Indeed it speaks for itself, Claire, albeit with a voice and sensibility that’s alien to a worrisomely large fraction of Americans today.
I find myself wondering if anybody in America describable as a progressive believes in the natural rights doctrine which is the cornerstone of the Declaration of Independence. To accept it is to accept in some form the concept of a Higher Power. But the cornerstone of progressivism is the doctrine that humanity is the measure of all things. And that doctrine is one of radical relativism.
History—the history of the twentieth century in particular—validates the Doctrine of Original Sin. One need not be a religious believer to see this. The manifold flaws of human nature are innate, they cannot be cured or suppressed by social engineering, they are always with us. President Lincoln spoke of “the better angels of our nature”—a phrase of great insight, suggesting that those angels come upon us from some higher plane. The Declaration of Independence, the greatest political testament that has ever been or could ever be, summons those angels and enjoins us to embrace them.
That the Declaration of Independence states that all men are *created* equal is a significant detail. Created by whom? By what? Opinions may vary, but what cannot be disputed is that to accept that characterization of human equality is to concede that some Higher Power, call it what you will, moves through history and has laid a finger on the grand experiment in liberty that goes by the name of the United States of America.
'Natural Rights’. like all other rights are what we say they are and what we can enforce. Dressing them up as products of some divine creation is simply a part of the continuing attempt by organized religion to control the narrative. After all, for over 4 millennia, the concept of ‘the divine right of Kings’ was accepted (not always happily) pretty much throughout the world. The Declaration of Independence was, among other things, an attempt refute that ‘right' by announcing an opposite ‘right’.
What I understand is that those without the facts or the ability to rebut arguments usually descend into sarcasm, denigration, and insults. As you have. As Trump so often does. As Goebbels did. The pattern is as old as history.
Look, you have no idea what you’re talking about. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but total ignorance is invariably fatal. You obviously have not spent ten seconds think about the deep meaning of the Declaration of Independence, nor do you have the slightest understanding of the doctrine of natural rights, whose origins long predate the doctrine of divine rights of kings. My advice: Don’t embarrass yourself further.
The Declaration was a paean to individual rights and political freedom largely written by a man who owned slaves, who did not think that black people were in any way equal to whites, and would later back the French Revolution even after it had descended into bloody chaos.
Like your Higher Power and Natural Rights, the Declaration means whatever we say it means. Then it was a rationale for rebellion calculated to entice other nations to aid and abet it. Now, of course, it is being ‘celebrated' by a twice elected president and his myrmidons, many if not most of whom I very much doubt have ever read it, let alone have any concept of the circumstances surrounding its creation.
It is a document that eventually took four years of bitter war and over 700,000 lives to even come close to giving it final meaning, and even then took another century for an entire nation to accept it’s premise, albeit with a continued resistance that persists well into the present.
The Declaration is a promissory note which required the practical reality of the Constitution to even come close to fruition, and which half the nation still rejects in pursuit of exactly the kind of power it rejected, even while celebrating it.
You need to come down from your cloud and accept the hard reality of the collection of contradictions represented by the nation whose birth pangs the Declaration attempted to justify. Only then will you understand its true meaning and value.
A perfect summary of the moral relativism, power worship, and crude materialism that characterizes the postmodern Left. Thank you for validating my original point.
It is my habit every July 4th. to watch the musical 1776. I had the pleasure of seeing it on Broadway so my little 24” TV never quite measures up, I know the depiction is stylized, and I always cringe at the treatment of James Wilson, but such considerations never detract from my always powerful and mixed reaction.
I imagine my reactions are not dissimilar to those of many others. Rutledge’s dark shadowed 'Tobacco to Rum to Slaves' highlights the awful compromise that allowed independence, presaging the Civil War. The young, ragged colonial soldier’s soft, solitary 'Mama Look Sharp' reminds us of the awful cost of the war. The delegates’ Open up a Window and the constant bickering between Adams and Dickinson reminds us how split they were (not to mention John Adams’s sometimes compulsive and single-minded behavior). Their often bawdy, barnyard humor reminds us that they were a very human group, the citizens of a largely agricultural society. The regular doom and gloom of Washington’s updates reminds us just what they were up against, and how close a run thing the Revolution was.
