People need knowledge, but understanding seems the personally advantageous human goal. Comprehending knowledge leads to understanding. Only when knowledge is received, considered, and challenged respecting the-objective-truth can understanding come. Comprehension is foremost in the individual's self-interest; then comes understanding the-objective-truth; with increasing tools of perception, understanding may approach the-literal truth.
The-literal-truth is unyielding, and what-could-be, in other words imagination, can be distracting. Pretense as a substitute for the-objective-truth seems ignoble and willful. In other words, a person is better served by the pursuit of understanding than by the pretense to master the-objective-truth. In short, when you don’t know, admit to yourself you don’t know, and thereby keep your mind open. Prudently accepting the-objective-truth keeps a reserve for the-literal-truth.
To be open-minded, a person must also admit what is known. There are facts, such as: my name is Phil; the earth is globe-like; the sun is a natural nuclear reactor; most growing grasses are green. Some people are radical skeptics and will argue against facts. Plato imagined immortality through the “soul”--an intellectual construct yet to be confirmed by actual reality: ineluctable evidence. Despite anyone’s speculation and imagination, actual reality may be discovered but cannot be intellectually constructed. A person cannot think non-fiction let alone fiction into being. Yet events can be changed by beliefs. For example, President George W. Bush believed he was influenced by whatever-God-is to invade Iraq. (He would assure us that his personal God is whatever-God-is, as almost every theist does.) However, the consequences of Bush's belief-based action unfolded according to actual reality; we suffer woe.
In other words, future events may be influenced by pretense. For example, anyone who pretends another person is about to attack him or her and on that pretense harms the other person may risk subjugation to the law. The-objective-truth yields to neither faith nor reason nor revelation nor force nor war nor understanding nor hope nor words nor personal truth. Invention of better means of perception may alter the-objective-truth and require amendment of the law. The process of upholding the law until injustice is discovered may approach the-literal-truth and thus statutory justice: perfect law enforcement.
The student trusts and commits to the-objective-truth, not necessarily expecting to reach it; humankind's discoveries advance at a pace the individual cannot conceive during the time he or she is acquiring basic comprehension and commitment to a complete adult lifetime. He or she is humble. Collectively humble, humankind has developed a process for understanding, and the process marches forward in near silence, yet with exponential success in physics and growing success in integrity, the practice that is journaled as ethics. Laws of physics and laws of integrity are identical in origin.
The-literal-truth is unyielding, and what-could-be, in other words imagination, can be distracting. Pretense as a substitute for the-objective-truth seems ignoble and willful. In other words, a person is better served by the pursuit of understanding than by the pretense to master the-objective-truth. In short, when you don’t know, admit to yourself you don’t know, and thereby keep your mind open. Prudently accepting the-objective-truth keeps a reserve for the-literal-truth.
To be open-minded, a person must also admit what is known. There are facts, such as: my name is Phil; the earth is globe-like; the sun is a natural nuclear reactor; most growing grasses are green. Some people are radical skeptics and will argue against facts. Plato imagined immortality through the “soul”--an intellectual construct yet to be confirmed by actual reality: ineluctable evidence. Despite anyone’s speculation and imagination, actual reality may be discovered but cannot be intellectually constructed. A person cannot think non-fiction let alone fiction into being. Yet events can be changed by beliefs. For example, President George W. Bush believed he was influenced by whatever-God-is to invade Iraq. (He would assure us that his personal God is whatever-God-is, as almost every theist does.) However, the consequences of Bush's belief-based action unfolded according to actual reality; we suffer woe.
In other words, future events may be influenced by pretense. For example, anyone who pretends another person is about to attack him or her and on that pretense harms the other person may risk subjugation to the law. The-objective-truth yields to neither faith nor reason nor revelation nor force nor war nor understanding nor hope nor words nor personal truth. Invention of better means of perception may alter the-objective-truth and require amendment of the law. The process of upholding the law until injustice is discovered may approach the-literal-truth and thus statutory justice: perfect law enforcement.
The student trusts and commits to the-objective-truth, not necessarily expecting to reach it; humankind's discoveries advance at a pace the individual cannot conceive during the time he or she is acquiring basic comprehension and commitment to a complete adult lifetime. He or she is humble. Collectively humble, humankind has developed a process for understanding, and the process marches forward in near silence, yet with exponential success in physics and growing success in integrity, the practice that is journaled as ethics. Laws of physics and laws of integrity are identical in origin.
