William Brooks, as a British colonial writer, typically ignores the United States republic

 Re:  theepochtimes.com/opinion/a-new-years-reflection-on-the-common-sense-of-g-k-chesterton-5964761

Unfamiliar with his writing I wondered what brand of common sense G. K. Chesterton espoused: Protestant/Catholic/Deist-English, or ineluctable. In American usage, “ineluctable” means: together, not to be avoided, changed, or resisted. It seems the English-usage reserves the right to change.

I think Deist John Locke, in 1690, wrote against divine right of kings, “[Let a student] try, whether he can, with all his skill, make Sir Robert [Filmer, a Christian,] intelligible, and consistent with himself, or common sense.” In January 1776, Thomas Paine wrote, to support independence, “Some, perhaps, will say, that after we have made it up with Britain, she will protect us. Can we be so unwise as to mean, that she shall keep a navy in our harbors for that purpose? Common sense will tell us, that the power which hath endeavored to subdue us, is of all others, the most improper to defend us.” Their war-declaration implied that colonial legislators were equal to Parliament and every citizen equal to the king. Using “common sense”, President Trump might mean that his policies are comprehensible to most citizens. To me, it means civic integrity that improves civil and criminal law.

                After 1776, 13 colonies fought the war and won independence in 1783. Next, Shays rebellion motivated 12 free states to consider a Union in 1787. The 12 specified that civic citizens would manage both their local democracies and the United States republic. Since 1776, British loyalists, including some U.S. citizens, have been rivals to the United States republic. I think it impossible for a Brit, dead or alive, to discuss common sense with any civic American. By “civic” I mean citizens who defend each other’s opportunity to choose goodness and resist badness.

                William Brooks shares some ideas pointing to civic goodness. For example, common sense prefers goodness rather than badness. Rationalizing to ignore evidence is not wise. Hate, destruction, and violence do not improve civility. Civic people ought to manage their family, city, county, and state, using responsibility, initiative, and accountability. Bureaucrats pretend mysterious insights. Freedom constrains liberty, in order to choose goodness. Family supports obligation, love, independence, and loyalty, especially when a member fails. Patriotism is cohesive appreciation rather than national pride.

                I perceive 4 serious Brooks-falsehoods. First, common sense does not yield to tradition. That is why the United States Constitution provides for amendment. Second, improvements are not served by giving ancestors equal voice; collaboration, yes, equality, no. The republic serves “ourselves and our Posterity”. Quoting the preamble to the Constitution. Third, emotional/spiritual choices do not stand the test of time. Belief in God cannot compete with humility to whatever constrains the consequences of human choice. Natural law cannot overthrow the laws of physics and its progeny, such as psychology, mathematics, and economy. And fourth, England influenced the American Declaration of Independence only because of it persistent tyranny. When 12 independent states met to propose a Union, the consequence was the United States republic; England, indeed Europe was left behind by the civic faction of American citizens.

When President Trump, a master of humility, wit, and wisdom, leads celebration of America’s 250 anniversary since declaring war against England, loyalists everywhere may celebrate their opportunity to consider and try to mimic the United States Republic.

Copyright©2026 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.

PRB highlights and comments on Brooks’ article

1.       Chesterton an adult during industrialization, totalitarianism, religious decline, and World War I: progress vs tradition.

a.       100 years later, confused about freedom, family, nationhood, truth, and kindness

                                                               i.      No: opportunity for responsibility

2.       Chesterton ideas:

a.       Common sense: moral realism and inherited wisdom

                                                               i.      No: ineluctable evidence and research

b.       Civilization: limits, humility, and gratitude

                                                               i.      No: appreciating opportunity

c.       Modern failures

                                                               i.      Poor judgement

                                                             ii.      Abstract reason ignores evidence

1.       Internal logic re justice, education, policy

2.       informed intuition accommodates emotionalism

                                                           iii.      Hate tradition

1.       Progressive independence

2.       Destroy statues, institutions, and norms

d.       Tradition

                                                               i.      “democracy of the dead”—giving ancestors a vote

                                                             ii.      Thus, liberation is undemocratic.

