Category Archives: Patriotism

Thoughts on Freedom of Speech: The Right to Disagree

Posted on by Karen Stark
Reply

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.

Amendment 1

After posting something once, I was told “Not everyone agrees with you.” If the only reason to post on social media is to get lots of Likes, I guess we should just limit posts to things everyone agrees with like pictures of beautiful scenery, flowers, food, and pets. (Even though it might be surprising to know that not everyone agrees that cats are wonderful.)

Expressing an opinion about something is rather risky these days. Unless we are all so secure within our own echo chambers preaching to the choir, there will be people who will disagree with almost anything we might say. With the country so polarized, too often others disagree loudly and not very nicely. It can be tough to hear criticisms, accusations and negative labels.

Foundations of Freedom of Speech

Have Americans forgotten, or have too many not been taught, that the founding of our country and government was accomplished with much disagreement? Those great men who spent a hot summer writing our Constitution disagreed, constantly and strongly, about almost everything. That amazing document is the result of heated debate and compromise. Even after it was written, the debates and disagreement continued through the ratification process and beyond.

The founders realized that all needed to have a voice. That right was included in the Bill of Rights. Free Speech is a protection of the minority. The right to speak up and be heard enables minorities to let those in power know that not everyone agrees with what they do. It is a check on their power. Citizens are more likely to accept legislation that they do not agree with if they are allowed a voice in the process. We all need to feel protected from retaliation for expressing criticism of government policy or action or simply stating an unpopular opinion.

I do take exception to personal attacks. I doubt the framers’ intent was to condone labeling, name calling, insulting, or condemning others, though the framers themselves flung a fair share of creative insults at each other. The sad reality is that such personal attacks are used most often by those attempting to silence others and deprive them of this constitutional right.

Non-Governmental Censors

The First Amendment restrains the government from restricting free speech, but we now see organizations and those wielding social influence exercising power to silence voices contrary to their preferred narratives. We have social media censorship, not to shield citizens from that which is profane or obscene, but from that which is not politically correct or the preferred position.

Sadly today we see people losing their reputations and often their livelihood because they said something contrary to the accepted narrative. The label of “hateful” is thrown about to silence and condemn those who disagree. This only results in more polarization and bad feelings.

From Social to Governmental?

The First Amendment constrains the government from silencing citizens through laws, but private corporations have some ability to be selective in what they allow on their platforms. That might not be a problem if they were unbiased, and allowed various views which adhered to established standards. It might not be a serious problem if they were clear and upfront about their actual bias, while still allowing contrasting views. It becomes a serious problem when contrary views are not allowed at all.

What is really alarming is the thought that if the political party whose positions media is biased toward, gains full control of the government. Will that in effect become government control of speech through complicit media? Laws restricting speech would not be necessary with social media monopolies allowing only the messages that one party wants to be heard.

A Challenge

If you are brave enough to listen to voices you disagree with, you might find that your disagreement is not so much with the ideas or principles as it is with the expression of them. You might even find some common ground, something within the argument that you can agree with. You might actually gain some insight into a different perspective or an aspect of an issue that you were unaware of. You might begin to understand where someone else is coming from, why they happen to see things the way they do. It is very likely that you may still disagree, but there is hope that you might see their position as legitimate and view them as a person with value.

So I claim my right to speak my mind. I acknowledge the right of everyone else to do the same and to openly disagree with me. That is Okay. It is possible to disagree and still respect each other as people.

Celebrating Independence

Posted on by Karen Stark
Reply

As we celebrated Independence Day this year, I reflected on independence and why it is worth celebrating. Of course, on July 4th we celebrate the independence of a small group of colonies from the rule of their mother country and King. But it was the independent spirit of those colonists that led them to seek that political and institutional independence. An independent nation could not have been born without that spirit of independence.

Independent Roots

The roots of independence started with those brave souls who ventured across a vast ocean to settle a foreign wilderness. Though subjects of Kings, they had no assistance from the physically distant crown to ensure their survival. They learned that their survival depended upon their own self-sufficiency and actions for which they were personally responsible.

Forming communities required working together. Being so far removed from the mother country, they learned to govern themselves by necessity. It was quite some time before armies were provided for their defense, and the cost of such defense proved to be more than they were willing to bear. Their desire for self-determination and freedom outweighed the dangers that would be faced.

