https://buy-zithromax.online buy kamagra usa https://antibiotics.top buy stromectol online https://deutschland-doxycycline.com https://ivermectin-apotheke.com kaufen cialis https://2-pharmaceuticals.com buy antibiotics online Online Pharmacy vermectin apotheke buy stromectol europe buy zithromax online https://kaufen-cialis.com levitra usa https://stromectol-apotheke.com buy doxycycline online https://buy-ivermectin.online https://stromectol-europe.com stromectol apotheke https://buyamoxil24x7.online deutschland doxycycline https://buy-stromectol.online https://doxycycline365.online https://levitra-usa.com buy ivermectin online buy amoxil online https://buykamagrausa.net

The Liberty Counsel’s “Declaration of American Values”

The Liberty Counsel has issued a “Declaration of American Values” which they are, of course, trying to get everyone and their brother to sign off on.  It is, of course, nice of them to assume that they know what “values” are truly “American,” so that they can “declare” them … presumably to those Godless Islamicist Socialist Hordes in other countries, as well to those Commie Secularist Liberals here who Hate America So Much (cough).

(Note: though some folks have raised this as something new in this pledge-happy election cycle, it actually dates back to 2008. It’s still very prominently displayed on their front page, though, and the rhetoric really hasn’t changed, so it’s fair game.)

What does this Declaration have to say?  Are its Values truly American?  Well …

First off, it’s not at all clear to me that the values embodied in the founding documents — the Declaration of Independence, as well as the (amended) Constitution of the United States — need to be supplemented or rewritten. So my assumption, going into this, is that it’s going to be a bunch of cultural and social issues that the LC would like to see become (or even, in some cases, restore as) “American Values.” Which is fine, but … well, get in line, guys.

””]

The Declaration of American Values

We the people of the United States of America, …

Note that this borrows, for the Declaration, the language of the Constitution. But the Constitution really was a statement by the People (capitalized), as it was voted on and approved by their representatives at the national and state levels. The Declaration used “we” language, but not in this way.

… at this crucial time in history, …

Is this time more “crucial” than other times in our national history?  Really?

… do hereby affirm the core consensus values …

Well, that’s the trick, isn’t it?  Are the following “core consensus values”? How do the LC know?  If so, is an affirmation and declaration necessary?  If not … well, then why call them that?

I know, I know — the Right is convinced that all the Bad Stuff in our country is due to tiny minority liberal populations on each coast that have somehow taken over this great nation, seizing the media and the government and somehow brainwashing the masses into despair, apathy, and tacit support for the Godless Liberal Agenda.

… which form the basis of America’s greatness, that all men and women from every race and ethnicity are created equal …

Well, I give them kudos for noting racial and ethnic equality, as well as sexual equality.  I suspect some of the LC’s fans aren’t quite as sanguine about that, or would attach some caveats (including some of the clauses below) to that statement of equality, but …

… and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

As well as it’s Officially and Societally Sanctioned Happiness, of course.

We adhere to the rule of law embodied in the Constitution of the United States …

Good to know.

… and to the principles of liberty on which America was founded.

As long as it’s liberty to do the things we think people should be doing.

In order to maintain the blessings of liberty and justice for ourselves and our posterity, …

More Constitutional(ish) language.

… and recognizing that personal responsibility is the basis of our self-governing Nation, we declare our allegiance –

An odd use of the term.  It’s usually allegiance (loyalty, devotion) to some noun (the flag, the nation), rather than to some verb; in this document, though, all the clauses start with “to secure”.  That’s also an interesting choice of terms.

1. To secure the sanctity of human life by affirming the dignity of and right to life for the disabled, the ill, the aged, the poor, the disadvantaged, …

Does that include government programs to assist in preserving (with dignity) that life, including food, shelter, heat in the winter, and medical care?

Does providing dignity of life include allowing someone to end their life should they so choose?

… and for the unborn from the moment of conception.

I.e., personhood amendments.

Sorry, while acknowledging that abortion and contraception are thorny issues few bright lines, it’s difficult for me to recognize an unimplanted (or even just-implanted) pair or quartet of cells the same rights and consideration as a homeless person on the street, a sick person in the hospital, etc.