e.       Local policy instead of bureaucracy

                                                               i.      Families, schools, and communities

                                                             ii.      Facilitate responsibility, initiative, and freedom accountability

                                                           iii.      Resist unintended consequences or mysteries bureaucrats overlook

                                                           iv.      Responsibility and accountability instead of

1.       Freedom from constraint

2.       Liberty to choose goodness

                                                             v.      Family supports obligation, love, and independence; loyalty

1.       One member’s failure does not excuse the family

f.        Patriotism

                                                               i.      Appreciation rather than pride

                                                             ii.      Trust and commitment to the nation’s intentions (cohesion)

                                                           iii.      Comprehend the preamble and the Constitution’s amendability.

g.       Religion

                                                               i.      Belief in God is essential to . . .

1.       Something constrains the  consequences of human choice

                                                             ii.      Mercy, an emotion

                                                           iii.      Christian certainty in fallibility

1.       no substitute for humility

h.       Nature’s limits

                                                               i.      Human beings cannot perfect

                                                             ii.      Only improve

                                                           iii.      Hell on earth

i.         England influenced the American Declaration of Independence

                                                               i.      natural law, human dignity, and moral restraint

                                                             ii.      Common sense a virtue

1.       Humility, wit, and wisdom [President Trump]

Appreciating the primitive generations of Homo sapiens

 Writers who engage accuracy, precision, and depth accept that they must overcome personal prejudices if they will pursue the ineluctable truth. “Ineluctable” means – together -- not to be avoided, changed, or resisted. Among my prejudices is higher power, commonly referred to as church and state, or doctrine and discovery. But I think each person responds to physics and progeny, such as psychology.     

I thought some people were so righteous that I could not improve their opinions. But perhaps this chemical engineer ought to share some perspectives on Dr. Victor Davis Hanson’s 2025 speech at Hillsdale College; singjupost.com/transcript-of-victor-davis-hanson-2025-commencement-address-at-hillsdale-college/ . Please read Hanson’s speech.

My reaction

                First, Hillsdale notoriety seems to counter the NYT’s infamous “The 1619 Project”, published in 2019. It may have inspired President Trump’s 1776 Commission, September 2020. Hillsdale announced its “1776 Curriculum” on July 22, 2021. Replacing the worst presidency ever, Trump reinstated the 1776 Commission on January 25, 2025. It seems that presidential debate may end Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, developed during the recent 7 decades from Latin-American-Catholic-Marxism or Liberation Theology versus western tradition. The 1619 vs 1776 seems a gift to civic integrity, as it may inspire new perspectives on tradition -- even replace G.K. Chesterton’s “the democracy of the dead” with pursuit of statutory justice using the United States republic, a unique form of governance.

                Second, long-standing faith in theology seems arrogant toward whatever constrains the consequences of human choice. To understand benefits of physics empowers goodness. Goodness existed at the big bang, 13.7 billion years ago, ya. Awareness on earth began 3.8 billion ya when prokaryotes emerged. Wisdom began 200  thousand ya when Homo sapiens emerged with fast, high-capacity brains. Writing and grammar empowered wisdom-accumulation about 10 thousand ya. At least one civilization, Sumer, began recording wise collaboration for civic integrity 5500 ya. Competitive monotheism distracted integrity 3700 ya. Homo sapiens is above theism, without which there would be no atheism – only chosen goodness.

                Third, primitive-fear of mysterious phenomena may be resolved by research and discovery, yet rationalization and faith continue to compete for human attention/commitment. For example, the sun’s rays could kill humans on overexposure, so many civilizations, including Sumer, constructed sun deities and tried to bargain with them. But research informs us that the sun is a natural nuclear reactor. Similarly, all deities may be eliminated. Yet the pursuit of deity persists and became divisive when monotheism supplanted polytheism. Physics and it’s progeny including psychology offer bountiful unknowns to research, while imagination generates infinite mystery. Honest opinion eventually yields to integrity grounded in physics.

