Press release:
"Washington, D.C.- Congressman Todd Akin will join Senators Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and Brownback (R-KS) at a press conference on June 14th at the Upper Senate Park at 12:30 pm eastern. The press conference will discuss legislation introduced by Congressman Akin and Senator Kyl. The legislation which was originally introduced by Congressman Akin would protect American's free speech by removing jurisdiction of lower federal courts to rule on the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance. The power of Congress to limit the jurisdiction of lower federal courts is granted in Article III of the Constitution. ..
..."Congressman Akin has long held that, "The idea that there is a God, and that God grants rights to humankind and that the essential purpose of government is to protect these rights is a fundamental principle. It is also a principle that is central to our Nation's Declaration of Independence. Congress must take positive steps to protect the freedom of Americans to express their allegiance to this principle."
Well, good.
Somethin' that's not taught in the school house no more is that the American Revolution was different than the French-fried version a few years later. The French-fried version was about makin' man and state the final arbiter of man's rights. Trouble wif that is that if the state gives rights, why chile' the state can take rights....ain't happy wif that, is ya?
Well, iffin' youse in doubt, why jes' read up on the what happened during the French Revolution--they kept that guillotine hummin'....even "citizens" who had not a drop of blue blood lost they haids when the "state" decided they didn't have the right expression on they face.
Now the American Founders knew about King and State as tyrants, so they did the most amazin' thang! They done said right plain that God is above the state--that man had "inalienable" rights --that means no state can take those most basic rights.
Why worry about that pledge? Ya doan HAVE ter say it, ya know. But ya ' should--It's all in yore favor folks.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
30 comments:
I pledge allegiance, here me scream.
To liberty, justice and the dream.
To the ideal as it was intended
Freedom should not be amended.
If your emotions are debated
No feelings need be legislated.
Morality and sheep, getting scary.
Why would anyone care whom others marry?
Then pull the heart string out and play it.
The pledge is free if you wanna say it.
Just an oath unto a plastic banner
Was there a ban on our daily planner.
Just Rilin up the crowds and daring
us to focus on a red herring.
Won't my good Aunt Para-Bellum
grab your voice and go and tell em.
Next time they hype up what they say.
They better have Justice on the way.
Accountabiliy of power.
I'll watch that news brief any hour.
But they say nothing posed and stanced,
here's your Invitation to the Dance
hmmmm.... lot's of deleted comments. what's that about?
ah, the pledge.
it's a public ritual i detest - because at best, it mandates patriotism (as opposed to really thinking clearly about what your country means and what you should do to help your country stand for something worthwhile) and at worse, it promotes a nationalistic spirit all too easily moved into jingoism.
"under god" was inserted in the 50s, during the mc-carthy era, so as to separate us from the "commies." it's a pure piece of jingoism.
school children are indeed forced to say the pledge - so why make them pledge to god? it's enough we make 'em pledge to country by rote - without THINKING.
i only say it when i have to (like at a recent soroptomist awards dinner - i was guest and it would have been rude not to rise and recite the thing) but i do not say the words, "under god."
so why can't those who want to say those words say it silently?
and this bill - whoa - now there's a trampling on checks and balances. (and yup, someone will note that a dem did something similar with a bill years ago, regarding timber - preventing certain courts from hearing timber conflicts - but that bill had nothing to do with constituional issues- this one in essence, does - it has far-reaching implications on who can challenge the constitution and why and where. it dillutes our checks and balances.
HR2028's been put up before and failed; it will fail again.
it's merely a bone anyway. a little distraction to keep the masses happy.
Bird, I think Rev done used the multiple deletes to make a point --
Rev,glad ter see ya' surfaced--hope thangs are gettin' better fer ya.
Looky--this heah is the real point of the post: The American and French revolutions are two different animals.
Mah concern heah is that our young'uns (an' a few long tooths) learn the difference.
In the French version the state becomes the god--the final authority of what rights are--and it is not determined by vote, but state. So we'uns wanna make shur that our kids learn that the US revolution did not make the gubmint the last authority, since it invokes a higher buck-stop that even the state cain't trump.
Where the documents name the state as the final say, democracy and freedom are in trouble--where the state acknowledgs that there is higher authority, democracy and freedom are in less trouble.
As fer learnin' by rote, Bird Beauty, thas' jes' fine--kids learn ABCs, times tables, "thank you" and little fork fer salad...all by rote. Who cares? IF somethin' is determined to be good, learnin' it by rote is fine.
