U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles
Title: Equal Rights for All
Source:
[None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Mar 27, 2015
Author: Bret Stevens
Post Date: 2015-03-27 11:19:01 by tpaine
Keywords: None
Views: 3598
Comments: 24
http://www.libertylawsite.org Equal Rights for All Who would argue with the Declaration of Independence’s claim that “all men are created equal”? But one immediately runs into trouble. What about the Declaration limiting it to “men”? Are women equal? They did not have the right to vote at the beginning. Yet, Thomas Jefferson and the other Founders certainly believed women were morally equal and were covered under the generic term “men,” for mankind. Was that enough? What about slaves—African Americans, in particular? Even Aristotle believed in natural inequality and slavery. As President Barack Obama noted at this year’s religious breakfast, Christian slave owners often quoted from the Bible to justify inequality. Indeed, Christians committed many “terrible deeds” against minorities “in the name of Christ.” Yet, as noted by columnist Eugene Robinson, Christians without an economic interest in slavery did not use the Bible that way, and those such as William Wilberforce, the abolitionists, and even Martin Luther King Jr. used the Christian idea of equality to justify stamping out the severe inequality of slavery. Oxford and St. Andrews political philosopher Larry Siedentop has written a masterful tome to systematically investigate the roots of this idea we call “equality.” His Inventing the Individual: The Origins of Western Liberalism looks closely into various world civilizations, finding that the idea of individual equality did not exist until it slowly rose in Europe during the first millennium of the current era. Every civilization, including ancient Greece and Rome, vested what rights that were granted to collectives, predominately to the patriarchal family. Clearly, slaves had no rights but neither did women or resident aliens or, even for most property rights, younger sons. The paterfamilias had all of the rights, which meant there was no equality. He exercised authority over an extended family as the owner of all its property and slaves. He was the spiritual leader of the clan, the only one allowed to maintain the sacred flame connecting the living to the ancestor spirits resting below his property, and to invoke their protection and good will. Even early cities were collections of powerful families, first heads of competing clans and later adding their family gods to a city of multiple gods, all contesting and sharing power. The new city was hierarchical and aristocratic, with a few patriarchal families dominating everything. Siedentop finds no idea of individual equality anywhere in time or place until Paul of Tarsus, although he later gives Jesus some of the credit by placing the individual under God rather than the family (“Anyone who prefers father or mother to me is not worthy of me,” Matthew 10:37). Paul offered a revised notion of humanity shaped by a faith based upon love for all persons equally because Jesus loved and died for all equally. This overturned the aristocratic assumption upon which all ancient thinking was based, that of natural inequality. Now, writes Siedentop, social roles “become secondary” to the individual conscience. As Paul put it: “There is neither Jew nor Greek for all are one in Jesus Christ.” Underlying social roles is the individual “human capacity to think and choose.” Paul’s insights were further elaborated by early church fathers Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen, and Tertullian, who developed this new synthesis of Greek and Jewish thought culminating in Augustine. In the real world of action, individualist conscience translated into martyrs and heroic church leaders like Anselm, who excommunicated an emperor and survived. Even more surprisingly, Siedentop explicitly credits the reforming popes of the 10th and 11th centuries for institutionalizing individuality. Led by the Cluny, monastic abbots and popes—especially Gregory VII—translated the Christian sense of “a moral status (the soul) into a social role,” and this was the critical element in “the invention of the individual.” God’s law had to “apply to all equally. Hence it needed to be systematic.” So the development of church law required “the analysis of logical and textual inconsistencies,” and “fostering attempts at synthesis.” The accumulated laws of tradition had to be “tamed and reconciled with the moral intuitions generated by Christian beliefs.” For “if faith was the result of revelation and therefore ‘given,’ the task of reason was to explore it and try to understand it,” not to force a predetermined solution. Canon law was the solution to tame a disorganized, post-Charlemagne Europe—to replace traditional Roman and German law with a rational law starting with the necessity of saving individual souls, especially substituting the need for intent rather than simply punishing failure to follow rules. For the first time, women were equally bound, for they had equally moral souls. The very rationality of the new, universal cannon law slowly won adherents as it kept forcing each claim to truth to be tested by increasingly well-trained theologians, and then philosophers, in new university settings all across Europe. Debate toughened a logic rooted in real-world issues of marriage, property, and inheritance decided by their separate courts. “Consent and free will provided the basis for rules in each area” to apply to all equally, writes Siedentop. Betrothal replaced paterfamilias, contract rationalized tradition, and wills modified primogeniture. “The assumption of moral equality gave rise, in turn, to the claim