Jefferson and Washington fought a war for the principle of independence, meaning the moral right of an individual to live his own life as he sees fit.
America's cities and towns will soon fill with parades, fireworks, and barbecues. They will be celebrating the Fourth of July, the 230th birthday of America. But one hopes that the speeches will contain fewer bromides and more attention to exactly what is being celebrated. The Fourth of July is Independence Day, but America's leaders and intellectuals have been trying to move us further and further away from the meaning of Independence Day, away from the philosophy that created this country.
What we hear from politicians, intellectuals, and the media is that independence is passé, that we've reached a new age of "interdependence." We hear demands for mandatory "volunteering" to serve others, for sacrifice to the nation. We hear demands from trust-busters that successful companies be punished for being "greedy" and not serving society. But this is not the message of America. It is the direct opposite of why America became a beacon of hope for the truly oppressed throughout the world. They have come here to escape poverty and dictatorship; they have come here to live their own lives, where they aren't owned by the state, the community, or the tribe.
"Independence Day" is a critically important title. It signifies the fundamental meaning of this nation, not just of the holiday. The American Revolution remains unique in human history: a revolution — and a nation — founded on a moral principle, the principle of individual rights. Jefferson at Philadelphia, and Washington at Valley Forge, pledged their "lives, fortunes, and sacred honor." For what? Not for mere separation from England, not — like most rebels — for the "freedom" to set up their own tyranny. In fact, Britain's tyranny over the colonists was mild compared to what most current governments do to their citizens.
Jefferson and Washington fought a war for the principle of independence, meaning the moral right of an individual to live his own life as he sees fit. Independence was proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence as the rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." What are these rights? The right to life means that every individual has a right to his own independent life, that one's life belongs to oneself, not to others to use as they see fit.
The right to liberty means the right to freedom of action, to act on one's own judgment, the right not to have a gun pointed at one's head and be forced to do what someone else commands. And the right to the pursuit of happiness means that an individual may properly pursue his own happiness, e.g., his own career, friends, hobbies, and not exist as a mere tool to serve the goals of others. The Founding Fathers did not proclaim a right to the attainment of happiness, knowing full well that such a policy would carry with it the obligation of others to make one happy and result in the enslavement of all to all. The Declaration of Independence was a declaration against servitude, not just servitude to the Crown but servitude to anyone. (That some signers still owned slaves does not negate the fact that they established the philosophy that doomed slavery.)
Political independence is not a primary. It rests on a more fundamental type of independence: the independence of the human mind. It is the ability of a human being to think for himself and guide his own life that makes political independence possible and necessary. The government as envisaged by the Founding Fathers existed to protect the freedom to think and to act on one's thinking. If human beings were unable to reason, to think for themselves, there would be no autonomy or independence for a government to protect. It is this independence that defines the American Revolution and the American spirit.
To the Founding Fathers, there was no authority higher than the individual mind, not King George, not God, not society. Reason, wrote Ethan Allen, is "the only oracle of man," and Thomas Jefferson advised us to "fix reason firmly in her seat and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God." That is the meaning of independence: trust in your own judgment, in reason; do not sacrifice your mind to the state, the church, the race, the nation, or your neighbors.
Independence is the foundation of America. Independence is what should be celebrated on Independence Day. That is the legacy our Founding Fathers left us. It is a legacy we should keep, not because it is a legacy, but because it is right and just. It has made America the freest and most prosperous country in history.
We reveal our flaws by the mud we sling. He who calls somebody a “nigger” shows himself to be a racist; who talks about “rednecks” is a snob. So what are we to think of one who denigrates “intellectuals” as Mr. Berliner does?
I will also remind readers that the noble ideal of independence must be weighed against other desiderata. Just as freedom must be balanced against anarchy, so too must independence be balanced against social peace. He who wishes to be truly independent must live alone in the mountains and eschew all social, economic, and technological interaction with others. I like my independence, but I’m not going to wear skins and hunt animals for food. Living in society means accepting some degree of interdependence. And as population densities rise and economic integration advances, so too does our interdependence. Blind insistence upon independence above all other considerations is the thinking of an idealogue. We as a society must figure out how to retain our freedoms in the context of an unavoidably interdependent economy.
Amen! And for this very reason people should stop calling it the ‘Fourth of July’. It’s ‘Independence Day’!
Mr. Crawford, surely, you are overreacting to what Mr. Berliner actually says. He says, “. . . America’s leaders and intellectuals have been trying to move us further and further away from the meaning of Independence Day, away from the philosophy that created this country.” And he says, “What we hear from politicians, intellectuals, and the media is that independence is passé . . .”
