Suddenly Seeking Values - Part I
One of the great claims to righteousness by the conservative movements (and note the purposeful plurality herein) is that of values. The Republican Party has been quick to adopt the banner of values, especially family values and non-activist courts, in its bids to rule the senate, house of representative, the presidency and the courts.
We hear the word values used by religious leaders within the conservative movements. Religious speakers talk specifically about family values, but limit the concept of family to something that is actually a minority structure within our society. The "religious right" only operates on the basis of an evangelical Christian set of values, which involves a father as the head of the household, a mother as the manager of daily operations, and the children as the focus of the family. This is an unreal model for family in the United States.
The reality is that approximately 50% or more of all marriages in the US end in divorce within the first 4 to 7 years. The divorce rate often creates single parent homes. Some marriages are ending in divorce after 20 or more years of marriage (including my uncle who sought divorce after 36 years of marriage). The reality of a traditional American family now includes both parents working to maintain a standard of living. That reality includes the fact that most women must pull double duty, working outside of the home and still bearing the largest portion of the burden for managing the household and raising the children. The reality is that drugs and alcohol directly affect approximately 10 percent of all families, and indirectly affect about 50% of all families. The "real" reality is that the family espoused by the conservative movements is not the only model of family we must consider as Americans.
Our family realities in the US reveal severe child abuse in 1-4% of all families, including families where women are beaten regularly, children and spouses are isolated from normal interaction within neighborhoods, and poverty is often hidden from plain view. During the 1980s and 1990s we had families that we so financially strapped that they were living out of their cars or in homes that did not have utility services due to hardship. The reality is that at any given time 4 to 8% of our families have filed for unemployment. Further, a close look at the number of families involved in domestic violence reveals that even in an intact family the conservative model may not exist.
But the religious right--the Christian religious right--doesn't account for families that are not like their family, or their ideal model of a family. There are many Americans that are immigrants to the US that live, just as many other immigrants have lived, with extended families in the same household. Just as there has always been, there is strife between traditional values, ethnic values and the pressure to assimilate. The Christian model of the ideal family, and family values, may not apply in many homes where the family is not Christian. It is here that the conservatives point to the United States as being a Christian nation. It is also here where we must look at the Constitution. The Constitution of the United States makes it clear that we are a nation of laws, not of men, not of religion and not of any one ideology.
My point is that when the conservatives talk about family values, we can never be sure of what it is they are addressing. If they stick to a model that follows a Christian ideal, then we have to question what values are held by the Buddhist, Muslim, Jewish, Jainist, Shintoist, Atheist, Agnostic, Hindu or other non-Christian people. Do the views, models and ideals of non-Christians have a role in the United States? Is the vision held by the conservatives limited to a "Christian-only" view of the world?
Many religious leaders would counter that our society holds to Judeo-Christian values. Well, okay then, what happens to the values of those that do not hold to the Judeo-Christian models?
Fundamentally, the argument for family values is one that rips the rights delineated in the US Constitution to shreds. The model offered by the conservatives only takes into account the values held by a specific group operating with a specific ideology, if not a specific theology. The Constitution guarantees the right of free association (including non-traditional family structures) and religious freedom (including non-Christian/non-Judeo-Christian freedom). The religious right, and the conservatives that are kowtowing to the get these votes, are imposing a set of values that are a) unreal and non-existent in the universal sense, and b) unconstitutional in a prima facie sense.
If we look at the accusations of the conservatives regarding the "activist court," we find an equal number of so-called activist rulings coming from conservative, moderate and liberal judges. Even at the Supreme Court level, we find activist decisions. In a simple examination of the court battles and legal maneuvers in the matter of Terri Schiavo, we find both conservative and liberal ideologies interfering with fundamental rights. In the Schiavo case it is striking that the conservatives sought to put the God-given rights of a spouse ("what God has brought together let no man put asunder" "and thou shall leave thy mother and thy father and cleave unto thy wife as you are of one flesh"). Our legal precedent and tradition has been based on the principle that what occurs between husband and wife is a private matter, and in cases of extreme unction or death, the surviving spouse shall have sole rights and decision-making authority. In the case of Terri Schiavo, her parents sough to set aside the rights of the surviving spouse. This approach, supported by many (if not most) conservatives and religious right activists, violates not only legal precedent and tradition, but Christian doctrine altogether. In many ways, the conservative movements butted into matters where they did not have a moral, legal or theological reason to do so.
