(no subject)
Jun. 29th, 2002 03:18 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
yakk0dotorgSince it's almost the birthday of my nation I have some thoughts on the current status of the country and this stupid mess with the Pledge of Allegence. It's gonna be long and a little disheveled so
First, from the Declaration of Independence:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
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.--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.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.
The Declaration of Independence clearly states that our rights, the same ones that the Bill of Rights aim to protect come from a devine Creator. The government is created by men to "secure these rights" not define or remove them (the "unalienable Rights" part). Websters says for "unalienable" to see "inalienable" and defines that as:
incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred (inalienable rights)
The Bill of Rights exists to specifically spell out some of the rights we have that the Founding Fathers were afraid of the government taking away, due to the past abuses of the British rulers. This brings us to the First Amendment to the Constitution of The United States:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Websters defines respecting as:
Main Entry: respect
Function: transitive verb
Date: 1560
1 a : to consider worthy of high regard : ESTEEM b : to refrain from interfering with
2 : to have reference to : CONCERN
synonym see REGARD
I think 1b applies in this case. So "Congress shall make no law to refrain from interfering with an establishment of religion" might make it a little clearer. There is no "separation of church and state" here, only that the Congress (not the President or Supreme Court, or states themselves until the 14th Amendment was reinterpeted in the 20th century) can not interfere with the citizen's establishment of religions, and also "prohibit the free exercise thereof".
So I have the right to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness," Freedom to worship whatever religion I choose and the freedom to exercise it as I choose according to this. These documents state those rights came from a Creator. They don't come from other men, but something more than us, and because of that they can't be taken away by men. How is the Pledge of Allegence any different from these two documents by mentioning God?
another points I just heard on the radio:
When you're sworn in to testify in court, you swear to "tell the truth, the whole truth, so help me God"
Whatever happens in this court case, rest assured I'll be using my God given right to say the pledge including the phrase "under God."
Heh...end rant. :)
First, from the Declaration of Independence:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
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.--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.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.
The Declaration of Independence clearly states that our rights, the same ones that the Bill of Rights aim to protect come from a devine Creator. The government is created by men to "secure these rights" not define or remove them (the "unalienable Rights" part). Websters says for "unalienable" to see "inalienable" and defines that as:
incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred (inalienable rights)
The Bill of Rights exists to specifically spell out some of the rights we have that the Founding Fathers were afraid of the government taking away, due to the past abuses of the British rulers. This brings us to the First Amendment to the Constitution of The United States:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Websters defines respecting as:
Main Entry: respect
Function: transitive verb
Date: 1560
1 a : to consider worthy of high regard : ESTEEM b : to refrain from interfering with
2 : to have reference to : CONCERN
synonym see REGARD
I think 1b applies in this case. So "Congress shall make no law to refrain from interfering with an establishment of religion" might make it a little clearer. There is no "separation of church and state" here, only that the Congress (not the President or Supreme Court, or states themselves until the 14th Amendment was reinterpeted in the 20th century) can not interfere with the citizen's establishment of religions, and also "prohibit the free exercise thereof".
So I have the right to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness," Freedom to worship whatever religion I choose and the freedom to exercise it as I choose according to this. These documents state those rights came from a Creator. They don't come from other men, but something more than us, and because of that they can't be taken away by men. How is the Pledge of Allegence any different from these two documents by mentioning God?
another points I just heard on the radio:
When you're sworn in to testify in court, you swear to "tell the truth, the whole truth, so help me God"
Whatever happens in this court case, rest assured I'll be using my God given right to say the pledge including the phrase "under God."
Heh...end rant. :)