The Heaven-Rescued Land Celebrates Another Birthday

I’m going to put off doing the annual SCOTUS session wrap up for a few more days to honor our country for the 249^th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.

It’s nice to have a celebratory holiday in the middle of summer, with fireworks to end a day of sunshine, barbecues, and watermelon. But somewhere in the celebration we ought to take a solemn pause, and think about what it means.

We declared independence—from a tyrannical government. The British later became our friends, but it was a painful breakup there for a while.

We began an experiment in self-government—still underway

 

Read the full article on Substack, here.

One Nation Under God

I was in the middle of writing something education related; it will have to wait until I gather another couple of details. And I’m anxious to write about the Supreme Court rulings; ‘tis the season. Maybe next week.

For now, I’m just trying to celebrate our country’s birthday, this coming Tuesday. Most nations don’t have birthdays to speak of. Most nations are based on land, heritage, or result of war—either separating them as conqueror or bringing them in as conquered.

A 4th of July teaching moment, enough years
ago that my granddaughter isn't little anymore.

But our nation was founded on the idea that we are all created equal, not with some created rulers and others created to be ruled. We were all endowed by our creator "with certain unalienable Rights; among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

All of these come down to life. It is ours, our gift from God. If someone takes our liberty, they are taking our life for their purposes, not ours. If someone tries to control how we live our lives—how we pursue happiness—that is usurping control over our lives. And that is wrong.

We are free to choose how to live our lives—and in the end we offer up the result of those choices, like in the parable of the talents, when the ruler (God) comes for a reckoning, and the good and faithful servants offer the doubling of the good they were given. They made something of their lives, offering Him the result.

Our nation is founded on that idea. It requires a connection to God. Unbelievers may live here among us, but they must not be allowed to take away our founding idea, or they are taking away our very nation—along with the life, liberty, and fruits of our living that the government was established to protect and defend.

Our government hasn’t done so well, these 247 years in—that’s since the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776, so, our birthday; it was 1787, 236 years ago, that the Constitution was written, and a year later ratified.

Maybe we need to take some time, with family or by ourselves, to reverence these founding documents.

Abraham Lincoln, in a note to himself[i], used the image of a golden apple in a silver frame. The golden apple is the Declaration of Independence—the declaration of our right to rule ourselves, because God has made us all equal before the law. This golden apple is framed by the Constitution—the purposes of government, to protect the life, liberty, and property of the citizens. This image works to illustrate the close connection between these two documents.

image from The Ashbrook Center article Lincoln's Apple of Gold

You might want to take time this weekend to read the Declaration of Independence—even with all the grievances; it takes five or ten minutes. It takes a bit longer to go through the Constitution, although it’s certainly readable in less than an hour, amendments and all.

Maybe it’s time to read The Federalist Papers once again as well. And while you’re at it, take a look at the Anti-Federalist Papers; those were the warning voices saying, “Don’t give that much power to a central government; it will go wrong.” They are probably saying “I told you so about now.” Although I still think we had to try the experiment. It isn’t that our Constitution wasn’t the right balance of centralized and localized power; that balance is spelled out quite clearly. It is that the Constitution has been ignored, twisted to mean something altogether other, and even denigrated as archaic or never good to begin with. And who says those things about it? People who want to control other people, petty tyrants all.

So the prevention is for a critical mass to understand, to know inside and out, the discussions our founders had in freeing us from tyranny and setting the stage for the rest of the world to try self rule.

It is likely that the founders of this nation were the best assemblage of men ever to attempt to write a government document.

A friend passed along to me a talk by Ezra Taft Benson, from 1987. I’ve heard it multiple times; I heard it live. (He was the prophet and president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints during my young adult years. He was also at one time the US Secretary of Agriculture. Not to be missed is his address “The Proper Role of Government.”) This talk is called “Our Divine Constitution.”

Ezra Taft Benson, giving the talk "Our Divine Constitution"
screenshot from here

I encourage you to listen to the whole thing. There are just a few parts I want to reference. One is a reminder of what some of the signers of our Declaration of Independence sacrificed:

This Declaration was a promise that would demand terrible sacrifice on the part of its signers. Five of the signers were captured as traitors and tortured before they died. Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned. Two lost their sons in the Revolutionary War; another had two sons captured. Nine died from wounds or from the hardships of the war.