Some readers will erroneously equate the process for understanding to the "scientific process." The difference is in the assertion that the process applies to both physics and psychology, whether human or not.
Humankind has developed a continuing and seemingly infinite[1] process for understanding. Steps are varied, successive, additive, and often repeatable. In one variation, a person may perceive there is evidence of a phenomenon or principle, aware that the perception could be wrong or a mirage; propose viable explanations for the perceived evidence, using information and imagination preferably based on prior understanding; develop theories that accommodate the perceived evidence and some of the proposed explanations within the constraints of existing discovery; consider tests for each of the plausible explanations, and prioritize the explanations by both testing-feasibility and fit with interrelated laws and theories; assume the most likely, testable explanation; design economical, feasible tests of the selected explanation; review the plans respecting practicality and consider cycling to an earlier step; eventually conduct the tests; gather, analyze, and evaluate the data; identify confirming or denying evidences within the data; draw conclusions; and perhaps make recommendations. Right away, there may be plans for repetition of the test: Actual reality is repeatable. Adhering to such a process, Einstein could have accepted his own mathematical evidence that the universe is dynamic. His mistake was not accepting the evidence that showed that his perception of a static universe was wrong. I explain Einstein’s religious or belief blunder, below.
In the process for understanding, conclusions vary. Sometimes there was no phenomenon—only perception—a mirage. For example, Einstein’s static universe[2] was only a paradigm. Sometimes a proposed explanation is disproved but the evidence or discovery helps guide further research. Sometimes a proposed explanation seems correct, and thus, understanding apparently increases. Often, seemingly correct explanations require revision when attempts to reproduce the test shows variation from test to test; or when new viewpoints or new ways of measuring are applied. For example, Einstein’s theory of relativity showed Newton’s law of gravity is incomplete.[3]
Thus, the process continually improves understanding yet often seems to merely approach the-objective-truth much less the-literal-truth. When proposed explanations don’t prove out, they are not discarded: they are retained for new discovery or new viewpoint or merely to journal errors in the path to discovery. For example, the imagination that there is a creator (lower case to separate the question of worship and praise) is, so far, not fruitful but is retained, waiting for ineluctable evidence. Furthermore, the idea that there should be worship and praise of a creator is speculation that the creator possesses human-like qualities or that the human species is not capable of voluntary integrity. For example, since the sun was known to cause death (now known as a consequence of overexposure), the sun must be a god that consumes humans; hence, human sacrifice to appease gods. Trade and bargaining emerged from human cultural thought, but so far does not seem to work with a creator. The idea that there is a creator may arise by asking the wrong question, for example: Why? Why isn’t there nothing instead of something[4]? The why? combines physics and integrity, perhaps erroneously.
Physics seems to be energy, mass, and space-time, from which everything emerges. Perhaps the initial state of physics was potential energy alone. Awareness of each emergence from physics or its discovery often leads to innovation so as to benefit. Understanding how to benefit and acting accordingly is integrity, which establishes ethics or morality; the combination of discovery and advantage is integrity. Humankind may be guided by physics-based integrity and create an interrelated system of physics-based self-discipline in all behavior including civic conduct.
As mentioned above, "civic" refers to justice in human connections more than cooperation for the city. In other words, fellow citizens collaborate for each other's responsible happiness rather than for municipal goals. If all persons collaborated on civic integrity, there'd be no need for laws about behavior. Since not all humans develop integrity, laws are required, but civic citizens must develop statutory justice to motivate dissidents to reform. With this analysis, we have answered the question, "Why behave according to civic integrity?" without asking why physics exists. We have answered Hume's question as to why a person ought to behave. Perhaps the-indisputable-facts-of-reality as the basis for civic integrity--taking the word "physics" out of the expression--is clearer for most people. Restating, the-indisputable-facts or ineluctable evidence may be used to develop civic integrity. Again, civic integrity may be based on the-objective-truth. The-objective-truth is the standard against which truth is measured and it may lead to the-literal-truth.
Ethics, morality, and integrity
The Einstein example of religious blunder (his "cosmological" factor) is in the domain of physics, but the process for understanding serves integrity as well. For example, researchers have systematically studied how persons grow to govern their own behavior[5]. In the US, it may begin with the fear of parents' reactions or care-takers’ reactions; advance to the desire to conform to society so as to avoid the fear of ostracism; and for a few people, progress to personal autonomy and on to collaborative association to develop justice, humility, and authenticity: integrity.