A fer the pledge bein' fer patriotism or even nationalism
---that ain't mah thought, as much as, in mah view, to clarify that the reason we are patriotic is outa gratitude--gratitude that we have freedom.
Though let me hasten ter say that addin' "Under God" in the 50's is EXACTLY right--when Communism was a threat, we needed ter remind our folks that Communism is a state-as-god system that is evil in its vicious oppression of its people, but that Americans were not under totalitarian state conntrol, for our state answers to a higher power that gives man "inalienable rights" beyond the reach of a mere state.
Looky Rev, freedom ain't bein' amended only clarified in the face of new challenges. (iffin' ya wants a debate on homosexual unions see previous posts where Bird and Aunty Belle(um) laid it out fer all ter read...see Round III War is Good for Europe)
Glad ter see ya both visitin' the BACK Porch.
Bird, you seem to think loyalty to your country is something evil. You really are confused, aintcha boy?
I am a very loyal American, but I don't place that much value on the Pledge of Allegiance either. I'll tell you why.
The Pledge was written by a Socialist named Francis Bellamy in 1892. His politics were closer to Brain's than they are mine.
The reason the Pledge was written was to impress on us Southerners that the USA was "one nation, indivisible" which of course it is not and never was. The right to secede was and continues to be both a Constitutional right and a natural right. However, the Yankees settled the question (for now) by force, and then they invented the Pledge to brainwash future generations to believe in the myth of indivisibility.
If California wants to secede tomorrow and change her name to "Moonbat Land" and make socialism the law of the land, then she has that right to do so.
Do I say the Pledge? I sure do, but I omit the word "indivisible."
I am loyal to the United States because it is the best country in the world and it is my country, and I am loyal because I want to be, not because some socialist in high button shoes and a celluloid collar told me I have to be.
/bark bark bark
so THAT"S what the little forks for! good to know aunty!
yeah. when the state sets itself up as the ultimate authority then i buy more ammo.
if wishes were fishes we'd all be cooking grits. rot now.
/grrrrrrrrrr
Stogie, sugar pie, I'se jes' flabbergasted! I never did know this background of the pledge--thanky fer the history lesson. My my, but this is interestin' ter this heah Southern lass....
But youse right ter say the pledge--loyalty to your country. And I, loyal fer shur to the idea that this nation is to be "under God" as the warrant fer our freedom.
As fer succession, Stogie, one does readily see that the pesterin' growth of the fed gubmint is directly due to the loss of state's rights. The threat of sccession in fact is best "balance" against ever encroaching feds we have today. So glad ter have ya visit, Stogie.
Hey Dawg!! K-9 youse home?? Well, well, rangin' far and near...whad'ja find? C'mon over heah pup, I'll git'cha some fish and grits and I doan care which fork ya' use--since ya's a dawg, after all. But a smart pup--smart enough to know when ter git'cha some mo' ammo!
Stogie,
I gotta ask. When you refer to America are you reffering to the Current Administration, The Union of States, the People or the National Entity abstract? At the presenttime, it is not possible to be loyal to all of those simultaneously. If your loyalty is to the President yet the majority of the people disapprove of his actions then you are an enemy of the people.If your loyalty is to the idealic Entity then you are the enemy of the Administration. Basically, from any one point of view the other loyalties are evil based on the modern neo-con logic of for or against, no other options.
It would appear that you are loyal to the South. As an active supporter of a conquered people that would make you either a Terrorist, in conservative eyes, or an insurgent to us liberals. But you claim to be a Conservative which I guess makes you a traitor in the South. So if ou could clarify your loyalties it would be greatlyu appreciated. Using the modern labelling equations I keep coming up with Traitorous Enemy of the People insurgent. Or in hellpig speak, you are John Clinton-Kerry.
Reply soon, I would love to compare all of that with the glowing persona you seem to believe you are.
One more thing... What's wrong with Socialism other than it being the opposite the conservative idealof Corpratilism.
oops almostforgot,. What ws your criteria for judging America to be
the runner up the greatest nation on earth?
stogie,
on what do you base your assumption that i think loyalty to country is evil?
blind loyalty, loyalty lacking critical thinking - that's harmful to a country.
best country in the world? have you studied intensely other countries? have you traveled widely?
i wouldn't go so far as to say the U.S. is the best. i can say it's the most powerful, and it has incredible potential to be a benovolent and positive force on the global stage. i can say we have much to be proud of as well (though we have much to be ashamed of also).
i agree - we are not one country, "indivisible." we are clearly divided on issue after issue. we are polarized into two sides - and neither truly has a mandate.
behooves us then to build common ground before we destroy ourselves from within.