Then he talks about the followup and necessary document—the Constitution:

Between the critical years of 1783 and 1787, an outsider viewing the affairs of the United States would have thought that the thirteen states, different in so many ways, could never effectively unite. The world powers were confident that this nation would not last.

Eventually, twelve of the states met in Philadelphia to address the problem.

It took four months—summer months, inside, before air conditioning. That wasn’t quite the sacrifice of war, but it must have stretched patience pretty thin. As William Gladstone said, the Constitution was “the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man.”[ii]

Ezra Taft Benson goes on to talk about the danger our Constitution is in; this was 1987, and it did seem bad then. But now—those concerns are increased a hundred-fold. He says,

How then can we best befriend the Constitution in this critical hour and secure the blessings of liberty and ensure the protection and guidance of our Father in Heaven?

·       First and foremost, we must be righteous….

·       Second, we must learn the principles of the Constitution in the tradition of the Founding Fathers….

·       Third, we must become involved in civic affairs to see that we are properly represented….

·        Fourth, we must make our influence felt by our vote, our letters, our teaching, and our advice.

Ezra Taft Benson mentions a prophecy of Joseph Smith[iii], from July 1840, that there would come a day when the Constitution is in grave danger. But Benson says,

I have faith that the Constitution will be saved as prophesied by Joseph Smith. It will be saved by the righteous citizens of this nation who love and cherish freedom. It will be saved by enlightened members of this Church—among others—men and women who understand and abide the principles of the Constitution.

I reverence the Constitution of the United States as a sacred document. To me its words are akin to the revelations of God, for God has placed His stamp of approval upon it.

Prayers are more urgent this year, as we celebrate our beloved nation’s birthday—with concern and hope that it will not be the last such celebration. May we be the righteous men and women who understand and abide by the principles of the Constitution. May each of us do our part—and, with God’s help, may it be enough.

---

[i] See “Lincoln’s Apple of Gold,” January 25, 2023, on the Ashbrook Institute website. 

[ii] William Gladstone, North American Review, Sept.–Oct. 1878, p. 185.

[iii] Benson gives the whole quote in the talk: “Even this nation will be on the very verge of crumbling to pieces and tumbling to the ground, and when the Constitution is upon the brink of ruin, this people will be the staff upon which the nation shall lean, and they shall bear the Constitution away from the very verge of destruction.” The citation is 19 July 1840, as recorded by Martha Jane Knowlton Coray; ms. in Church Historian’s Office, Salt Lake City.

Celebrating Freedom—and Passing It On

This Sunday we celebrate our country’s birthday—our Independence Day. The Declaration of Independence was a piece of parchment. It became a reality through fighting—and winning—a bloody war for independence. That was 245 years ago. And this may be the year we need more reminding than ever about what was on that parchment. 

President Calvin Coolidge
image from Wikipedia

Calvin Coolidge gave a speech in 1926 at the 150-year mark of the Declaration. I shared large parts of that last year for the 4^th of July. I’ll just repeat a paragraph here: 

It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.

We were reminded by Ronald Reagan that what our founders knew, and what our grandparents knew a century ago, is too easily lost: 

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.

This past year has shown how true this is. Our nation has been particularly under assault by those who would rewrite history, to cover up the truths that are self-evident, and replace them with the antiquated miseries of tyranny. They’re trying to distort history, to claim that those things we’ve been told about our founding are all a lie, that the real founding purpose was to establish slavery on this continent.

President Trump, last year, established a commission to stop those lies—such as you read in the New York Times’ 1619 Project. Biden reversed that order on his first day in office. The essence of the lie is that America was essentially founded in 1619, when slaves were first brought to Virginia. And that nothing that comes after this point counts in a positive way, not even abolishing slavery, nor abolishing the Jim Crow laws that followed in some former slave states. Nor did Civil Rights legislation or the easing of racial tensions throughout the country count as progress. According to this theory, everything white people do, or have ever done, is based on that original sin of allowing slavery into this new world—at a time when it was present all over the world and had been through most of human history, including among natives on this continent. This theory says that whites do nothing that isn’t about subjugating other races. And if you say otherwise, you are of course racist.