Every person is made in the image of God, …

Not every person believes that particular declaration.

… and it is the responsibility and duty of all individuals and communities of faith …

Or communities of non-faith.

… to extend the hand of loving compassion to care for those in poverty and distress.

I concur. Does that include governmental programs “to care for those in poverty and distress”?

2. To secure our national interest in the institution of marriage …

If we have a “national interest in the institution of marriage,” we aren’t doing much about it except debating whether we should allow gay folks to be included in it.

… and family by embracing the union of one man and one woman as the sole form of legitimate marriage and the proper basis of family.

I would suggest to the Liberty Counsel that current polling of the national population disagrees that this statement doesn’t reflect the values of most Americans.

3. To secure the fundamental rights of parents to the care, custody, and control of their children regarding their upbringing and education.

An interesting one — I’d like to know what, specifically, LC is concerned about here.  What cases of these “fundamental rights” are in danger such that we need to secure them?

4. To secure the free exercise of religion for all people, including the freedom to acknowledge God through our public institutions and other modes of public expression …

I'm sure the Liberty Counsel would be tickled to have public institutions acknowledging Cernunnos

But how do we reconcile “acknowledging God through our public institutions” without imposing on those whose concepts of God (which the LC seems to want to secure freedom for as well) are different? Though it may shock and dismay the LC, not everyone in the nation of “all people” believe in Jesus, or believe in the Abrahamic God, or believe in a higher power whatsoever.  When someone “acknowledges God through our public institutions,” they alienate, offend, and impose upon those fellow Americans that believe differently as much as how some Christians would be if  someone acknowledged Allah, or Vishnu, or Zoroaster, or Odin, or the Horned God, or the Godless Universe through a “public institution.”

The LC’s statement only makes sense if everyone acknowledges the same God.  I know they’d like to think that everyone does, but they don’t.

… and the freedom of religious conscience without coercion by penalty or force of law.

Yes, we should certainly make sure there are no legal restrains on public expression of religious beliefs

As soon as the LC agrees that Native Americans should be able to use peyote, Rastafarians should have free use of marijuana, that fundamentalist Mormons should be allowed polygamy, that Quakers should be allowed to exclude the Defense spending from their federal taxes, that Hindus should be allowed to exclude federal beef subsidies from their federal taxes, that people who believe that abortion and euthanasia are religiously acceptable are allowed to engage in them, and that human sacrifice is acceptable for descendants of the Aztecs … I’ll take this request seriously (i.e., as something other than a weasel clause to have some Christian town clerks not be required in their job to register gay couples for marriage, some Christian pharmacists be not required in their jobs to sell contraceptives, etc.).

In other words, the LC needs to demonstrate that it’s pushing for freedom of religious conscience for “all people,” not just for Christians (or Christians of a particular flavor).

5. To secure the moral dignity of each person, acknowledging that obscenity, pornography, and indecency debase our communities, harm our families, and undermine morality and respect. Therefore, we promote enactment and enforcement of laws to protect decency and traditional morality.

This would be a more compelling statement of American values if we didn’t see so much evidence that pornography is widely partaken of throughout America, including among folks who identify as conservative Christians.

So is the LC trying to say “America wants to be saved from itself,” or “We disagree with the majority, but we’ll call it an American value”?

If obscenity, pornography, and indecency were (a) subject to an agreed-upon national standard, and (b) agreed-upon as something bad, then it wouldn’t be an issue.  But there is no national standard (heck, two next-door neighbors may have different views on what’s “indecent”), and it’s clearly not, at some vague level, not consensually agreed upon as wrong.

Everyone (well, nearly everyone, sadly) agrees that hardcore child porn  is wrong.  Some people think the SI Swimsuit Issue is obscene, though most people disagree.  Who gets to decide?

6. To secure the right to own, possess and manage private property without arbitrary interference from government, while acknowledging the necessity of maintaining a proper and balanced care and stewardship of the environment and natural resources for the health and safety of our families.