As things developed, leaders naturally sprung up from the masses, based on the strength of their characters, not appointed from above because of noble birth or the favor of Kings. It is because of this strength, courage and spirit, that independence from Britain seemed necessary and worth the long hard struggle.

Independent Individuals

At the heart of an independent nation are independent individuals. Independence implies a dependence on self rather than dependence on others or external conditions. It involves self-reliance and self-sufficiency – the ability to use resources, talents and abilities to meet one’s own needs. It includes a desire for self-determination, using agency to choose how to go about meeting those needs and how to personally pursue happiness. This is true liberty.

Accountable Independence

The exercise of liberty includes accountability. There are consequences of choices. Truly independent people take responsibility for the outcome of their choices, good or bad. Blaming implies dependence – someone or something else had control, we are powerless against whatever forces. Independent people not only take responsibility for the outcome of choices, but also take responsibility to correct errors and improve. Feelings of entitlement, expecting guarantees or wanting someone to step in and make everything right are signs of dependence.

Accountability raises the question of accountability to whom. Some may think independence means that one is only accountable to self. Yet, we live in a society. Are we accountable to each other? If so, does this place some in a position of control over others, creating dependence? Are we accountable to government? What does that mean in terms of our liberty and independence?

If we recognize the source of our inalienable rights and the resources, talents and abilities that we independently choose to use to meet needs, improve lives and be happy, then we will recognize that we are ultimately accountable to God. We will recognize the divine author of liberty and see in our independence as individual citizens our actual dependence upon God.

Independent Thought

Independent people think for themselves. In the formative days of our nation there was much more variety in viewpoints and perspectives than we might realize. There was no single official viewpoint or narrative that citizens were compelled to believe. Newspapers printed vastly different opinions and views of events. There were heated arguments in government and public gatherings.

Independent thinking people put in the effort to read and listen to various viewpoints and then come to their own conclusions. Freedom of speech was included in our Bill of Rights so that everyone could be heard, but it requires individual consideration of all perspectives to maintain real independence of thought.

Risks of Life and Liberty

Posted on by Karen Stark
Reply

I have observed through this year of Pandemic vastly different, even almost opposing, reactions and approaches to it. These have been so different that one might think we aren’t all dealing with the same thing. I read an article that examined these differences in terms of risk-aversion. As I read that article a thought came to me – If our forefathers had been as risk-averse as many of our citizens and leaders are today, we would have no United States of America.

A Risky Founding

The United States of America was formed at great risk. Let’s start at the beginning. How risky was it for people to take their families on board small ships and sail across a vast ocean? Unpredictable storms brought the risk of the ship sinking and all being lost. There were individual dangers too, mostly from illnesses that spread easily among close quarters. Stepping onto a ship in those days was very risky.

Surviving those risks of sea travel, these colonists set out to make homes in a totally foreign place. They had to find and grow food in unfamiliar settings to stave off the risk of starvation. There were risks from wild animals, unknown and unpredictable Natives, unfamiliar climates, and diseases. The fact that roughly half of the Mayflower passengers didn’t survive the first year here illustrates the severity of those risks. The risks didn’t diminish much as this new land became more settled, especially when settlers continually moved from established settlements to start new ones in the frontier.

The risk-adverse would have stayed in their known and predictable homes in Europe. They may have felt some security in the familiarity, but they were still subject to the many risks of life in that day.

After years of some prosperity here and possibly some risk-management as they learned and adapted, there came the issue of independence. The risk-averse would have not been willing to rock the boat. They would have accepted restrictions and oppression for the security of the Crown and remained second-class subjects. Some did. Even those risk-averse Loyalists became subject to the risk that they could come out on the losing side of the conflict.

Why were our founding fathers – and mothers – willing to risk their “lives, fortunes and sacred honor”? Why did they risk standing up to the greatest military power on the earth at the time?

Weighing Risks and Benefits

When it comes to risk there are always options to be weighed. Of course, some risks are taken out of stupidity, like the impulsiveness of youth not thinking through consequences, or being easily influenced by others. Most risks are taken, however, because something else is more important or because the consequences of inaction pose a greater risk than the action. It is often a matter of priorities.

For our forefathers the more important issue was liberty. It was worth the risk of everything else, as Patriot Patrick Henry said, “Give me liberty or give me death”.

