Have you ever considered how
nations fail? Are they destroyed by cataclysmic disaster or do they fail from
small wounds quietly inflicted from within? I believe great nations are similar
to mighty trees and suffer similar fates. Think about the American elm
tree. Reaching over 100 feet in height, with
a trunk up to four feet in diameter they were once one of the most dominate
trees in the country. They were homes
for nesting birds, woodpeckers, squirrels and others. Over the past 50 years they
have been ravaged. Not from over deforestation, but by Dutch elm disease and the bark beetles that carry the
fungus from the sick to healthy trees.
Egypt, Persia, Greece, and Rome
all reflect the ebb and flow of a nation-state.
In modern times we see Spain, France, Prussia, England, and the Austrian
Empire reflect this truth. They rise
with purpose only to slowly decline from a breakdown of its core strengths until
some small insignificant outside force eventually topples it over. Without the internal blight… would the nation
remain strong and capable of withstanding those outside forces?
I watched a movie that has given me
reason to consider the lesson of the elm as it applies to me, and our nation. This
movie, its obvious political message, and the nature of its portrayal recognized
and understood for what they are – I still find the foundation of its premise
compelling. There is a growing movement in this country to attack the founding
principles of this nation, in the name of a variety of causes, but most
generally disguised as some form of sensitivity or right.
Let’s start with the most basic
of these attacks. There is an idea that
some religions must be tolerated, but others can be attacked. We see this in the movement by those who are
opposed to the Christians right to recognize Christmas as a
celebration within our communities. As if the fact that since our independence
we have been a Judeo-Christian nation is somehow an intolerable wrong that must
be not only corrected, but erased from our memories. We cannot tolerate the recognition of
Christmas as the birth of Christ by public display and acknowledgement. Schools must shelter children from the
discussion of religion and God because atheist parents are offended and file
civil actions. Our courts have expanded civil code and the premise of the
constitution in the name of civil liberty to allow this to happen.
Administrators strive to avoid conflict and allow the concerns of the few to
override the value to the many. They
abandon the ideal of education, to expand the mind of the young, and choose instead
to train our young not to think independently or question, just to conform with their peers.
When we talk about liberty and
our rights what do we mean? I see a lot of discussion about this from the left
as liberals condemn the conservatives, but unfortunately it is generally in the
form of some propaganda effort, and not intended as a serious debate on
fundamental rights. On the other hand I see the conservatives referring back to
the founding fathers as if they were demi-gods whose words must be strictly
adhered to insure we remain steadfast and true to their intent. Hmmm, their
intent, what was their intent?
When we gained our independence
from King George, the men who risked all sought only the escape from a
repressive government they had no voice in. Each was loyal to his community and
viewed their colony as an independent entity. Each attempted to stand alone,
but recognizing interdependence, they formed the Confederation of States. After 10 years of what must have been
extremely frustrating economic and political turmoil these leaders again came
together in a constitutional convention to resolve the problems the confederation
created.
We see in the writings of James
Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay the arguments for a stronger central
government. The Federalist Papers
outline the causes of failure of the Confederation and the importance of a
central government, checked by the division of powers, to secure the nation, and
provide a framework to the nation. The
political leadership of the founding fathers became convinced that if this
nation were to prosper there had to be a strong unifying force that could bring
the various people to agreement. They
knew, as was the fashion of the time, that rigorous debate and argument was
inefficient in the short-term, but ultimately led to a stronger acceptance of
the final agreement. The papers were
intended to spur those debates in anticipation of the votes on the new
Constitution.
So I come back to the question,
what are our rights as citizens of these United States? This has been the subject of lengthy debate
and is really at the heart of the great conflicts we see in government
today. On the one side we have a group
of people who believe passionately that whatever cause they believe in should
be protected as a right by a strong and compelling central power that sides
with them. On the other we have a group
that believes a overwhelmingly strong central government will do more harm and
they as individuals should be left to lead their lives as they want. Is this really any different than the
positions our founding fathers were addressing?
We see in the Preamble of the
Constitution the purpose our founder’s envisioned. To “…establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of
Liberty.” Almost immediately after
crafting the basic document they recognized a need to identify the rights of
the citizen, and added what is known as the Bill of Rights as part of the
original ratification. This forms the
basic understanding of our rights, and supports my opinion that amendments to
the Constitution should expand, not contract, the rights of its citizens.
Let’s start with the first amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of
grievances.”
Does the recognition of Christmas as a federal
holiday violate the prohibitions of the first amendment? Is
Christmas Constitutional? Clearly the argument
was made that it does, but the amendment does not say the government can not
recognize religion only it cannot write laws to establish or prohibit the free exercise
there of. Activists have twisted these
words, and willing judges have agreed, that recognition of the celebration of
Christ’s birth is somehow in violation of this amendment and must be condemned. Yet the holiday remains for as the court has
pointed out the term Christmas preceded the Constitution by a millennium, and
even the atheists want every day off they can get away with.
How far will those who don’t
know what freedom is go… as they labor under the false premise that a more
powerful central government will protect them, or that litigating anything and
everything that annoys them so that they feel some small victory is right? Call me a cynic but I see nothing but
personal self-interest propelling those who encourage the societal warfare we see
in today’s America.
When we condemn those who
disagree with us, through humiliation, intimidation, or outright violence we
weaken us as a nation, and by each small act we weaken our fundamental
strength.
So as for me, I will continue
with the ideal of Christmas and acknowledge it in my greetings.