In this regard, autonomy may be influenced by male-like drive for responsibility as well as female-like drive to care for others. Further, culture may influence behavior: Western drive for autonomy and achievement is a culture that may be balanced by the Eastern drive to accommodate everyone in society or to enlighten the self. Responsible human independence can free the individual to balance culture influences according to integrity.
Beyond personal autonomy, a person may discover collaborative association-- an iterative conversation that seeks to preserve each party's personal autonomy rather than establish a dominant opinion. Conclusions about ethics are based on evidence from real living and may be studied using the process for understanding described above. With well-founded ethical principles, humankind may establish a system of civic integrity. Again, "civic" refers to necessary and unavoidable--ineluctable--human connections with living for justice on the same land rather than elected social associations such as arts, sports, politics, and religion. Failure to distinguish civic duty from social preferences leads to confusion and conflict. The consequence is widespread misery and loss. Let me repeat that, confusion over the terms "civic" and "social" causes unnecessary psychological conflict with one exception: the society of responsible human independence.
Imagination
The process for understanding works in all aspects of existence, including the imagination, provided what has been discovered is allowed as evidence respecting the unknown. For example, consider human sacrifice. Ancient people imagined that natural phenomena were actions of Gods. The Sun was a God, different for different cultures: the sun often had killed over-exposed persons. Some tribes assumed both that the sun wanted to consume people and that by consecrating people for sacrificial death the tribe could satisfy the sun’s wants--bargain with the sun. However, the sun never seemed to respond to human bargaining—shone on both sides in war and peace; there was no evidence that human sacrifice is beneficial or has power over human outcomes. With its passion for understanding---integrity, humankind discovered that the sun is a natural, nuclear reactor and that human sacrifice is not beneficial. However, so far, most humans have not recognized this conclusion as incomplete evidence that there is no God at all. Each time a God-construct fails, there is new evidence that there is no God. Theism survived both understanding the physics of the sun and consistent failure of human attempts to bargain with the sun—the assumed ethic. I do not know if there is a God or not, but the failure of the sun-bargains does not support the idea that a God exists. By introducing appreciation for whatever-God-is, we may improve human comprehension of an unknown and lessen chances of being at odds with the-literal-truth.
Theism
The discovery that the sun is not a god put in question theism, the art of intellectually constructing Gods. But traditions, rather than die, linger as an influence on a faction of humankind. “Once a civilization has existed on earth, its effects [seem] permanent.”[i] Thus, some tribes sacrificed humans to bargain with hypothetical beings not related to the sun. Often perpetrators sought advantage; for example, in the Mayan supernatural world, some priests ate the flesh from human sacrifices because protein was in short supply. Phantasms similar to human-sacrifice persist with no evidence of benefits beyond emotional satisfaction to believers. Theism persists merely because some people want the personal benefits--comfort or the sense they are enhancing their afterdeath through afterlife in heaven or reincarnation as a higher being. They perceive using the art of belief in mystery. Yet, as long as there is no real harm to other people, objecting to someone’s theism or whatever religion they pursue would be as sensible as objecting to their favorite symphony or opera or rock group. No-harm religions are a matter of taste and culture, and are naturally contradictory to each other but must not conflict civic integrity. See snake-handling, below.
Among some religions, contradictions accompany the concept of souls, whether the souls are destined for everlasting life or reincarnation. Either way, the finality of death of the body, mind, and person is speculatively overcome, giving believers satisfaction that they may secure a promising future for their souls. Personal tendency to try to take responsibility for the soul is characteristic of the noble human urge to behave responsibly. However, since the soul is an intellectual construct—an entity that is not derived from ineluctable evidence, no one has incentive or justice to encourage a focus on the soul. In other words, a person who questions another person's soul may have committed the most violent offense a human can impose. The alternative is to appreciate the individual to discover and evaluate whether to believe in souls or not. Dedicating life to assumed afterdeath seems harmless for some believers and helps them guide their lives by a well established perhaps continually improved doctrinal plan. However, institutional doctrinal plans adjust to actual reality at a very slow pace, for example, covering five or more generations.[6] Living to fulfill the soul should not be civically, civilly, or legally imposed on people who either do not think souls or Gods exist or think that a particular doctrinal plan is harmfully obsolete. In other words, civic integrity requires separation of church from state. A nation cannot reform to separation of church from state if most persons do not individually separate church from state. Thus, separation of church from state is an individual citizen's civic responsibility. Consequently, the discipline of religion is not among the civic, civil, and legal goals stated in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution.