The risk-averse want guarantees – benefits without risk. Yet, there are inherent risks to life itself. Death is unavoidable and inevitable. Things happen that are outside human control. Managing risks really only effects the manner and timing of our individual deaths. Efforts to minimize risks can effect our quality of life – the amount of suffering or prosperity along the way. Too often, trying to eliminate one risk, just presents another. The question is then, which is the greater risk or which outcome is the most important.

Questions

Is preserving liberty worth a risk of life? When is the risk to life great enough to restrict liberty and how much? Such decisions vary according to individual priorities and perspectives, as we have seen in the approaches to this pandemic.

How would our forefathers judge today’s risk-aversion? Living amid every day dangers that they did, would they see our fearful avoidance as silly? Would they see contradictions in a society that celebrates risky extreme sports, yet fears simple human interactions?

After their sacrifices to secure our liberties, what would our founders think of our reluctance to risk losses or unpopularity (being cancelled) for exercising our right to act independently or speak our minds? Would they wonder to what extent our freedoms must be threatened before we would be willing to take the kind of risks that they did to establish and preserve them?

God Bless America!

Posted on by Karen Stark
Reply
God Bless America

God Bless America! Is a familiar refrain. How often have we heard these words at the conclusion of public addresses. Has it become so common that we pay no more mind than it being a signal that the speech has finally come to an end? How much thought do we give to those words and the meaning behind them?

Remember

God played an central part in the formation of this Country. Any serious study of the American Revolution will leave one baffled that a rag-tag army of farmers and merchants managed to defeat the greatest military power in the world. Was it chance or luck? Was it because of superior intellect and skills among the colonists? Or is it obvious, as it is to me, that “God shed His grace” on them? They sought and recognized the hand of God in the events of that day. How could flawed mortal men begin to form a more perfect union without the guidance of a perfect God?

Putting God First

How arrogant to think that all of our prosperity is due to our own superiority, and our protection because of our great strength. Today we have those eager to point out faults and failings of those in our past, as if they would have done everything right in their place. We even have those who set themselves up as their own god, preaching “my truth” over His truths, and condemning those who don’t agree with them.

Tolerance and acceptance are preached as supreme virtues. As important as love of neighbor is, we need to put the First Commandment first as was intended – “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind” (Matthew 22:37). We need to put God before all of the causes about which we are passionate and which too often divide us.

“If ye keep my commandments, ye shall prosper in the land” (2 Nephi 1:20) is still in force. We need to return to acknowledging and then keeping God’s commandments above those woke social justice rules which have been replacing them. If we internalize and conform to God’s commandments, there is little need for silly social rules. If people are truly good and motivated by love of God, they will love others and treat them well.

The Ways of God

If one knows a little about God and how God works among men, then it is easy to see in hindsight the upward progression of those who turn to God for assistance. God tends to work incrementally with his children, giving them “line upon line” and “precept upon precept” according to what they can understand and deal with at the time.

. . . by small and simple things are great things brought to pass; and small means in many instances doth confound the wise. And the Lord God doth work by means to bring about his great and eternal purposes; and by very small means the Lord doth confound the wise . . .

Amla 37:6-7

It is not surprising then, that the Constitution of the United States did not solve every social problem. Steps were required before people were ready for the abolition of slavery, just as small steps had lead the colonists to be prepared to declare independence from Great Britain.

It is not so much that God does not want us to have all freedoms and blessings immediately, as it is that men and women must be prepared to appreciate and use those freedoms and gifts. He allows us to struggle to learn, grow, and work together, blessing our efforts along the way, until we can look back and see that small things have worked together to become something great. Progress is cumulative, building upon small efforts to do good with God’s help.

“Wherefore, be not weary in well-doing, for ye are laying the foundation of a great work. And out of small things proceedeth that which is great”

D & C 64:33

Patriotic Americans and great leaders have repeatedly pled “God Bless America”. It is a prayer that should be on all our lips for we need God’s blessings and grace now more than ever.

An Experiment in Democracy

Posted on by Karen Stark
Reply

I am very concerned about the future of our country, perhaps more so than some because I am aware of some parallels to past events in other civilizations and the outcome of those.

An Ancient Experiment in Democracy

There was at one time an ancient society which started an experiment in democracy – a rule of Judges chosen by a vote of the people. Within a few short years, there was a movement to return to a monarchy. One group wanted a King, or more particularly a man wanted to be King and had gained the support of others.