It's a pernicious ideology. And it ignores all the true history—good and bad—of this nation, and much of the world. It divides by race, and calls whites (or anyone else who is socially and economically successful) white supremacists who ought to be eradicated, or at least subjugated to the races claiming power through victimhood. Hating people because of their skin color is racist. This ideology is pure racism.

This is so ugly that its proponents have gone into schools and separated third graders into oppressors and oppressed—by race. A white child is an oppressor, based solely on skin color or genetic heritage, and should therefore be punished by submitting to oppression by the definitionally oppressed others. I say teaching any child such a thing is abusive.

questions to ask your school board
screenshot from Critical Race Theory video by Christopher Rufo

It’s hard to understand how such a pernicious ideology could succeed in a country so blessed with freedom and opportunity. But people who try to get rid of freedom and set themselves up as rulers are commonplace everywhere.

There’s a moment of the movie in The Avengers in which the villain Loki comes to earth to subjugate the people. He’s a complex character, but he seems to truly believe humans are inferior and should be grateful for his “benevolent” dictatorship. He forces everyone in a crowd to kneel before him. But one man, an older German man, stands up.

scene from The Avengers where Loki forces all to kneel, and one man stands
screenshots from here

Here’s Loki’s speech, followed by that man’s very true words: 

Loki: Is not this simpler? Is this not your natural state? It’s the unspoken truth of humanity that you crave subjugation. The bright lure of freedom diminishes your life’s joy in a mad scramble for power, or identity. You were made to be ruled. In the end, you will always kneel.

[man in crowd stands]

Standing Man: Not to men like you.

Loki: There are no men like me.

Standing Man: There are always men like you.

Tyrants think what Loki thinks—that they are special, superior, and entitled to rule. Power mongers like him show up wherever humans are not yet perfect. So, everywhere. There are always people like him.

Loki quickly executes the man—before Captain America stands to take him on and the fight gets interesting. If we can’t be Captain America, we at least need to be the man who stands up and points out that Loki is just one of those we’ve seen so many times before.

There are such people, those willing to stand, regardless of consequences. In many states, legislation is underway to take on these anti-American ideas and the tyrants who attempt to rule over us.

map showing states doing anti-Critical Race Theory legislation,
screenshot from Critical Race Theory video by Christopher Rufo

Texas passed such a law, HB 3979, just a month ago. People think it’s not strong enough, and they may be right; the topic of stopping Critical Race Theory in schools is on the Governor’s agenda again for the special session coming up in a week. As I read the bill, it’s pretty good. One deficiency may be in addressing only social studies curriculum—which allows those concepts to be taught in other subjects. Another is what got added during debates.

The Texas law has essentially two segments: what should be taught, and what should not be taught. What should be taught is mainly about the positive things related to our founding. Included are race-related things in our history, some of which I wonder about, but it emphasizes original source documents, which is a good thing—with exceptions I’ll note below in a look at these prescribed things to study:

In adopting the essential knowledge and skills for the social studies curriculum, the State Board of Education shall adopt essential knowledge and skills that develop each student's civic knowledge, including an understanding of:

•          the fundamental moral, political, and intellectual foundations of the American experiment in self-government.
•          the history, qualities, traditions, and features of civic engagement in the United States.
•          the history of Native Americans.
•          the structure, function, and processes of government institutions at the federal, state, and local levels.

Let me note that these are the things that were taught when I was in school. Next come the founding documents to be used:

        The founding documents of the United States, including:

•          the Declaration of Independence.
•          the United States Constitution.
•          the Federalist Papers.
•          the transcript of the first Lincoln-Douglas debate.

 

The troublesome part of the bill comes next. As written, it’s simply inaccurate. Continuing from the list above:

 

•          the writings of and about the founding fathers and mothers and other founding persons of the United States, including the writings of:

o George Washington.

o Ona Judge.

o Thomas Jefferson.

o Sally Hemings.

o And any other founding persons of the United States.