Beliefs versus evidence
Unfortunately, many people consider understanding as having two competitive justifications: evidence versus beliefs. By adopting beliefs, people may be using reason or faith to reject the-objective-truth and ultimately the-literal-truth. Let me restate that: beliefs often distract the individual from actual reality. For example, some people believe that because the earth is some 6,000 years old the evidence that dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago is false. Based on extensive studies, some people become satisfied with “my truth” or just adopt “Mom's and Dad’s competitive truths.” Some, like radical skeptics, may question the existence of the-objective-truth and the-literal-truth. I do not object to their question but do not study or attempt third responses to radical skeptics; you might say I am willful in this regard; I prefer my willfulness regarding radical skeptics.
With evidence, there is hope for understanding, which often leads to technology, innovation, goodwill, collaboration and other discernible benefits. However, maintenance of misunderstanding leads to ruin. For example, by understanding germs, humanity learned not to gather in church for prayer against epidemics. Researchers developed antiseptics and antibiotics. Yet, some people who hold religious misunderstandings may resist evidence for millennia. For example, Biblical geography, which nourished fear of falling off the edge of the earth, limited major exploration for nearly 1000 years.[ii] Yet during that time, ocean travelers perceived from the curvature of the horizon that they could travel as far as the eye could see and therefore overcame the bad advice—became explorers. On a cruise, I tried to recapture that ancient fear--falling off the earth--but could not imagine that fear. (Erroneous Biblical passages maintain the idea that slavery is punishment for sin and the slave race is yet unknown. See 1 Peter 2:18-25. BTW: the most harmful "hate" passage I know if is John 15:18-23, as it accuses non-Christians of being God haters.)
With evidence, there is hope for understanding, which often leads to technology, innovation, goodwill, collaboration and other discernible benefits. However, maintenance of misunderstanding leads to ruin. For example, by understanding germs, humanity learned not to gather in church for prayer against epidemics. Researchers developed antiseptics and antibiotics. Yet, some people who hold religious misunderstandings may resist evidence for millennia. For example, Biblical geography, which nourished fear of falling off the edge of the earth, limited major exploration for nearly 1000 years.[ii] Yet during that time, ocean travelers perceived from the curvature of the horizon that they could travel as far as the eye could see and therefore overcame the bad advice—became explorers. On a cruise, I tried to recapture that ancient fear--falling off the earth--but could not imagine that fear. (Erroneous Biblical passages maintain the idea that slavery is punishment for sin and the slave race is yet unknown. See 1 Peter 2:18-25. BTW: the most harmful "hate" passage I know if is John 15:18-23, as it accuses non-Christians of being God haters.)
Error
When a student/researcher rejects evidence because it does not comport to his expectations or paradigm, he subjects himself to error of failure more than potential. Recall Albert Einstein, working toward his general theory of relativity, modeled a static universe. When his brilliant mathematics informed him that the universe is expanding, he mistakenly rejected the evidence and arrogantly (perhaps) added a “cosmological factor” to accommodate his static paradigm. He could have yielded to the evidence (trusted his own mathematics) and approached the-objective-truth in his field. He could have accepted correction by error. Contemporaneously, mathematicians[iii],[iv] reported a dynamic universe. Some have reported that Einstein ironically called them “religious” for advancing the dynamic paradigm. About a decade later, Einstein thanked Edwin Hubble for proving the universe is dynamic, correcting, as Einstein called it, “the biggest blunder of my life.” Students may learn from Einstein’s religious experience--or repeat the mistake in their own way for their own lives. It is better to know and learn from the past but not dwell in its traditions. And when a good neighbor* asks "Are you certain?" about one of your beliefs, think on it.
Religion
I cite Einstein’s blunder to illustrate my definition of religion: the practice of making an assumption about a personally heartfelt concern and trying to live according to the assumption, ignoring developing, ineluctable evidence that the assumption is wrong and sometimes perhaps even that the concern is unfounded. For example, some people who become concerned about the phantasm called “soul,” dedicate their lives so that they can sense comfort that they will have the afterdeath they perceive; they forego what-may-be-understood for what-is-unknown. For some, that’s all there is to life: "securing" their favorable afterdeath.