It is the final scene, though, that always leaves me with a sense of the extraordinary nature of what they were attempting on our behalf - the solemn signing under the tolling of the bell with the full knowledge of the terrible risk they were taking in doing so.
This year I did the same, but with an increasing sense of comparison between that moment and this one, when the nation those men in the funny looking suits and absurd whigs pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to create now lies so much in the hands of a man who has neither comprehension of nor concern for any of that. A man who wouldn’t pledge anything to any person or cause except himself.
I am not sure whether we are, today, celebrating the anniversary of the publication of this powerful indictment of monarchical authority, or commiserating with others because history is indeed, repeating itself.
As for fireworks on the Glorious Fourth, the sort I'd wish for is rhetorical fireworks and determined acts by Congress to rein in the usurpation of powers by the Executive branch.
If we are going to extinguish our republic and revert to monarchy, as in colonial days, what is the point of July 4th as a celebratory holiday?
(Besides, I am trying to shake a cold which has been making me miserable for 2 weeks now, so I am now feeling even less charitable than usual towards Trump and his cohort)
For the first time, I noticed the words, "*it is their duty*" I somehow didn't register that when I read it before--and like most Americans, I've read it so many times that I can recite quite a bit of it by heart.
The duty which they (the State legislatures and legislators "in Congress assembled") assumed was quite different from those of dutiful subjects of their King. This document was certainly radical both in its own time, and in ours
First, what is "duty"? I would say it is a kind of moral imperative, but whose morals? And what requires us to follow its strictures? I can imagine a hierarchy of duties, with duty to self-preservation being paramount for some (or most) people, but not for firemen or police officers, whose sworn duty is to put the safety of others ahead of their own.
So the concept of duty is a fuzzy one.
If one were to describe the duties of a citizen in our time, what would they be? Doubtless, a fundamental duty is that of "following the laws and obeying lawful orders." But if government itself ignores some laws and interprets others in ways different from its accustomed manner, what is the proper course of action?
While we have a functioning legal system -- that is, one by which the people can seek redress against unlawful actions by their government and infringement upon rights safeguarded by the Constitution and the whole body of laws -- it seems clear that we can make use of the legal system to challenge and correct those transgressions.
But what if the government (i.e. the Executive Branch) refuses to act in accordance with orders of the courts, or has so corrupted the courts by installing judges who no longer interpret the laws in line with well-established precedent, and in so doing turn them 180 degrees, so that once was permitted is now impermissible, and what had been not allowed is now acceptable? What is our duty then?
These are not meant to be rhetorical questions, and I hope I am not talking to myself: Cosmopolitan Globalists, please share your thoughts.
Unfortunately, there was no need for you to annotate the Declaration. I say "unfortunately," because so many of the abuses detailed in this founding document are now being perpetrated by the current administration. History is rhyming, almost repeating itself.
Thought-provoking. It is striking to see such a careful and principled explanation of the threshold for rejecting one's government—one that avoids the bitterness of partisan animosity toward the right or left. Instead, the focus is on fundamental principles: governance by the people and respect for due process, regardless of political ideology. Moreover, the Declaration of Independence suggests that when a government commits repeated and serious violations, it may provoke a justified, even violent, response. History shows that movements like the Jacobins, Bolsheviks, Nazis, or even Trumpism do not arise in a vacuum—they are often reactions to deep and sustained grievances.
Indeed it speaks for itself, Claire, albeit with a voice and sensibility that’s alien to a worrisomely large fraction of Americans today.
I find myself wondering if anybody in America describable as a progressive believes in the natural rights doctrine which is the cornerstone of the Declaration of Independence. To accept it is to accept in some form the concept of a Higher Power. But the cornerstone of progressivism is the doctrine that humanity is the measure of all things. And that doctrine is one of radical relativism.