Writings of and about our founding fathers and mothers are important. I don’t know who they’re referring to as “other founding persons” who are, I guess, not the men and women who founded our country but some other kind of person? But the writing of our founding mothers, for example, would include the letters of Abigail Adams to her husband, John Adams.

But how did Ona Judge’s writings affect our founding? I had to look her up; she was a slave in Washington’s household, who escaped, upon hearing she might be given to a relative, several years before Washington’s death and lived thereafter as a free person. (All his slaves were freed following his death.) There are no writings to read. Is her story interesting? Yes. Important enough to be demanded in a bill? No. And there are no writings to read, so the law cannot be followed.

I was aware of Sally Hemings; I was not aware of her writings. So I went searching. There is no evidence that she learned to read and write in either English or French. So, again, we can’t read her writings. Was she a significant influence on the ideas that went into our founding? I would say no. You can leave her out and still know everything about the ideas of the founding and their sources.

So, writing into the bill that we should consider the writings—not writings of and about these women, but the writings of these women—as among the most important founding source documents to read is a bit of a farce. I suspect these additions to the bill are intended to insist that our founders were slaveowners in a time when they hadn’t yet ended slavery—but which the founding ideas made inevitable. So, that’s how CRT creeps in—show that by today’s standards, our founders don’t hold up, and then paint with a broad brush saying nothing they did holds up.

I looked at the original version of the bill, and that clause about using founding documents simply reads,

The founding documents of the United States, including the Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution, the Federalist Papers (including but not limited to Essays 10 and 51), excerpts from Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America, the first Lincoln-Douglas debate, and the writings of the Founding Fathers of the United States.

They missed the Northwest Ordinance, which is often mentioned by Dr. Larry Arnn when he talks about our founding documents. But otherwise, that’s a good foundational list. 

There’s more in the final bill that seems to me to be added with the intention of highlighting race, as though that is the defining issue of our history. But that just isn’t what our nation was founded upon; that is what our founding has helped us face—with better results than probably anywhere on earth. 

There’s a relatively brief portion of the law concerning what must not be taught. I especially like this line; it must not be taught is that: 

With respect to their relationship to American values, slavery and racism are anything other than deviations from, betrayals of, or failures to live up to, the authentic founding principles of the United States, which include liberty and equality.

When you read the things you can’t do, you realize some of the racial stuff up in the “should be taught” section is not teachable. That doesn’t mean teachers can’t touch on difficult issues; it just means they cannot teach them with the CRT bent, where everything American is white supremacist racism.

While the law does mention that the 1619 Project cannot be taught, the term Critical Race Theory is not used—which is good, since that ideology uses many different terms, for subterfuge. Instead, we say the ideas of our founding should be taught, and should not be twisted into what we know is a CRT race-baiting lie.

There’s a pattern for such legislation as ours, from Citizens Renewing America, an organization headed by Russ Vought, who was the advisor to President Trump who actually authored the executive order to get rid of CRT in government and schools—the one that Biden immediately reversed. Their model is here. 

You can compare the model with the Texas law. Here’s the original version of Texas's HB 3979. And here’s the final version as passed. Take this as a cautionary tale for doing the work in your state or local area. The original Texas bill is very close to the Citizens Renewing America model; the final bill has those troubling, badly thought through, badly written, and self-contradictory parts that will mean revisiting the issue in special session. We want our children taught to love our country and the beautiful ideas we are founded on—because, well, refer to Coolidge, above.

Dr. Larry Arnn once said, 

There is only one way to return to living under the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the institutions of the Constitution: we must come to love these things again.

About that, I’ve said before, 

When I study the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, I find beauty. The more I study, the more I love them. The more I learn about the ideas behind these documents, and the men who thought them through, the more I marvel.

image found here

At our Church’s last worldwide conference, in April, President Dallin H. Oaks spoke about our Constitution and how its principles have benefited the world. Similar to Coolidge, he lists five divinely inspired principles: 

•          The source of government power is the people.
•          The division of delegated power between the nation and its subsidiary states.
•          The separation of powers.
•          The cluster of vital guarantees of individual rights and specific limits on government authority in the Bill of Rights.
•          The vital purpose of the entire Constitution. We are to be governed by law and not by individuals, and our loyalty is to the Constitution and its principles and processes, not to any office holder.

