Our faith is our strength
--motto of Tristan da Cunha
I am certain of nothing but the holiness of the
Heart's affections and the truth of the Imagination
Freedom is a bourgeois prejudice
"Truth", "Freedom", "Rights", "liberties", endowments ...
these terms occur in our foundational documents, but have never been
definitively explained. That is why a person like Edward Snowden is either deified or demonized -- we are not sure what we are allowed to do.
The most famous line from the Declaration of Independence (1776) states:
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.
But in a society based upon laws, definition is important. How can these be "self evident" when at the time of the Declaration's writing, all men (= people) were not treated as though they had been "created equal[ly]"?
If they are "truths", then they would have trumped behavior to the contrary.
would take the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteen Amendments to confer
freedom, full citizenship and the right to vote upon black males. It would not be until the 19th Amendment (ratified in 1920) that women would gain the right of suffrage.
Perhaps one may believe in universal equality of the construction of man, yet still believe that some few ubermensch
retain the right to overmaster them. However, that is not societal
equality, of the sort that a government document may confer. Further,
how can it be "true" and "self-evident" that all are created equally
when the observed evidence is so contrary.
If rights are inalienable, they why need they be conferred by a "Creator"?
If one were a citizen atheist, one still maintains his rights even
though he denies they have been conferred upon him by a Creator. If
rights are inalienable to my existence, then they need not be conferred,
and are just a fact.
If rights are "inalienable", then they are indwelling in the human, and may not be divorced by fiat or behavior.
The Existentialists argued for man's radical freedom, even in cases of
incarceration or death sentence, but that is a philosophical argument
arguing for freedom in one's head space, a domain on which the
government has not yet intruded.
Justice Brandeis sought
to protect that intangible freedom in his dissent in Olmstead (1934),
when he foresaw a time when governments might develop and enlist
technology to invade even that private sphere -- a "thought police", of
sorts. However, one's actual physical condition may indeed be
constricted, either by one's violation of his contract with the State or
bad faith behavior of the State itself. So one's essential "liberty" is
not a truth.
Liberty is not so much a
right as a very tenuous condition. While an enlightened individual may
eke out a mental zone of free thought when physical freedom may be
denied to him, liberty is only the result of an agreement between the
free man and his government, and only exists in the zone when both are
performing their responsibilities correctly. Slavery and servitude is
more generally man's state.
"Life" is the one given among the "truths", but even it is not a "Right" -- life is simply a biological imperative.
is the seed seeking rich soil, the egg seeking fertilization, and then
implantation. The impetus to life is a dumb fact if one is existing on
this planet, much as when life has been extinguished, death and the
absence of life will be a fact.
The Articles of
Confederation also alludes to the “Great Governor of the World.” Were
these references to a Big Guy just sops to simple people fleeing
religious persecution? Many of the Founders were Deists, but they also
believed in an "unmoved mover", a disinterested creator of all that is.
In Jefferson’s view, the rising generation, once sustained by complete
liberty of conscience, would abandon religions based on biblical
revelation in favor of those founded on reason. “There is not a young man
now living in the United States,” he predicted in 1822, “who will not die a Unitarian.” (Separation of Church and State
.) But reason had its day with The Enlightenment.
In fact, there are NO inalienable rights;
ask Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.
There are "rights" conferred by government, rights which may be abridged, abrogated or annulled, either judicially or extralegally.
must be honest about who we are and what we want if we are to
understand our present condition, yet who can do this even on a personal
level? Our founders were brilliant and brave, their
rhetoric soaring, but the words belie terrific contradictions and
We are a riven society because men are riven, and men have created these concepts called rights.
[cross-posted @ milpub]
Labels: abridgement of constitutional rights, Bill or Rights, constitution, constitutional rights, Creator, Deism, freedom, losing constitutional integrity, Rights of Man, Thomas jefferson, Unmoved Mover