Some truths used to be self-evident
It’s amazing how little people know about our nation.
This letter to the editor in our local newspaper made me scratch my head.
Ex-Gov. Mike Huckabee and Newt Gingrich were entirely wrong when they claimed at Rock Church that the rights of Americans stem from God. God has nothing to do with the rights of a U.S. citizen. Our rights stem from the U.S. Constitution, a grand document that protects us from tyranny, be it religious or royal. God is not being ‘pushed out’ of public life. God belongs in your heart, not in public school or government.
Joan White Uhlar
Virginia Beach
This isn’t the first time Ms. Uhlar pontificated about wanting religion kept hidden from everyone’s view, especially when it comes to politics. Read here where she wrote about religion and politics being “un-American.”
But Ms. Uhlar has a basic misunderstanding about the founding of our country, and if she had her way, we’d have to take a big red marker through the Declaration of Independence and censor a whole lot of public statements of the people who wrote the documents she claims to understand.
Our rights do not “stem from the US Constitution.” Our rights are secured by the US Constitution. Our rights pre-exist the Constitution.
There are certain rights that are inalienable (I’m sure these words ring a bell with most people) and we were endowed with these rights by “our Creator.” See, I’m funny this way. When the Declaration of Independence says “endowed by our Creator,” I’m fairly certain it meant “endowed by our Creator.”
These rights exist. We are endowed by our Creator with the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (among other rights) whether there is a Constitution or not.
“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
See, the rights always rest with the people. The people are endowed with rights, and then the people form government to secure those rights.
It’s completely inaccurate to say that “our rights stem from” a document. Our rights are inalienable. A document can be amended to take away everything it is purported to give.
This slow but steady diminishing of the religious base for our system of government has troubled me over the years. I tire of the public schools who teach that Patrick Henry said “give me liberty or give me death” but refuse to acknowledge that he spoke those words in St. John’s Church.
I shake my head when children are taught about Thanksgiving and denied from knowing exactly who was being thanked. (I actually had a public school teacher tell me the first Thanksgiving was when the Pilgrims thanked Native Americans)
And I’m outraged when people understand so little about what made the American experiment great that they think that government gives us our rights.
I hope our “reliance on the protection of Divine Providence” remains firm.
Category: Government
Loading ...
[...] Brian Kirwin at Bearing Drift has a must-read post up today on the topic of the truths our Founders considered to be self-evident and the people who, today, have lost all connection with that. It starts with a quote out of his local paper’s Letters to the Editor section wherein a local resident demonstrates her complete ignorance of our rights, the Constitution, and which came first. [...]
Flowery language aside, our rights stem from our willingness to take up arms against anyone who would deny them. All else is rhetoric.
Thanks Brian. Keep preaching it like it is.
Dr. Tabor…I know you love a good revolution, but let’s try to stick to rhetoric over violence.
Brian…in 1517 Martin Luther took the first steps to separating the influence of theology on government when he nailed 95 basic precepts of faith onto the church doors in Wittenburg.
A mere 270 years (that seems long considering our Constitution’s existence is only 220 years old) before the writing of the Constitution, man had been seeking a way to break himself from theocracies.
Governments existed at the time of the Constitution under the bonds of rule from a theocratic seat of government: Rome (save for England which broke its bonds by forming its own state religion).
While religious, our founders recognized that Luther’s thoughts that God alone grants salvation, was the right theology. And when it came time to forming a nation that broke the mold from kings and emperors, they were wise to separate a formal state religion from the government, as it could be ruled from abroad.
The bottom-line is that the Constitution guarantees that no one religion will dictate our mode of governance, but the paradox is that in order for our system to exist, a set of moral values and civic virtue must exist in all its citizens.
We are, indeed, endowed by our Creator with our natural rights. But those natural rights are quickly endeavored to be removed by the Creator’s antithesis.
so when Obama said healthcare was a right, is that because our Creator said so or the Constitution? I don’t think its the latter. The Constitution is where the rights of Americans are defined. if we don’t like them, we are allowed to amend it. the rights from the Dec of Independence are the natural rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness but it does not say whether we can practice what religion we want or say what we want. That comes from the Constitution
Amit…
Healthcare is not a right. It wasn’t given to us by God nor was it granted to us by our preservation of our basic rights through the Constitution. Ergo, Obama is out to lunch by using such tired liberal rhetoric.