Let’s start with those things—learn them, love them, and teach them clearly to the next generation; then this nation will long endure against the tyrants who show up everywhere, forever trying to take away our freedoms.

Why We Celebrate

On this date in 1776, July 2^nd, The Resolution for Independence was signed. Some thought this would be the document and the date that would be celebrated. According to Wikipedia, it resolved that the Thirteen Colonies in America were "free and independent States," separated from the British Empire and creating what became the United States of America. It was the act of the body. But it was not yet the declaration to the world. That came two days later, July 4^th, 1776. I’m glad we went with celebrating the declaration to the world, rather than the resolution of the Continental Congress. For one reason, it says why becoming a separate and independent nation was proper and good. And it said it beautifully:

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.

The Declaration of Independence 

There are ideas there that had never in the history of the world been put together as the reason to establish a new nation. Where liberty has spread around the world, it has happened because these ideas rang true for additional people. The ideas were revolutionary. And they are timeless.

A day or two ago Ben Shapiro mentioned on his show the speech President Calvin Coolidge gave in Philadelphia in celebration of the 150^th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. I hadn’t been familiar with that speech, so I looked it up. Here we are 94 years later, and the words are still fresh and true. Maybe even more apparently true for those of us witnessing the assault on our ideals.

So I’d like to share some of his message. The rest of these quotes are all from Calvin Coolidge in that speech. 

These are the reasons for our celebration:

President Calvin Coolidge
image from here

[T]o reaffirm and reestablish those old theories and principles which time and the unerring logic of events have demonstrated to be sound. Amid all the clash of conflicting interests, amid all the welter of partisan politics, every American can turn for solace and consolation to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States with the assurance and confidence that those two great charters of freedom and justice remain firm and unshaken. Whatever perils appear, whatever dangers threaten, the Nation remains secure in the knowledge that the ultimate application of the law of the land will provide an adequate defense and protection.

This birth of a new nation was not based on geography or tribe, as had been the basis for all new nations heretofore. This new nation was based on principles. I highlighted the three main principles:

It was not because it was proposed to establish a new nation, but because it was proposed to establish a nation on new principles, that July 4, 1776, has come to be regarded as one of the greatest days in history. Great ideas do not burst upon the world unannounced. They are reached by a gradual development over a length of time usually proportionate to their importance. This is especially true of the principles laid down in the Declaration of Independence. Three very definite propositions were set out in its preamble regarding the nature of mankind and therefore of government. These were the doctrine that all men are created equal, that they are endowed with certain inalienable rights, and that therefore the source of the just powers of government must be derived from the consent of the governed.

Even the act of declaring independence showed the order of a self-governing people:

It was the fact that our Declaration of Independence containing these immortal truths was the political action of a duly authorized and constituted representative public body in its sovereign capacity, supported by the force of general opinion and by the armies of Washington already in the field, which makes it the most important civil document in the world. It was not only the principles declared, but the fact that therewith a new nation was born which was to be founded upon those principles and which from that time forth in its development has actually maintained those principles, that makes this pronouncement an incomparable event in the history of government.

It was an orderly process. It wasn’t rebellion, but resistance to usurpations. It conserved rights the citizens had come to expect from lawful order:

The Declaration of Independence was the result of the seasoned and deliberate thought of the dominant portion of the people of the Colonies. Adopted after long discussion and as the result of the duly authorized expression of the preponderance of public opinion, it did not partake of dark intrigue or hidden conspiracy. It was well advised. It had about it nothing of the lawless and disordered nature of a riotous insurrection. It was maintained on a plane which rises above the ordinary conception of rebellion. It was in no sense a radical movement but took on the dignity of a resistance to illegal usurpations. It was conservative and represented the action of the colonists to maintain their constitutional rights which from time immemorial had been guaranteed to them under the law of the land.

It was the movement of the people. Who were these people?