/bark bark bark
i like this! i am gonna go with revvy's definition: i am a
southern agrarian insurgent!
my new party, the SAI, will hole up out in the country and be ready to rock when ADM or monsanto gets the spooks to eminent domain us or confiscate our non-GMO coated heirloom seeds.
/grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Hoo Whee! Dawg, I'se wif ya!! Archer, Daniel done took Midland and ain't nothin' ter stop em!
Ok Rev, looky honey, this is how to clarify the Loyalty question 'bout being on the outs wif POTUS but in wif the republic.
"I pledge allegiance to the flag... and the republic fer which it stands..." See? You ain't pledge nothin to man in the OO. Youse pledgin' ter the idea behind the American founding--that is, the Declaration of Inde'pence and the Bill of Rights. You ain't pledgin to no party, no politician, no north nor south (though you is pledgin ter state's rights as provided fer in them docs)
Here's how I'se holdin' it in mah head: I doan have ter like or agree wif nothin' youse jabberin' 'bout, but I does have ter defend and approve ya right ter say it. That flag is warrant fer yer right ter speak like ya does wif out a scimitar over yore neck.
On socialsim is evil, Rev. Steals from the substance of man...an' honey, it doan even work. Notice hw quick China is chuckin' commie and socialism...jes' doan work. Especially when iit makes an industry outa killin' its chillen so they ain't enough workers to pay for the social (vote -buying) programs.
Check wif Sweden fer some laboratory proof.
Wing-ed One, yeah darlin' USA is the
best. On nearly most accounts ---and I'se been heah and theah and studied up mor'n most...ain't speakin' from false pride....speakin' from evidence. Looky--why does eve'r one immigrate here? Most sought after ticket on the orb, chile'. Not jes' fer the streets paved in gold--fer the freedom.
'Course, youse right--we ain't perfect, we ain't even good in some categories, we'uns need ter be better...it's jes' the rest of the bunch is mostly worse.
plenty of freedom and opportunity in other lands as well. not to open up a fresh can of worms or change the topic, but perhaps folks immigrate here in masses because it's easier to get in than other countries. we have very , ahem, excuse the term, liberal, immigration pollicis. canada - which i think is a lovely country with a lovely system (better than ours in some regards, worse in others) has much stricter immigration laws.
Yep Bird, we have more liberal policies--which of course speaks to the greater freedom point. And on top of the freedom--greater economic opportunities and ....the least bigoted nation in the world towrd new groups--not syaing without bigotry--but least bigoted.
/bark bark bark
thats good aunty. pledging to the idea of the american foundation. and, as you've noted too much fed corrupts it. the pledge to all of us, not the representation -us as a free people.
to stogie: surely we would be indivisible if, say, mars attacks. i would hope.
/grrrrrrrrr
Bird said"i wouldn't go so far as to say the U.S. is the best. i can say it's the most powerful"
Too damn easy,like shooting crows in my backyard no sport in it.
Well, contrary chillen's, here's the new question fer ya...what country's flag would you pefer to pledge to?
Hi Everyone
Being a failry rare contributor here, I am reluctant to throw in not just my two cents but a whole bag of coins and you might not like the coinage. But this is the back porch, so here I go:
To answer that last question first (which flag to swear on): None. I think that noone needs to pledge loyalty that way. A pledge is worth nada if it is just words so why bother? Loyalty can be SHOWN but not sworn on.
Communism: Failed because of Human nature. The kind of sharing (not a bad thing in itself) it wanted to install just could not happen.
God above state: Why is that necessary? Again, the possible failure lies in what humans do with power. TRUE self-responsibility in the name of God makes it unneccessary to put him above state because we then ACT in his name (what that means: see down below). Writing it down and forcing anyone to swear on it won't solve the problem.
Before and after the French revolution and what was bad about it: Same thing. Lack of self-responsibility and social competence. BEFORE a class of silky bloodsuckers who squeezed out the people and built magnificent palaces. After that: revenge and then: new power games. Humans did it.
And finally: God as "boss" written down in the laws? That can go very wrong. Choose any so-called God-state in the East and this is self-evident. But again: WHAT goes wrong, there? Answer: HUMAN beings made and make the laws that cause terror. Humans - men - even have HEAVILY changed the words of the holy books (including the Bible) over the centuries - and why? To secure power for themselves.
Spanish inquisition? Crusaders? Power Games.
