Archive for the Category » Declaration of Independence «

November 24th, 2009 | Author: akagaga

The Gadsden flag is one of the most easily recognized symbols of the American Revolution, and has been widely adopted today as a sign of government protest.

Last spring a Missouri report was leaked that labeled anyone with a gadsden flag as a potential terrorist, and I’ve been especially partial to it ever since. [Note in the Interesting Stuff in my sidebar that I am a Charter Member of "The Domestic Terrorist Bloggers Network."  Click on the button if you'd like to join, too.]

But tonight my hubby came across an updated 21st century version of this historic flag that speaks to the age we live in.  I believe it would make Colonel Gadsden smile.  I know I did.

  • Share/Bookmark
November 05th, 2009 | Author: akagaga

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

It hasn’t been a good news week for the equality of all.  First, from Homeland Stupidity:

Prosecutors trying to put you in prison for a crime you didn’t commit can fabricate evidence, coerce witnesses into lying on the stand, and enjoy absolute immunity. They cannot go to prison. They cannot even be sued. They aren’t even likely to get so much as a reprimand from the bar association or from their bosses, even after publicly admitting to framing you.

It seems two teenagers were framed for and convicted of murder in 1977.  In 2003, their convictions were overturned because the key witness had committed perjury at the behest of the prosecutors.  But the Supreme Court was told yesterday in Pottawattamie County v. McGhee that the prosecutors shouldn’t be punished.  HS summed it up well:

I’m not sure what’s more disturbing, the fact that prosecutors routinely get away with framing people or the fact that the government wants to keep it that way. The federal government, 27 states, and several intergovernmental associations all filed briefs in support of the prosecutors.

This is our justice system.

*   *   *

And we’ve all heard that Obama signed the so-call “hate crimes” bill  last week, which results in more punishment for murdering someone because they’re gay than murdering someone because you wanted to steal their money.  This doesn’t sound very equal to me.  And, of course, the government now gets to determine our motive for murder, giving them more power to screw things up, à la Pottawattamie County v. McGhee above.

So how did this bill get passed after more than a decade of opposition?  It was attached to the latest military spending spree of $680 billion, which was a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don’t proposition.   According to Truthdig:

It was a clever piece of marketing. It blunted debate about new funding for war. And behind the closed doors of the caucus rooms, the Democratic leadership told Blue Dog Democrats, who are squeamish about defending gays or lesbians from hate crimes, that they could justify the vote as support for the war. They told liberal Democrats, who are squeamish about unlimited funding for war, that they could defend the vote as a step forward in the battle for civil rights. Gender equality groups, by selfishly narrowing their concern to themselves, participated in the dirty game.

William Grigg has posted a poignant analysis of the whole sorry situation titled Blood on Their Hands, complete with photos of the results.  Here’s an excerpt:

The difference between this measure and its predecessors is this: The leading elements of the “hate industry” — those sanctimonious scolds who make a handsome living tutoring the rest of us in the ways of “tolerance” — are now directly implicated in the avoidable mass murder of innocent people in the Near East.

For the squalid collection of pressure groups that promoted passage of the hate crimes measure, — the so-called Anti-Defamation League, the self-styled Human Rights Campaign, the fraudulently named Southern Poverty Law Center, et. al. — this is an entirely acceptable arrangement. Their fund-raising will prosper; their stature in Washington will continue to grow; their influence over law enforcement will expand; most importantly, the power of the state to persecute their political enemies will be significantly enhanced.

Oh, sure — the political trade-off behind this “victory” means that poor brown people in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq will suffer violent death in their homes, streets, and houses of worship, cultivating understandable anti-American hatred that will yield a bloody harvest of terrorism and unending war.

  • Share/Bookmark
May 14th, 2009 | Author: akagaga

This post is part of the Favorite Founders’ Quote Friday meme. Go to Meet the Founding Fathers to see who else has participated today.

* * *

With this post, I finally(!) conclude my line-by-line examination of the most famous part of the Declaration of Independence, but here’s a little refresher as I know it’s been a long time between posts.

