should be paid enough to both support a family and save and invest for
financial security.
[20]
We propose to reform American education so that each newborn soon perceives
that he or she is a human person and the USA encourages him or her to take
charge of the educational transition to young adulthood with comprehension and
intent to live a complete human life. See “Child incentives brief,” in this
blog, promotethepreamble.blogspot.com, which needs updating. By “complete” I
mean the chronological development of integrity that results from the person
accepting being human---a being with unique ultimate-potential yet facing
death.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I want your opinion and intend to respond.