Asked to list the twelve worst assumptions in my life, I cite first the childhood notion that if I mastered Bible interpretation I would succeed in life. I can’t think of the other eleven bad assumptions. But, unfortunately for me, for five decades, I nourished my indoctrination into the Bible. All that time I could have been exploring the rest of the world’s classic literature, which shows that the Bible is part of a subset of religion: theism. Some people contend with the Bible dilemma better than me, I suppose by not taking the words and phrases literally on the ultimate bases. Someone advised not to take your religion too seriously. Perhaps it takes a God to discern the worthy ideas from the bad. However, I am satisfied to reject a text that employs the word "hate" in the job interview; see Luke 14:26, for example; John 15:18-23 seems worse if possible.
Atheism
As art forms, theism and atheism seem equal. That is, "I believe there is a God," is as arrogant or erroneous respecting the-objective-truth as "I believe there is no God." As a way of living, “I don’t know if there is a God” or "I appreciate whatever-God-is" seems better for the individual. Admitting that you do not know seems better than either atheism or theism. Happy is the person who admits early in life, “The fact that things exist instead of nothing could be singular evidence for a creator, but I do not know if there is a creator or not, and if there is, I don’t know if worship and praise are appropriate, so I am especially warry of a Creator.” Taking this position enables the individual to maintain an appreciation for any creator, whereas commitment to either theism or atheism dissuades a person from respect for the-objective-truth, which may involve a creator but not a God---or not. Maybe there is God. Perceptions we do not use or dimensions we have not explored may prove a creator and that worship and praise are required, so it's a Creator. In simple terms, each believer, to believe a defined creator, must turn his/her back on the-objective-truth, perhaps God. The believer must assume he or she knows enough to make a choice. I do not know enough to choose.
Beyond false pride or subjugation, there seems no justification for rejecting the-objective-truth. If, in fact, the sun controls the universe, why would anyone turn his back on the sun? I hope that is not too abstract; my point is, I understand the sun is only a nuclear reactor but I could be wrong: Theism could be the correct art and the sun its object. For all we know, we must use "LORD" to designate the controller and avoid the threat of Exodus 20:7: "You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name." I do not know the-objective-truth and can't imagine the-literal-truth.
Governance
All over the world most people struggle for civic governance. Governance has two important roles: encourage self-discipline by the individual and promote collaboration among inhabitants. It seems to me most persons want mutual, comprehensive safety and security, hereafter Security, so that he or she can pursue responsible human independence. So far, humankind has attempted to use monopolies to force people to conform to a society or a civilization---to be civil, giving up on civic. However, the human species is too aware to yield-to social norms or civilizations rather than collaborate for justice. The human must have private liberty, public independence, and willingly exercise self-discipline: Conformance to society is insufficient. Therefore, willing people must reform government to civic integrity based on the-objective-truth to discover the-literal-truth. Each person pursues individual happiness as he/she perceives it, while disciplining civic activities such that other persons may pursue the happiness they perceive. With freedom-from oppression, each person may work to acquire the independence-to pursue personal preferences rather than a civil ideal. The future U.S. culture may offer individual happiness with civic integrity.
Thus, there is domestic goodwill and mutual appreciation, which require civic integrity. Civic integrity requires private integrity (Jim Callender, 5/3/2016 conversation). It’s much like queuing to enter a symphony hall or rock concert; people happily avoid trying to occupy the same place at the same time. The same physical practicality applies to traffic control. In fact, physical constraints decide all civic issues: who eats and who starves; birth and abortion; appreciative bonding or having sex; homosexual sex or heterosexual sex; homophobia or heterophobia; seclusion or travel; cleanliness or filth; fidelity to gender or confused existence. In religion, people who would handle poisonous snakes to demonstrate fidelity to erroneous scripture should be constrained from exposing loved ones and the public from the practice. Thus, when religious morals conflict civic morality, religion must be constrained by statutory law. A civic people provide Security so that each person may pursue real-no-harm private living---individual happiness with civic integrity.