So, we can see that the "principles" espoused by the conservative movements are not only unclearly stated, but subject to circumstantial re-interpretation. It is funny that a principle of "situational ethics" should be employed by movements that have decried Fletcher and his concepts of ethical flexibility for many years.
Then we have the discussion on Capital Hill in pursuit of confirming Judge Roberts to the highest court, and the highest seat on that court. One of the senators, a republican from Texas, spoke to Judge Roberts about judicial activism. In his comments he cited 7 cases where the current court, under the leadership of the renowned conservative William Rehnquist, and scholarship of noteworthy conservatives like Scalia, Thomas, Stevens, and Kennedy, demonstrated judicial activism. It is important to note that these allegations of judicial activism come from a conservative senator and are directed to one of the most conservative courts we have had in the history of the nation. O'Connor, Souter and Breyer are viewed by many as being moderate in their political views, while Ginsburg, is the only member that has ever been branded as a liberal. During the senator's discourse, he outlined some principles that would eliminate ideologies on the court and focus on adherence to the Constitution. Unlike many conservatives, this senator made his case using the text of the Constitution.
Now, the liberals have an equally confusing time of it when it comes to delineating values. Many liberals treat their values in the same way pornography is viewed by the law: they know them when they see them. It is not clear that the liberal side of our political process understands what values are universally accepted in our form of government. The problem faced by liberals is that there tends to be a mandate to consider every case on a circumstantial basis. The conservatives counter by claiming the liberals are "wishy-washy," tend to "flip-flop," and will stand for anything. But, as we can see, the conservatives and liberals are both unclear, uncertain and inarticulate when it comes to clearly delineating their values, principles and stances on issues that arise in our society.
Proof of this comes from the debate on the death penalty. Conservatives, who argue against abortion on the grounds of the sanctity of life, also argue in favor of the death penalty. Conservatives keep their argument for the death penalty even in the face of overwhelming evidence that our states and federal government have put innocent people in jeopardy over many decades. One of the principles often touted in terms of our legal system is that "it is messy, but it works." Given the cognitive dissonance of the arguments proposed by the conservatives, and even some reference to mercy, forgiveness, rehabilitation, redemption and the principle that only God has the right to take a life, we can see the dilemma presented by the conservatives. However, the liberals are not clear either. Many liberals have stood for the elimination of the death penalty, except in certain cases, like that of John Wayne Gacy, Jeffrey Dahmer, et al.
The problem of conservative versus liberal principles and values is profoundly out of balance and deeply dividing our national politics in four distinct ways:
Activism and polarization on either side of the political spectrum
Entrenchment of views based on ideology rather than examination of facts and circumstances
Engagement of alternative parties that have no real impact, thus causes disenfranchisement
Complete disenfranchisement from all political activities and issues
Something needs to be done to set the wheels of our nation back into alignment with the principles of our founding fathers. While in many cases our founding fathers disagreed on matters, they stood on principles and gave way to opinion. In the debates and development of our Constitution, the fought like cats and dogs over issues of individual liberties, states rights, the structure of the government, the numbers of representatives in congress, and more. But through it all they worked with a singular focus on producing a document that not only found final agreement among them, but also embodied their principles--not their ideologies.
What I propose that we do is something that I learned from a college professor. This professor taught English and I attended his classes on World Literature. The man was ultra-conservative, rigid, bigoted, and a devout Catholic that even made the bishop wince at his conservative understanding of Scripture. My learning experience was hampered by his mere presence in the classroom and we argued on principle in each class. None-the-less, I took something of value from having attended his classes. He argued that when we talk about values, principles, traditions and precedents, we must always consult the original text.
In the case of values in the United States we cannot consult sacred texts because the values vary from one religious doctrine to the next. Even among Christian sects and denominations there are disputes as to what the Scriptures mean. We can see the same issues arising in Islam, Buddhism, and other religions.
So what text should we consult? The answer is obvious. We are a nation of laws, not of men. Our law must conform to the principles and standards set forth in our two most important legal documents: The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America. Since the Declaration is not a primary authority in our legal tradition, let us deal with the Constitution first. Further, it is clearly stated in the Constitution that any law, or process, repugnant to the Constitution is inherently immoral and unprincipled. So where shall we begin?
