Posted on 07/04/2010 7:03:36 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
"May it be to the world, what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all), the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government. . . . All eyes are opened or opening to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few, booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God. These are grounds of hope for others; for ourselves, let the annual return of this day forever refresh our recollection of these rights, and an undiminished devotion to them." - Thomas Jefferson to Roger C. Weightman, 24 June 1826, Ford, Vol. 10, 390-392
Today, a "favored few," "booted and spurred," and steeped in an ideology that is foreign to liberty, have seized temporary power in Washington, D. C. They must be reminded that "We, the People's" Constitution limits their power to ride, rough shod, over the Creator-endowed rights of American citizens.
May we "refresh our recollection" of the Founders' ideas and give "undiminished devotion to them" on this Fourth of July!
Our Framers authored the most perfect governing document ever devised and some here at FR wish to destroy it.
Fight on.
Simple question with a simple answer. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that’s how.
In the context of the Declaration of Independence hold means to have and maintain control over.
I think the founders expected some would disagree that all men are created equal, and so forth. The "We hold" part of "We hold these points to be self-evident" is simply an assertion of the rock bottom they were going to build the rest of their statement upon. In other words, they weren't going to argue whether or not all men are created equal, have the right to life and liberty. They ASSERTED it as their belief, claimed "self evident", with no philosophical argument or support, and proceeded to announce they were rejecting the authority of the government that was in power, and that they would fight to sustain that rejection, and establish a new government that suited their principles.
I think the rights are self evident when using a Christian paradigm-—Do unto others, etc. What you are referring to is the ambiguity in the classification. If you don’t classify slaves as human beings, (kind of like how the liberals classify babies in the womb—globs of cells)—there are no human rights ascribed.
Slavery was accepted in all societies at that time and still is in parts of Africa, Asia and Middle East. Christianity was the driving force in getting rid of slavery and is now, in getting rid of abortion.
Big Deal. Some of the founders were abolitionists, and some owned slaves. The word men obviously meant different things to different people. For the abolitionists, it was self-evident that slavery had to go.
Quite clever, actually to use the term men, and eventually, the country redefined the term to include slaves. Women and children too were treated somewhat as property. This too has been rectified in the law.
The fact that some of the signatories were slave owners, does not negate the awesome principles contained in the Declaration of Independence. Our history is one of trying to form a “more perfect union”.
That is was not perfect then or now simply means we need to continue to improve. Man is not perfect, and we will never have perfection on this earth, only in heaven. All men have feet of clay. So what?
Technically, it is self evident that one cannot take his life, and animate a dead person to life (or health, etc.) Life is "inalienable," it cannot be traded from one person to another.
Likewise "pursuit of happiness," or protection from the mobs, hoards and barbarians, depends on some sort of banding together for common defense. There might be a need for some discussion on that point, but the general idea that governments are erected to protect property rights, or function to protect property rights, and that personal happiness is somewhat tied to property rights, is controversial to a very small segment of humanity. But whatever the government/property/individual situation one finds oneself it, you can't swap it with the situation of a different person.
What has historically been true, and is true now, is that governments are self-serving, and the powerful people in government work more to fool the worker bees than to serve the worker bees. As long as the worker bees THINK they are free, the powerful maintain their elevated social standing over the weaker. One need not be a king in title, to be a king in practical fact.
Where did I do that?
This question is the reason that I scoff at assertions that the Founding Fathers were not guided by Judeo-Christian principles and ethics. How else could such concepts find their way into the Declaration of Independence and later, the Constitution? Religious faith lies at a deeper level than any nationalist self-identity; it is clear that Jefferson was reaching for that in *teaching* the people with his words. Showing them that their faith was at odds with King George was key to the rebellion's success.
The existence of rights that are derived from our Maker need not be proved. It's like faith; either you believe or you do not.
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
- John Adams
The strong do rule the weak, by hook or by crook. That has been, is, and always will be the case. "Slavery" isn't a black/white condition, there are shades of gray. I recall reading the Florida case where citizens were required to work 1 or 2 weeks a year on a road crew. Slavery? No, held the court. The draft is another example of involuntary submission.
As it stands, even indentured servitude is referred as slavery, even if a person enters the servitude agreement voluntarily.
I'd also point to the Bible for its exhortations and instructions regarding the treatment of servants.
Sort of like “deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Did you consent to the Constitution? I didn’t. I was born under it. When do we get to vote on it?
Vote with your feet - and I invite all who disagree with the constitution to take this route (hear that, Obama??) - seek out a country with a governing system that is more appealing and move there.
The founders are stating an idealistic principle of government, that the just powers of government (my take on "just" is having a basis other than brute force) derive from the governed. Even the (sane) guilty will agree they deserve to be punished or pay for their action.
