one stands alone, the other can't stand without

“The United Sates commenced their existence under circumstances wholly novel and unexampled in the history of nations. They commenced with civilization, with learning, with science, with constitutions of free government, and with that best gift of God to man, the Christian religion.” (Noah Webster)

If one were to apply the chicken and egg argument about words; definitions give words their meaning, not the inverse. But practically speaking, without definitions, words are just … words, right? Once linked, they form sentences, paragraphs, chapters, essays, compendiums, books. And books outside of fiction, are one person’s opinion, either factual, accepted, rejected, somewhere in-between, or as some might even say, philosophical. But when a consensus signs, the words expressed become a statement of validation for what the group believes and stands for: ideology. Except, the ideology must have grounding to pull from, a foundation to judge the premise against. Without, the wording in the statement becomes only words, and the intent, fiction, not truth. No justification, reason, or purpose, a do what one may, not defining.

Although, what happens when word definition dilution, dilutes history? Or vocabulary itself becomes diluted. What if those who penned the material didn’t measure up exactly to the standard they are being judged against? Or the judging standard is an evolution of history of those judged, yet were not regulated by? Or they put forth compromise corresponding to the ideology presented, but were rejected by those unwilling to change principle? Then agenda; the purpose behind redefining, and obfuscating past standards, to pervert intent, thus allowing a multi-illusionary opportunity to redefine past verbiage and actions. When an agenda proposed, opposes what the original writer presented, a crisis of identity can purposely result. The deceptive story of America throughout its history, inclusive of one added crux: today’s party-political desire to change the nation’s past, present and future course, which begs the question - who benefits?

Growing up in the sixties, the peace, love, hate war generation flourished, and a conundrum developed, an evolution of sorts. Rock music, bra burning, open sexuality, civil rights; lightning rods between old and new generations widened national division, albeit nonsensically. And mixed in with the perceived injustice of government: Vietnam! A multi-decade unjust war, despicable in intentional design, which prospered some, but rocked those willing to stand up against a perceived oppressive government. History repeating, only different, yet the same.

And if one considers parallels, a similarity between the American Revolution and the sexual revolution presented; the desire to change what those who railed against wanted transformed. A government bent on war, control, an unwillingness to evolve, desirous of the old guard still being the guard, too involved, too intrusive, and too abusive. An amalgamation of old versus new where intent would either change national outcome or keep a national ill-conceived existing fervor, begging another question – Who’s correct?

Except, historically speaking, before the Constitution was a glimmer of thought in the minds of the nation’s Framer’s, their fate required the successful conclusion of the American Revolution. Yet today, some in the nation propose the earlier actions leading up to and the war itself, acts of terrorism, making evolution and history, a collusion of truth and conceptions based on knowledge, or one’s lack thereof, predisposed to those seeking autarchy (absolute power), a future buyer beware act of terrorism itself:   

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. (Declaration of Independence)

One sentence, I believe, the embodiment of what became the basis for the Constitution of the United States, a consensus of the whole who signed. Both documents written by imperfect men working to design an almost perfect national foundation to build a government upon. The required driver: a moral compass, “that best gift of God to man, the Christian religion.” But in truth, religion is business, whereas God’s gift to man is faith, the belief in an omnipotent Creator. His word, the Bible, what was meant to be the nation’s compass, able to stand on its own, while the Constitution, unable to stand without.

Yet, throughout the centuries, definition dilution, human evolution, augmented with party politics, where equal hands played in the long simmering dilemma facing the nation, one trait was overlooked: integrity. The required other half to character forming a whole, one requiring the other to function fully. Yet, imperfection designs imperfection, hoping to achieve perfection, but as history has shown, unachievable on a human level, the moral compass extant, but ignored.

But, as we judge the nation’s Framer’s for their mistakes and compromises based on our standards, I wonder how they would judge us based on their standards for our mistakes and compromises. History, a cycle of repetition, where it’s not too difficult to compare the sixties to today. Except, if one does, they’d find those who stood against, now repeating what they wanted transformed. Only, this time, their intent is to retain the power they wanted capitulated then. Intent, the motive of agenda, the desire of deception, deceiving those who are willing to surrender what others died to give. So, again:

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. - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed … (Declaration of Independence)

I’ve been told the above is nothing more than a philosophical statement, by a supposed learned individual. If it be the case, then the Constitution, Bible, or any other foundational derived document is nothing more than something proposed for one’s desire to interpret however or reject – philosophical. Only, does one not have to stand for something concrete, believable, intentional?

So, consider: all men are CREATED (born) equal, and equality thus ends, as government cannot give what it doesn’t produce, but can only take, a consumer of money. Additionally, there are rights government cannot give, being UNALIENABLE (not taken away), as one’s Creator ENDOWED (gave) them, not government. Its responsibility: to protect and defend - Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness, supplying an uninhibited path for all to chart their course without causing harm. And thus, government was instituted to ensure the agreement fulfilled by those elected to protect. In the end, it’s not rocket science.