                I write opinion, because I do not know much of the ineluctable evidence. I restrict my opinion to what I experience or observe, and therefore do not comment on ideologies foreign to me, such as Confucianism. I think Hanson and Hillsdale favor a conservative view rather than engage the power, authority, and responsibility Homo sapiens possesses. Homo sapiens may research every discovery on earth and maintain a journal of achievement.

Hanson encouraged Bible readers rather than Homo sapiens

                Hanson overlooks Homo sapiens opportunity, by choosing satisfaction with Judeo-Christian values --- preferential use of books in the complete Bible. Its books originated less than 3700 ya in Mesopotamia, developed 2700 ya in Judea, added competition 1900 ya in Judea, enjoyed promotion 1600 ya in Rome, then suffered ancient competition 1400 ya in Mecca. Nevertheless, Homo sapiens survives.

Using exclusive words, Hanson confuses himself into neglect of the best of discovery older than 3700 years. For example, whereas the Code of Ur-Nammu, 4100 ya, prohibited the powerful from exploiting the weak, the Code of Hammurabi, 3700 ya, specified a welfare society. Subsequently, nations competed to skim welfare funds – church through philanthropy and state through taxation. When church and state partner, citizens are doubly subjugated, whether they “believe” or not.

Hanson subtly obfuscates Judeo-Christianity with words and phrases like, “heaven on earth perfection”, virtue, reverence, “judge not , , , “. Hanson juxtaposes 7-decades-old Marxist-Catholic Liberation Theology, citing “self-loathing”, “shame”, and “situational ethics”.  By limiting past interest at 3700 ya, Hanson overlooks that in  primitive cities like Nippur, wealthy students between adolescence and young adulthood attended school to learn cuneiform script and Sumerian and Akkadian languages; then agriculture, architectural design, astronomy, botany, engineering, history, literature, medicine, philosophy, religion, and zoology (worldhistory.org/article/2203/mesopotamian-education/).

                Hanson seems convinced “2,500 years of prior Western educators . . . in Athens, Rome, and Jerusalem [discounting Bagdad] first founded the disciplines and the boundaries of their all-encompassing knowledge”. He neglects the primitives who informed the ancients. Primitives employed polytheism to rationalize mysteries yet grounded “classical aspects of philosophy, literatures, language, history, mathematics, and science”. The recent 5500 of Homo sapiens’ 200,000 years provides modernity the opportunity to discover whatever constrains the consequences of choices. But the ancients failed their descendants by rationalizing competitive monotheism instead of researching the ineluctable evidence. We, the 2026 generation have the opportunity to collaborate for goodness-which-motivates-good-behavior.

The United States republic

Hanson invokes appreciation for “a system, a constitution, and an infrastructure that allowed [“us’] to start our own lives materially and safely far ahead”. But he does not recognize that the United States republic proffers intentions “to ourselves and our Posterity”. The intentions are stated in the preamble to the United States Constitution. I would love to read the interpretation that Hanson trusts-in and commits-to.

The United States republic is unique. The civic faction, We the People of the United States, pursues one vote for each qualified citizen. The civic faction empowers its city, county, state, and collectively, the nation. The civic faction accommodates pure-democracy in municipal, county, and state elections and prevents any-democracy in federal elections. It upholds State Constitutions that support the republic. It offers means for the engaged faction to amend the United States Constitution. The civic faction pursues good behavior “to ourselves and our Posterity”, hoping Homo sapiens benefits from goodness and statutory justice.

The civic faction, We the People of the United States, may, can, and ought to-reform modern education departments, in order to stop teaching students that they are born Homo-sapiens-sinners and that their purpose is to learn the skills the nation needs. The next generations of teachers could practice, facilitate, and encourage comprehension and intention to develop personal human being: goodness-which-motivates-good-behavior.

