Posted on 10/05/2005 1:55:23 AM PDT by rdb3
Why the Pledge of Allegiance Matters
Senator Tom McClintock
Date: March 24, 2004 (also previously published)
There is a great principle at the heart of the movement to strike the words “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance – and from our national customs, our currency, and our public ceremonies. It has very little to do with atheism. It has a great deal to do with authoritarianism.
The philosophy of the American founding is unique among the nations of the world because of a bedrock principle that was given expression with words in the Declaration of Independence that are old and familiar, and yet not often pondered these days.
In the American view, there is a certain group of rights that are accorded absolutely and equally to every individual and that cannot be alienated. The existence of these rights is beyond debate – “self-evident” in the words of the Founders. And their source is supreme - “the Creator.” “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…”
What are these rights? They are rights that exist as a condition of human life itself. If an individual were alone in the world, the rights he has are those rights the Founders traced to “the laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” In their words, “…that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” The right to the fruit of our own labor, the right to express our own sentiments, the right to defend ourselves, the right to live our lives according to our own best lights – in a word, freedom.
But how do we secure these rights in a world where others seek to violate them? We form a government servient to these God-given rights – or more precisely, a government under God. “That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men…” In the American view, the only legitimate exercise of force by one individual over another, or by a government over its people, is in the defense of these natural rights.
This concept is the foundation of American liberty. And because it defines limits to the powers of government, it is supremely offensive to the radicals of the left. They abhor the words “under God” because these words stand in the way of an all-powerful state.
The French and American revolutions were waged on precisely the same declared rights of liberty and equality. One was a ghastly failure that ended in the reign of terror; the other, a magnificent success. Why?
In the philosophy of the French Revolution, the rights of man were defined by a governmental committee and extended at the sufferance of that government. In the American view, these rights come from God, their existence is preeminent and their preservation is the principal object of government.
If the source of our fundamental rights is not God, then the source becomes man – or more precisely, a government of men. And rights that can be extended by government may also be withdrawn by government.
Words matter. Ideas matter. And symbols matter. The case now before the Supreme Court over the Pledge of Allegiance must not be devalued as a mere defense of harmless deistic references and quaint old customs. The principle at stake is central to the very foundation of the American nation and the very survival of its freedoms.
From: http://republican.sen.ca.gov/web/mcclintock/article_detail.asp?PID=263
"The principle at stake is central to the very foundation of the American nation and the very survival of its freedoms."
100% agreed..
Exactly the reason I can't even claim to be a libertarian-leaner anymore.
Conservatarian? Liberservative?
**shrug shoulders**
No money for the war, but it's ok to spend it on 'human rights' feel good stuff? That's not libertarian. That's left. Neal Boortz, one of the strongest libertarian supporters in radio, talked about this years ago.
you won't see Pat marching against the troops. He doesn't have the cojones to do so.
He is another blowhard ahole and I am REALLY glad he never got elected for ANYTHING.
We would be Canada's b!tch if he did and I don't mean because they are great or anything but because Pat sucks.
He is disgusting vile and bitter, he will oppose ANYTHING that he didn't think of first and since he has 4 stars on his shoulders I am sure he is PERFECTLY capable of armchair quarterbacking the WOT right?
wait you mean he DOESN'T have 4 stars on his shoulders? Damn, couldn't tell from what he said.
As regards the war I would like to see Lew and Pat sent to Iraq as goodwill ambassadors along with Ramsey Clark as their attorney and let them clear this whole thing up.
Just to keep it fair and to even the relief given their base, please send Ann Coulter and Drudge as backup and maybe Mayor Nagin for technical assistance.
Of course we're not. The founding fathers had no insane dreams of becoming "world policemen." We can probably blame Woodrow Wilson for that idea. He, like the man-child currently disgracing the oval office, thought that democracy could be spread and that it would cure all the world's ills. You'd think that "conservatives" would oppose such boondoggles. Pat Buchanan and Lew Rockwell, despite some modest shortcomings, understand this. They are the true conservatives--not the inbred parrots squawking praises to Bush.
Jim,
I don't disagree with your analysis of Saddam, though where it falls between fact and opinion is debatable.
However, my primary issue with all of this goes back decades in history. For 60 years (setting aside for the moment the Barbary pirates or the Spanish-American war), we have inserted ourselves into the national affairs of people around the globe.
Can you make a case that these policies have proven successful enough to continue them for another 60 years, which is essentially what President Bush is asking my generation to do?
That is the reality I face, unlike many of the older Americans. I expect to be engaged in this struggle against the jihadis for my entire life, if the President's view is correct about needing to rebuild middle east culture. (Of course, we've already been doing that for 30 years, with limited success and much failure, most recently illustrated by Sharon's abandonment of Gaza...)
I'm just not sure that nation rebuilding can work in these places. Comparing the Sunnis and Shias in Iraq to the Japanese people is not valid. Nor is a Hitler/Saddam comparison, as we didn't directly grease the skids for Hitler to assume control (though we our post WWI deals did lead to Hitler and Stalin...)
Also, look at Carter's disastrous efforts to remake the Middle East. We would be better off today if our government in the 70's had restrained itself to allowing foreign countries the right of self-determination that we demand for ourselves.
Insanity = repeating a behavior and expecting a different result. Isn't our foreign policy with regards to the Middle East insane, by this definition? Overall, I am just not sure that we are all that much better off where we are today than where we might be having not inserted ourselves into one country after another for the past half century.
Are those who disagree with the Iraq War welcome on FR?
If so, doesn't that demonstrate that opposition to this war isn't automatically enough to make someone a marxist traitor who hates America and wants us to lose?
If not, doesn't that demonstrate that the FR community doesn't appreciate legitimate policy debate?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.