by Tina Grazier
I realize we have bigger fish to fry at the moment with the election pending, however, I also find it worthwhile to call attention to a disturbing pattern. Once again the President leaves a key word out of the text as he quotes from the Declaration of Independence. This is the second time the President has done this in public remarks. It cannot be an unintended error.
The President is touted as a brilliant man, a Constitutional scholar. It’s difficult to imagine that anyone who has studied the Constitution in depth, as it is claimed that he has, has not also studied the Declaration and other founding documents as well. There really is no excuse or reasonable explanation for this horrific blunder. Therefore, I am compelled to ask for the second time why he is doing this. What could possibly be motivating the man? What exactly is his intent?
Here’s the portion of his remarks made to the DSCC (Democrat Senatorial Campaign Committee) that reveal the offensive omission:
Most of us here came from someplace else — or our parents came from someplace else, or our grandparents, our great grandparents came from someplace else. And they were inspired by a particular idea, this idea of America. As wonderful as the land is here in the United States, as much as we have been blessed by the bounty of this magnificent continent that stretches from the Atlantic to the Pacific, what makes this place special is not something physical. It has to do with this idea that was started by 13 colonies that decided to throw off the yoke of an empire, and said, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that each of us are endowed with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
The above quote is excerpted from “Remarks by the President at a DSCC Dinner in Rockville, Maryland – October 18, 2010, 8:03 P.M. EDT”
If the idea started by the 13 colonies was so “special” and if Obama acknowledges this special thing is not something “physical” why not include the exact thing that makes the idea immutable? Why leave the Creator OUT!
The quote should be expressed thusly, “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.”
A few days ago, before a group of legal scholars and students, a candidate for the Senate was derided and laughed at when she dared to suggest that the words “separation of church and state” are not in the Constitution. She was right; the legal scholars were wrong…just as Obama is wrong in leaving the word “Creator” out of the quote from the Declaration of Independence. Yet I haven’t heard similar sneers about our Presidents lapses of intelligence or knowledge about the founding documents. Is that because these lawyers and scholars also choose to leace the Creator out of our founding?
Someone in the media should ask President Obama to answer for this disrespectful, ahem, error. Without a convincing explanation thoughtful Americans can only to conclude that our President believes that governing bodies have the power to grant rights and privileges to citizens…a dangerous road for us to allow him to set foot upon!
The President’s omission is deeply offensive to me and not just because I am a Christian but because, as an American citizen, that word means that no human being living or dead, now or in the future and likewise no governing body of men has the authority to grant me those inalienable rights. This is the precise thing that makes America unique and special!
GOD BLESS AMERICA!
I think I know why. Most of us suspicion this, but dare not say it for fear of being called racist. Doesn’t bother me anymnore, I’ve been called that and worse so here goes:
Now I might be way off base, but I think Obama has a thing against most Christians because they are so often identified as zealots by a Godless far left. They are also seen as mostly conservative….thats bad. They are seen as upper middle class and better…thats even worse. And they are stupid old white people who are clinging to their Bibles and their guns…and that’s really bad! So Obama omits Creator, God and Christian references in speeches whenever possible to appease his leftwing base.
I’m not exactly offended, but I think it’s a very stupid political move for Obama to leave those words out.
Jack, what you said was in no way racist. In fact, I think there is at least a grain of truth to it. The president definitely has some beef with the Christian right in this country. I happen to think this beef is mostly justified. However, I also believe that he is a Christian, just a very secularized one. His omission of “creator” is an attempt to be more inclusive…a noble goal, but when quoting the founders it’s not OK to leave out a phrase that they considered important, even if many feel it’s outdated today. And it certainly doesn’t help the man’s image. A shame, because I feel Obama has done and can continue to do a lot of good for our country. But he really needs to stop putting his foot in his mouth.