In the first post I looked at the phrase, We hold these truths to be self-evident. I established that relative moralism, which declares that no universal standard exists to judge right or wrong, is a lie that many Americans have been taught and have believed. In contrast, ethical positions do not change, but are self-evident in that we instinctively recognize injustice.

In part II, I examined the phrase that all men are created equal, concluding that to “create” means to bring into existence and not to “evolve,” and equal in this case doesn’t mean size or ability or morals or accomplishments or station in life, but instead refers to an individual’s inherent value or worth. I restated the phrase this way: all men are brought into existence having equal worth.

Based largely on Webster’s 1828 dictionary, Part III amplified the next phrase as follows:

that all men are freely given gifts by the One who brought them into existence, which are based on the law or will of God and conform to truth and justice, and may not be transferred or have any legal claims placed against them

Today we’ll look at the last phrase: that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Being careful to state that the rights listed are not the only rights, the founders none-the-less selected three as being worth mentioning individually:

Life: The first definition of life in Webster’s 1828 version goes this way, emphasis added:

In a general sense, that state of animals and plants, or of an organized being, in which its natural functions and motions are performed, or in which its organs are capable of performing their functions. A tree is not destitute of life in winter, when the functions of its organs are suspended; nor man during a swoon or syncope; nor strictly birds, quadrupeds or serpents during their torpitude in winter. They are not strictly dead, till the functions of their organs are incapable of being renewed.

If we accept this definition as being the one our founders understood, then the right to life begins at conception, for what is more natural than our development in the womb? Concurrently, the right to life does not end until all functions are beyond renewal. “Brain-dead” then is a meaningless term if the heart or any other organ continues to function.

This definition agrees with the 4th century Hippocratic Oath which, until quite recently, included the following statement:

I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.

Liberty: Returning to Webster’s 1828 edition, the first definition of liberty is this, emphasis added:

1. Freedom from restraint, in a general sense, and applicable to the body, or to the will or mind. The body is at liberty, when not confined; the will or mind is at liberty, when not checked or controlled. A man enjoys liberty, when no physical force operates to restrain his actions or volitions. [volition is defined as the power to choose]

Pursuit of Happiness: Again from Webster’s 1828 edition, happiness is defined as follows, emphasis added:

The agreeable sensations which spring from the enjoyment of good; that state of a being in which his desires are gratified, by the enjoyment of pleasure without pain; felicity; but happiness usually expresses less than felicity, and felicity less than bliss. Happiness is comparative. To a person distressed with pain, relief from that pain affords happiness; in other cases we give the name happiness to positive pleasure or an excitement of agreeable sensations. Happiness therefore admits of indefinite degrees of increase in enjoyment, or gratification of desires. Perfect happiness, or pleasure unalloyed with pain, is not attainable in this life.


Summary

In this very long attempt to understand just what our founders meant when they declared independence, I’ve examined the words they chose to begin this infamous document:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

In the process, an expanded, albeit less elegant, version has arisen that reflects our current use of language, and hopefully, the founders intent.

We believe the following truths are understood by all: that all men are brought into existence having equal worth, that they are freely given gifts by the One who brought them into existence, which are based on the law or will of God and conform to truth and justice, and may not be transferred or have any legal claims placed against them. These gifts include life, which begins at conception and continues until all organs cease to function; liberty, with no physical force to constrain actions or choices; and the pursuit of happiness, which comes from the enjoyment of good.

So how do we apply this today? How does it compare to the Bible? Can we stand on this statement and make informed, principled decisions about church and state and life in general? I’m asking each of my readers to mull this over and share your thoughts in a comment.

Next week (I promise, if the Good Lord is willin’ and the creek don’t rise) I’ll include your thoughts and try to apply this founding statement to the America of today.

  • Share/Bookmark
March 12th, 2009 | Author: akagaga

This post is part of the Favorite Founders’ Quote Friday meme. Go to Meet the Founding Fathers to see who else has participated.

