Question about your pledge: Does my support of the pro-choice position violate the DoI’s languge about life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness?
Conversely, does a pro-lifer’s stand on abortion violate the DoI’s language about life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness?
My list of people who would take the pledge:
Back in the late Sixties or early Seventies, some young people tried to get people to sign the Bill of Rights and many wouldn’t do it.
Apologies.
Not at all. A truth is a truth, it doesn’t matter when or where it is recorded.
Tell me a little bit more about “equal protection” for gays, especially about the proposed constitutional amendment to prohibit same-sex marraige. Try to not use big words like: apocalypse, or downfall of civilization, or end of the institution of marriage, or abomination, or sin, or unnatural, or Bible or God says.
The list is a work in progress. What category of “Who would not take the pledge.” would you add for yourself?
Frankly, I’m pissed off at all tyrants, even the petty ones. Even the ones that don’t realize they are tyrants. For some reason, tyrants don’t understand reason, they only understand strength. Someone has to stand up to them, even if it pisses them off. If they don’t care about my rights, why should I care if they get pissed off?
Slander requires a lie. If they do not recognize Self-Evident Rights, they cannot respect those rights. They are by definition, tyrants, at least of the petty variety. Surely you have run into a number of these.
rwj
I was answering your post when a shorter one came along. Your post was long and requires much thought. I took the easy way out started answering the short posts. I do intend to get back to you.
Thanks for your patience.
rw
The DoI is both pro-choice and pro-life.
The fetus, the mother and I and all have the same rights. I do not have the right to use another’s body without their permission, even if it means my death. Likewise, no one has the right to use my body without my permission, not a fetus, not the state. If someone attempts to do so, I am justified to free myself, however necessary, even at their death. The reservation is that a death must not be gratuitous.
rwj
Please note I am using “take” as in “take it to heart”. That is different than “say” or “repeat”.
I think they should be lumped here:
That makes it 12 for this list. There is no question this is by far the longest list.
rwj
That’s why I’m so lonely.
rwj
No offence taken.
No, the interpretation of these “self-evident truths” is a relative thing. The Founding Fathers wrote the intro to the DoI and believed in it, correct? But they certainly didn’t believe in equal rights for women etc. The meaning of these words changes in different peoples’ eyes.
How can they be self-evident truths when their meaning changes for different people?
If you’re thinking I’m some kind of religious conservative, you’d be wrong - I’m an atheist who’s fairly liberal. For that matter, I’m all in favour of gay marriage. But you miss my point - what do these two or three vague phrases with changing meanings say better than the many thousand words of the Constitution and the immense body of common law and commentary that attends it?
I think the list is counterproductive. Have you ever read Catch 22? It’s got a great bit about competing loyalty pledges…quite relevant here.
Would it not be easier to just get out elected leaders to actually be held to the oaths of office they all take before assuming the position? And if they don’t, impeach and/or vote them out.
So is the Constitution and interpretations of its meaning, so I agree with lambchops.
I wouldn’t take the pledge, but I have tried to live by those principals generally. The part which was added after the pledge detracts without adding any real substance:
In what – the pledge? The ideals of the pledge? The word of people taking the pledge?
I weigh our policies and laws in light of our Constitution. The meaning of “our judgments” is a little unclear. Are you speaking of court systems? They are based on the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.
I agree with some of the others that the use of “Standard of Gold” is a little confusing. The value of gold is so arbitrary anyway. Further, “the gold standard” is a monetary term that could be confused with the meaning of “Standard of Gold.”
It isn’t a religion.
From whom? To whom?
The meaning of this statement is unclear.
There are many “American dreams.” The dream of perfect justice and equality is certainly a cherish ideal for many Americans, but not all. And it is one of many dreams.
Why limit this dream to America and Americans?
Welcome to SDMB, rwjefferson.
Then how do you explain that some people believe that abortion violates the “life” clause in the DoI? If someone were to take the pledge and be pro-choice, wouldn’t that just be opening them up for criticism from the right? Why would someone do that?
The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document in force. If you wish to talk about rights violations, look to the Constitution.
I’ll tell you why I find this pledgeso meaningless: It is basically a bunch of “motherhood and apple pie” statements. To think this through, I’ll present what a colleague here at work had to say when management tells us they have come up with some plan or some strategy. He says that if you reverse the statements in the plan / strategy and they represent a meaningful alternate plan or strategy that someone could defend, then they have done something real. However, if you reverse them and they sound ridiculous then you really haven’t done anything meaningful and decisive?
As an example of this, the management in our part of the company recently came up with a vision statement where we would “do the right things at the right time in the right way with the right people.” This is a good example of a meaningless statement …It’s just motherhood and apple pie and prompted a lot of jokes among us about how long it took them to eliminate the other 15 possible combinations. (“Let’s see, maybe we should do the wrong thing at the right time in the wrong way with the right people…No, that’s not it.”)