Similarly, based on the-objective-truth, same-sex partners cannot independently conceive and therefore, for civic purposes, each person in the partnership is equal to single people, but the partnership, according to physics, is not equal to a heterosexual couple. Yet a heterosexual couple who are without a child should not have tax advantage over either single people or same-sex partners. This relates to the principle that the laws of physics and integrity come from the same source.
Thus, there is domestic goodwill and mutual appreciation, which require civic integrity. Civic integrity requires private integrity (Jim Callender, 5/3/2016 conversation). It’s much like queuing to enter a symphony hall or rock concert; people happily avoid trying to occupy the same place at the same time. The same physical practicality applies to traffic control. In fact, physical constraints decide all civic issues: who eats and who starves; birth and abortion; appreciative bonding or having sex; homosexual sex or heterosexual sex; homophobia or heterophobia; seclusion or travel; cleanliness or filth; fidelity to gender or confused existence. In religion, people who would handle poisonous snakes to demonstrate fidelity to erroneous scripture should be constrained from exposing loved ones and the public from the practice. Thus, when religious morals conflict civic morality, religion must be constrained by statutory law. A civic people provide Security so that each person may pursue real-no-harm private living---individual happiness with civic integrity.
Similarly, based on the-objective-truth, same-sex partners cannot independently conceive and therefore, for civic purposes, each person in the partnership is equal to single people, but the partnership, according to physics, is not equal to a heterosexual couple. Yet a heterosexual couple who are without a child should not have tax advantage over either single people or same-sex partners. This relates to the principle that the laws of physics and integrity come from the same source.
An injustice
In just governance, the duty and opportunity to think, a human responsibility, would be defended instead of religion, an institution. Also,"conscience" is a religiously-correct substitute for "factual thought." The US Supreme Court does not define “religion” even though religion is defended in the First Amendment to the US Constitution. Defense without definition is an injustice in itself! The Court’s position seems that the plaintiff will define “religion” and the Court will render its opinion on the definition, giving the court the latitude to treat people in arbitrary ways. The accepted definition in 1788 when the draft constitution for the USA was ratified to be amended with a Bill of Rights came from the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776). It remains, verbatim in today’s Virginia Constitution, with emphasis by me:
That religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and, therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other. No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain their opinions in matters of religion, and the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities. And the General Assembly shall not prescribe any religious test whatever, or confer any peculiar privileges or advantages on any sect or denomination, or pass any law requiring or authorizing any religious society, or the people of any district within this Commonwealth, to levy on themselves or others, any tax for the erection or repair of any house of public worship, or for the support of any church or ministry; but it shall be left free to every person to select his religious instructor, and to make for his support such private contract as he shall please.
About one month after the required nine states ratified the Constitution, Virginia joined the nation, with its due right to ratify as one of the original thirteen states. It did so with the provision that the Constitution be amended to accommodate the above provisions with the additional thought, "that no particular religious sect or society ought to be favored or established by Law in preference to others." [7]
Thus, religion is defined by “duty to Creator,” restricting it to theism, and every idea that follows is based on that exclusive, unjust definition. For example, Buddhists do not believe in a Creator. They account for only a fraction of non-theists. Non-theists comprise the largest oppressed minority in the USA. There are other non-believers. Today, there may be 75 million Americans (23%) suffering this injustice. The injustice was among those anticipated in Federalist 84, which I paraphrase: the preamble to the US Constitution leaves all unspecified rights with the people and a Bill of Rights might conflict with those rights. An important distinction here is that the Virginia Declaration of Rights vainly attempts to separate religious morals from civic morality yet specifies theism as a requirement for civic propriety. A consequence of this failure is that the Bill of Rights protects religion, an institution, instead of integrity, a personal self-interest; a religious moral overrides civic morality; beliefs trump integrity. The First Amendment should be revised to address integrity instead of “religion,” to correct the existing U.S. tyranny.
But the preamble has even more importance, which the 1787 signers of the US Constitution did not seem to recognize or defend when the agreement to ratify the constitution happened in 1788.