This clause is as close to a Mom & Apple Pie statement as this Declaration has. I doubt many people couldn’t agree on it … but the devil, of course, is in the details.  What would the LC consider “arbitrary interference”?  What is “proper and balanced” in caring for the environment?  Are new EPA regs on mercury levels in coal power plants right or wrong?  Is protecting a given set of wetlands, even if privately owned, arbitrary or proper? Where’s the balance?

7. To secure the individual right to own, possess, and use firearms as central to the preservation of peace and liberty.

Well, that seems to be ensured at present by the Second Amendment as presently interpreted by the Supreme Court, so, questioning the proposition aside, there doesn’t seem to be much needed to “secure” this.

8. To secure a system of checks and balances between the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches within both state and federal governments, so that no one branch – particularly the judiciary – usurps the authority of the other two, and to maintain the constitutional principles of federalism which divide power between the state and federal governments.

We have a system of checks and balances. The problem is that the Right doesn’t like how it works — i.e., that some judges have ruled against them, overturning particular laws.  Note that the Left is pretty darned unhappy about some court rulings, too — SCOTUS in particular — but I don’t hear anyone there saying that the judiciary needs to be reformed, restrained or ignored.

We also have a federalist system.  The problem is, again, that the Right doesn’t like how the country has grown, such that running a confederation of fifty sovereign nations doesn’t make sense, thus the evolution of recognizing more legal authority to the federal government.

But it would also be useful if the Right (including the LC) were consistent on this.  So, for example, the Right (speaking broadly) loves letting states do what they want to do when they dislike the federal policy … but prefer federal laws when the states aren’t toeing the line they want.  Abortion is a great example of this.

9. To secure our national sovereignty and domestic tranquility by maintaining a strong military; …

How strong is strong?  Nobody’s promoting unilateral disarmament.  Which weapon systems does the LC propose we need?  How many simultaneous wars do we need to be able to fight at any given time?  How does our military spending need to compare to other countries around the world — do we need to spend as much as the next nine top-spending countries, or could we get away with just outspending the next five?

… establishing and maintaining secure national borders; …

Mom & Apple Pie. Nobody disagrees with the principle, just with the implementation details.

… participating in international and diplomatic affairs without ceding authority to foreign powers that diminish or interfere with our unalienable rights;

Which plenty of folks would argue means “that requires us to do anything we don’t really want to do.”

… and being mindful of our history as a nation of immigrants, promoting immigration policies that observe the rule of law and are just, fair, swift, and foster national unity.

On first glance, it’s buzzwords. On second glance, it’s “No illegals!”

10. To secure a system of fair taxes that are not punitive against the institution of marriage or family …

Ah, the old “marriage penalty” thing. It’s amazing, given how punitive that the tax system is against marriage, that so many gays are looking to get married.

… and are not progressive in nature, …

No progressive taxes?  Nice big break for the wealthiest and additional imposition among the least.

Or, put another way, 20% (let’s say) of the income of someone earning $30,000 a year is less in dollars than 20% of the income of someone earning $300,000, but it has a much greater impact on their standard of living, if not economic survival.  That’s the idea of progressive taxation (and doesn’t even get into progressive tax brackets).

Given current polling, I would not say that this declaration is an American value.

… and within a limited government framework, …

I.e., the government shouldn’t be able to tax us more than we want or to pay for stuff we don’t agree with.

… to encourage economic opportunity, free enterprise, and free market competition.

Because government is all about money.

We hereby pledge our Names, our Lives and our Sacred Honor to this Declaration of American Values.

Interestingly enough, the original signers of the Declaration of Independence pledged their Lives, their Fortunes, and their Sacred Honor.  I guess that sounds too much like taxation for the Liberty Counsel.

So, is this a Declaration of American Values (vs. a Declaration of Liberty Counsel Values)?  Well, since the LC are, presumably, American, they are the values of some Americans.  But I’d say that the values presented here (or, rather, the hot button social/political issues presented as values) are of two categories:

  1. Causes so generic that nobody could argue with them in principle (but which LC and the Right’s known interpretations of what they mean by it are, in fact quite arguable).
  2. Causes that this particular American disagrees with.

Sorry, guys.  No declaration of “allegiance” here.