Chris: ” His omission of “creator” is an attempt to be more inclusive…a noble goal, but when quoting the founders it’s not OK to leave out a phrase that they considered important, even if many feel it’s outdated today.”
Thank you for your thoughts. I’d like to use the comment to expand our thinking about this a little if I may.
Whether or not you believe in the Judeo Christian God the concept or ideal, that no human has the authority to grant these rights…that only a power higher than any individual or body has that power…is imperative! Without this fundamental truth as a foundation our rights have little meaning! We would return to the big stick theory for determining rights that has been is practiced all over the world.
Chris as you indicated the idea that the concept is “outdated” is already held by many among us. If not they at least have not been taught the significance of these inspired words.
There are some truths, and yes, I believe this is a fundamental truth, that will NEVER become outdated. It’s so important that we get this…and pass it on to future generations!
Tina, not everyone who believes in the idea of “inalienable rights” believes that these rights are granted by a higher being. This belief is consistent with secular humanism, which asserts that the dignity of human life is not dependent on a creator or supernatural authority.
I am not sure I agree with this position or not, and I’m sure you’d find it logically inconsistent. And it doesn’t excuse Obama’s omission–he was speaking of the founders’ beliefs, thus he should have done them justice. I just thought it might be food for thought.
Thanks Chris, That’s food I’ve chewed on before…LOL
I always come back to the same problem: The “dignity of human life” may not be dependent on a creator in some minds but that does not address an authority that is above question. The courts, the Congress, the UN, and religious leaders are made of other humans subject to the follies of whim, ego, and the desire for control and power. A higher power, on the other hand, however you wish to define it, cannot be argued with by any human, regardless his level of worldly or ethical stature. The word creator was chosen exactly for that purpose!
I call it brilliant at best and in my heart a miracle of man’s (God given) capacity for genius!
Thank you Chris I am always pleased when we can agree.
Good conversation…
I don’t see how human life can have intrinsic value without the existence of a higher being…
Secular Humanism has never been able to adequately answer this question either.
The problem seems to come when one tries to posit a morale law without a morale law giver.
Thoughts?
Hey Nick…good to hear from you on this.
“The problem seems to come when one tries to posit a morale law without a morale law giver.”
Exactly! But the problem doesn’t exist for humanists simply because they consider the “self” as the center of the universe. Many are so obsorbed in personal experience that the universe does not exist unless they are observing it…lol. Others are certain that superior beings from another universe or planet will enlighten us…those with the secular brains to understand…once we finally make contact. What it amounts to in the end is a creed that asserts, no one can tell me what to do! That way I can make the rules up as I go along and avoid responsibility when things get uncomfortable.
I doubt if this is where you were hoping to go but it is certainly where discussions eventually lead.
No I get that… the problem is when they attempt to use an objective standard. The fact that they will even attempt to provide an alternative outside of a supreme being is an admission of defeat as atheism cant even make sense of induction much less morality.
Technically without a supreme being, and I would argue that with out the Christian God, they cant make sense of their argument for alternatives. At least I haven’t met someone that can do so so far.
As soon as they claim that the “self” is the center of the universe you ask them is that statement “true”…if they say yes, you ask them how they know…if they say no, then why listen to them…if they say it is true “for them” you ask if that is also a true statement.
The more they attempt to argue away from the law of non contradiction the bigger a mess they find themselves in.
The next easiest test being to see if they actually live according to the relativist philosophy they preach. Which of course they dont.
Neither argument really makes sense to our limited human brains.
If all morality comes from a higher being, then morality is subject to that being’s whim. All morality is therefore based on an appeal to authority. “It’s wrong because God said so.” This is a clear logical fallacy.
If morality exists regardless of the higher being…well, then where does it come from?
It’s similar to the Big Bang/Intelligent Design debate. You have to either accept that something came out of nothing, or that God has been there for all eternity. I’ve heard the “watchmaker” defense before: life is too complex to not have been created. But then that must make God really complex, so who created God?