to equal liberty. For if humans have an equal moral standing, then it follows that there must be an area in which their choices ought to be respected.” The superiority of canon courts turned Europe to them rather than to traditional, baronial courts whose judgments were often based on “ordeals” by force or on historical prerogative. It occurred to kings that monarchical, secular courts could take allegiance from local barons, too. Sound law—now backed by power—could advance the nation-state as it did religion. What was instituted as a moral order by a relatively powerless clergy to save souls could be turned by state power into a guarantee of social justice in this world. So a canon law imposed by the moral authority of the church against state power in the earlier Middle Ages was adapted by the state to control, first, local power and then that of the church itself. Whereas Pope Gregory VII’s moral power could humble Henry IV to stand in the snow for three days in the 11th century, and Thomas a Becket’s murder could pressure Henry II to public penance in the 12th century, there were no such church victories after the 14th century. Canon law had won the battle but lost the war to secular power. Perversely, by humbling the church and winning the support of the realm by promoting nationalism, monarchy weakened itself. “Divine Right” kings became limited by their bureaucracies and then by commercial and manufacturing power, and were finally replaced by parliaments and mass political parties. By the 20th century, the state was de-sacralized with Nazi, fascist and communist powers actually declaring war on individualism. World War II defeated the former and the fall of the Soviet Union the latter, apparently leaving Western democratic predominance and a generation of prosperity. Yet, by the early days of the second millennium, the democratic state was reeling from bureaucratic sclerosis, fettered markets, protracted wars, bankrupt states, declining populations, and no common conception of law. Rather than fixed individual rights beyond the reach of what secular courts could decide at any particular time, a flexible, positivist law was developed to adapt to circumstances. The idea was to base decisions on current opinion to assure popular support; but this produced the opposite effect in the divisive culture wars of the United States and other Western democracies. The very idea of the individual became amorphous. Was a fetus human? Was assisted suicide acceptable? Were men and women different or precisely the same? Were human individuals the only ones with rights? The philosophical atheist Richard Dawkins led a movement to grant legal rights to Great Apes. A court case demanding rights for an orangutan in Argentina found that it was a “non-human person” with some rights, although the case was referred to a lower court without habeas corpus powers. In 2011, the animal rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals filed a lawsuit against Seaworld, the marine park operator, alleging that five wild-captured orca whales were treated like slaves. A San Diego court dismissed the case but it was appealed. In 2013, the Nonhuman Rights Project filed lawsuits in the state of New York to establish the “legal personhood” of four chimpanzees to be relocated to outdoor sanctuaries. While intermediate appellate courts rejected the group’s argument, it is appealing to a higher court. Why do intelligent apes not have rights over cognitively limited humans, anyway? They seem human in many ways. Apes and orca certainly have life. So do bees and maggots, and some even claim so for viruses. Why should they not have equal rights? Keith Mano’s classic The Bridge: A Novel about the Last Man on Earth (1971) took this to its logical conclusion. Mano pictures a civil war between forces supporting equality for all, in a biologically indiscriminate sense, and those favoring Christian, libertarian individualism. The twist is that the former really believe in equality, for all life including plants and animals. Stepping on grass is an act of assault. The victorious secular government first grants humans only a liquid chemical nutrient that is fully consumed with no waste and laced with narcotics to keep them quiescent, allowing only hand signals, since even noise harms other life. Ultimately, the equality forces ban humans totally to rid the earth of their offensive breath that kills and injures germs and viruses. Siedentop argues that the idea of equal rights for all human individuals uniquely can only be supported upon, or borrowed from, the moral assumptions of the West. Indeed, the “incarnation is the root of Christian egalitarianism” since it places God within human existence, granting a divine-based worth to individuals, with only inferior rights granted to those not made in His image. In his God, Locke, and Equality, Cambridge’s Jeremy Waldron even insists that nonreligious liberals who believe individual rights can be justified by John Locke are out of bounds since Locke’s supposedly secular conception of rights depends wholly on his assumption of a Judeo-Christian Creator. Even Thomas Jefferson rested natural rights upon the assumption of a Deist creation. Can individual human equality and liberty survive when these assumptions do not? A discussion with Bret Stephens
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: tpaine (#0)
People are born of unequal circumstance and position, Samuel Colt MAKES them equal. That is why we should never give up our weapons.
Agree
Si vis pacem, para bellum
So Samuel Colt renders equality between a North Omaha Liquor store owner and the disenfranchised, but entitled, constituent who robs it? "TO SECURE THESE RIGHTS governments are instituted among men" - what does this mean?