My point: "God" as a term has been corrupted and made a monster by humans so many times that I don't see why it should be in ANY book of law.
DIVINE principles as love, compassion, social behaviour, helping each other out, defending those in need, in other words: the Brotherhood/Sisterhood of man ... now THAT can be a guiding principle for anyone everywhere.
Politicians as a whole - with a couple of exeptions - have not understood that. Not in the US, not in my country, and I bet: not anywhere. Power games again, much too often in the name of God and on top of that often mixed a corrupted idea of what loyalty is.
Ben, Sugar, ya' put yore coins in any time youse of a mind to--thas' jes' fine. Back Porch is fer serious exchanges--we'uns wanna hep each other get a full view of thangs. Takes mor'n one pair o' eyes.
Ya wrote:
"DIVINE principles as love, compassion, social behaviour, helping each other out, defending those in need, in other words: the Brotherhood/Sisterhood of man ... now THAT can be a guiding principle for anyone everywhere."
This heah is very wise---youse on the money (must be all them coins!) but...Ben, doan we need ter notice that the idea of brotherhood, compassion etc. As divine principles isn't part of all cultures, ain't part of some religions?
The ones that urge ya to turn the other cheek, ter pray fer ya enemies--that ain't standard fare.
As fer gubmint--looky...the least gubmint the better--and whar a state knows it is answerable to higher principles/power/authority/or...God. then the state has an in-built limit, doan it?
This is philospohical, seein' how's the state can ignore the principle, BUT then the people know what's wrong when that happens--but under Communism, the idea is that the State determines all--even what job ya does...the "state" is jes' men run amok, but the people doan even think in categories of "rights".
Of course youse correct--it is HUMAN failure, when COmmunism and French Revolution etc. doan do the job they meant to do-- so our task then is to find the system of social organization and gubmint that results in the most people having the most freedom---this happens in Western Civ the most, the best, the longest.
And...sigh...looky, could ya' ride wif me down a history lane a bit? I'd appreciate it.
Folks never was taught that there were multiple inquistions, in multiple countries, in different ages of history. It is a judicial process--not an autommatic death senntence.
The worst was NOT Spain. Also, strange ter tell, but scholars write that few folks met their death under the Spanish Inquisition that was handled buy the CHurch--the Spanish gubmint was far more punitive--most accused PREFERRED the Chruch to the state to heah they cases. More went to they deaths in England during Protestant inquisition of Catholics and Puritains than lost they lives in Spain...and fewer lost they lives in all inquisitions than die auuto accidents each year!
We'uns gotta keep in mind when ya' want ter look at the history of the Spanish Inquisition, ya gotta check what else was happening in Europe at the same time. In London ya got a hanging sentence fer tramplin' the shrubs in the King's garden--no kiddin', Ben. Or fishin' in his river fer salmon.
Northern Europe's witch burning far exceeded the death count at the hands of the Spanish gubmint in the Spanish Inquisition--the Spanish looked on withcraft as a sign of insanity--while other parts of Europe thought it heresy.
The Spanish version of Inquistion was a state run-affair--meant to sniff out quislings since only Christians (not Jews or Muslims) could hold high gov't office, the state worried that there were conversions for the sake of state postions--and there were those--but the point is that the Spanish Inquistion was more state led than Church.
Why, the state even put Catholic clergy and nuns to through the Inquisition--including saints like Ignatius Loyola and Teresa of Avila.
They's much misinformation on the Inquisition. Spain beat her opponenets on the battlefied, but she done lost to the prinitng press--the so-called "Black Legend" is not supported by modern critical scholarship.
Folks toss out death figures that make scholars chuckle since it would amount to vast populations --never happened like that. Few died--most fined, given penance and let go. One historian estimates more men died in a single day in the US Civil War than in the 300 years of the Spanish policy of inquisition.
The inquisition thang is a club ter beat on Catholicism--same as Crusades...lawdy,Ben, Aunty B would go fer a new Crusade iffin' possible---in the good sense--the original Crusade was to liberate the CHristians enslaved and mistreated by the Moors--ya doan criticize that does ya?
Later some of them knights was shur greedy and brought shame to the banner they followed--no question 'bout that--and the Pope said so at the time! But the WHOLE of the Crusades was not wrong or misguided.
As fer pledgin' on loyalty...ya knows, I can git what ya mean about not pledgin' but actin'.
Oh mah heavens, I done yakked and yakked...
I guess the thang is that a pledge is a statement of intention--the intention to be loyal to the principles of the Founding. Shur,it is true that some who pledge that intention, violate it. Others refuse to pledge and still behave right fine....but these are exceptions, I'm hopin'.
