Pages

Thursday, June 30, 2005

The Inalienable Right of Criticism

Since 9/11, it has become un-American to criticize our government. Suggest that the quasi-elected leaders of our nation are setting a dangerous course in the world and you're sure to be labeled as unpatriotic. It doesn't matter if you can document or substantiate the critique, it's still viewed by many as bordering on treasonous and abetting terrorism.

So, when the mighty shrub again tries to draw a connection between Iraq and 9/11, it doesn't matter if there is no proven link -- Anyone who points this out must be against U.S. national interests. For the fundamentalist sect, political criticism is akin to ungodliness!

Such conservatives bathe themselves in the good 'ol days of yore. They point to the Founding Fathers and a slew of foundational documents. Yet, like Christians who fail to realize that their Messiah was nothing short of a radical revolutionary, conservatives fail to grasp that the seminal document in United States history -- the Declaration of Independence -- is nothing short of one long rant. It is the mother of political criticism!

As we approach July 4, it would be a good idea to reread this declaration and to realize that our Founding Fathers urged the citizens of this new nation to be ever vigilant and critical of the government that seeks to serve us.
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable 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, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. -- Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.


2 comments:

  1. Trey,
    Some observations:

    As you are "blogging" your critical opinion, your opinion is being critiqued. Critiqued much in the same manner you have expressed your opinion, yet this upsets you. As the author, you have set the tone of the discussion. Thus, if you are calling names in your critical opinion article, why is it upsetting to you to be called names such as unpatriotic?

    Concerning Iraq and 9/11, the 9/11 commission concluded there was a link between Iraq and al Qaeda . Although, there was no evidence to link 9/11 to Iraq. Hussein, himself, has admitted a link between al Qaeda and Iraq(per 911 Commission Website). Public Law 107-243, 16 OCT 2002, authorization for use of force against Iraq Resolution of 2002, did not link Iraq with 9/11, but did link Iraq with al Qaeda.(HJRES 116 can be found on CSPAN's website) An authorization of the resolution was to defend the national security against the threat of Iraq. It has been documented Iraq has had and employed weapons of mass destruction(WMD) (against Iran and the Kurds) and has ties to al Qaeda. So yes, there is no proven link, but that is not why we went to war with Iraq. According to Public Law, we went to war for the national security, which can be inferred to prevent al Qaeda from obtaining WMDs from Iraq and using them in our country, against our citizens.

    To say that the Declaration of Independence is one long political rant is to trivialize the document. It is a defining document, as it set the foundation of going from autocratic rule to self rule. I concur with you that we all need to read this document every 4th of July.

    I would agree with you that the Messiah was revolutionary, but I wouldn't go as far as radical revolutionary. The spiritual message that he brought was radical and revolutionary, but the connotation of that phrase makes me think of Che, not Jesus.

    "The most radical revolutionary will become a conservative the day after the revolution". Hannah Arendt

    ReplyDelete
  2. As you are "blogging" your critical opinion, your opinion is being critiqued. Critiqued much in the same manner you have expressed your opinion, yet this upsets you. As the author, you have set the tone of the discussion. Thus, if you are calling names in your critical opinion article, why is it upsetting to you to be called names such as unpatriotic?

    First, a name is a noun and an "unpatriotic" is an adjective. One might describe someone's behavior or attitudes using an adjective, but it would be improper to refer to someone as the adjective itself.

    Second, since I just wrote this yesterday and no one but you has commented, no one has since referred to me as being unpatriotic. I and others were labeled this PRIOR to writing this post. So, my writing this entry on my blog can't serve as the impetus to be labeled as such, according to your reasoning above.

    To say that the Declaration of Independence is one long political rant is to trivialize the document. It is a defining document, as it set the foundation of going from autocratic rule to self rule. I concur with you that we all need to read this document every 4th of July.

    I don't consider describing the document as a "rant" to be trivializing it at all. It served as the emotional impetus for mass protest, a war and, subsequently, a new new nation.

    Rant comes from the German verb, ranzen, to be noisy. A declaration is an emphatic statement. From my readings in early American history, I think this well describes this document -- A noisy and emphatic statement against the Crown.

    I would agree with you that the Messiah was revolutionary, but I wouldn't go as far as radical revolutionary. The spiritual message that he brought was radical and revolutionary, but the connotation of that phrase makes me think of Che, not Jesus.

    While I agree with your analysis regarding the connotation, I think that's because the connations is not well understood or purposely has been softened by the church itself. If one agrees that Jesus' message both was radical and revolutionary, then it would follow that he could be aptly referred to a radical revolutionary figure.

    "The most radical revolutionary will become a conservative the day after the revolution". Hannah Arendt

    That's a great quote! Unfortunately, it turns out to be true too much of the time.

    ReplyDelete

Comments are unmoderated, so you can write whatever you want.