Conclusion

                I appreciate the churches who, during 7-8 decades of my life accommodated my curiosity enough for me to discover that this person always was unchurched yet pursued the goodness influenced by reports about an ancient political philosopher: Yeshua the Aramaic-speaking Judean of 2000 ya. It matters not to me how accurate, precise, and deep those reports are, because I also have ineluctable evidence discovered by the recent generations and living civic citizens, whether they know of Yeshua or not.

I hope my writing motivates Hanson to expand regard for the primitive generations without compromising his goodness, which I admire.

#USpreambler,#acivicpeople,#goodnesswhich

Copyright©2026 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.

A civic people has responsibility to license voting

 Commenting on Jeffrey A. Tucker’s article, “Why We Need Border Control”, updated November 4, 2025

theepochtimes.com/opinion/why-we-need-border-control-5935885

Fallacies I perceive:

1.       Beliefs/ideologies may trump civic integrity.

2.       Permanent residence inside the border entitles adults to vote.

3.       Politics is synonymous with policy.

4.       The United States electorate may ignore/defeat the republic’s provision for state-citizenship.

5.       “Experiment” expresses pursuit, intention, and commitment.

6.       Party competition constitutes governance.

7.       Citing Murray Rothbard justifies imposition of “democracy” to muddy an essay about “constitutional republics”.

Conclusion:

My hero Jeffrey Tucker’s expression of shock is grounded in hidden-opinion I do not share.
I found seven opinions I oppose. First, beliefs/ideologies may trump civic integrity, where “civic” means collaboration for responsible opportunity rather than development of civil norms among humankind. Second, intention to reside inside the border justifies the adult-citizen’s vote. Third, politics, or power, is synonymous with policy. Fourth, the popular vote may defeat the United States republic’s provision for state-citizenship; in other words, United States citizens don’t reserve the opportunity to choose and govern their locale within the nation and humankind. Fifth, “experiment” expresses intention “to ourselves and our Posterity” (where “Posterity” includes legal immigrants). Sixth, party competition constitutes governance. And seventh, citing another author justifies substituting “democracy” for “constitutional republic”.

I think there’s no excuse for a United States republican to advocate democracy, which is political chaos.

The civic faction may and can license voting, depending upon whether or not the fellow citizen comprehends, trusts-in, and owns commitment-to amenability of the preamble to the United States Constitution. The age of justifying citizens who assume they are animals/sinners, who habitually avoid, change, or resist civility, let alone civic integrity, is, or may be, over.

#USpreambler,#acivicpeople,#goodnesswhich

Copyright©2025 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.

Harvard’s recent exposition: Free speech discloses liars

Humankind’s technological reality seems vastly disconnected from its moral progress. NASA is planning a colony on Mars. Meanwhile the Biden Administration is negotiating funds to aid the wanton killing of babies in Gaza and around the world. And Harvard ponders plagiarism in high office. American Universities could -- should discover the cause of moral irresponsibility, and civic citizens are concerned. By “civic” I mean reliably responsible to the good in human connections and transactions.

                Dr. James Stoner, professor at LSU and Harvard alum, at https://lawliberty.org/a-defense-of-the-neoliberal-university/ shared thoughts on Keith E. Whittington’s book, Speak Freely: Why Universities Must Defend Free Speech. Dr. Whittington is Professor of Politics at Princeton University. Not having read the book, I sought an impression of Whittington and found civic encouragement (although I prefer “facilitation” rather than “force” in personal development) at (15) John Stuart Mill's big idea: Harsh critics make good thinkers | Keith Whittington | Big Think - YouTube. I do not support Professor Stoner’s favor toward Church.

                In public, some people choose to either initiate or accommodate the bad to fellow citizens. Most people who choose the good don’t accept that they may and can constrain the bad. Neither Church nor government pursue the good. Each focuses on growing itself, and they often partner against civic integrity. So far, the good people have not taken charge. Consequently, in 2024, humankind seems in chaos.