I does see what yer mean--no pledge is a direct measure of the health of loyalty. And at the bottom--like yer said, Ben--we HUMANS are the trouble. No system is HUMAN proof is it?
We's fallen creatures fer shur.
Aunty,
Good skimmin over there. OK, that would be loyalty to the Idealic National Entity. Now I could be wrong but I see no way of being loyal to the idea conveyed in the Declaration of Independence and loyal top the current POTUS, at the same time. Has he not affected to render the military independent of and superior to the Civil Power? Has he not protected them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States and others?
Has he not refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good without altering them to make them useless. Has he not deprived us, and others in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
And has he not plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
And is he not currently transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation?
Loyalty in this matter is mutually exclusive. Now as to the socialism question. I asked what was wrong with socialism. It is a simple question not involving a history lesson. What are the core inherent flaws of the Socialist government. Then I would ask what is wqrong with capitalism. What is wrong with each and every type of government based on a single philosophy. Answer me those questions and we will be left with what works or is good about the systems. I believe we will find a better system that way. Take the good, throw out the bad and make a perfect system. Or as close as we can get.
Hi Belle
I quoted the crusades and such as additional examples for men abusing the name of a higher power. And I agree in many ways with your colour of the theme. Different words, same idea.
One main difference, though and now that I ahve opened my mouth I just can't get myself to shut up about it 'cause this is to close to home!
I do NOT see humanity as fallen creatures. Our decisions over the ages might have been (as I pointed out), well, not to the good of all.
But we are here to learn, to enjoy, to - as Rev X says - make it better .
Why any kind of guilt? So God can absolve us if we make nice? What a very human thing of HIM to do that would be. Imagine: God throws you out of paradise and is angry at you. And you never EVER get released unless you fall on your knees and admit that you are a sinner because an eternity ago someone else made a mistake.
Tell you who formulated THAT: a human who liked to control his flock.
Why do you load this on your shoulders, seeing us as fallen? You're not and I say: noone is.
I give you this, though: The guy who wrote that part of the Bible did so in an age where it MIGHT have been necessary to come over with such metaphors to fit the times idea of right and wrong and make people think about ethics.
Way I see it we were never guilty.
We have free choice. And the chance for us today, by trial and error is - as Rev X says - to make the best of it.
Yes, Belle, we fail. But the ONLY God that I can accept as being DIVINE is ABOVE judging us because he loves us ALL no matter what and is NOT punishing for failure but applauding development according to the lines I have laid out before.
And now I AM going to shut up.
I've skirted the issue, but as I worked today I put some serious thought into the Pledge and here is my problem with it. It initiates Americans at an early age into a noncritical acceptance of brand loyalty. It is the coke over pepsi preference put into the brain at such an early stage that nothing short of a life shaking event such as the Pepsi Challenge and the subsequent betrayal of all True Coke fans with new coke, a person may go their entire lives never realizing that there is a better alternative. Look at Patriotism. It, in and of itself, is not a bad thing if earned. Nowadays tho, it is a self supported assumption defended only with circituitous arguments and posturing.
"America is the Greatest Country on Earth!" OK, why? On what standard? Does it care for its citizens more than other countries? No. It allows a significant portion to fall into the gutter in abject poverty while bitching about the welfare state. It begrudges its poor. It has great healthcare available only to the upper eschelon of its people. Our mortality rates rank with the third world. The only thing America does particularly better than other countries is avenge its citizens deaths abroad. Doesn't give a crap about the survivng soldiers after the waqr but will gladly send 20 Marines to die to get the guys who killed 4 the other day. Wait, now there are 24 dead, send in a battalion.
Does America treat the rest of the world better than other countries? Any answer I put here would be too sarcastic to even hope for a meaningful message to come accross.
So, in what way is America the best Nation? Well, it tops the world in prisoner population, greenhouse emmissions, oil consumption, aggressive military usage and export of crap for tv. Well, if those are the attributes you feel define us as the best, then please write "shoot me" on your forehead and walk outside. It would be a far nobler thing you'd do than you have ever done before.