What I want from my politicians are not vague statements of principles that can mean anything but firmer statements that actually pin them down. E.g., do they believe it is best to give tax cuts to the wealthy or rather to give tax cuts to the middle class and/or use the money to reduce the deficit and aid in providing health care to the uninsured? Are they “pro-life” or “pro-choice” on abortion.
Of course, some candidates give more vague speeches but they will at least let you understand their priorities…e.g., where do they hold the balance between civil liberties and law enforcement to be, do they value “property rights” more strongly than environmental protection, …? But, I don’t even see enough in your pledge to give much guidance on this.
As such, I would argue that it is basically a meaningless waste of time and energy that you could best spend really working for what you believe in.
No duh. I’m talking about the pledge in the OP, and what rwjefferson thinks it means, if anything.
I cannot see how this follows from “equal rights for all.” If you violate someone elses right of liberty, your own rights are at risk. If it is your right to to own slaves, it is my right to own you as a slave.
Please explain how it is in your self-intrest to put yourself at risk for becoming a slave.
I believe you do not fully understand the universal benefits of everyone adopting these Truths.
The idea is not much different than “action - reaction”. I suppose a sophist could argue that 'action – reaction” is not Self-Evident either, but extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. Sophisticated arguments just don’t wash it.
That is why each should be allowed to pursue happiness as long as it does not prohibit another from pursuing theirs. I cannot comprehend why this is such a difficult concept to understand.
Yes there are gray areas, but regulation and justice can maximize the rights for all. This is the most consistent framework possible.
In forty-four words or less, please show us a more consistent framework.
You have it reversed again; Self-Evident Truths are natural laws that can be reproduced consistently. I believe the Nash Equilibrium lends support that these are Truths.
Or maybe the Idealistic ones were simply not strong enough to stand up to the tyrannical majority. Just like in the year 2004.
I myself wonder whether people that do not understand self-evident truths should be allowed a say in government. They are definitely a threat. They may not recognize another’s Rights. They are potential tyrants.
For example: If it was common knowledge that sophists could not comprehend self-evident truths, and I had no way to demonstrate otherwise, I might acquiesce and allow the tyrants to limit the rights of sophists.
I am not sad because you disagree with another moral relativist, I am sad that you seem to think either of you has the right to impose your morals on others.
I don’t give a damn what freedom means to them as long as they don’t impose their restrictions to freedom on me.
I can almost guarantee the women would disagree with that. They are indeed enemies of freedom of the people they subordinated.
I can only repeat your own comment about your rational: hogwash.
Thos. and Ben were not selling hogwash dressed up as Truth.
rwj
I’m thinking that it is the meaning of all that changes.
I propose all should include all entities that have knowledge of right and wrong.
That does make it more difficult for me to understand why you want your representatives to swear to uphold tyranny (assuming the gay marriage amendment passes), instead of pledging to secure Liberty for all.
These phrases do NOT have changing meanings. The meaning is clear; the only change has been an expansion of “which groups are included in ALL?”
Let us cut to the chase, avoid another two hundred years of strife and include ALL groups now.
Excellent Book
rwj
We trust in the Ideals.
Yes. Policies -> President; Laws ->Congress; Judgements ->Courts.
Unfortunately that is all they are based on.
In Marbury v.MadisonThe Supreme Court gave itself the power to be the arbiter of the constitutionality of congressional legislation. This was an act of Judicial Activism, it was not written into the Constitution
Imagine if the Supreme Court had given itself the power to be the arbiter of whether the government has become destructive of its just Powers.
Your way brought us Dred Scott.
We need a court that has the strength to say no to the tyrannical majority that would subjugate its citizens.
By my definition, you have “taken” the pledge (to heart). I will assume you will take the second step and vote it, because you just taken the third step and voiced (communicated) it.
Welcome aboard, Zoe.
rwj
Jefferson, two simple questions:
You see my point? Jefferson honestly believed in the statements expressed in the DoI but supported the vile practice of slavery. Whether you say that the meaning of “all” or of “equal” or of any other word has changed over time, you must admit that the meaning of the DoI preamble HAS CHANGED.
What’s to stop Barack Obama or any other person honestly believing in the DoI but also supporting slavery or a ban on gay marriage? Jefferson was able to do both, why couldn’t a modern politician, or any modern person? They could just reinterpret the meaning of the word “all”. You yourself say this has happened before.
I’m sorry, but the pledge you propose simply would not be effective, as its meanings (and indeed all meanings) are changeable and relative.
And one more time, please bear in mind that they’re not my representatives, and it’s not my constitution. I’m not American.
There is no right to life at the expense of another. If someone insists otherwise, have them send their tissue type to their local hospital. If anyone is sick or dieing, we will harvest whatever we need from their body for up to nine months.
rwj
HAS EXPANDED.
We know more than TJ did. If someone says they believe in the DoI and yet supports slavery etc. we know they are not really honest.
Is it not clear that people that take these principles to heart are less likely to do the things you fear?
And you wouldn’t feel safer if World Power America Lived up to its Dream?
rwj