                Ancient political philosophers suggest that humankind’s purpose is to rule to the good on earth. They observe that language and grammar empower humankind over other living species and the world. See, for example, Genesis 1:26-28’s comment on Sumerian political philosophy: humankind may rule to the good on earth. The rest of the Holy Bible reports the chaos people invite when they choose the bad.

                Truth stands the test of time. That humankind is in charge on earth was suggested 5500 years ago. Failure, so far, informs that churches and governments cannot usurp humankind’s duty. Human power and authority depend on each individual who chooses the good and pursues the ineluctable truth; Ineluctable means not to be avoided, changed, or resisted -- Merriam-Webster. The ineluctable truth is stymied when citizens stonewall each other. Permitting liars empowers them to affirm actual reality.

                Among humankind, it seems wrong to perceive that Christian beliefs define human being (verb). Most humans use religion to improve life. Only a third of the world’s population believe the Christ saved their spirit and that by grace they are antinomian to moral law. That leaves 2/3 of humankind out of collaborative civics. Yet Jesus, not Christ, is among reported history’s greatest political philosophers. I speculate that 80% of people on earth consider Jesus an influence to the good. Christ, not so much if at all.

                Ralph Waldo Emerson discovered Jesus’ unique civic message, in my paraphrase:  Each person can pursue their perfect human being (verb). In his 1838 essay, “Divinity School Address”, Emerson explained the Church’s tyranny in promoting the Christ – the Church advocating perfection upon-the-afterdeath rather than for-civic-integrity-in-life. The afterdeath is the individual’s indefinite time when body, mind, and person stop functioning. I think there’s only dust and past personal progress toward perfection. Harvard prevented Emerson’s return until 30 years later, when he enjoyed world renown. Harvard’s free-speech infamy started long ago.

                Emerson’s common sense was ineffective for two reasons. First, Harvard and other divinity enterprises suppressed Emerson’s speech. Second, Emerson did not suggest ways readers could encounter Jesus rather than the Christ – the political philosopher rather than mysterious savior of spirits – the man rather than the Church.

Jesus did not stonewall public discussion except to escape killers. For example, in Matthew 19:3-8, Jesus responds to collaborative students, improves the Torah, refers to Genesis 1:26-28, and informs men to unite to their wife to become a unique entity; all that in one conversation. In John 10:34, Jesus says the individual has the power; and in Matthew 5:48 says their power can pursue perfection, each statement reflecting Genesis 1:26-28, a political philosophy that originated in polytheistic Sumer civilization.

                It’s a shame that American universities debate diversity rather than reliable responsibility, equality and equity rather than civic integrity, democracy rather than republican pursuit of statutory justice, liberty rather than independence, religion rather than actual reality, and Christian doctrine rather than Jesus’ civic influence to the good.

                Turning to Professor Stoner’s article, this reader would like more explanation of jargon used.

                First, what “Christian strictures” inhibit appreciation and what distinguishes “intellectual debate”? Christianity debates mystery, which offers no resolution of life’s concerns. There are dozens of Bible canon and 45,000 Christian sects in the world. “Intellectual” implies reason based on evidence rather than emotion, intending to accomplish resolution. How can debate about mystery achieve resolution? For a professor to imply that they resolved the mystery of God and propose to share the conclusion with colleagues seems out of place and time.

                Second, “service the American democracy” appeals to socialism’s bias against the United States’ constitutional republic. Marxists have decided that America can be defeated by ignoring the law while civic citizens wait for church or state to bring justice. If called into court, socialists may choose to respond. Often, they say they forgot their past actions. Judges and lawyers collect pay and wait for more court action. Shame on benefitting lawyers and judges. I write to encourage fellow citizens to vote to uphold the U.S. republic and pursue statutory justice.

                Third, what is “secular university”? Is it a university that conforms to the godless message of Genesis 1:26-28, that is a university that pursues statutory justice on earth? Does secular university practice, advocate, and facilitate humankind to rule to the good on earth?