There had been Kings in their past, some good, and one in particular who was very bad. He ruled autocratically and tyrannically, glutted on the labors of his people with he and his favored few living riotously, while the masses suffered. Lessons from that experience had influenced one wise King to set up this system of Judges when his own sons refused to take the throne.

With this first attempt to re-establish a King, the matter was put to a vote of the people. The majority voted against having a King. Those who wanted a King, rather than accept this democratic resolution, made this man their King anyway, and the matter was finally resolved militarily through a civil war. Those who wanted a King were defeated, but enough of them remained, and they continued to cause difficulties by forming an alliance with their enemy. (Alma 1-3)

Later during a time of war with their great enemy, another movement of King-Men actually took over the seat of government, sending the Chief Judge into exile. This attempt to overthrow democracy was also put down militarily at great cost. (Alma 61-62)

But it was not these movements to install Kings that brought the eventual downfall of this democratic experiment, though that brought much blood-shed and suffering. The destruction began with secret conspiracies which eventually infiltrated the government. Chief Judges were murdered as others conspired to take power, and those in power became more corrupt.

“For as their laws and their governments were established by the voice of the people, and they who chose evil were more numerous than they who chose good, therefore they were ripening for destruction, for the laws had become corrupted.”

Helaman 5:2

The situation with these corrupt leaders was described as:

“Condemning the righteous because of their righteousness; letting the guilty and the wicked go unpunished because of their money; and moreover to be held in office at the head of government, to rule and do according to their wills, that they might get gain and glory of the world, and, moreover, that they might the more easily commit adultery, and steal, and kill, and do according to their own wills”

Helaman 7:5

Eventually this government did fall apart.

The American Experiment

The American Revolution began as an attempt to become free from a monarchy and establish a government based on principles of liberty. I believe there was divine intervention in the ability of these early patriots to win their freedom from such a powerful empire. The process of forming a government was not easy. Even after a Constitution was written and approved and the government began to function, there were still problems. Some wanted our first President George Washington to serve for life, thus returning to kind of a monarchy.

It was not many years into this Republic that we were again at war with Great Britain, fighting again for our freedom. There were conspiracies and conflicts. Then less than a century after our founding, some states seceded from the Union and we had a horrible civil war.

Our Republic has survived for almost 250 years, much longer than this earlier government did. It is very disturbing however, to see history repeating itself. There were many opportunities for these people to turn things around. It always was centered on a return to God. When they focused on God and kept His commandments, they prospered and enjoyed peace. When they turned from God, they destroyed themselves. There are lessons here for us.

Has Patriotism Become Partisan?

Posted on by Karen Stark
Reply

Four years ago I joined a patriotic lineage society. One of the main purposes of this organization is to promote patriotism. We, as a group, are proud of our heritage: we descend from patriots who championed the cause of freedom and fought for our independence from Great Britian. We share a belief that their sacrifices and struggles not only broke bands of tyrany, but established a government designed to recognize, promote, and protect freedom and God-given human rights.

Those who have studied history and the lives of our founding fathers and other patriots, are well aware that they were imperfect human beings. The fact that they were able to accomplish what they did in spite of those faults and frailties makes the resulting Nation all the more remarkable.

A study of history also makes it apparent that there has been much discussion, dispute, and disagreement concerning the details of government. But differing perspectives, priorities and approaches did not alter the fact that all were Americans. Americans have stood united by principles, ideals and a common history. Together we have sung and felt “Proud to be an American.”

People from other countries have recognized that there is something exceptional about the United States of America. It has been a beacon of freedom to the world. Immigrants have flocked here seeking refuge, freedom, and economic opportunities lacking in their homelands. Other countries have modeled governments after ours, hoping for the kind of prosperity we have enjoyed.

Yet, today we have Americans who seem ashamed of our Country, reject our heroes, seek to destroy our history, and even dismantle the whole system. Affirming the greatness of our Nation somehow seems to place one on what others claim as the wrong side of a great divide. Has patriotism become partisan?