"Secular"
Heretofore, I had mistakenly taken for granted the propaganda that the preamble is a secular document. “Secular” means, “of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred.” Thus, “secular” is an antonym of “religious.” There are many variations on the meaning of "secular," and perhaps the softest usage is "areligious." However, since working on promotethepreamble.blogspot.com, I have recognized that the preamble is a civic, civil, and legal document. It enumerates civic relationships between citizens who want to live in mutual, comprehensive safety and security (Security) as each perceives happiness, allowing other citizens to do the same. Notice that "want to" is like "volunteer" and neither implies collaboration. But collaboration is required, and the mediator or standard is physics-based integrity or the-objective-truth. Also, note that Security provides freedom-from oppression so that each person may acquire the independence-to live according to personal preference, within the constraint of Security. However, the preamble, by not mentioning theism or religion at all assigns belief to the status of privacy rather than public pursuit. The preamble, I think wisely, avoids influencing citizens to worship and praise their God without due reserve for whatever-God-is.
Much as a traffic signal empowers drivers to make safe passage through intersections, the preamble empowers willing citizens to iteratively-collaborate for civic self-discipline. Each citizen who practices the art of religion has a unique religion, and when one attempts to impose religious doctrine into civic discipline, she/he acts unjustly—divisively with respect to the civic association citizens are born into. By that, I mean infants emerge with human potential for independence, and civilization arbitrarily constrains them rather than encouraging them to discover the-objective-truth. People who would impose their religion on others separate from We the [Civic] People of the United States and place themselves among "we, the people," who alienate themselves from Secruity.
About 77% of citizens are factional believers, including 70% factional Christians [8]. Among the believers are a smaller percentage who would impose theism into civic governance. They are often called “fundamentalists” of diverse religious associations. Most of the believers I know want to live in peace according to their opinion and allow other citizens the same privilege. I have no idea what the demography is, but I doubt they belong with the group of unjust citizens who want to impose theism on other people. Yet today, the majority takes for granted arbitrary theism--factional Protestantism--that has persisted in this country. Its modern label is Judeo-Christianity and the practice seems moving toward Judeo-Catholicism.
I do not think just citizens are responsible for over 230 years of neglect of the preamble. However, I could be wrong: it is possible that most believers think that if any citizen’s religion is not the same as theirs the other should be excluded from individual happiness with civic integrity. If I am wrong--in fact, most inhabitants think you have to be a Christian to be a citizen---most Americans are not of “We the People of the United States” as defined in the preamble. I want to persuade at least 2/3 of adults to iteratively collaborate for civic integrity using the preamble and the-objective-truth so that each person has the opportunity to pursue responsible human independence during every decade of his or her full life. In a civic culture, few die early. A civic people collaborate for individual happiness with civic integrity or mutual, comprehensive safety and security.
* a favorite question of my friend Hector Presedo
I do not think just citizens are responsible for over 230 years of neglect of the preamble. However, I could be wrong: it is possible that most believers think that if any citizen’s religion is not the same as theirs the other should be excluded from individual happiness with civic integrity. If I am wrong--in fact, most inhabitants think you have to be a Christian to be a citizen---most Americans are not of “We the People of the United States” as defined in the preamble. I want to persuade at least 2/3 of adults to iteratively collaborate for civic integrity using the preamble and the-objective-truth so that each person has the opportunity to pursue responsible human independence during every decade of his or her full life. In a civic culture, few die early. A civic people collaborate for individual happiness with civic integrity or mutual, comprehensive safety and security.
* a favorite question of my friend Hector Presedo
Copyright©2014 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. Revised March 22, 2020.
[1] Conversation with Wayne Parker on 4/14/2010. It seems that discovery uncovers the immensity of the unknowns.
[2] Albert Einstein thought the universe is static, but Edwin Hubble proved it is expanding.
[3] The thought “a theory shows incompleteness in a law,” itself requires understanding.
[4] This comes from a question by G. W. Leibniz, d. 1716.
[5] Stout, Martha, Ph.D. . The Sociopath Next Door. Broadway Books. 2005, pp 164-180.
[6] It took the Church 400 years to admit that Galileo Galilei did not err by confirming that Copernicus’s idea that the Sun is the center of our galaxy.
[7] See “Proposed Constitutional Amendments” at http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06.html .
[8] Online at www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/ .
[i] Lissner, Ivar. The Silent Past: Mysterious and Forgotten Cultures of the World. Translated from German by J. Maxwell Brownjohn. 1962. G.P. Putnam’s Sons. NY.
[ii] Boorstin. 1983. The Discoverers. Random House. NY.
[iii] Alexander Friedman published mathematics for an expanding universe in 1924. See online: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Friedmann .
[iv] Georges Lemaitre reported after Friedman: see online, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre.