                Fourth, why does academia avoid ineluctable evidence? The phrase “the ineluctable truth” was published in 1906, according to Google ngrams, and usage has grown since then. Why aren’t professors using “the ineluctable truth” or better in teaching? What, beyond the bad, is special about academic opinion?

                Fifth, why does academia resist the reality that “free speech” is a political construct? If a person does not speak with humility toward the ineluctable truth, they are begging woe. The person who opposes the laws of physics invites ruin. When woe or ruin comes to them, they have the opportunity to reform by making amends and not repeating the error. When their speech delivers harm to others, statutory justice demands accounting. Harvard’s lesson in humility is ongoing.

                Sixth, how can university cling to “Lockean liberty of conscience” when life makes plain to every considerate person that they may, in self-interest, choose the good in every action. It’s true that there will always be people who perceive that they prefer the bad. However, fellow citizens need not invite the woe the bad ineluctably delivers. I accept that some professors think the bad can be moderated. However, I oppose professors imposing that opinion on students and the public.

                Seventh, “mutual respect” is not possible without mutual appreciation. For example, Hebrews waiting for the Messiah, Catholics living with the Eucharist, Protestants waiting for Christ’s return, and Muslims submitting to Allah cannot respect each other without mutual humility to the human commission: rule to the good on earth. By accepting that they may and can choose the good in every action, people can hold their religious beliefs and still be civic citizens. In public, religious beliefs can be held private while religious doctrine is weighed against civic integrity and reformed if necessary. The person who appreciates life cannot respect the individual who destroys safety and security, let alone life itself.

                Eighth, in academic speech there is no place for hate. Professors may and can create an atmosphere of humility and forgiveness. Professors may demand of themselves understanding of the knowledge. For example, I suggest that Hebrews and Christians who hate Muslims may be persuaded to examine and decry Genesis 16:1-12 as inconsistent with Genesis 1:26-28’s responsibility to rule to the good on earth. Knowledge of scripture can be used to foment hate, while understanding can establish appreciation. In Christianity, I think “hate” in Luke 14:26 is the writer’s egregious bad, unintentional or not. The world’s 1/3 Christians and Hebrews may reform hate in their doctrine and collaborate with Muslims to conform to Genesis 1:26-28. Then, another 45% of the world’s population could take notice and do the work to understand.

                Ninth, like the rest of human beings, professors have not the luxury of teaching “truth as they see it”. When professors don’t know the ineluctable truth, they may and can express their opinion and say so. It’s often prudent to follow statement of opinion with, “But I don’t know the ineluctable truth”.

                Tenth, what is “modern scientific thinking”? I think research is a process and its product is discovery of ineluctable evidence, either positive or negative. As new instruments of perception are invented, civic understanding approaches the ineluctable truth. For example, the “flat” earth seemed like a globe to researchers living 5000 years ago, was reported round 2500 years ago, confirmed round 400 years ago, and observed as a globe 80 years ago. Research has always pursued ineluctable evidence using the best available tools of perception. Reason is a process tool that cannot alter the evidence.

                I hope to have the opportunity to discuss my ideas in a forum that intends to aid humankind’s acceptance that they may, can, and will rule to the good on earth, despite the perception that there will always be some people who prefer the bad. I hope LSU will lead such a forum.

#USpreambler

Copyright©2024 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. 

Rob Natelson on states defending their citizens from aliens

 Wonderful, generous scholar Rob Natelson, In “Understanding the Constitution: How States May Respond to Illegal Immagration”, The Epoch Times, shockingly used the phrase “enemies of the human race”, attributed to Emer de Vattel (d. 1767). I wanted to know more and discovered Vattel may have been defending Christian political philosophy, whether he was a believer or not. See https://www.theepochtimes.com/opinion/understanding-the-constitution-how-states-may-respond-to-illegal-immigration-part-iii-5561877 and consider reading the series.