And you, say “So what are we to think of one who denigrates “intellectuals” as Mr. Berliner does?” Denigrates? This is denigration? How is communication possible when you call Mr. Berliner’s mild description of cultural consequences that derive from the position frequently taken by “intellectuals” as a denigration? This is intellectual hemophilia (also know as political correctness), to cry foul just because a writer examines the consequences of collectivist mentality.
Your own claim simply that we are interdependent hardly seems like a critique. All persons in a open society with a free market economy know this to be so. The intelligent pursuit of self-interest in the context of many others happily doing the same in the American tradition is by its nature interdependent and seems to me a worthy ideal, well-worth fostering, protecting, and preserving. To notice who vitiates this ideal is not to sling mud as you have said, but that you call it so seems like crying, “wolf.”
Perhaps I have over-reacted to Mr. Berliner’s use of the term “intellectual”. But he clearly thinks that “intellectuals” are doing the wrong thing; don’t you find that a bit out of place on a board for “Intellectual Conservatives”?
We are in agreement about the interdependence intrinsic to a market economy. Mr. Berliner failed to acknowledge this interdependence, and in so doing I think he went a little overboard. He pounds away about “independence”, and has nothing nice to say about “interdependence”. I thought it would be useful to bring a little balance.
Mr. Berliner wrote: “To the Founding Fathers, there was no authority higher than the individual mind, not King George, not God, not s”society.
Actually, the Founding Fathers believed that God is the “highest” authority. Jefferson’s famous line that all men are guaranteed “by their Creator, certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” The “individual mind” itself, according to the Fathers, must adhere God’s Law or Natural Law. John Adams referred to God as the “Great Legislator of the Universe.”
Using faith and reason the Founding Fathers understood that liberty must have an unshakeable foundation. For them this foundation is God. It appears the writer totally bypassed this fact in his article.
Berliner comes from the Ayn Rand Institute. Rand herself was an atheist/agnostic. By his neglecting to mention the role of God in the thought process of the Founding Fathers, I would not be surprised if Berliner himself holds the same beliefs.
This whole “God and the Founding Fathers” debate can approach scholasticism in its nitpicking. The basic problem here is that the Founding Fathers were no more homogeneous in their thinking than any of us are. There were some deeply devout men among them, and there were some closet atheists. The fact that the atheists had to stay inside the closet for political reasons makes it all the more difficult to divine their “true intent”. If you want to debate the separation of church and state, that’s a debatable subject. But let’s not waste time on the notion that the Founding Fathers were of one mind on the subject. All we really know about their consensus was what they ended up writing into the Constitution.
I believe it is quite obvious that the founding fathers were driven by something other than politics and/or ambition. I have read several books about Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison, etc., and it is clear that they did not enjoy the spotlight. They did not enjoy being in the public eye. All of them felt compelled to do what they did. Now you can debate on what it was that drove them, but they all clearly felt obligated to create the nation they created. It is my belief that it was God who gave them their deep feelings of duty. An individual who truly believes in God knows that individual choice, independence, and accountability are essential to maintain a religiously free country. I believe that the great men who founded this country knew this and it is one of the many reasons that they gave us such freedom. I also believe that for religious freedom to truly exists, church and state must be seperated. Unfortunately, church and life have been seperated by the scum on the far left.
Josh, your logic has some serious problems. You recognize that these people had strong altruistic motivations. You assume that only religion can provide altruistic motivations, and therefore conclude that these men must have been motivated by their religious beliefs. However, your underlying assumption is parochial in the extreme. There are many sources of altruism, and religion is just one of these. I myself am an atheist, yet I have a strong sense of altruism. Would you declare that, as an atheist, I am incapable of moral sentiments?
Chris,
We know for certain what motivated 147 out of 150 or so founding fathers: Their faith. They were right wing religious extremists. We know from their personal writings, eyewitness accounts, and their speeches that they were almost to a man deeply religious Christians. As to their altruism, there is no other conclusion, these guys were being obedient to the Bible.
A lot of people have tried to explain away the faith of our fathers in order to fit them in a different mold, but the evidence of history is conclusive. You are free to disagree with the founding fathers, but not free to rewrite history to your liking.
Oh, and by the way, is it possible for an atheist to be moral? Of course. Everyone on the face of this planet is capable of moral behavior. How do we decide what is moral? Well, only by transcendent standards. Unless we have a single, transcendent, objective standard for morality, morality is up for grabs.
For if morality isn’t transcendent, then it is man made and subject to modification. Therefore, your morality may differ from mine, and then it’s no one’s business what I think is moral. If someone decides that for them, rape is moral, how are we to say otherwise without transcendent morality?
