Unfortunately, I had the entire week to dwell on the idea that my second post, more so than the first, would establish the trend for what I would like to become a moderately-read blog. This made it harder to decide what I wanted to talk about, because though I feel a strong pull towards political topics, I have no real desire to make this a strictly political blog.
And then, as I watched an old episode of The West Wing, something occurred to me. This is not unusual in and of itself, as in the past year I've watched every episode of The West Wing at least twice, many three or four times, and a variety of things occur to me all the time. This, as they say, was different.
Martin Sheen was leading a group of recently sworn-in citizens in the Pledge of Allegiance. It is the end of the episode, and so the camera was fading out and panning away, but the audio remained through the entire pledge.
As I listened, I wondered many things. Why should someone bother to publicly pledge allegiance to something? Why a flag, of all thing a scrap of cloth? And the Republic? When someone talks about the Republic, my mind goes instantly to Congress, a body whose history of decision-making has been less than spotless.
But I digress. Allow me, if you will, to tell you what struck me most.
With Liberty and Justice for All.
The phrase stuck with me for a few moments. Justice was not difficult for me; we all want to make sure that Justice is done, and Plato can argue for weeks on what real Justice is. But what do we mean by Liberty, for All?
My first thoughts were along the lines of this: If we want Liberty for All, why do we have gun control laws? Drug control laws? Why do congressmen stand up and pledge Liberty For All, and then instigate debates on who's allowed to get married, and what women and their doctors can do, and how much money someone has to pay another person? Is not all law some violation of Liberty? Are there laws that preserve it?
And then I began to wonder, maybe I don't understand Liberty. Dictionary.com has several definitions of Liberty, three of which I've decided to commandeer for my own purposes:
- freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.
- freedom from external or foreign rule; independence.
- freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.
Right away I notice a common thread among these definitions. Liberty is Freedom. But that is the same simple definition I had used in my own mind before.
The founding fathers obviously had a great deal of appreciation for definitions number 1 and 2. They spent years fighting off an oppresive government, and rightfully praised the concept of a Liberty that frees people from despotic government control. A Liberty that ensures a freedom from a government so greatly disconnected from it's people.
That must have been what they meant when they penned that Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness were unalienable Rights.
My biggest question is about the third definition I have here. Are we, as a people, still concerned with Liberty? Not the kind of Liberty that we worry about Great Britain taking from us, I don't think Gordon Brown has much interest in reclaiming the colonies.
If we are concerned with Liberty, then shouldn't I hear less clamoring to increase restrictions on how people live? If we are not concerned with Liberty any longer, then why do we still pledge to the Republic, one Nation under God, with Liberty and Justice for All?
But then, nobody is perfect. Everyone has what they believe is right, and what they want for their communities and their countries. We all have a desire to pursue what we see as perfection, to make the world a better place. So maybe we pledge the flag, that symbol of the Republic, with the promise that we will take our Nation toward the ideals of Liberty and Justice, for all. And who knows, maybe some day, we'll get there.
2 comments:
Nah we will never get there till the New Jerusalem. As for these United States of America we may have times we get closer, but short of sweeping reforms that are unlikely in a system of compromise and corruption, we will fallow other great empires of history and our fall will come in a time of our disgrace well after our glory has faded and those who come after us will talk of us as we do of Rome or Babylon.
you need to post more
Post a Comment