As for your other point, the Constitution, while it can be amended, is supposed to preserve those Natural rights we all share, as delineated in the Declaration of Independence. I think it’s a real stretch to separate the one from the other…as the one sets the conditions for the other to exist.
And, to take it a step further, to be specific, the rights we see as being protected were an afterthought in the Bill of Rights. The Founders thought that the Natural rights in the Declaration spoke for themselves, initially.
if the Constitution was amended to provide universal health care, then it would be the right of every American to receive it whether God wanted it or not. so Ms. Uhlar’s point is accurate that our American rights do stem from the Constitution.
btw, the inclusion of the Bill of Rights was a prerequisite for several states to ratify the Constitution so it was hardly an afterthought.
You miss the point, Amit. As conservatives, it is our responsibility to limit government and only amend the Constitution for matters that preserve our natural rights…unless, of course, you believe in expanding the role of government in our lives.
You’re correct that the Constitution is our highest law, but to separate how we came by it is rather insulting to our history and welcomes tearing at the fabric of its greatness.
BTW, I was aware as to why the Bill of Rights was added. Thanks for the history lesson.
See, Amit. That’s your problem. The Constitution was not written to give people rights. THE CONSTITUTION WAS WRITTEN TO KEEP GOVERNMENT FROM INFRINGING ON RIGHTS THAT ALREADY EXIST.
J.R. and Brian sound like a couple of libertarians. Or maybe just good conservatives that know what a Constitutional Republic is and understand the concept of natural rights.
Amit, amendment IX points to an important truth that should be considered here:
“Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. ”
That is tantamount to saying that one, we have a set of natural rights to start with and two, even the most wise and knowledgable of men are not likely equipped to be able to enumerate clearly each and every natural right endowed to us by our creator. However, our flawed yet brilliant founding fathers did their best to create a “moral code” to help recognize the basic concepts of natural rights and enforce them. Just because it was given an amendable form does not mean tyranny of the majority can do as it pleases to unjustly revoke natural rights. It allows for further enlightenment, change in language, and recognizes that, try as they might, our founding fathers knew themselves to be flawed beings, incapable of a perfect document. It is beautiful to me in that it allows for continual improvement towards an impossible ideal. Perfection. As individuals we will never be perfect, but endeavoring to try is a noble thing. If you will, a willful attempt to come closer to God. If you are an atheist, think of it as self-actualizing. Making the best showing of what you’re given in either case. A Bill of Rights amendable towards a perfect government.
If it is indeed “self-evident” that we are created as equals(meaning deserving of the same rights), what then is the function of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and government in general? The answer should be self-evident. It is to protect our natural rights that we own simply because we exist. Natural rights endowed by our creator yet, continually violated by flawed human beings plagued with temptation and greed.
Put any group of people together and naturally they will desire a fair shake. Preventing others from violating those natural rights is the entire reason to have a government. Additionally, to have commerce is to have contracts. Contracts that need to be enforced and not of a fraudulent nature. Contracts that help secure our right to private property. That’s why you’ll hear some of us say the function of government is to protect the INDIVIDUAL from force and fraud. If that function is performed then we can live as free people cooperating in free will to pursue prosperity and happiness without treading on the rights of others. The crafting those two magnificent documents was an honest attempt to find a means to that end.
Great post!
More specifically, the Bill of Rights was proposed to restrict the power of Congress, with particular emphasis on the the rights most at risk. Note especially the 9th Amendment which clearly indicates that the authors of the Constitution were not aiming to establish a specific set of rights, but to apply a framework of government to a people who already enjoyed these rights. The Bill of Rights was not a pre-requisite, having been drafted and proposed by the Congress convened after the ratification of the Constitution. Would that subsequent Congresses had the same regard for passing legislation to limit their powers rather than expanding them. I don’t imagine that the words “Congress shall make no law” have appeared in many other proposals from that august body.
A mere 4 minutes between posts. Steve, obviously we were thinking along the same lines at the same time yet not knowing so. Great minds thinking alike?