Now before anyone jumps on the "Rev hates America!" springboard of ego, think about this. When you love some one, do you allow them to just go on self destructing right before your eyes and pretend that it isn't happening? Hell no! You grab them by the shoulders and you intervene in their life. You stop them. You shake them up. Disrupt the status quo that is taking them downward and you do everything to help them. This is done with the full knowledge that the person is not going to like you for it and when all is said and done, they may never forgive you. But at least they are there to hold a grudge. That is love. That is love for your country. The apologists and enablers do not love America. They are using it for their own benefit. Anyone who loves this country would risk their relationship with it because they would rather see their country well and happy without them than broken and with them. As someone (Moxxiegrrl I think) said once "I would rather see someone burn the flag and hide behind the Constitution than burn the Constitution and hide behind the flag." Amen
ben and rev - yeah - what they said - me too (ever so articulate this fine morning.)
flap/flap/swoosh!
off to warp more minds for the summer!
Well, mah goodness, chillen's ya'll been at it, aint'cha?
Ben...please see new post on yore points--up tomorrow.
Rev, ok, I'me hearin' that frustration wif all that is wrong wif Uncle Sam. Even can git why yer not too happpy ter "pledge" to that....but onc't again, lemme say that iti is the IDEA of the values in the Declaration of Inde'pence and Bill of Rights that we are honoring--not hte lack of achievin' the ideal.
But as fer ya points on US not carin' fer the poor--oh my...iffin' ya wants socialism, they's a passle of other places ter go and as the Dawg say, Delta is ready when your are.
Aunty is sorry fer the poor--but a hefty number of the poor is poor on account they own fault...and thas' what liberals doan wann think about.
Libs wanna think that wif' the right socio-political system, ever'body will be dandy. Therefore they insist that it is the gubmint that is at fault, not no poor folks.
Ya knows that ain't nothin' but a pipe dream, honey. Fact is, they's lazy folks, addicted folks, sly folks and jes' plain ornery folks.
See heash what the London papers is observin' about US'uns?
"About $1bn (£542m) in relief meant for victims of Hurricane Katrina was lost to fraud, with bogus claimants spending the money on Hawaiian holidays, football tickets, diamond jewellery and Girls Gone Wild porn videos, the US Congress was told yesterday," reports London's Guardian:
Some Katrina poor fell through the cracks in the system, and that is tragic...but LOTS of them was no-accounts who jes' laughed all the way ter the casino, Rev.
It ain't the job of the gubmint ter make sure you get somethin' ter eat tonight. Thas' yore job. The job of gubmint is ter keep the moors off yore fanny so ya can go about the bidness of the "pursuit of happiness" wifout fear of the scimitar. Note that is "pursuit" not "promise" of happiness.
The Founding Fathers war'nt makin' no claim ter settin' up a new nation whar handouts were the job of gubmint. Nope. They set up a new nation whar the king could not hang yore neck in a noose fer sayin' the king is an internaphiliac.
Here is what Aunty is seein', now--on the pledge of allegiance--the trouble is that too many folks doan know what is meant by "we hold these truth to be self evident". Thas' because, Rev, some folks doan even like the idea of a Truth. They wanna make they own truth and they ain't happy when some other folks say, "Wait! there is the matter of truth"
"We hold these truths" ipso facto means that at the founding there was a consensus on natural law, the "self-evident" law above any gubmint or system of gubmint and based on the Creator of the Universe and His cosmic order.
Ya know, they was folks who gave up land and possessions, risked life and limb ter make this nation--and others who were loyal to Georgie-porgie of England. The founders set out the Declaration for the purpose of lettin' the whole world know how far King Geoorge and company had strayed from that law that is "self-evident".
Some folks today is strayin' from that law and these are those who doan like ter think that they's such a thang as "self -evident truths".
Jes' grabbin' ya by the shoulders, Rev, on account of I does really care--bout you, as well as the country.
Ya hearin' this Bird Beauty?
Aunty,
I was not arguing against most of what you stated. Personally I am for workfare as opposed to welfare. Of course any time that is brought up, someone yells "Socialism" and it gets kicked to the curb. As I have stated, it is too bad that an idea can be villified without proper debate. If workfare is socialism, then it is an aspect of socialism that works and should not be cast aside with the rest of the philosophy just because the no one seems to know what socialism is other than wrong. Stogie never answered the question. Niether did you or anyone else for that matter. I would suggest that everyone reintroduce themselves to a text book or two and learn political science again. I am doing the same. Trust me.
Amen, Rev...workfare is the way ter go...I'se shur fer that! (and it ain't socialism)
Poli sci huh, Sugar? Yep--me too...I'se readin' a plenty of it fer the moment. Be shur to read some John Lukacs on the difference 'tween nationalism and patriotism...very instructive. Git'cha a copy of his Democracy and Populism (2005).
Post a Comment