History—the history of the twentieth century in particular—validates the Doctrine of Original Sin. One need not be a religious believer to see this. The manifold flaws of human nature are innate, they cannot be cured or suppressed by social engineering, they are always with us. President Lincoln spoke of “the better angels of our nature”—a phrase of great insight, suggesting that those angels come upon us from some higher plane. The Declaration of Independence, the greatest political testament that has ever been or could ever be, summons those angels and enjoins us to embrace them.
That the Declaration of Independence states that all men are *created* equal is a significant detail. Created by whom? By what? Opinions may vary, but what cannot be disputed is that to accept that characterization of human equality is to concede that some Higher Power, call it what you will, moves through history and has laid a finger on the grand experiment in liberty that goes by the name of the United States of America.
'Natural Rights’. like all other rights are what we say they are and what we can enforce. Dressing them up as products of some divine creation is simply a part of the continuing attempt by organized religion to control the narrative. After all, for over 4 millennia, the concept of ‘the divine right of Kings’ was accepted (not always happily) pretty much throughout the world. The Declaration of Independence was, among other things, an attempt refute that ‘right' by announcing an opposite ‘right’.
You understand nothing. I suppose I should pity you, but all I feel is contempt for your smug, small-minded ignorance.
What I understand is that those without the facts or the ability to rebut arguments usually descend into sarcasm, denigration, and insults. As you have. As Trump so often does. As Goebbels did. The pattern is as old as history.
Look, you have no idea what you’re talking about. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but total ignorance is invariably fatal. You obviously have not spent ten seconds think about the deep meaning of the Declaration of Independence, nor do you have the slightest understanding of the doctrine of natural rights, whose origins long predate the doctrine of divine rights of kings. My advice: Don’t embarrass yourself further.
Again with the denigration without facts.
The Declaration was a paean to individual rights and political freedom largely written by a man who owned slaves, who did not think that black people were in any way equal to whites, and would later back the French Revolution even after it had descended into bloody chaos.
Like your Higher Power and Natural Rights, the Declaration means whatever we say it means. Then it was a rationale for rebellion calculated to entice other nations to aid and abet it. Now, of course, it is being ‘celebrated' by a twice elected president and his myrmidons, many if not most of whom I very much doubt have ever read it, let alone have any concept of the circumstances surrounding its creation.
It is a document that eventually took four years of bitter war and over 700,000 lives to even come close to giving it final meaning, and even then took another century for an entire nation to accept it’s premise, albeit with a continued resistance that persists well into the present.
The Declaration is a promissory note which required the practical reality of the Constitution to even come close to fruition, and which half the nation still rejects in pursuit of exactly the kind of power it rejected, even while celebrating it.
You need to come down from your cloud and accept the hard reality of the collection of contradictions represented by the nation whose birth pangs the Declaration attempted to justify. Only then will you understand its true meaning and value.
A perfect summary of the moral relativism, power worship, and crude materialism that characterizes the postmodern Left. Thank you for validating my original point.
It is my habit every July 4th. to watch the musical 1776. I had the pleasure of seeing it on Broadway so my little 24” TV never quite measures up, I know the depiction is stylized, and I always cringe at the treatment of James Wilson, but such considerations never detract from my always powerful and mixed reaction.
I imagine my reactions are not dissimilar to those of many others. Rutledge’s dark shadowed 'Tobacco to Rum to Slaves' highlights the awful compromise that allowed independence, presaging the Civil War. The young, ragged colonial soldier’s soft, solitary 'Mama Look Sharp' reminds us of the awful cost of the war. The delegates’ Open up a Window and the constant bickering between Adams and Dickinson reminds us how split they were (not to mention John Adams’s sometimes compulsive and single-minded behavior). Their often bawdy, barnyard humor reminds us that they were a very human group, the citizens of a largely agricultural society. The regular doom and gloom of Washington’s updates reminds us just what they were up against, and how close a run thing the Revolution was.