Right from the git-go, the Constitution outlines seven basic principles that our government MUST adhere to:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
1. WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES: My professor would argue that this first phrase sets forth a principle that the government of the United States is first and foremost a collective of the people, that all rights, powers and authority belong to the people, not the government, its officers or institutions. The rights, powers and authority does not belong to business, to agencies, to money-lenders, or any particular group. The rights, power and authority is inherently held by all of the people.
2. IN ORDER TO FORM A MORE PERFECT UNION: The text gives us our purpose. We are required to seek and strive for more perfection. We are not to accept mediocrity, the lesser of any standard, sub-standard performance, etc. We are not to be perfect, but neither are we to cast aside the value of striving to make things better. We must be vigilant in our efforts to make things better. Make things better for whom, one might ask. My professor would argue that we must make it better for all of us… the people.
3. ESTABLISH JUSTICE: The value here is in our face. We are mandated to establish justice. We are not asked to accommodate, compromise, or facilitate justice, we are required to establish justice. In later parts of the text we are given tools, structures and principles by which we can do just that, but it is very important to note that JUSTICE is a mandate of the Constitution.
4. INSURE DOMESTIC TRANQUILLITY: The text informs us that another of our mandated principles is tranquillity (peace, safety, calmness, harmony, serenity, peace of mind). This portion of the preamble requires our government to protect us from anything that disrupts our tranquillity. It is this part of the preamble that gives us the right to have police, militia, military forces, and even the ability for self-defense. It is also this portion of the text that delineates a primary obligation of our governmental bodies. It is important to note that this text does not favor one group over another, one worldview over another, one religion over another, or any preferential treatment in any way. The tranquillity is for all persons in the United States.
5. PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON DEFENCE: The text doesn't declare what common defense means. It just requires that the government provide for the common defense. The argument could be made that since the text is not specific, the principle is universal and the principle is to be applied to any and all threats, including disasters, terrorism, invasion, etc.
6. PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE: Welfare means well being, safety, happiness, benefit, interests, among other things. So whose welfare is to be promoted? The welfare of the people, not one group over another, not the rich over the poor, not the influential over the disenfranchised, not business over workers, but the entire population's well being. The issue of equality is clearly present in this principle and it is a mandatory principle of government. It is not optional, it is required. So we must struggle with understanding and defining what is good for all people. Unfortunately, we are often given to the idea of compromising in favor of one group over another. While we should be seeking a win-win approach to government that preserves this principle, all too often we settle for a win-lose compromise that negates this obligation.
7. AND SECURE THE BLESSINGS OF LIBERTY TO OURSELVES AND OUR POSTERITY: It is important that this text does not require us to secure liberty for those outside of our borders, but to ourselves and our posterity. The principle we see here is twofold: first, we must establish and secure liberty, and second, we must provide for liberty within our borders first and foremost. My dad used to say, "Charity begins at home." The Bible says, "Physician, heal thyself." My basic disposition is that we should not be spending money outside of our borders until we have met all of our obligations within our borders.
These are the values--the universal values--that should be the over-riding principles of everything our government does. We, as Americans, cannot put other values before these fundamental values. We can, as private individuals, put our religious and family values--however defined and manifested--into practice for ourselves. We can strive to convince others that our personal, religious and community values are inherently linked to the fundamental values of the Constitution. But insisting upon adherence to values other than those espoused by the Constitution becomes, whether by design or by practice, a form of discrimination, elitism and bigotry. Fortunately for us, our founding fathers saw through such designs and practices and built into our "supreme law of the land" principles and structures that assured checks and balances of power within the government, principles that prohibit and impeded majority domination, and acknowledgment that the rights of government are derivative of the inherent rights of liberty reserved to each and every person.
In order to assure that our fundamental constitutional principles are preserved and implemented, we need to have an ongoing discourse on what those values are, in what priority they need to be applied, and how we balance the inherent rights of individuals with the rights of family, community, region, state and nation. We also need to foster discourse on how we, as a nation of principles and laws, not of influence and power, deal with other states and entities around the world. We have attempted to do this by founding and supporting the United Nations. But we are undermined by the structure of that union and our failure to remain consistent with our own principles and the principles of the United Nations.
Regardless of what party affiliation one might endorse, we as American citizens need to do everything within our power and ability to assure that these seven fundamental principles of good government are not cast aside in our efforts to see the fulfillment of our ideological views of the world. It is not possible to be a "good American" and espouse any form of preference, discrimination, or unbalanced authority.