A Plea, and a Dilemma

Please show me that there are Americans of both political parties who love America, cherish our freedoms and are proud of our heritage. I want to believe that those who speak hatred for our country are a small, though loud, faction. How wonderful it would be to hear all Americans unite in proclaiming the affirmations William Tyler Page wrote in The American’s Creed:

I, therefore, believe it is my duty to my country to love it; to support its constitution; to objey its laws; to respect its flag; and defend it against all enemies.

The American’s Creed – William Tyler Page

My dilemma is that the patriotic society I belong to is also non-political and non-partisan. I don’t want to be left wondering how to promote patriotism and share my love of country without appearing partisan. For over one hundred years this has not been a problem, and never should be.

A More Perfect Union

Posted on by Karen Stark
Reply

The framers of the Constitution stated their intent to establish “a more perfect union.” I recently heard Stephen Fried, author of a wonderful biography of Benjamin Rush, say those words with the emphasis on “more.”

A truly perfect union could only be possible with perfect people. Unfortunately people are not perfect, and governments created by people are not perfect either, especially a union of states with conflicting, interests, lifestyles, and cultures. Striving for unattainable perfection, the founders realized all they could do was establish a union better than that which they had before.

Prior to this Constitution being written, the new “United States” were functioning under Articles of Confederation. Many had come to see the flaws and imperfections with that system. They had just revolted from a Monarchy and were painfully aware of the problems with that system of government. Having an opportunity to start fresh, they put much thought, discussion and effort into framing a government that would be as “perfect” as man could conceive and execute.

Unity Around Principles

Unity among diversity is possible not by somehow making all the same, or forcing conformity to a specific set of actions. It is only possible by unifying around commonly accepted principles, ideals, and values. There may still be much disagreement about the “how”, the specific practices and processes in working toward those ideals. But keeping those principles and values always in mind keeps unity forefront as a goal.

I think it is important to remember, and I think the framers of the constitution realized this, that it would be impossible to form a government anywhere near “perfect” without assistance from a perfect God. With that in mind, the principles upon which a government is founded should align with eternal, God-given principles to be as perfect as possible.

John Adams, in a letter to Benjamin Rush in 1805 stated:

“Is virtue the principle of our Government? Is honor? Or is ambition and avarice adulation, baseness, covetousness, the thirst of riches, indifference concerning the means of rising and enriching, the contempt of principle, the Spirit of party and of faction, the motive and the principle that governs? These are serious and dangerous questions; but serious men ought not to flinch from dangerous questions.”

Quoted in Rush: Revolution, Madness and Benjamin Rush, the Visionary Doctor Who Became a Founding Father, by Stephen Fried

Remember

I hear the judgement of “divisive” being thrown out much these days and specifically after a reaffirmation of those principles under which our country was united. How is remembering the values and ideals held dear and fought for by our founders and defended by courageous people again and again divisive?

We have a shared history as Americans. Remembering that history should unite us. Sure, the remembering of history needs to include diverse voices, but that should add to history, making it more complete. Including many voices should expand understanding and unity. Attempts to erase history or rewrite it to please a few can never be unifying, for it seeks to discredit and forget too many others and their sacrifices for all.

Remembering our history and the sacrifices of previous generations should fill us with gratitude. People in other nations look to us and our government as an ideal. They see in our government a “more perfect union” than what exists in their countries. We as such blessed, favored and privileged citizens should be proud to be Americans.

The American Dream is reaching upward and forward, striving individually and collectively toward perfection. Of course we face problems, but the solutions should move us upward, not backward. Why would we want our union to be “less perfect” – to lessen it in any way through divisiveness?

We are all Americans! We should stand united behind our government, as imperfect as it still is, while striving to continue to perfect it. We should stand united by our shared history, for it is the legacy we have been given. We should stand united around the principles of freedom, equality, justice and humanity and respect the symbols which represent them. We should be united as Americans!

Thoughts on Freedom of Assembly

Posted on by Karen Stark
Reply

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.

Ammendment 1

Through experiences of the past months, I am seeing that there is something profoundly valuable about being able to assemble as a group of people with a common purpose. Though business can and has been conducted remotely, there are added benefits to gathering together–feelings of unity, bonds, and synergy, that are lacking in the virtual world.

I remember back some decades to my time as a social worker. I observed that dysfunctional, and especially abusive families, were often isolated. This is largely due to efforts by abusers to maintain power and control. There are the obvious dangers of a lack of a support system or the ability to seek help, but there is another less obvious danger–isolation.

