Posted on 07/03/2009 1:09:37 PM PDT by wagglebee
The great British intellectual G. K. Chesterton wrote that “America is the only nation in the world that is founded on [a] creed.”
Think about that for a moment. Other nations were founded on the basis of race, or by the power of kings or emperors who accumulated lands and the peasants who inhabited those lands.
But America was—and is to this day—different. It was founded on a shared belief. Or, as Chesterton said, on a creed.
And what is that creed that sets us apart? It is the eloquent, profound, and simple statement penned by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence:
“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.”
I’ll never forget when I graduated from Brown University during the Korean War. I couldn’t wait to become a Marine officer, to give my life if necessary, to defend that creed. To defend the idea that our rights come from God Himself and are not subject to whims of governments or tyrants. That humans ought to be free to pursue their most treasured hopes and aspirations.
Perhaps some 230 years later, we take these words for granted. But in 1776, they were earth-shaking—indeed, revolutionary.
Yet today, they are in danger of being forgotten altogether. According to Gallup, 66 percent of American adults have no idea that the words, “We hold these truths . . .” come from the Declaration of Independence. Even worse, only 45 percent of college seniors know that the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are proclaimed in the Declaration.
As America grows more and more diverse culturally, religiously, ethnically, it is critical that we re-embrace the American creed.
America has always been a “melting pot.” But what is the pot that holds our multicultural stew together? Chesterton said the pot’s “original shape was traced on the lines of Jeffersonian democracy.” A democracy founded on those self-evident truths expressed in the Declaration of Independence. And as Chesterton remarked, “The pot must not melt.”
Abraham Lincoln understood this so very well. For him, the notion that all men are created equal was “the electric cord in that Declaration that links the hearts of patriotic and liberty-loving men together, that will link those patriotic hearts as long as the love of freedom exists in the minds of men throughout the world.”
So tomorrow, go to the Fourth of July parade. Go to the neighborhood barbecue and enjoy the hot dogs and apple pie.
But here’s an idea for you. Why not take time out at the picnic to read the Declaration of Independence aloud with your friends and your neighbors.
Listen—and thrill—to those words that bind us together as a nation of freedom-loving people: 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.
These are the words Americans live for and, if necessary, die for.
These are the words Americans live for and, if necessary, die for.
Amen!
Yes, I find myself coming back to that passage again and again, it is so basic to our whole American way of life and to understanding the basic foundation of our Constitution and our laws.
And the key is that these rights are not something that our rulers got together, wrote a Constitution, and decided to give us. They were already there, although unrecognized except in theory through most of the world.
Those rights were God-given and “inalienable.” Not only is the government unable to take them away with any show of justice or constitutionality, we are unable even to GIVE them away. If we were to pass a Constitutional amendment trying to give away one or all of those rights, it still would not truly hold authority over us.
We can choose to be slaves to our political masters, but that does not change our true nature: that we are free men, with inalienable rights given us by God Himself.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
In the Constitution they put it into practice. It is only in the context of Natural Law that the Declaration and Constitution form a coherent whole.
Our Founders believed that Government exists for the sole reason to secure our Natural Rights. Abortion, welfare, and how many gallons of water our toilet tanks hold are not among them.
Are you saying that the Declaration of Independence and Constitution DO NOT protect the unborn?
No, I don’t think so.
Natural law is the traditional name for God’s law, insofar as it can be deduced rationally from the natural world that God created. Natural law theory can also be traced back, among other things, to St. Paul’s words about the “law of God, written in the heart,” a law that God gives to the gentiles as well as to Jews and Christians. In other words, an inborn sense of natural law—although it can be obscured by evil cultures or evil habits—can be found in all men. The name for that is conscience.
Conscience can be further formed by religion, but it is already there in its basic form, God’s umpire within.
Then who is the “posterity” mentioned in the Preamble to the Constitution if not the unborn?
I say abortion is in fact a violation of natural law.
Huh? You don't think what?
I just wanted to be sure, the way you worded it in your post I wasn’t certain.
If you weren’t certain, it means I wasn’t clear.
I was pretty certain of what you meant, but I just wanted to clarify.
See #5.
I think my post must not have been clear.
What I was saying is that I think all three of us believe that natural law forbids abortion. And that the inalienable rights mentioned include protection of the unborn.
In fact, once Roe v. Wade is finally reversed—and that is considerably more distant with Obama in office—and abortion is returned to the states, then I think a two-pronged effort will be called for: a) to persuade the states, or most of them, to restore their former antiabortion laws overridden by Roe; and b) to argue that “person” under the constitution includes the unborn, and therefore that their lives are protected by inalienable constitutional right.
That would override those states who voted in favor of death. But I suggest a two-pronged attack because it likely would take a while to achieve.
As I see it there are precisely two ways to overturn Roe v. Wade:
1. A Constitutional Amendment that grants personhood to the unborn, but I think this would be tough to get.
2. For a state to either outlaw abortion or pass a personhood amendment to their state constitution. This would force the Supreme Court to revisit the issue. At this point the Court could overturn Roe or they could go even further and grant full rights to the unborn and this would effectively outlaw abortion nationwide.
Back in the 90s there was a case where Anthony Kennedy was ready to vote in the majority to overturn Roe, but he backed out at the last minute. Kennedy enjoys being the "swing vote" but I think he would like to really leave his mark on the Court and I believe that with the "right case" he might really surprise us.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.