So now we have a beginning. Let us review what is written above and see if we can find some common ground upon which we can continue hashing out the foundations of American principles.
More to follow....
September 23, 2005
We hear the word values used by religious leaders within the conservative movements. Religious speakers talk specifically about family values, but limit the concept of family to something that is actually a minority structure within our society. The "religious right" only operates on the basis of an evangelical Christian set of values, which involves a father as the head of the household, a mother as the manager of daily operations, and the children as the focus of the family. This is an unreal model for family in the United States.
The reality is that approximately 50% or more of all marriages in the US end in divorce within the first 4 to 7 years. The divorce rate often creates single parent homes. Some marriages are ending in divorce after 20 or more years of marriage (including my uncle who sought divorce after 36 years of marriage). The reality of a traditional American family now includes both parents working to maintain a standard of living. That reality includes the fact that most women must pull double duty, working outside of the home and still bearing the largest portion of the burden for managing the household and raising the children. The reality is that drugs and alcohol directly affect approximately 10 percent of all families, and indirectly affect about 50% of all families. The "real" reality is that the family espoused by the conservative movements is not the only model of family we must consider as Americans.
Our family realities in the US reveal severe child abuse in 1-4% of all families, including families where women are beaten regularly, children and spouses are isolated from normal interaction within neighborhoods, and poverty is often hidden from plain view. During the 1980s and 1990s we had families that we so financially strapped that they were living out of their cars or in homes that did not have utility services due to hardship. The reality is that at any given time 4 to 8% of our families have filed for unemployment. Further, a close look at the number of families involved in domestic violence reveals that even in an intact family the conservative model may not exist.
But the religious right--the Christian religious right--doesn't account for families that are not like their family, or their ideal model of a family. There are many Americans that are immigrants to the US that live, just as many other immigrants have lived, with extended families in the same household. Just as there has always been, there is strife between traditional values, ethnic values and the pressure to assimilate. The Christian model of the ideal family, and family values, may not apply in many homes where the family is not Christian. It is here that the conservatives point to the United States as being a Christian nation. It is also here where we must look at the Constitution. The Constitution of the United States makes it clear that we are a nation of laws, not of men, not of religion and not of any one ideology.
My point is that when the conservatives talk about family values, we can never be sure of what it is they are addressing. If they stick to a model that follows a Christian ideal, then we have to question what values are held by the Buddhist, Muslim, Jewish, Jainist, Shintoist, Atheist, Agnostic, Hindu or other non-Christian people. Do the views, models and ideals of non-Christians have a role in the United States? Is the vision held by the conservatives limited to a "Christian-only" view of the world?
Many religious leaders would counter that our society holds to Judeo-Christian values. Well, okay then, what happens to the values of those that do not hold to the Judeo-Christian models?
Fundamentally, the argument for family values is one that rips the rights delineated in the US Constitution to shreds. The model offered by the conservatives only takes into account the values held by a specific group operating with a specific ideology, if not a specific theology. The Constitution guarantees the right of free association (including non-traditional family structures) and religious freedom (including non-Christian/non-Judeo-Christian freedom). The religious right, and the conservatives that are kowtowing to the get these votes, are imposing a set of values that are a) unreal and non-existent in the universal sense, and b) unconstitutional in a prima facie sense.
If we look at the accusations of the conservatives regarding the "activist court," we find an equal number of so-called activist rulings coming from conservative, moderate and liberal judges. Even at the Supreme Court level, we find activist decisions. In a simple examination of the court battles and legal maneuvers in the matter of Terri Schiavo, we find both conservative and liberal ideologies interfering with fundamental rights. In the Schiavo case it is striking that the conservatives sought to put the God-given rights of a spouse ("what God has brought together let no man put asunder" "and thou shall leave thy mother and thy father and cleave unto thy wife as you are of one flesh"). Our legal precedent and tradition has been based on the principle that what occurs between husband and wife is a private matter, and in cases of extreme unction or death, the surviving spouse shall have sole rights and decision-making authority. In the case of Terri Schiavo, her parents sough to set aside the rights of the surviving spouse. This approach, supported by many (if not most) conservatives and religious right activists, violates not only legal precedent and tradition, but Christian doctrine altogether. In many ways, the conservative movements butted into matters where they did not have a moral, legal or theological reason to do so.
So, we can see that the "principles" espoused by the conservative movements are not only unclearly stated, but subject to circumstantial re-interpretation. It is funny that a principle of "situational ethics" should be employed by movements that have decried Fletcher and his concepts of ethical flexibility for many years.