Isolation deprives us of needed reality checks. It is the casual observations and exchanges with others that give us our sense of what is normal. They give us opportunities to question our perceptions when they are different from others. We see common feelings and ideas and relate to shared experiences. Without these outside interactions, abused spouses and children come to see their restricted, abusive world as normal. Fears of outside dangers become magnified when interpreted only through the abuser.

After months now of social isolation and the absence of many of our routine group activities, the few and rather small gatherings of late have given me an unexpected emotional boost, almost like a cold drink after a long hot day makes me realize how thirsty I was. It feels wonderful! It brings back a feeling of normal. I suddenly have again a chance to feel validation for my thoughts and feelings through hearing others share theirs, with emotion conveyed as it only can be in person. An emoji can never convey what a smile, slightly raised eyebrow, or the hint of a tear in an eye can.

Humans are social beings. We need to be with each other. This is how it is supposed to be. There is great wisdom in the Founders recognizing and protecting the inherent rights of citizens to assemble for various peaceful purposes. Probably the most important purpose being to gather for the free exercise of religion. My soul is starved for that interaction now.

Division and fears are magnified when we are kept apart. Through isolation, governments can too easily exercise excessive power and control and in the process deprive us of those experiences which reinforce our shared humanity and foster unity. I hope this is a lesson from this experience that we do not forget.

Governing Through Principles

Posted on by Karen Stark
1

“I teach them correct principles and they govern themselves.”

Joseph Smith.

This statement was given by Joseph Smith as an answer to a question about how he governed the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I think it is very applicable to a secular “government of the people, by the people, and for the people.” I have reflected on this statement as I have become very concerned about what is happening in our country during this time of crisis.

Founding Principles

The principles which should guide all actions by our government are outlined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. Correct principles also include principles such as those in the 10 Commandments. People should treat others with respect and kindness, as they would want to be treated. Life is sacred and should be protected. Self-direction and self-reliance are sound and valued principles.
At times of crisis like this we see situations where some needs become urgent and some principles take precedence over others. The challenge of meeting urgent needs while maintaining rights according to those principles is a role of government.

Principles in the constitution affirm individual rights of liberty, exhibited in the opportunity to travel, to engage in business, to participate in activities of our choice. The Bill of Rights specifically spell out rights to assemble and to practice religion. People need to be able to work and provide for themselves and their families. They have need of goods and services to preserve life. Generally, government should not interfere with these rights. This is a basic principle of the Constitution.

Yet, government has responsibility to keep its citizens safe, to provide defense against that which would cause harm and endanger life. There may be times when the suspension of individual rights may be necessary in order to protect us, but those situations should be very rare and action taken with great caution. The reason for caution is human nature and the tendency among those with power to exercise “unrighteous dominion.” When people in power seek more power, they put themselves and their wisdom above others and use power to order actions and suspend individual rights. If successful in a crisis, there is not much to stop this from occurring without a crisis, with orders being self-serving, rather than for public good.

Maintaining Balance Through Mutual Trust

Maintaining a balance between preserving inherent and constitutional rights and providing protection can be complicated. Mutual trust is vital, yet sadly lacking today.

Allowing citizens to “govern themselves” requires that government trusts them to do the right things. It includes an assumption that the majority of citizens are morally upright, good people, who want to do good. When good, intelligent people are given accurate and sound information they generally will make choices to benefit all, even when those choices might limit their own freedom to do what they want.

If government trusts their citizens, they need only provide clear, accurate information and make recommendations for action. Then citizens can freely, with their own agency intact, act to make things better or at least not worse.Sure, there will always be those who are not trustworthy, who will selfishly do stupid things that endanger others. They are the ones laws are written for anyway. But to impose orders and threaten penalties upon law abiding citizens shows a dangerous lack of trust.

Trust of the government by the people is also necessary. Governments are mandated to educate their citizens, and that education should include the teaching of correct principles–not only the principles underlying our government, but correct principles about science, history, and human nature.

Teach Correct Principles

Besides being well educated, citizens need to be well informed about current situations in order to be able to use their agency to make wise decisions. This is where a thorough and impartial media is critical. We should be able to trust the media to give us accurate and unbiased information. I see a lack of trust today in both directions.