It is the final scene, though, that always leaves me with a sense of the extraordinary nature of what they were attempting on our behalf - the solemn signing under the tolling of the bell with the full knowledge of the terrible risk they were taking in doing so.
This year I did the same, but with an increasing sense of comparison between that moment and this one, when the nation those men in the funny looking suits and absurd whigs pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to create now lies so much in the hands of a man who has neither comprehension of nor concern for any of that. A man who wouldn’t pledge anything to any person or cause except himself.
I just posted this an think that it could help people get their heads around the dizzying array of assaults being launched on what’s good in America and our way of life: https://open.substack.com/pub/jonthinks/p/donald-trump-hates-america?r=mrvx1&utm_medium=ios
It certainly speaks for itself. And for me.
I am not sure whether we are, today, celebrating the anniversary of the publication of this powerful indictment of monarchical authority, or commiserating with others because history is indeed, repeating itself.
As for fireworks on the Glorious Fourth, the sort I'd wish for is rhetorical fireworks and determined acts by Congress to rein in the usurpation of powers by the Executive branch.
If we are going to extinguish our republic and revert to monarchy, as in colonial days, what is the point of July 4th as a celebratory holiday?
(Besides, I am trying to shake a cold which has been making me miserable for 2 weeks now, so I am now feeling even less charitable than usual towards Trump and his cohort)
For the first time, I noticed the words, "*it is their duty*" I somehow didn't register that when I read it before--and like most Americans, I've read it so many times that I can recite quite a bit of it by heart.
The duty which they (the State legislatures and legislators "in Congress assembled") assumed was quite different from those of dutiful subjects of their King. This document was certainly radical both in its own time, and in ours
First, what is "duty"? I would say it is a kind of moral imperative, but whose morals? And what requires us to follow its strictures? I can imagine a hierarchy of duties, with duty to self-preservation being paramount for some (or most) people, but not for firemen or police officers, whose sworn duty is to put the safety of others ahead of their own.
So the concept of duty is a fuzzy one.
If one were to describe the duties of a citizen in our time, what would they be? Doubtless, a fundamental duty is that of "following the laws and obeying lawful orders." But if government itself ignores some laws and interprets others in ways different from its accustomed manner, what is the proper course of action?
While we have a functioning legal system -- that is, one by which the people can seek redress against unlawful actions by their government and infringement upon rights safeguarded by the Constitution and the whole body of laws -- it seems clear that we can make use of the legal system to challenge and correct those transgressions.
But what if the government (i.e. the Executive Branch) refuses to act in accordance with orders of the courts, or has so corrupted the courts by installing judges who no longer interpret the laws in line with well-established precedent, and in so doing turn them 180 degrees, so that once was permitted is now impermissible, and what had been not allowed is now acceptable? What is our duty then?
These are not meant to be rhetorical questions, and I hope I am not talking to myself: Cosmopolitan Globalists, please share your thoughts.
Sympathies for the cold.
We caught one a bit more than two weeks ago that I'm not over yet. We also got pinkeye from it, which suggests adenovirus. Fun-o!
Back atcha with the sympathy vibes, Midge.
Fun-o? No.
Unfortunately, there was no need for you to annotate the Declaration. I say "unfortunately," because so many of the abuses detailed in this founding document are now being perpetrated by the current administration. History is rhyming, almost repeating itself.
Thought-provoking. It is striking to see such a careful and principled explanation of the threshold for rejecting one's government—one that avoids the bitterness of partisan animosity toward the right or left. Instead, the focus is on fundamental principles: governance by the people and respect for due process, regardless of political ideology. Moreover, the Declaration of Independence suggests that when a government commits repeated and serious violations, it may provoke a justified, even violent, response. History shows that movements like the Jacobins, Bolsheviks, Nazis, or even Trumpism do not arise in a vacuum—they are often reactions to deep and sustained grievances.