Of course, your brevity in making the same stament is more powerful. I do tend to be long winded.
Brian, you had me until
Semantics perhaps, but I would argue ‘religious base” isn’t quite accurate. That to me implies that our system of government is based on religion, with which i don’t agree. While many of of founding fathers beliefs and principles were greatly shaped and inspired by their religious beliefs and education, principles now enshrined in our “founding documents”, they obviously took great pains to exclude formalized religion from government, and to construct a gulf between the two.
Perhaps a more accurate description would be the “spiritual base” of our government, focused as it is more on the relationship between man and the Creator (as you said, the source of all man’s rights), and less on the practices, rituals, and other trappings of religion.
Kinda scary, i pop back in to BD for a minute and the first thread that grabs my mind I find myself agreeing with BK more than not. Maybe that’s a bad omen or something.
Jeremy, I’d be seeking counseling right now. Agreeing with me is the first sign of mental illness, some would say
Actually, I would not mean to imply religion was the sole base for our founding of American government, but to deny that it was A base for it simply denies reality.
They actually did not simply use religious principles to guide their writings and that’s all. State governments were heavily intertwined with very formal churches.
What the founders abhorred were foreign entanglements, and the thought that the President would take his cues from a church outside America.
The British system held that the Monarch got his power from God, not the people. Our system holds that power comes from God to the people, who only then by their consent lend power to government.
That’s a far cry from “creating a gulf” between religion and government, which any simple study of the late 1700s would show simply not only didn’t exist, but was the intent of almost no one.
Yes, certain states had strong, individual religious ties (Pa and the Quakers for example). I’m curious though, do any formal state constitutions or governing documents make actual reference to a specific religion? Not just references to the divine, but to actual religion. I’m not talking about state endorsed religion, just even an acknowledgment of any religion in any capacity other than to separate it from government.
Of course, there is this from the Treaty of Tripoli:
Actually, some New England states like Massachusetts continued to tax landowners and spend the money on the building of churches, called “places of public worship” and to pay the salaries of ministers well into the 1800s.
It was all for Puritans, and other denominations didn’t like being left out.
Concerning all this thought felt emphasis on God, the nation, religion, priorities, and separation; somehow all the convention bloggers at the Republican convention failed to pick up God took a back seat to country. Yes the agenda had the UVA men sing the National Anthem, the Pledge of Allegiance, then came the invocation. Rather than “under God” country came before “God”.
As a matter of interest “under God” was added to the pledge in the fifties. In the post WWII years. The German nation anthem, Deutschland Uber Alles (Germany Over All) was renamed Das Deutschlandlied. Hence there are those who believe, with the absence of a governmental deity, countries can run a muck. Thought I mention this since someone referred to Wittenburg and Luther’s “Power and Efficacy of Indulgences”.
I can always count on Virginia News Source to provide us with our German history.
Bitteschön, Herr Kirwin.
The Treaty of Tripoli was a diplomatic stunt that didn’t work out so well considering we still ended up at war with the Tripolitan Mujahadeen(pirates).
Our nation is a Judeo-Christian nation at it’s core. Every nation is founded on some form of religion. Even nations that reject God completely and rely on themselves, engage in the religion of humanism. James Madison once said that our success as a nation would depend upon our people’s ability to govern themselves according to the Ten Commandments of God. That is in addition to George Washington stating that it is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible. These were not hintings at just any religion, these comments were distinctly Judeo-Christian.
As far as the statements made by Gingrich and Huckabee, they are absolutely right. Our rights and liberties come from our Creator, the Supreme Judge of the World. Our founding fathers understood that man could not be left to make his own liberty; we saw that happen in the French Revolution. When man creates his own liberty, things quickly dissolve into anarchy. That is why our liberties are found within the framework of natural and divine law. That is why it is unsubstantiated when the homosexual lobby states that they have a “right” to marry. Natural law for at least 5,000 years, shows us that marriage is between one man and one woman. We also have laws against murder, because natural law states that no one has the right to take someone elses life.
If America is to truly be a nation of liberty, then the liberty that we advocate must line up with the principles of the natural and divine law that our founding fathers recognized as an overarching law that would shape our own.