People do not have equal rights until they have demonstrated equal discipline and responsibility in their personal lives. Rights are not an indescriminate entitlement.
Huh?
It means that citizens loan their natural power to a third party, the government, so they can go on living life without worrying over the day to day workings of an ordered society. The government is instituted like the fire dept. It is supposed to do certain things to keep us safe. When the fire department decides it wants to tax us and fight fires in the Congo, they have overstepped their authority.
What is the constitutional responsibility of American government in the context of the tyranny of the majority?
He'd like to own some Caucasian-American slaves? This race pimpin' isn't working for me.
People do not have equal rights until they have demonstrated equal discipline and responsibility in their personal lives. Rights are not an indescriminate entitlement. rlk posted on 2015-03-27 15:11:47 ET Reply Trace Private Reply #5. To: rlk (#4) Huh? No person should expect to receive full rights as an adult until he acts like an adult and takes responsibilities of an adult. This business of squealing like a baby and receiving rights of an adult has gone much too far in this society. Only functional adults have adult rights.
And you claim to vote for the Constitution Party?
Yup. It's not a claim. Just fact. I voted for Goode and would gladly do it again.
You do know that he apparently has a 180 degree difference of opinion from yours, right?
He does not. Here is a synopsis of Goode's campaign platform: * The Constitution: Emphasizing and following the Constitution will mean a smaller less costly government, which is vital for the future prosperity and progress of the United States. * Jobs, the Debt and Deficit: Under the Obama Administration, unemployment has soared to around 8.5 percent. Our debt has increased by over 4 trillion dollars under the Obama Presidency, which has also given us trillion dollar deficits. The United States can not borrow its way to prosperity. It is incumbent on our next President to propose a balanced budget upon taking office and not ten years down the road. There will be pain, but the old saying that one will not get out of the hole by digging the hole deeper is accurate. Nearly every department and agency will face significant cuts and some will face elimination. Veterans benefits is an example that will not be cut. Examples of programs eliminated include the National Endowment for the Arts, No Child Left Behind, etc. Other programs and departments, such as Foreign Aid and Education, will be slashed and trimmed. Reducing regulations and becoming energy independent will also mean more jobs for America. The Canada to Texas pipeline needs to be built and operational expeditiously and not delayed or stopped as the current Administration is doing. Another way to reduce unemployment, reduce the deficit, and provide more jobs for U.S. citizens is to reduce legal immigration. In recent years about 1.2 million green cards have been issued annually and over 60% go to foreigners who come to the United States and take jobs from American citizens. I have proposed a moratorium (with a few minor exceptions) on issuing green cards until our unemployment rate is under 5 percent. America has one of the most liberal immigration policies in the world and it is time for the citizens of this country to be at the head of the line for jobs. We also need to totally end diversity visas (50,000 per year), reduce chain migration, and dramatically reduce asylees and refugees and their costs to the U.S. taxpayer. * Immigration: Illegal immigration must stop. Our borders must be secure. In Congress, I supported and cosponsored legislation to stop illegal aliens, terrorists, drug smugglers, and other criminals from coming across our Southern border. We need to utilize troops, fences, and other measures to stop the invasion from Mexico. I was the first to sponsor legislation providing for a fence along the Southern Border. We must continue to fight for funding and for adequacy of the fence. Illegal immigration costs the United States taxpayers billions every year through increased health care costs, social service utilization, emergency room fees, prison expenses, and in other areas. For example, of the 189,000 federal prisoners, 50,000 are illegal or recent aliens costing the taxpayers millions of dollars for their incarceration. We must end the anchor baby situation, whereby a child of illegal aliens is an automatic citizen of the United States. * Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants: I oppose granting amnesty for those persons who come into the United States illegally. Amnesty did not work in the 1980s. Amnesty did not work in the 1990s, and it will not solve the problem now. Amnesty only encourages more illegal entry into the United States. Legal immigration must be reduced not increased. Congress, the United States Senate, and the President need to adopt a position of a strong NO to amnesty. As President, I would immediately direct the Attorney General to support and NOT oppose the efforts of Arizona, Alabama and others to deal with the illegal problem in the states. * English as the Official Language: I continue to support English as the official language of the United States of America. Energy Costs: The United States must be free of foreign fossil fuel. Freedom from the Middle Eastern sheiks, Nigeria, and Venezuela is necessary for a continued bright future for our country. We cannot allow OPEC to control our energy supply. The United States must develop its own resources and alternative fuel sources. Hydrogen, biodiesel, and other alternative energy sources have potential in making us less dependent on foreign fossil fuels. I also support the utilization of nuclear power and expanded drilling opportunities for natural gas and oil in this country so that our energy needs are met by domestic and not foreign