Comment I posted on Epoch Times

           Lawyers and judges seem fixated on copyright and attribution. There’s bad and good. The bad is it shields them from false imposition on the public. The good is they may aid understanding by the civic faction, We the People of the United States. The bad is that not every citizen is civic. By “civic” I mean reliably responsible to the good rather than the bad in human connections and transactions. Quoting, Vattel’s 1758 phrase “exterminated wherever they are seized” without mentioning U.S. due process is not good.

            I think Natelson means well yet in human being (verb) cannot perform to the good without considering fellow citizens, including the gullible. I appreciate Natelson’s open scholarship and enlightenment to me.

But I suspected Emer de Vattel’s harshness and wondered if it was christian. In a civic rather than religious culture, statutory justice seeks to correct dissidents to the good, reform individuals who tolerate the bad, constrain habitual bad actors, and terminate evil rebels.

Believers don’t realize it, but the church, by extolling the Christ, suppresses Jesus’ civic influence, which can be found in public dialogues reported in the Holy Bible. For example, Jesus told Pilate that rather than to be king, he came to witness to the truth (John 18:37). I think in each generation, civic people reflect Jesus, some without citing Jesus’ political philosophy.

            Thanks to Natelson’s light, I located Vattel’s The Law of Nations and found another quote: “. . . all nations have a right to enter into a league against such a people, to repress them, and to treat them as the common enemies of the human race. The christian nations would be no less justifiable in forming a confederacy against the states of Barbary . . .” Vattel may not have been a Christian yet wrote in its defense.

            With that, I searched for parallel thought in the Bible and found 1 Thessalonians 2:14-17, Complete Jewish Bible, “. . . you suffered the same things from your countrymen as they did from the Judeans who both killed the Lord Yeshua and the prophets, and chased us out too. They are displeasing God and opposing all mankind . . .”. Paul seems a founder of anti-Semitism. Paul’s antithesis, James, seems a Semite. I question “Complete Jewish Bible”: it could be “Compete Hebrew Bible”, in order to aid Semitism to its people.

            In my eighth decade, I appreciate chemical engineering education for imposing on me the edict: Make certain equipment you specify cannot blow up or threaten the public. Law schools may and can teach a similar thought: make certain nothing you express misleads the republic. Civic success is impossible without intention to the good.

Continuing to ponder, I posted opinion about free expression on Facebook, as follows:

Today, into the year 2024, U.S. lessons on free speech recall Louisiana’s excellence. Its Declaration of Rights includes “Section 7. No law shall curtail or restrain the freedom of speech or of the press. Every person may speak, write, and publish his sentiments on any subject, but is responsible for abuse of that freedom.” The U.S. Amendment I should do so well.

Louisiana subtly turns freedom, traditional political-fantasy, into responsibility: the impossible into the possible. Some lawyers and judges, for example Donald Trump accusers, are experiencing Louisiana wisdom as I write.

In actual reality, freedom is impossible, because the laws of physics control the consequences of human choice. The person who chooses not to earn their bread eats whatever the public offers. Law that does not pursue statutory justice invites ruin. The person who claims to be theGod better not get cut and bleed. Congress claims its freedom of religion with no humility to theGod.

U.S. responsible independence rests with the civic faction, We the People of the United States. But not every citizen is civic. By “civic” I mean reliably responsible to the good rather than the bad in human connections and transactions. The U.S. constitutional republic is losing to democracy, because many citizens fancy freedom rather than independence. Tradition imposes freedom’s chimera each Independence Day: our God and our government will take care of you.

In my ninth decade, I appreciate chemical engineering education for imposing on me the edict: Make certain equipment you specify cannot blow up or threaten the public. Law schools may and can teach a similar thought: make certain nothing you express misleads the republic.

Success is impossible without the intention to take responsibility to the good rather than the bad in every choice. Freedom is no substitute for independence. 

#USpreambler

Copyright©2024 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. 

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.