"We hold these truths to be self-evident." Apparently they aren't.
Well, we speak for ourselves - they seem quite self-evident to me. Clearly you see it differently, but I'm not sure how. If you'd rather keep it a secret, that's fine, but I am curious.
How self-evident were they to the slaves in Thomas Jefferson's fields? How self-evident were they to the generations of American women who couldn't vote? How self-evident are they to the kid with spina bifida?
As self-evident
as they are to anyone else, I'd suppose. Being a slave, a woman deprived of her voice or someone suffering from a crippling disease doesn't make one stupid. In fact, especially in the case of the slaves, these are the people most likely to have an intense, personal appreciation of liberty.
In that it applies to others, but not to them. Irony much?
What do you mean "it applies"? It sounds you're still thinking of rights as empowerment rather than freedom.
Dear
dblack
Yes,
A. the people who put church before state, see the individual as having freedom "directly from God or Nature" and the role of LAWS in the Constitution is to LIMIT GOVT FROM INFRINGING on inherently self-existing rights and freedoms we have as human beings
B. the people who put the state first as the default and the church is voluntary under that public authority do the opposite: and see the people as in danger of abusing freedom and they need the govt to establish law and order and rules for the people.
C. NOTE: where church and state authority AGREE, we have no problem. Such as with agreeing that murder is wrongful. It doesn't matter if one person uses the "church" to represent the people and puts God authority first before secular/state, or if another person uses the Govt to represent the "people" and puts secular authority first as the default. Since both standards agree, we don't notice any difference between people's justification, as religious or secular, that murder is wrong because the end result is the same. It's when we DISAGREE that we end up with groups fighting if state authority comes before church, or church authority comes before state.
Both groups will revert back to the authority THEY SEE AS THE DEFAULT: in one case it's God/Nature and natural laws that exist regardless of govt; and with the other case, it's the govt that's referred to as the default authority for all the people. So that's why the arguments are unresolvable if the CONTEXT is not even set up the same. Both sides impose their context on the other group that has set up their authorities in the opposite order (where one side puts state as the default/universal authority and the church is optional under that; while the other puts God/the church laws first as the universal law and default for all people, and the state is supposed to respect and support that, not go against it or regulate it in ways that are contrary).
Both sets believe in defending their own consent and free will, and want govt to reflect their interests, values and representation.
But when it comes to people coming from the other viewpoints, they both want protection from "those people with the other beliefs."
Thus they fight over using govt to enforce their values in defense against the people/groups with the opposite approach. (Unlike with other religious beliefs, where it is UNDERSTOOD to keep Muslim vs. Hindu, Catholic vs. Protestant, Atheist vs. Theist beliefs OUT OF GOVT, we don't do this with secular political beliefs but expect to be able to legislate these by majority rule.)
The solution I find is either
* separate the areas of conflict so all people can have their interests and beliefs independently and equally (I have proposed separation by party, similar to letting people choose and run their own programs through the "church affiliation of their choice" without penalty or imposing on other church denominations: why not do the same and let people invest taxes or tax breaks into their own Political Party platforms of their choice, to develop represent and manage the policies they believe in, without imposition or penalty.)
* resolve conflicts and agree WHAT points, principles or programs CAN be made public policy without infringing on one set or the other.
Instead of bullying, back and forth, by exclusion, coercion or majority rule to dominate over and discriminate against the other group and their values/beliefs.