Like I said, neither one has a completely rational basis. Our minds can’t fully wrap around either theory. Sometimes I think about the concepts of living forever vs. dying and having no consciousness forever, and I can’t figure out which one confounds and terrifies me more.
Interesting subject, but it gives me a headache.
—“Neither argument really makes sense to our limited human brains.”
Is that a true statement?
—“If all morality comes from a higher being, then morality is subject to that being’s whim. All morality is therefore based on an appeal to authority. “It’s wrong because God said so.” This is a clear logical fallacy.”
This is a false dilemma, also a logical fallacy. Morality being “subject to whim” is a declaration not a proof. This argument suggests that morality is merely a momentary divine preference as opposed to a permanent fixture of the divines personality. Either way I dont see how it would make the atheists argument any stronger. In the scenario of a whimsical divinity morality may change but it could still be objectively applied. The atheist offers only subjectivisim and relativism which can offer no foundation for objective morale laws.
—“Like I said, neither one has a completely rational basis. Our minds can’t fully wrap around either theory.”
Is this a true statement? If so from what objective standard do you appeal to justify it? You seem to be affirming a negative in the absolute which is self defeating.
I agree that we all have presuppositions that we begin with, but these presuppositions can be tested. You seem to be implying that only the empirically verifiable can be believed absolutely, is this the case or am I misreading you. I also think there is a difference between rationality and empirical verifiability, do you make a distinction between the two?
In case it isn’t clear, I’m not trying to be smug or condescending. I hate it when writing comes off like that when it is not intended, so I am caveatting with this.
Thanks,
Chris the discussion began with the President omitting “creator” when reciting that portion of the Declaration that states our rights are given by the creator. Like it or not the nations founding was based on that assertion. The importance of making this distinction has to do with our rights, not our laws. The point being that the King of England did not have the authority to decide for the colonists on matters concerning life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
These rights are not derived from human thought and so therefore cannot be whimsically toyed with or taken away by kings, generals, dictators or potentates. This distinction is fundamental and if we value our republic we had better become clear as to it’s meaning…and teach it to future generations.
Our laws, on the other hand do derive from the governed. We send representatives to congress and elect a President for this purpose.
Our judiciary are supposed to act as a watchdog to make certain that laws written at the whim of men do not undermine or conflict with the Constitution. We have failed to understand this, and the importance of it, as well.
Finally, the creator is all knowing and therefore not subject to whim. You have ascribed human characteristics to an all knowing entity, a common human error.
I agree Tina.
I think the push of morale and cultural relativism is incredibly damaging to our republican form of government.
There is this false notion that one can stand on neutral moral ground. It just isnt so.
There is also this notion that one shouldn’t let their religious views affect their political decisions…but how is this possible. Everyone necessarily bases their decisions on everything first and foremost off of their views on religion.
I think this president is uncomfortable with the view that there are some rights that are not subject to his whim.
“I think this president is uncomfortable with the view that there are some rights that are not subject to his whim.”
LOL Nick…he being THE ONE!
Peer pressure seems to be having a positive effect throughout the land. I pray we have time to recover completely! It will take a strong commitment over an extended period.
Hey…has anyone thanked you lately for your service? Don’t know exactly what you are up to these days but appreciate what you have done.
I think about our guys with their butts on the line a lot these days…and pray. It’s hard to know what to support since the mission isn’t articulated strongly but I hope the troops know we still love and support them.
Im out now…a civilian…:(…lol
It would be nice for our troops to have a clearly defined mission.
I really dont think Afghanistan is a place we should dedicate the kind of time and resources we did to Iraq, but there are options and I think it is definitely in our interest to leave on our terms.
And you gave the Army on heck of a run for their money, air assualt, 82nd ABN, Ranger, Special Forces…few will ever match that. Given your leadership, political savy and speaking ability, you’re a real good pick for President some day and I’m not joking. Get your BA, MA at George Town while you can.