The only way that you can judge altruism to be good it to align yourself with transcendent morality.
Rich, I disagree with your assertion that 147 out of 150 Founding Fathers were right wing religious extremists. This could be a long-drawn out debate, and I’m not sure I want to get into it, but there’s tons of evidence that the Founding Fathers, and America at the time of the Revolution, were not as willing to let religion intrude into public life as we are today. I don’t deny that some of them were deeply religious, I deny the notion that they were all cut from the same cloth.
It seems to me that the strong basis for our country is the belief in God. Now, we can see this as the agnostic God Ayn Rand might have embraced or the structured God of any religion. I saw an old Tom Snyder interview with Ayn Rand where she described her feelings on faith in God. Although she did not think it was for her, she embraced and appreciated others’ faith in God. She welcomed anyone who would wish her God’s blessings and did not think them wrong or stupid.
As the idea goes, God created all of us; therefore, we are all equal in the eyes of God. This is not because of our ability to think critically, our upright posture, or our opposable thumbs. Every person’s opinion or belief starts from the same rank. This was the base idea Jefferson wrote when defining human rights in the Declaration of Independence.
“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, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
God gives us our freedom and rights, equal between one another’s freedom and rights. A government does not lay out our rights or divides them up for our use. Humanity cannot assign value to these rights since they are priceless and only owned by the individual. This is what makes America different. We believe that God grants us rights and no man or government can take them away, only secure them or abuse them.
Jefferson, Adams and Madison all knew that. Individual free will stems from God granting us free will. God grants our life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. A Declaration, Constitution or an assembly of Federalist Papers does not grant them. Those documents only show this nation recognizes the facts and wishes to secure them.
I think Mr. Berliner was trying to say that America grows from the freedom and strength of the individual. True, in our capitalist economy, we must serve each other to gain a level of synergy. Individualism creates the surplus of synergy: the innovation, intellect and entrepreneurial spirit make more out of less. Only with the freedom Mr. Berliner describes do we succeed like no other nation before us. Individualism always overrides the interdependent whims of the mob, or else the mob abuses the individual.
Mr. Berliner also points to the “America’s leaders and intellectuals” as trying to limit us through law. Of course, he is right. No, this does not mean “all” like the knee-jerk Crawfords of the blogosphere will try to contend; just the vast majority. Every time they sharpen their pencils to sketch out a new law to hand out my money to someone who did not earn it, restrict my driving a car in whatever lane at whatever speed with or without my seat belt, or levy taxes and forms and licenses and processes to open a business, they abuse the individual’s freedom.
My 2 cents.
Religion and God are not always innevitably linked Chris.
Chris,
You made the assertion, but you don’t want to get into a debate? Are you expecting that you can say whatever you want and remain unchallenged? Sorry, it doesn’t work that way.
The founding fathers insisted that public school students be taught out of the Bible as their primary text. They created the office of Chaplin for the Senate. All of the state constitutions of the time included a REQUIREMENT that elective offices be occupied by a Christian. Even the concept of individual rights descended from an understanding that they pre-exist governments and laws, because they are given by God.
The founders often asserted that this government they were creating could only work in the context of Christian faith, because freedom without Christian morality descends quickly into tyranny.
Now, read over this extensive list of quotes from various founding fathers:
——————————————————————————–
Samuel Adams, Signer of the Declaration of Independence
I … recommend my Soul to that Almighty Being who gave it, and my body I commit to the dust, relying upon the merits of Jesus Christ for a pardon of all my sins.
——————————————————————————–
Charles Carroll, Signer of the Declaration of Independence
On the mercy of my Redeemer I rely for salvation and on His merits; not on the works I have done in obedience to His precepts.
——————————————————————————–
William Cushing, First Associate Justice Appointed by George Washington to the Supreme Court
Sensible of my mortality, but being of sound mind, after recommending my soul to Almighty God through the merits of my Redeemer and my body to the earth …
——————————————————————————–
John Dickinson, Signer of the Constitution
Rendering thanks to my Creator for my existence and station among His works, for my birth in a country enlightened by the Gospel and enjoying freedom, and for all His other kindnesses, to Him I resign myself, humbly confiding in His goodness and in His mercy through Jesus Christ for the events of eternity.
——————————————————————————–
John Hancock , Signer of the Declaration of Independence
I John Hancock, . . . being advanced in years and being of perfect mind and memory-thanks be given to God-therefore calling to mind the mortality of my body and knowing it is appointed for all men once to die [Hebrews 9:27], do make and ordain this my last will and testament…Principally and first of all, I give and recommend my soul into the hands of God that gave it: and my body I recommend to the earth . . . nothing doubting but at the general resurrection I shall receive the same again by the mercy and power of God . . .