It was in no sense a rising of the oppressed and downtrodden. It brought no scum to the surface, for the reason that colonial society had developed no scum. The great body of the people were accustomed to privations, but they were free from depravity. If they had poverty, it was not of the hopeless kind that afflicts great cities, but the inspiring kind that marks the spirit of the pioneer. The American Revolution represented the informed and mature convictions of a great mass of independent, liberty-loving, God-fearing people who knew their rights, and possessed the courage to dare to maintain them.

These were God-loving people. That made their movement a spiritual movement. An irreligious people couldn’t have come up with those three founding ideals. And the people recognized the morality of their movement; they recognized God’s stamp upon it:

…Thomas Jefferson, who acknowledged that his “best ideas of democracy” had been secured at church meetings.

Samuel Adams could say “The people seem to recognize this resolution as though it were a decree promulgated from heaven.”

They preached equality because they believed in the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man. They justified freedom by the text that we are all created in the divine image, all partakers of the divine spirit.

Placing every man on a plane where he acknowledged no superiors, where no one possessed any right to rule over him, he must inevitably choose his own rulers through a system of self-government. This was their theory of democracy. In those days such doctrines would scarcely have been permitted to flourish and spread in any other country. This was the purpose which the fathers cherished. In order that they might have freedom to express these thoughts and opportunity to put them into action, whole congregations with their pastors had migrated to the Colonies. These great truths were in the air that our people breathed. Whatever else we may say of it, the Declaration of Independence was profoundly American.

In its main features the Declaration of Independence is a great spiritual document. It is a declaration not of material but of spiritual conceptions. Equality, liberty, popular sovereignty, the rights of man — these are not elements which we can see and touch. They are ideals. They have their source and their roots in the religious convictions. They belong to the unseen world. Unless the faith of the American people in these religious convictions is to endure, the principles of our Declaration will perish.

our family Bible

Their intellectual life centered around the meeting-house. They were intent upon religious worship. While there were always among them men of deep learning, and later those who had comparatively large possessions, the mind of the people was not so much engrossed in how much they knew, or how much they had, as in how they were going to live. While scantily provided with other literature, there was a wide acquaintance with the Scriptures. Over a period as great as that which measures the existence of our independence they were subject to this discipline not only in their religious life and educational training, but also in their political thought. They were a people who came under the influence of a great spiritual development and acquired a great moral power.

To carry out this self-governing experiment required a self-governing people. The documents are things of beauty, but, without the people acting on them, they would be simply pieces of paper with fancy writing on them:

The people have to bear their own responsibilities. There is no method by which that burden can be shifted to the government. It is not the enactment, but the observance of laws, that creates the character of a nation.

There might be governing details that can be improved upon, new laws written. But those three founding principles cannot be improved. They are the final word. Progress exists only in adhering to them. Any other direction is regression:

About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.

It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.

Looking back, we see the fruits of a nation that has put these ideals into action:

In all the essentials we have achieved an equality which was never possessed by any other people. Even in the less important matter of material possessions we have secured a wider and wider distribution of wealth. The rights of the individual are held sacred and protected by constitutional guaranties, which even the Government itself is bound not to violate. If there is any one thing among us that is established beyond question, it is self-government—the right of the people to rule. If there is any failure in respect to any of these principles, it is because there is a failure on the part of individuals to observe them.

It would do us well to understand their thoughts, so we can continue to think them:

Under a system of popular government there will always be those who will seek for political preferment by clamoring for reform. While there is very little of this which is not sincere, there is a large portion that is not well informed. In my opinion very little of just criticism can attach to the theories and principles of our institutions. There is far more danger of harm than there is hope of good in any radical changes. We do need a better understanding and comprehension of them and a better knowledge of the foundations of government in general. Our forefathers came to certain conclusions and decided upon certain courses of action which have been a great blessing to the world. Before we can understand their conclusions we must go back and review the course which they followed. We must think the thoughts which they thought.

We’re in great need of a review of the ideals that went into the founding of our great nation. To forget is to lose. I remember. As it says in the third verse of our national anthem,

Oh, thus be it ever, when free men shall stand

Between their loved homes and the war’s desolation!

Blest with victory and peace, may the heaven-rescued land

Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation!

Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,

And this be our motto: “In God is our trust!”

