|
Murray Ledger & Times
July 2, 2007 THESE TRUTHS TO BE SELF-EVIDENT:What Does the Declaration of Independence Mean Today?Winfield H. RoseJuly 4 is rapidly approaching when we will observe the 231st anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence in Philadelphia July 4, 1776. July 4 is and rightfully should be our nation's premier national holiday. It is a time of parades, picnics, and fireworks, but it should be more than that. It should also be a time when we reflect on the principles upon which our nation was founded. I wonder how many Americans living today have actually read the Declaration of Independence from beginning to end. Not very many, I suspect, and among those who have, it likely has been a long time. It is one of the most important, most famous, and most influential documents in all history, it is not long, it is easily accessible, and it's a good read. I recommend it to you. When you read the Declaration of Independence, you will notice it divides itself into four parts. The first paragraph forms the introduction and explains its purpose, and the second presents the theological and philosophical foundations of independence. Following the second paragraph comes a list of 29 grievances against the British government the sum and substance of which is that it has become a tyrant "unfit to be the ruler of a free people." And, the concluding paragraph actually declares independence with the words "...these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved..." Our patriot forefathers were engaging in very serious business when they wrote and signed that document. They knew the British would not give up their American colonies without a fight, and they also knew that failure would likely result in their deaths. They were, however, willing to join Patrick Henry and say "Give me liberty or give me death." The Declaration of Independence was several things, one of which was what we today would call a public relations document or press release designed to win the support not only of the American people but also of people around the world. Our forefathers wanted not only to tell the world what they were doing but why, and they wanted to explain why what they were doing was justified. To do the latter they made the second paragraph a statement of religious faith. When the authors of the Declaration said they held "these truths to be self-evident" they were stating that what they were about to say need not be proven as scientific fact. They knew, as do we, that all people are not totally equal in a strict, scientific sense. What they were stating, then, is that they believed what they were about to say was true (fact) in a moral sense and that, as far as they were concerned, its truth needed no proof, that is, it was self-evident. The truth they believed was that all people are created by God in His image and that, as a result, all people share an equal and inherent worth that sets them apart from other living things. This is, purely and simply, a statement of religious faith, and back in 1776 that meant something. Stemming from their divine creation and special status, people possess certain "unalienable" rights which may not rightfully be taken away, and "among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." This clearly says there are other rights, not listed there, and in the same paragraph the authors later add a fourth, the right to rebel against a despotic government. It is interesting to note that this right is then elevated to a duty. They continue that governments exist to preserve and protect these rights, "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." Notice the adjective "just" here; governments derive only their just powers, not all their powers, from the consent of those governed. This requires belief or faith in a standard of right and wrong. Let us return to the idea that people have a right and a duty to resist tyranny. What our patriot forefathers said is that people have this right and duty when they themselves are victims of tyranny, but when people themselves are not victims of tyranny do they have the right and the duty to free or help to free others who are? Does this depend on whether the victims are aware of and are dissatisfied with their condition? Does this depend on the extent or the barbarity of the tyranny? Does this depend on who the tyrants and victims are? Thus, the Declaration of Independence raises interesting questions that go beyond 1776. When many of these same patriot forefathers added the Bill of Rights to the Constitution in 1791 they reverted to the Lockean trio of natural rights, that is, life, liberty, and property, in the Fifth Amendment. To them property and pursuit of happiness were basically the same thing, that is, one could not pursue happiness without property. Another question arises here, however, and that question is are these (and other) natural rights equal among themselves or are they ranked? In other words, is one's right to life superior to one's right to liberty, and is one's right to liberty greater than one's right to property or the pursuit of happiness? With the adoption of the Constitution in 1789 our nation's attention shifted, for a time, away from the Declaration of Independence to the interpretation and implementation of the Constitution itself. This is understandable, but as the slavery issue became more and more controversial there were those who used arguments from the Declaration of Independence to justify slavery, secession, and southern independence. They said slaves were property and that they had a natural right to such property. Moreover, if the national government attempted to deprive them of that alleged right, they then had the natural right and duty to resist. Abraham Lincoln disagreed with this interpretation of the Declaration of Independence and clarified a point our patriot forefathers had taken for granted as another self-evident truth, that is, that the right to rebel existed only to advance a high moral purpose, not to advance an immoral purpose. This principle goes back to Luther and the Reformation. Thus, whereas the colonists did indeed have the right to secede from the British Empire in 1776, southerners did not have the right to secede from the United States in 1861. History has affirmed the rightness of Lincoln's position, meaning, among other things, that natural rights are not equal but ranked, that is, the right to liberty trumps the right to property and, by extension, the right to life trumps the right to liberty. While Lincoln preserved our nation and its founding principles in the 19th century, it is highly ironic that those principles were undermined in that century and since by the work of a man born on exactly the same day as Lincoln, February 12, 1809. That man was Charles Darwin. Evolution teaches that man was not created by God but that he evolved over a long period of time from lower life forms. Thus, man was not created by God and, if not, he therefore cannot be "endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable rights." And, if man is not endowed with such rights by his creator, it does not make sense to say that governments are instituted to secure them. Thus, another question the Declaration of Independence raises today is whether it is anything more than an obsolete, curious, invalid anachronism which deserves little more than a condescending smile from the enlightened who really know better. In other words, is it, in essence, a hoax? A benign hoax, perhaps, but a hoax nevertheless? To borrow a phrase from Patrick Henry, "I know not what course others may take but as for me" it most definitely is not a hoax, benign or otherwise. It was, it is, and it shall always remain a political statement based on religious faith all of whose principles are true, profound and eternal. Human beings are created by God in His image, and they are endowed by Him with certain unalienable rights. Governments are instituted to secure these rights, and they derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. In the immortal words of Martin Luther, "Here I stand; I can do no other." How about you? What does the Declaration of Independence mean to you? Winfield H.
Rose
Murray, KY |