——————————————————————————–
Patrick Henry, Governor of Virginia, Patriot
This is all the inheritance I can give to my dear family. The religion of Christ can give them one which will make them rich indeed.
——————————————————————————–
John Jay, First Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court
Unto Him who is the author and giver of all good, I render sincere and humble thanks for His manifold and unmerited blessings, and especially for our redemption and salvation by His beloved son. He has been pleased to bless me with excellent parents, with a virtuous wife, and with worthy children. His protection has accompanied me through many eventful years, faithfully employed in the service of my country; His providence has not only conducted me to this tranquil situation but also given me abundant reason to be contented and thankful. Blessed be His holy name!
——————————————————————————–
Daniel St. Thomas Jenifer, Signer of the Constitution
In the name of God, Amen. I, Daniel of Saint Thomas Jenifer . . . of dispossing mind and memory, commend my soul to my blessed Redeemer . . .
——————————————————————————–
Henry Knox, Revolutionary War General, Secretary of War
First, I think it proper to express my unshaken opinion of the immortality of my soul or mind; and to dedicate and devote the same to the supreme head of the Universe-to that great and tremendous Jehovah, – Who created the universal frame of nature, worlds, and systems in number infinite . . . To this awfully sublime Being do I resign my spirit with unlimited confidence of His mercy and protection . . .
——————————————————————————–
John Langdon, Signer of the Constitution
In the name of God, Amen. I, John Langdon, . . . considering the uncertainty of life and that it is appointed unto all men once to die [Hebrews 9:27], do make, ordain and publish this my last will and testament in manner following, that is to say-First: I commend my soul to the infinite mercies of God in Christ Jesus, the beloved Son of the Father, who died and rose again that He might be the Lord of the dead and of the living . . . professing to believe and hope in the joyful Scripture doctrine of a resurrection to eternal life . . .
——————————————————————————–
John Morton, Signer of the Declaration of Independence
With an awful reverence to the great Almighty God, Creator of all mankind, I, John Morton . . . being sick and weak in body but of sound mind and memory-thanks be given to Almighty God for the same, for all His mercies and favors-and considering the certainty of death and the uncertainty of the times thereof, do, for the settling of such temporal estate as it hath pleased God to bless me with in this life . . .
——————————————————————————–
Robert Treat Paine, Signer of the Declaration of Independence
I desire to bless and praise the name of God most high for appointing me my birth in a land of Gospel Light where the glorious tidings of a Savior and of pardon and salvation through Him have been continually sounding in mine ears.
—————–
[W]hen I consider that this instrument contemplates my departure from this life and all earthly enjoyments and my entrance on another state of existence, I am constrained to express my adoration of the Supreme Being, the Author of my existence, in full belief of his providential goodness and his forgiving mercy revealed to the world through Jesus Christ, through whom I hope for never ending happiness in a future state, acknowledging with grateful remembrance the happiness I have enjoyed in my passage through a long life . . .
——————————————————————————–
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Signer of the Constitution
To the eternal, immutable, and only true God be all honor and glory, now and forever, Amen!…
——————————————————————————–
Rufus Putnam, Revolutionary War General, First Surveyor General of the United States
[F]irst, I give my soul to a holy, sovereign God Who gave it in humble hope of a blessed immortality through the atonement and righteousness of Jesus Christ and the sanctifying grace of the Holy Spirit. My body I commit to the earth to be buried in a decent Christian manner. I fully believe that this body shall, by the mighty power of God, be raised to life at the last day; ‘for this corruptable (sic) must put on incorruption and this mortal must put on immortality.’ [I Corinthians 15:53].
——————————————————————————–
Benjamin Rush, Signer of the Declaration of Independence
My only hope of salvation is in the infinite, transcendent love of God manifested to the world by the death of His Son upon the cross. Nothing but His blood will wash away my sins. I rely exclusively upon it. Come, Lord Jesus! Come quickly!
——————————————————————————–
Roger Sherman, Signer of the Declaration of Independence, Signer of the Constitution
I believe that there is one only living and true God, existing in three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. . . . that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are a revelation from God. . . . that God did send His own Son to become man, die in the room and stead of sinners, and thus to lay a foundation for the offer of pardon and salvation to all mankind so as all may be saved who are willing to accept the Gospel offer.