With this post, I continue my line-by-line examination of the most famous part of the Declaration of Independence.

In the first post I looked at the phrase, We hold these truths to be self-evident. I established that relative moralism, which declares that no universal standard exists to judge right or wrong, is a lie that many Americans have been taught and have believed. In contrast, ethical positions do not change, but are self-evident in that we instinctively recognize injustice and abuse of power.

Last week, I examined the phrase that all men are created equal, concluding that to “create” means to bring into existence, and equal in this case doesn’t mean size or ability or morals or accomplishments or station in life, but instead refers to an individual’s inherent value or worth. I restated the phrase this way: all men are brought into existence having equal worth.

Today we look at the next phrase:

that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights

I’ve again gone back to Webster’s 1828 dictionary to try to get the sense of what the founder’s meant with this words. Endow means to “enrich or furnish with any gift.” Creator, which is capitalized, is the One who brings into existence.

Unalienable, with the root word “lien”, refers to property that may have a lien placed against it, that may be sold or transferred to another; as, land is alienable according to the laws of the state. In this sense, then, unalienable, means that these rights are not transferable, and may not be sold or have a lien placed against them.

Right has its basis in the “law or will of God” and conforms to the standard of truth and justice. It does not mean, as when someone declares, “I have my rights,” that we can do whatever it is we want to do. It means that we can do that which is “in accordance with what is good, proper, or just.”

Taking all these definitions into account, I’ll restate an “amplified” phrase:

that all men are freely given gifts by the One who brought them into existence, which are based on the law or will of God and conform to truth and justice, and may not be transferred or have any legal claims placed against them

Next week, I’ll finish defining the Declaration, and then I’m going to ask you for commentary on what it means to us today, and how it should be applied. Start thinking!

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

  • Share/Bookmark
March 06th, 2009 | Author: akagaga

This post is part of the Favorite Founders’ Quote Friday meme. Go to Meet the Founding Fathers to see who else has participated today.

With this post, I continue my line-by-line examination of the most famous part of the Declaration of Independence.

In the first post I looked at the phrase, We hold these truths to be self-evident. I established that relative moralism, which declares that no universal standard exists to judge right or wrong, is a lie that many Americans have been taught and have believed. In contrast, ethical positions do not change, but are self-evident in that we instinctively recognize injustice and abuse of power.

Today I will look at the next phrase:

that all men are created equal

The first thing to note is that our founder’s believed that “men are created.” Webster’s defines “create” this way:

to bring into existence; God created the heaven and the earth — Genesis 1:1 (Authorized Version)

So all men are brought into existence. They are not changed from one form to another. We’ll look at this later in more detail.

It’s also necessary to define “equal.” I’ve looked up the various definitions in the 1828 Webster’s Dictionary to see what was meant by this.

1. Having the same magnitude or dimensions; being of the same bulk or extent; as an equal quantity of land; a house of equal size; two persons of equal bulk; an equal line or angle.

Obviously, men are not all the same size, so we rule out #1.

2. Having the same value; as two commodities of equal price or worth.

This, I believe, is our definition, but let’s continue.

3. Having the same qualities or condition; as two men of equal rank or excellence; two bodies of equal hardness or softness.

Some men are born into poverty and starvation, some into wealth and abundance. Some are gifted athletes, others are born with no arms or legs. This is not our definition.

The remaining definitions cannot be applied to people, so I’ll go with #2 – equal price or worth – and restate the phrase:

all men are brought into existence having equal worth

Our equality under the law is based on the worth of each individual, not on their abilities or their station in life or their morals or their accomplishments or any other differences. All have the same worth.

Again, this truth is self-evident. Whenever we see someone receiving preferential treatment because of their wealth or their fame , we instinctively recognize this as unjust. Conversely, when someone is treated poorly because of their poverty or their anonymity, we know this also is unjust. It violates our inner knowledge that all men have the same worth and should be treated with the same respect. It’s self-evident.

I welcome your thoughts on this series thus far, and I’ll continue it again next Friday.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

  • Share/Bookmark