sources. I have supported and will continue supporting drilling in Alaska and the continental United States. If President, I would support the drilling off our coasts where it can be done safely and where the states, such as Virginia, have passed legislation requesting offshore drilling. Being free of a need for foreign fossil fuel will enable us to be free of the shifting sands of the Middle East. * Tax Reductions and Fairness: I support the elimination of the Death Tax. Death should not mean the end of the family farm or the family business. A death tax often precludes families from having the homestead or family business. I support and have voted to terminate the current IRS Code at a date determined in the future so it can be replaced with something simpler and fairer. There are several alternatives to the current Code and include the Fair Tax, the Flat Tax, the Transaction Tax, and others. Between the current IRS code and the Fair Tax, I would support the Fair Tax with certain modifications. For example, the Fair Tax, which is basically a national sales tax, has a prebate of $180 per month per person, which should be limited to United States citizens, who are adults and who reside in the United States. I would support a Fair Tax only if certain other taxes, such as the Death Tax and Income Tax were eliminated. If the Income Tax were to be retained, then I would oppose a national sales tax and have a simple flat rate income tax and scrap the current code with its inequities. * Medical Costs: A big factor in medical costs is the high cost of malpractice insurance for our physicians and other health care providers. I support tort reform that will limit attorney fees and the amount of damages recoverable for non-economic losses. * Social Security: We must preserve and protect Social Security. Social Security is owed over two trillion dollars. Social Security should be repaid and have real money in the Social Security Trust Fund and not IOU's. * Marriage: I believe that marriage should be a union between a man and a woman. I am opposed to gay marriages and so-called gay civil unions. I support the federal Marriage Protection Amendment. * Health Care: I support ending Obamacare. * Public Education: Washington should not be running our local school systems. We need to leave local education decisions to the states and localities. I am opposed to national testing of public school students and voted against "No Child Left Behind" with its new mandates and new tests that must comply with national standards. I support ending the federal Department of Education. * Crime and the Second Amendment: We need to maintain capital punishment for certain murders and to fully prosecute those who commit crimes with firearms. I fully support the right of an individual to protect himself or herself against assault and violent attack. I was honored to be co-chair of the Second Amendment Caucus during part of my tenure in Congress. * National Defense: We need a strong national defense. However, reckless federal spending which has given us a deficit in excess of one trillion dollars necessitates cutting defense spending. We must now come home from Afghanistan and reduce our expenditures around the globe. * Veteran's Benefits: I support funding for veterans' health care and providing health care benefits to all veterans. We also need to insure that the Veteran's Administration works with and on behalf of our veterans. * Abortion: In the United States House of Representatives, I had a consistent pro-life voting record and in 2008 the National Right to Life Political Action Committee commended me "for your 100 percent pro-life voting record throughout your twelve years of service in the U.S. House of Representatives". As President I would continue to oppose abortion and would submit a budget to Congress with zero funding for planned parenthood and any other similar entities. * International Relations: I oppose the placement of our Armed Forces under United Nations command. We need to curtail expenditures to the UN, the World Bank, the IMF, and to foreign nations. Our sovereignty, in my opinion, should always be paramount. I also vigorously oppose Agenda 21 and other globalism schemes so harmful to the citizens of the United States. * North American Union: We need to block any union between the United States, Mexico, and Canada. The sovereignty of the United States must be preserved. In Congress I sponsored a resolution against the North American Union. * Trade: Agreements like NAFTA and the trade provisions in fast track authorization lead to the erosion of this country's vital manufacturing base. I do not favor international trade agreements such as these that result in a loss of American sovereignty and jobs. * Term Limits: Term limits for members of the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate are necessary for a Congress more responsive to the needs of our country and its citizens. Many members focus too much time and attention on raising money for the next election. Term limits will result in members caring more about the general good for the county. If elected President, I will serve only one term and not focus on raising money and getting votes for the next election. The country shall be first. End synopsis. I do not find anything substantial that I disagree with. On the other had I find much in here that I believe everyone should agree with. After this cursory initial statement of his positions, the media instituted a blackout of Goode. He was censored out of existence.
Umm, you have no concept of the Constitution in any way, shape or form. Rights are not granted by the state for one, merely recognized. I wouldn't even know where to begin educating you on how flawed your ideas are, lol, at least in a country not populated by mindless drones with no creativity or ability to live a life without having to please people like you.
I notice you failed to respond to my comments on Goode. That's where I stand.