Then we have the discussion on Capital Hill in pursuit of confirming Judge Roberts to the highest court, and the highest seat on that court. One of the senators, a republican from Texas, spoke to Judge Roberts about judicial activism. In his comments he cited 7 cases where the current court, under the leadership of the renowned conservative William Rehnquist, and scholarship of noteworthy conservatives like Scalia, Thomas, Stevens, and Kennedy, demonstrated judicial activism. It is important to note that these allegations of judicial activism come from a conservative senator and are directed to one of the most conservative courts we have had in the history of the nation. O'Connor, Souter and Breyer are viewed by many as being moderate in their political views, while Ginsburg, is the only member that has ever been branded as a liberal. During the senator's discourse, he outlined some principles that would eliminate ideologies on the court and focus on adherence to the Constitution. Unlike many conservatives, this senator made his case using the text of the Constitution.
Now, the liberals have an equally confusing time of it when it comes to delineating values. Many liberals treat their values in the same way pornography is viewed by the law: they know them when they see them. It is not clear that the liberal side of our political process understands what values are universally accepted in our form of government. The problem faced by liberals is that there tends to be a mandate to consider every case on a circumstantial basis. The conservatives counter by claiming the liberals are "wishy-washy," tend to "flip-flop," and will stand for anything. But, as we can see, the conservatives and liberals are both unclear, uncertain and inarticulate when it comes to clearly delineating their values, principles and stances on issues that arise in our society.
Proof of this comes from the debate on the death penalty. Conservatives, who argue against abortion on the grounds of the sanctity of life, also argue in favor of the death penalty. Conservatives keep their argument for the death penalty even in the face of overwhelming evidence that our states and federal government have put innocent people in jeopardy over many decades. One of the principles often touted in terms of our legal system is that "it is messy, but it works." Given the cognitive dissonance of the arguments proposed by the conservatives, and even some reference to mercy, forgiveness, rehabilitation, redemption and the principle that only God has the right to take a life, we can see the dilemma presented by the conservatives. However, the liberals are not clear either. Many liberals have stood for the elimination of the death penalty, except in certain cases, like that of John Wayne Gacy, Jeffrey Dahmer, et al.
The problem of conservative versus liberal principles and values is profoundly out of balance and deeply dividing our national politics in four distinct ways:
Activism and polarization on either side of the political spectrum
Entrenchment of views based on ideology rather than examination of facts and circumstances
Engagement of alternative parties that have no real impact, thus causes disenfranchisement
Complete disenfranchisement from all political activities and issues
Something needs to be done to set the wheels of our nation back into alignment with the principles of our founding fathers. While in many cases our founding fathers disagreed on matters, they stood on principles and gave way to opinion. In the debates and development of our Constitution, the fought like cats and dogs over issues of individual liberties, states rights, the structure of the government, the numbers of representatives in congress, and more. But through it all they worked with a singular focus on producing a document that not only found final agreement among them, but also embodied their principles--not their ideologies.
What I propose that we do is something that I learned from a college professor. This professor taught English and I attended his classes on World Literature. The man was ultra-conservative, rigid, bigoted, and a devout Catholic that even made the bishop wince at his conservative understanding of Scripture. My learning experience was hampered by his mere presence in the classroom and we argued on principle in each class. None-the-less, I took something of value from having attended his classes. He argued that when we talk about values, principles, traditions and precedents, we must always consult the original text.
In the case of values in the United States we cannot consult sacred texts because the values vary from one religious doctrine to the next. Even among Christian sects and denominations there are disputes as to what the Scriptures mean. We can see the same issues arising in Islam, Buddhism, and other religions.
So what text should we consult? The answer is obvious. We are a nation of laws, not of men. Our law must conform to the principles and standards set forth in our two most important legal documents: The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America. Since the Declaration is not a primary authority in our legal tradition, let us deal with the Constitution first. Further, it is clearly stated in the Constitution that any law, or process, repugnant to the Constitution is inherently immoral and unprincipled. So where shall we begin?
Right from the git-go, the Constitution outlines seven basic principles that our government MUST adhere to:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
1. WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES: My professor would argue that this first phrase sets forth a principle that the government of the United States is first and foremost a collective of the people, that all rights, powers and authority belong to the people, not the government, its officers or institutions. The rights, powers and authority does not belong to business, to agencies, to money-lenders, or any particular group. The rights, power and authority is inherently held by all of the people.