And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave

O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

I'm a Friend of the Founding

I wasn’t sure I’d post today, on the Fourth of July itself. But, before we head out to do fireworks, I’d like to share just a little bit, in celebration of our country—and our founding documents based on our radical founding ideas.

"The Declaration of Independence," by John Trumbull, 1819
image found here

I was listening to Andrew Klavan the other day[i], and he had a segment that used different words from the Spherical Model, but still a good description of the dichotomy between the northern and southern hemispheres of freedom and tyranny. He talks about the divide specifically as between friends of the founding of America and enemies of that founding.

Andrew Klavan
image found here

So, in honor of the Fourth of July, here’s the transcript of those few minutes:

We know that our country’s divided. But I think we’re using an old template to describe how it’s divided. I stopped using the word “liberal” a long time ago, because there’s nothing liberal about the left. They oppose free speech, free thought, free markets, freedom of religion. The only freedoms they support are the unbridled fulfillments of physical desires, which are guaranteed to turn you into a dependent slave.

So I call them “leftists” now, but maybe leftist isn’t quite right either. It’s kind of an old-fashioned word to describe a European phenomenon.

And what about conservatives? Are we really conservative? Well, we’re sort of conservative. But in America conservatives aren’t about blood and soil, or even really about tradition necessarily, except insofar as our traditions preserve our essential America ideas.

Unlike conservatives in other nations, American conservatives are trying to conserve the most radical political document ever written—the Constitution—which guarantees a limited government of specified powers tasked with guaranteeing the individuals’ right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

So, that’s not really conservative in the usual sense of the word. In fact, what I think we’re seeing is a division between friends of that founding and enemies of that founding. Those of us who believe the creation of the United States in the image of our Declaration and Constitution is the greatest political event in history and therefore worth saving, and those who think, no, we should return to the age-old habit of top-down government or race-based identity politics, rather than the radical politics based on our founding ideas.

You can tell friends of the founding, because they talk about founding ideals. They quote Jefferson. They quote Madison, Adams, Franklin. They wrestle with the original intentions of the Constitution and the underlying principles of the Declaration. We can have passionate but civilized debates about whether a new idea, like gay rights, is antithetical to those founding intentions or is in fact in keeping with them, because we have source materials and writings and foundational ideas we can compare our arguments to, and then move ahead, abandoning out-of-date practices or clinging to those practices that still hold true to the founding.

But the anti-founders, they got nothin’. All they have is an amorphous sense of their own glowing compassion, tolerance, and virtue. So, these empty phrases like “That’s not who we are,” which literally means nothing. They invent mean-sounding words like Islamaphobia or transphobia, which describe utterly nonexistent phenomena; nobody’s phobic about transgender people or Islamic people. They just want to demonize legitimate concerns about whether violence is inherent in Islamic theology and whether sexual identity is eating away at morality, and even sanity.

They address issues of high emotion and zero importance, like use of pronouns or abortion rights for girls who are actually guys[ii]. They’re guided and manipulated by emotive pictures on the left-wing news. Babies dying at the border is a crisis, but babies dying in Chicago, not so much.

Most of all, the enemies of the founding define everything that opposes them as hate. Of course they do. Since they’re defined by their love and their virtue, anyone who’s against them must be hateful, and therefore can be opposed by any means necessary. So the enemies of the founding call the friends of the founding, not just wrong, but evil. And they license their own evil in the process. They call us hateful while they obviously seethe with hate. They call us violent while they assault us and scream at us and spit on us in restaurants. They call us racist while they see everything in terms of race. And they call us fascist while they try to undermine every freedom our founding defends.

Momentary issues and the huge presence of Donald Trump distract us from the essential nature of this division. But, in each issue, each crisis, each argument, it’s important to remember what exactly we’re fighting for, so we can defeat these forces of violence and hate.

---

[i] This was from his podcast Monday, July 1, 2019. The whole podcast is available here. This short segment can be seen on Facebook, here.

[ii] This is a reference to a comment by Julian Castro in the Democratic presidential debate last week. He’s apparently unaware of biology. Afterward, he received praise, at least in our newspaper, the Houston Chronicle, for his breakout, excellent performance.