—————————————————————————-
Richard Stockton, Signer of the Declaration of Independence
I think it proper here not only to subscribe to the entire belief of the great and leading doctrines of the Christian religion, such as the Being of God, the universal defection and depravity of human nature, the divinity of the person and the completeness of the redemption purchased by the blessed Savior, the necessity of the operations of the Divine Spirit, of Divine Faith, accompanied with an habitual virtuous life, and the universality of the divine Providence, but also . . . that the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom; that the way of life held up in the Christian system is calculated for the most complete happiness that can be enjoyed in this mortal state; that all occasions of vice and immorality is injurious either immediately or consequentially, even in this life; that as Almighty God hath not been pleased in the Holy Scriptures to prescribe any precise mode in which He is to be publicly worshipped, all contention about it generally arises from want of knowledge or want of virtue.
——————————————————————————–
Jonathan Trumbull Sr., Governor of Connecticut, Patriot
Principally and first of all, I bequeath my soul to God the Creator and Giver thereof, and body to the Earth . . . nothing doubting but that I shall receive the same again at the General Resurrection thro the power of Almighty God; believing and hoping for eternal life thro the merits of my dear, exalted Redeemer Jesus Christ.
——————————————————————————–
John Witherspoon, Signer of the Declaration of Independence
I entreat you in the most earnest manner to believe in Jesus Christ, for there is no salvation in any other [Acts 4:12]. . . . [I]f you are not reconciled to God through Jesus Christ, if you are not clothed with the spotless robe of His righteousness, you must forever perish.
——————————————————————————–
There’s 19 founding fathers for you, and we haven’t even gotten to George Washington, James Madison, Paul Revere, and many other prominent men.
If you really want to know what these men believed, you cannot trust your public school education, sir.
Just to throw in my two cents as well:
Yes, we can be fairly certain that the majority of the founders were Christian, but certainly not all, and they weren’t of the same denomination. (Jefferson, of course, was not Christian at all but a Deist.) My issue is that I’m not really sure that it is relevant to the article we’re discussing. The point I believe the author was trying to make in the statement “…there was no authority higher than the individual mind, not King George, not God, not society.” is that isn’t up to government to impose any kind of authority of the citizens, other than that which protects them from harm. It is up to each INDIVIDUAL to decide if God is his authority, and that is what the founders wrote into the Constitution.
One of the problems that I am seeing today is the desire of conservative religious folks to use government to legislate morality on others. Now, before anyone on here starts attacking me for this – be it known that I am myself a practicing Christian. It’s just that, to me, this means following Christ and helping the weak, the poor, and leading by example. I can’t find anywhere in the New Testament where it suggests that Jesus would’ve wanted the government to force the faith on the masses. His view was that it was up to the individual to read and understand His work, and then accept Him as his Lord and Saviour. When we use government as a tool of religion (or vice versa) we pervert that message.
We should always be diligent to protect our religious liberties, which have been under attack recently, such as the video duplicator who was forced to copy a film he did not agree with on religious grounds. But we cannot make laws based solely on our religious beliefs, nor should we have any expectation that others share our morals, as much as we may believe our morals to be right. The issue of “relative morality” is as repugnant to me as anyone else here, but the fact is, our laws should be about restricting harmful behaviour (ie, rape as someone mentioned above) and preserving liberty for all.
Just my two cents.
Rich, my reticence arises from the knowledge that the debate over the intentions of the Founding Fathers is one of those huge meandering debates that wanders all over intellectual history and never convinces anybody to change their minds. That’s because the Founding Fathers left us with all sorts of contradictory evidence. You present an extensive list of quotations showing one side of the story. There are just as extensive lists of quotations “proving” the exact opposite — some of them from some of the same people you quote!
The Founding Fathers were not of one mind on this question; they debated it at length. The ONLY things we can be certain of are what they finally agreed to put into the Constitution: the First Amendment, forbidding any law by Congress respecting an establishment of religion, and the ban on any religious tests by States for candidates for Federal office. They should provide the foundation for any debate on this issue.
Hurrah for King George III, one of the most benevolent and unintrusive leaders this long-suffering country has ever had to tolerate.
Nice work Mr. Rich Sherlock. That is some excellent stuff. You’re to be commended for your effort!
By the way: take a look at Romans 12:5 as a source of inspiration for ‘E PLURIBUS UNIM’…
E PLURIBUS UN U M!
Take it easy on the typing son…
Though I applaud the lively debate, this article didn’t really say anything at all. In what specific areas is our independence in jeopardy? Should independence mean the right to decide who to marry or whether or not to have an abortion? The article wants to sound patriotic and disgruntled, but ends up saying nothing of substance.
Though I applaud the lively debate, this article didn’t really say anything at all. In what specific areas is our independence in jeopardy? Should independence mean the right to decide who to marry or whether or not to have an abortion? Whether to burn the flag? The article wants to sound patriotic and disgruntled, but ends up saying nothing of substance.