2. IN ORDER TO FORM A MORE PERFECT UNION: The text gives us our purpose. We are required to seek and strive for more perfection. We are not to accept mediocrity, the lesser of any standard, sub-standard performance, etc. We are not to be perfect, but neither are we to cast aside the value of striving to make things better. We must be vigilant in our efforts to make things better. Make things better for whom, one might ask. My professor would argue that we must make it better for all of us… the people.
3. ESTABLISH JUSTICE: The value here is in our face. We are mandated to establish justice. We are not asked to accommodate, compromise, or facilitate justice, we are required to establish justice. In later parts of the text we are given tools, structures and principles by which we can do just that, but it is very important to note that JUSTICE is a mandate of the Constitution.
4. INSURE DOMESTIC TRANQUILLITY: The text informs us that another of our mandated principles is tranquillity (peace, safety, calmness, harmony, serenity, peace of mind). This portion of the preamble requires our government to protect us from anything that disrupts our tranquillity. It is this part of the preamble that gives us the right to have police, militia, military forces, and even the ability for self-defense. It is also this portion of the text that delineates a primary obligation of our governmental bodies. It is important to note that this text does not favor one group over another, one worldview over another, one religion over another, or any preferential treatment in any way. The tranquillity is for all persons in the United States.
5. PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON DEFENCE: The text doesn't declare what common defense means. It just requires that the government provide for the common defense. The argument could be made that since the text is not specific, the principle is universal and the principle is to be applied to any and all threats, including disasters, terrorism, invasion, etc.
6. PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE: Welfare means well being, safety, happiness, benefit, interests, among other things. So whose welfare is to be promoted? The welfare of the people, not one group over another, not the rich over the poor, not the influential over the disenfranchised, not business over workers, but the entire population's well being. The issue of equality is clearly present in this principle and it is a mandatory principle of government. It is not optional, it is required. So we must struggle with understanding and defining what is good for all people. Unfortunately, we are often given to the idea of compromising in favor of one group over another. While we should be seeking a win-win approach to government that preserves this principle, all too often we settle for a win-lose compromise that negates this obligation.
7. AND SECURE THE BLESSINGS OF LIBERTY TO OURSELVES AND OUR POSTERITY: It is important that this text does not require us to secure liberty for those outside of our borders, but to ourselves and our posterity. The principle we see here is twofold: first, we must establish and secure liberty, and second, we must provide for liberty within our borders first and foremost. My dad used to say, "Charity begins at home." The Bible says, "Physician, heal thyself." My basic disposition is that we should not be spending money outside of our borders until we have met all of our obligations within our borders.
These are the values--the universal values--that should be the over-riding principles of everything our government does. We, as Americans, cannot put other values before these fundamental values. We can, as private individuals, put our religious and family values--however defined and manifested--into practice for ourselves. We can strive to convince others that our personal, religious and community values are inherently linked to the fundamental values of the Constitution. But insisting upon adherence to values other than those espoused by the Constitution becomes, whether by design or by practice, a form of discrimination, elitism and bigotry. Fortunately for us, our founding fathers saw through such designs and practices and built into our "supreme law of the land" principles and structures that assured checks and balances of power within the government, principles that prohibit and impeded majority domination, and acknowledgment that the rights of government are derivative of the inherent rights of liberty reserved to each and every person.
In order to assure that our fundamental constitutional principles are preserved and implemented, we need to have an ongoing discourse on what those values are, in what priority they need to be applied, and how we balance the inherent rights of individuals with the rights of family, community, region, state and nation. We also need to foster discourse on how we, as a nation of principles and laws, not of influence and power, deal with other states and entities around the world. We have attempted to do this by founding and supporting the United Nations. But we are undermined by the structure of that union and our failure to remain consistent with our own principles and the principles of the United Nations.
Regardless of what party affiliation one might endorse, we as American citizens need to do everything within our power and ability to assure that these seven fundamental principles of good government are not cast aside in our efforts to see the fulfillment of our ideological views of the world. It is not possible to be a "good American" and espouse any form of preference, discrimination, or unbalanced authority.
So now we have a beginning. Let us review what is written above and see if we can find some common ground upon which we can continue hashing out the foundations of American principles.
More to follow....
September 23, 2005
posted by Jim Downey at 10:09 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home