5,434 view(s)  

8 thoughts on “The Liberty Counsel’s “Declaration of American Values””

  1. 3. To secure the fundamental rights of parents to the care, custody, and control of their children regarding their upbringing and education.

    An interesting one — I’d like to know what, specifically, LC is concerned about here. What cases of these “fundamental rights” are in danger such that we need to secure them?

    To make sure that little Muffy and Buffy are not taught anything their parents do nt believe in, as long the parents believe all the things that right thinking parents should believe in. You know, no Science, no Sex Ed, no History that changes perseptions from a godly perspective, you know, the things that Fischer, Barton, Beck and O’Rielly approve of.

    Also, being able to do anything to your children that your bible says, as long as it is the same sort that all other right thinking americans do.

    6. To secure the right to own, possess and manage private property without arbitrary interference from government, while acknowledging the necessity of maintaining a proper and balanced care and stewardship of the environment and natural resources for the health and safety of our families.

    This clause is as close to a Mom & Apple Pie statement as this Declaration has. I doubt many people couldn’t agree on it … but the devil, of course, is in the details. What would the LC consider “arbitrary interference”? What is “proper and balanced” in caring for the environment? Are new EPA regs on mercury levels in coal power plants right or wrong? Is protecting a given set of wetlands, even if privately owned, arbitrary or proper? Where’s the balance?

    It’s the whole “Takings” claptrap shibboleth that the rightwing sociopaths have been going on about for the past 30 years.

    More on the Liberty Counsel.

  2. I have never understood how life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness can be unalienable/inalienable rights when they can be taken away at any time. The government can take away life (through capital punishment or war) as can individuals (through murder), many crimes have penalties that include loss of liberty, and either of the former removes pursuit of happiness, as do laws against things that make some people happy (at least, the laws are supposed to do so; they are really only effective when the aforementioned penalties are applied to those who sought happiness through illegal means).

    As I see it, the only rights we have are those granted by society, and they are far from inalienable.

    1. @Avo – The government, tyrants, bullies, etc., can refuse to respect them, but they remain natural rights just the same. People living in a regime that suppresses political opposition still have a right to speak out freely (liberty), and the government is thus wrong in violating that right (not in “taking it away”).

      Based on LL&tPoH, one could argue for a state of anarchy; Jefferson and his post-Enlightenment cohorts would say that laws are necessary so as to maximize (or coordinate between) competing rights — that taking away life, for example, can only be done through due process and through the fault/actions of the person that require society to take that life so as to protect the lives of others. That does create a big hole and slippery slope, but there you go.

    1. The subject has been brought up. The courts currently handwave it (and “under God” in the pledge, etc.) as “ceremonial theism” — traditional religious expressions that aren’t actually religious any more. The main problem with that, is that some people do very much consider them a religious expression, and use them as proof that the country is, in fact, Christian in nature (“See! It says it on our money!”) and should, in fact, be very offended to be told that those expressions are meaningless ceremonial noises.

  3. Whatever does the RR think of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Have they never been Touched by His Noodly Appendage?

    So, the use of “counsel”. A bit odd, in that attorneys and barristers are addressed that way in court. Why Counsel instead of Council? Just clearly makes them look stupid.

    1. @Marina – They actually are a legal group:

      Liberty Counsel™ is an international nonprofit litigation, education, and policy organization dedicated to advancing religious freedom, the sanctity of life, and the family since 1989, by providing pro bono assistance and representation on these and related topics. With offices in Florida, Virginia, Texas, Washington, D.C., and Jerusalem, Israel, Liberty Counsel has hundreds of advocates around the world.

      Recognized by the IRS as a 501(c)(3) organization, Liberty Counsel is funded by tax-deductable donations from concerned individuals, churches and organizations.

      Liberty Counsel provides pro bono legal assistance in the areas of religious liberty, the sanctity of human life and the family. Liberty Counsel’s Board of Directors has adopted a Christian doctrinal statement, but Liberty Counsel does not limit its services to Christians, as the rights of Christians are affected positively by defending the rights of others.

      So the “counsel” part is correct. Plus it makes them sound more important.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *