Joanie, my personal experience has been the same as yours. And you put your finger on precisely my own misgivings about the "happiness" language here: It is self-defeating to make it a goal, for then it will most probably elude your grasp. For there can always be imagined a yet greater happiness to pursue. IOW, the goal post keeps moving, ever just beyond our grasp. To me, happiness is indeed a by-product of right choices in life, of "doing the right thing at the right time." To live life in the love of God and neighbor is, to me, the best presciption for happiness in this life.
Within the framework of meaning of the DoI, "property" would probably have been the more suitable term. For property is a man's "substance," the wherewithal that fosters his ability to live in liberty; i.e., so that he is not dependent on others for the maintenance of his life and his freedom.
Thank you so much for sharing your experience regarding the adult Sunday school class you taught. I had a similar experience at the beauty shop (of all places) recently. It is amazing how thoughtful and forthcoming your so-called "average person" can be when provoked by questions that go to fundamental problems of human existence.
Thanks again, joanie, for your beautiful and insightful essay/post!
I agree that happiness is loving God absolutely and loving neighbor unconditionally. That is the Judeo/Christian proper state of being (Matthew 22). I do believe it can and should be pursued by walking with the Lord (sanctification).
It is not, however, the point of "happiness" in the DoI. There, the meaning was earthy property at least from the apparant origin of the phrasing.
I haven't read every post as closely as I might, but I do have a small issue I wish to raise with you and others.
You and most of the other posters have referenced that old phrase, "original intent" which I look upon as a trap.
Madison, amongst many others, drew the distinction differently.
Madison steadily maintained the standard to uphold was original understanding. And, whose "understanding" was it to which he was referring? The people(s) of the states in ratification.
Why is this thing "intent" a trap?
It refers to a gifted group's (the founders) intent -- albeit a group that elites of any age can liken themselves to and additionally debate intent in a way the is far more flexible than it should be.
Understanding of a general population is, however, very definable from the writings of the time. This was a populace informed on the issues and nuances like no other. They were readers of constant pamphlets on the subject culminating in the Federalist Papers.
Understanding then relates to a people and is discernible. Intent refers to a group (law givers or law bestowers) and is more debate driven and lends itself to issues of rationalist improvement by each age's self-perceived or culturally perceived intellectually elite.
The common soldier, the simple merchant and farmer of that age is who secured my rights. And so, it is up to us to hold them, not government and not even our own keepers of intellectual power and reason.
Take this small coat, Original Understanding, and try it on. Wear it for certain days, when you can, and you will get to like it.
I submit you put too narrow and literal a meaning on ‘happiness.’ Its context in the DoI is philosophical and involves freedom ‘in the pursuit of’ happiness. The concept involves more than whistling as you drive down the road with the top down on a beautiful, balmy afternoon.