It describes a quality of the government, not that all individuals perform a "sign on" ceremony to show consent.
As for voting on it, I can imagine a just government that limits the vote; and we are witnesses to the history of social decline when "voting" is held out as a substitute for "consent leading to a just government."
And give up my property and my livlihood? Why should I? Maybe I like it here. That doesn’t mean I’ve consented to this government. Neither have you. It was already here.
So can I.
I’m not playing your game asshole.
If you want to come on this thread ON INDEPENDENCE DAY and do nothing more than attack the Founding Father’s I have no use for you. Go to hell.
I have often thought the same thing. It doesn’t seem to me that some truths are “self evident”. It seems to me that most people are utter morons who have no idea about anything.
So, going on about “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” being self evident is one large question mark tending toward the negative.
I tend to go more with Burke: poor, nasty, brutish and short.
RE: how do we know slavery is wrong?
Ultimately it will oil boil down to PRESUPPOSITIONS. The founders, eventually, by COLLECTIVE ASSENT — HELD (i.e., “WE HOLD”) these truths to be self-evident.
The other view of course would be to say that ideas like “ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL” emerge through consensus-building and eventually take on axiomatic existence for most people. Slavery IS bad. Torture IS wrong. Racism IS repugnant. These ideas emerged socially and became axiomatic socially.
There are a lot of problems with this view.
First, you will have to say that slavery wasn’t wrong until there was a consensus that it was wrong. Or that torture wasn’t wrong until we came to a consensus that it was wrong. Do we really want to say that—that slavery and torture wasn’t wrong in 1750, because then the consensus was that both were OK? If you fall back on saying that slavery was wrong in 1750 even though most people didn’t feel that way—then you do believe in absolutes, I think.
Second, what if you saw the consensus about slavery and torture eroding? What if you saw that half the world was moving toward a new consensus that slavery and torture were OK in many circumstances? (There are a surprising number of people who do think torture is OK if it might stop a nuclear attack, etc. It could easily happen.) On what basis, then, could you argue that the emerging new consensus is wrong, since, in your view, something is only wrong if there is a consensus that it is wrong? It seems that the only way you could say “reverse the new consensus” would be if you grant that torture is wrong even if the consensus changes.
Third, this is an elitist argument, because the fact is that there are plenty of cultures and places in the world that don’t agree with your ‘consensus.’ You are saying, then, that the part of the world that believes in human rights is the enlightened, correct part. When you say these beliefs take on axiomatic existence for ‘most people’ you mean ‘most people I know, the ones who are thinking properly.’
Fourth, if you don’t believe in moral absolutes handed down by one who DEFINES what is good, you can only offer at best a pragmatic argument against these evils.
If you were living in 1750 and you came to believe slavery was wrong when few others did, you could not argue from consensus. You would have to argue that slavery is impractical for us, that it makes for a society in which we are all unhappy. You could only appeal to people’s self-interest. Only if you agree that there are moral absolutes could you say that “Slavery is wrong regardless of whether you feel it benefits you and society or not. It is simply wrong to treat people that way. Period.”
Hence, simply by thinking about it, if certain ideas are REALLY AND OBJECTIVELY right and certain ideas are REALLY AND OBJECTIVELY wrong, YOU MUST ATTRIBUTE THESE TO AN ULTIMATE SOURCE AND AUTHORITY WHO HANDED IT DOWN FOR US TO OBEY, if you want to have a coherent worldview.
The founders acknowledged Him to be our CREATOR ( or in the constitution of most states — Almighty God ).
If you were immersed in classical thinking (Aristotle logic) and Christianity (St. Thomas Aquinas-Natural Law)it is truly self evident. What is also necessary is the language of the culture to not hide the truth as does all Marxist societies and tribal (superstitious) societies.
If you say the big lie enough, that slaves are not men, then some people (especially those hearing it as young children) will believe that. It becomes a fact—the truth—the big lie. If they become rational thinkers in the Western Christian tradition, then they will be able to free themselves, eventually with the Truth, as long as there is freedom of speech and they are taught Western Civ. logic which includes Natural Law as young children.
Why do you think the commies threw out Western Civ at the Universities (Western Civ has got to go??) and degrade the whole canon of thought, along with all the heroes who you also demean?
It is to get rid of reasoned logic so the Big Lie is again believed which will (and is) used to kill other human beings—in the womb and elderly—which will soon extend to people who do not think “properly” as now people are being put in prison for thought crimes or forced into reeducation camps.
Governments and schools are trying to get rid of Western Civilization Natural Law and God’s Law logic, AS WE SPEAK, which will, indeed, create the paradigm that makes it possible to believe that slaves are things and can be eliminated.
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.