Umm, does the constitution prohibit the right of a 21 year old to run for president or the congress in the hope that such will prohibit people of inexperience and immaturity will be excluded? Crickets, chirp, chirp...
To protect their rights from being infringed upon. An example would be if the majority decided that black people were to be slaves. The USSC should rule that people are not property and the intent of the Constitution was to extend to all men and women equal protection under the law. On another example, the legislative branch having before it a ruling that abortion is a "right" should then take it upon itself to define at what point the protections of the Constitution extend to unborn children. In the case of progressive income tax, a strong case could be made that as it treats people differently under the law based upon what they make. On its face this is not equal protection, but thievery imposed by one group against another.
Strawman. As you can plainly tell, Obama has no experience, yet he still became president. As far as maturity goes? Ya, I guess he might be 'your guy', not mine. So, now you wish to add age instead of the garbage you posted earlier? Also, excuse me for not responding right away, some people don't spend their life on the Internet arguing with others.
I notice you failed to respond to my comments on Goode. That's where I stand. I don't disagree with Goode, I disagree with your notion that rights that are God given have some sort of magical litmus test for people to achieve according to YOU.
Strawman. As you can plainly tell, Obama has no experience, yet he still became president. As far as maturity goes? Ya, I guess he might be 'your guy', not mine. The word I used is hope inexperience and immaturity will be excluded. Hope is not enough in a population of irresponsible adults with perpetual teenage mentalities. People who should not be recognized as having rights have taken control to deny the rights of responsible people who have earned them utilizing the Bushs, Clintons, and Obamas. It sounds impressive to talk or write about God given rights. In the real world God doesn't confer rights. You only get rights that you earn, fight for, or can con people out of at their expense.
What government committee or individual gets to determine who is not a functional adult, and therefore has no rights?
What government committee or individual gets to determine who is not a functional adult, and therefore has no rights? If you are lucky a group of wise people who have contact with the general population get together and determine what general type of society the people wish to live in. From there they establish a constution and a set of laws (and rights) supportive of that type of society. The creation of supportive law is an ongoing process. In the present American case, the corruption and passage of law is steadfastly being designed and imposed to destroy our commitment to an optimal western civilization.
In the present American case, dysfunctional adults not only have rights, they are running the asylum in D.C.
That's the problem, with full encouragement from the media...
#2. To: jeremiad (#1)
" People are born of unequal circumstance and position, Samuel Colt MAKES them equal. That is why we should never give up our weapons. "
#3. To: jeremiad (#1)
People are born of unequal circumstance and position, Samuel Colt MAKES them equal.
#4. To: tpaine (#0)
Equal Rights for All
#5. To: rlk (#4)
#6. To: VxH (#3)
#7. To: jeremiad (#6)
(Edited)
It means that citizens loan their natural power to a third party, the government, so they can go on living life without worrying over the day to day workings of an ordered society.
#8. To: tpaine, PETA race pimps, check your minority privilege (#0)
What about slaves—African Americans, in particular?
The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#9. To: Dead Culture Watch (#5)
(Edited)
Equal Rights for All
#10. To: rlk (#9)
#11. To: Dead Culture Watch (#10)
And you claim to vote for the Constitution Party?
#12. To: rlk (#11)
#13. To: Dead Culture Watch (#12)
(Edited)
You do know that he apparently has a 180 degree difference of opinion from yours, right?
#14. To: rlk (#13)
No person should expect to receive full rights as an adult until he acts like an adult and takes responsibilities of an adult.
#15. To: Dead Culture Watch (#14)
Umm, you have no concept of the Constitution in any way, shape or form.
#16. To: Dead Culture Watch (#14)
Umm, you have no concept of the Constitution in any way, shape or form.
#17. To: VxH (#7)
#18. To: rlk (#16)
Umm, does the constitution prohibit the right of a 21 year old to run for president or the congress in the hope that such will prohibit people of inexperience and immaturity will be excluded?
#19. To: rlk (#15)
#20. To: Dead Culture Watch (#18)
(Edited)
Umm, does the constitution prohibit the right of a 21 year old to run for president or the congress in the hope that such will prohibit people of inexperience and immaturity will be excluded?
#21. To: rlk, Dead Culture Watch (#9)
Only functional adults have adult rights.
#22. To: nolu chan (#21)
Only functional adults have adult rights.
#23. To: rlk (#22)
In the present American case, the corruption and passage of law is steadfastly being designed and imposed to destroy our commitment to an optimal western civilization.
#24. To: nolu chan (#23)
In the present American case, dysfunctional adults not only have rights, they are running the asylum in D.C.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]