Blog
Our Declaration of Dependence
| Posted on July 5, 2012 at 5:00 PM |
Welcome!
I like the days after holidays much more than the holidays themselves; there is less hype and more opportunity for meaningful conversation about, say, the Declaration of Independence, the day after. Somewhere during Mile Two of my morning workout on this 5th of July I found myself thinking about self evident truths, what we used to call "first principles".
Here is a significant declaration of self evident truths from www.archives.gov
The Declaration of Independence: A Transcription
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
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, and so forth.
Here is what I was thinking during my morning hike: If this foundational text asserts that, as a matter of self evident truths all men are created equal and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, can a twenty-first century citizen of the US in good faith (or non-faith, if you must) deny that these human rights (and others) are the "undeletable" possession of themselves and indeed all human beings as a matter of self evident truth? In other words, can a bona fide heir of the Declaration deny the philosophical suppositions of Jefferson's text, namely, its claim to the reality of (a) self evident truths, properly basic features of reality (b) among which one must number life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
During my Philosophy of Law course last semester we considered the conditions under which civil disobedience would be justified. John Rawls argued that one prerequisite for justified civil disobedience in the United States is maintaining a social contract in terms of the US Constitution. He explained that whereas nonviolent disobedience to a law or practice that is contrary to the Constitution is good and proper, disobedience to the Constitution itself is unjust. There's much to be unpacked in Rawls, of course. But how about the more modest objective of resurrecting civil civic discourse by reconsidering together the first principles of the Declaration. Don't we have at least a minimal social contract requirement of sorts to discuss supreme court decisions, congressional legislation and our president's programs with the principles and vocabulary of the Declaration in mind and in mouth?
Likely the major objection to my proposal will be the demand that we not bring God and capital-T ruth into the discussion; notwithstanding, the principles and argument of the Declaration is precisely what we have to consider -- seriously discuss together and not pre-emptively censor. We are, I maintain, dependent upon the text of this founding document. We ought to celebrate the Declaration by deploying the Declaration. May I start the ball rolling?
Two Theses for a Conversation on the Declaration in 2012
(1) According to the text of the Declaration of Independence, the Congress of 1776 understood "God" in the Judeo-Christian or biblical and Western sense of a personal, caring Deity inasmuch as a deist "God" would not endow all human beings with self evident unalienable rights, nor would His / Its evocation in this matter be anything other than an empty, unpersuasive piety.The Declaration is in fact a declaration of dependence on the God who reveals Himself in Scripture for its understanding of human beings and our inviolable rights as human beings.
(2) Americans in our day ought to insist that the authorities in each of our three branches of government explain their judicial conclusions, their legislative activities and their executive positions -- not merely in terms of current judicial narratives and court precedents but in terms of the Declaration of Independence and its clear-as-a-(Liberty)-bell argument for the unalienable human rights of all human beings, citizens and non-citizens alike.
What do you think?
Categories: Thinking Lutheran-ly
Post a Comment
Oops!
The words you entered did not match the given text. Please try again.
2 Comments
Before arriving at the point where your question begins, namely, regarding the moral obligations that Washington has, I would like first to remind us as individual, thoughtful Americans to express integrity with the Declaration in our public and private conversations and arguments re human rights.
This is a matter, I think, of Minding the Gap and bringing to light the presuppositions or necessary conditions for vital questions such as yours. Just yesterday I was perusing Barbara Johnson's Introduction to her 1993 book Freedom and Interpretation and marked her comment, "It should not be forgotten that it is always against humans that human rights need to be defended".
What I am interested in regarding the Declaration is its rationale for the universality of human rights, entailing as it blatantly does, the foundation of human rights in (a non-deistic) God, the God of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures. Following Roger Scruton and Jarislav Pelikan, I teach my students to consider this definition of Western culture: "Greek forms of thinking regarding the Good, the Beautiful and the True -- but thinking informed by Judeo-Christian content and biblical authority". the Declaration of Independence, in my view, expresses the Western culture's view of human rights. Perhaps (although this is outside my bail park) it somehow reflects non-Western thinking (what CS Lewis refers to as the universal Tao) as well.
So, I am recommending that we we together use this canonical political text of the Declaration to upgrade our thinking and our speaking and acting. To my mind, this is a matter of our shared American identity. I also think this is a significant gift to the world -- again, because of its universal claim of human rights and on account of how it founds human rights on self evident truths.
I'd like to think about your question of "Washington's moral obligation" in this light -- and, yes, I know that many folks assume that the US Constitution, severed from the Declaration of Independence, ought to be the criterion for moral obligations; I disagree -- so I am planning my next posting to be on our moral obligations in light of the presuppositions latent in the Declaration.
May I for now offer the response that I am of the view that the argument of the Declaration is an argument for universal human rights, and not merely for the protection of American citizens. Its text is quite clear, despite our country's historical transgressions against the Declaration in the areas of women's rights and institutionalized slavery, for example.
Accordingly, I will say that Washington (and, more importantly each of us, the people of these United States) has the same moral responsibility toward all fellow human beings -- citizens and non-citizens alike -- in regard to the protection of their human rights, such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These rights are, so to speak, not granted rights or entitlements but endowed rights. As our Declaration of Independence explains in no uncertain terms.
Your second thesis is particularly provocative: I have heard some individuals claim that non-(US) citizens are not entitled to the same protections as (US) citizens are.
I would agree that it is not morally incumbent on Washington to protect a German citizen (who happens to be on holiday in the States) from bandits--good samaritan laws notwithstanding.
But I would disagree because I think it is immoral for Washington to attack and imprison the German citizen without due process. The right to due process stems from an -inalienable- right to life and liberty.
What are the implications of this (Judeo-Christian) perspective for Washington's foreign and domestic policy?
Oops!
Oops, you forgot something.