Public education has been influenced by those who would promote certain agendas over teaching truth. Education about the history of this country is no longer a priority, so we are lacking in understanding about those founding principles and the sacrifices made by those in the past to secure the freedoms we enjoy. Moral education, which early in this country was a significant part of education, has been dismissed as unfairly promoting religion. The ability to regurgitate facts through tests is now preferred to teaching students how to think and reason. What we have now are many citizens blindly following the teachings and direction of whatever factions they trust and suspicious of all other sources.

Back to Trust

Which leads back to trust in the other direction. By creating an educational system which lacks moral training, we have citizens lacking in moral judgment, and a government which does not trust them to make wise choices in a crisis. Add to that people in government more concerned about power than the welfare of citizens issuing orders that restrict individual freedom, which increases distrust of government.

I hope we come out of this crisis with our freedom intact and a greater appreciation of that liberty.

Self-Determination

Posted on by Karen Stark
Reply

Self-Determination Starts Early

During the past few months of living with my now 18 month old granddaughter, I have been reminded of the innate human drive toward self-determination. Even at a very young age, little humans show individual will and a desire to do what they want. As soon as they have some mobility they will move toward an object that they desire. As small motor skills develop they grasp and manipulate objects to explore them. They want to go where they want and do what they want.

One large drawback for this is the lack of ability to communicate what one wants. One of the first, and probably most used word for children is “no”. Though they might not be able to articulate what exactly they want, they are able to let you know exactly what they do not want.

“No” is also used frequently toward children as they seek after what they want. Parents have a challenging role to provide an environment for children to learn and develop while keeping them safe from danger. Some are better than others at balancing this. There are parents who provide more than needed direction and restriction in the name of protection.

Maintaining Balance through Trust

Key to maintaining a good relationship through this balancing act is trust. If children feel loved and secure they learn to trust that their parents want what is best for them. Parents and others can try to teach children about dangers and how to avoid them, but sometimes the best teacher is experience. Unfortunately, over-protection often deprives children of such experiences. There are always some children more inclined to be obedient who might become overly dependent. And others more independent might resist restrictions and become rebellious.

Self-Determination Applied to Government

The founders of the United States of America recognized the human need for self-determination. They saw monarchy and the systems of the old world as working against that. In forming a government “of the people, by the people and for the people” they realized the value of individuals and the importance of individual rights. Many resisted ratifying the new Constitution because of the lack of a Bill of Rights. Why was this so important? They wanted to make sure that governmental powers were limited and preserved the rights of individual citizens toward self-determination.

Government also has a stated role to provide protection to citizens from threats and defense from attacks. This requires a balance not unlike the parental balance between encouraging development while protecting. There may be times when safety would require limiting individual freedom to do certain things. This is the argument given at the present time regarding this pandemic. Yet, there are others pointing out the dangers of increased government control.

Trust in Government

If the underlying condition with parenting is trust, then it would seem that trust of government would be essential for citizens to accept restrictions in the name of safety. But government is really people. We have elected officials who are supposed to act in the public interest, but too often act according to the own self-interest. We have officials who seem to thrive on excessive use of power. Just because someone has been elected to an office, does not mean that they have superior intelligence or knowledge and know best what to do. Yes, they often rely on “experts” for information, but do these experts also have other motives?

Our constitution allows for the people to vote to remove from office those who they feel are not representing them and their interests. Unfortunately a huge bureaucracy consisting of officials, not elected by or accountable to the people, is in the position of making and enforcing regulations.

Once power is used to limit individual freedoms, even in the face of a real threat, it can become easier for those in power to see other “threats” warranting further limits of freedom. Over-controlling government, just like over-protective parents, can restrict growth and foster dependence, especially among those inclined to be trusting and obedient. But it also can provoke those inclined toward independence and lacking trust in government to the point of rebellion.

Maintaining Balance

The federal government is furthest removed from the people and much less in tune with the diverse situations in various parts of the country. It would make sense that elected officials on the most local levels would know best their own constituents and their situation and needs. They would seem more receptive to input from their neighbors about what is needed. It is easier for constituents to communicate directly with them and be more involved. This is one reason the founders created a Republic and left certain rights with States.

Though we are experiencing something dangerous today, I think it important to keep in mind the possibly greater danger to our freedoms by extreme restrictions imposed by government. The survival of individual citizens is of course important, but so too is the survival of our freedoms and form of government.