Volume 7, Issue 39
Each is in crisis today.
These three democracies are more than just examples for the custody of human dignity. They are the three governments from which all other sovereign democratic governments emanate. All three perfected their vision, sacrificed with their blood and led forth with compassion, the concept that government is limited in the rights of man in the sight of God.
The most basic premise that citizens have rights in concert with the king’s power was first set out in the Magna Carta of 1215. The first statement in the great charter, following the salutations to King John, the Lords, Dukes, Counts, religious leaders, sheriffs, and loyal subjects, is “KNOW THAT BEFORE GOD, for the health of our soul and those of our ancestors and heirs, to the honor of God, the exaltation of the holy Church, and the better ordering of our kingdom…” Following this introduction are sixty-three statements of principles and rights of man. Among these were the right to a trial by a jury of one’s peers. And, any individual’s property confiscated must be compensated for by the Crown.
Later, within a few weeks, Pope Innocent III, declared the Magna Carta invalid. Yet the document lived on and became a basis for English law. The truth always supports its own lifeblood. It simply needs to be recognized to exist eternally. Governments have tried to distort, destroy, manipulate, and disregard the basic tenets of the Magna Carta to no avail.
The words of the Magna Carta provided inspiration for the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.
In the Declaration of Independence,
“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.”
The United States further defined liberty and freedom as independent from the hereditary rights of a king or nobles.
In the Constitution,
“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union…”
These words mirror the intent and purpose of the Nobles at Runnymede in 1215.
All three documents emphasized the importance of balance and equilibrium between the governed and the government. All three are based upon a faith that God is eternal and is the Creator of the order of this system of things.
None of the documents specified ethnicity, gender, cultural background, or station in life as a prerequisite to the benefits of liberty.
In 1947, Israel was established as a territory of self-rule following World War II. In 1948, the Jewish Agency declared the independence of the State of Israel. A war of independence ensued. Upon victory, Israel declared their form of government to be a democracy. Against tremendous odds, they have survived as a parliamentary form of government in a region where there are no other democracies.
Israel as a nation has a unique place in history. Their heritage states that, as an ancient nation, God lived among them. The Jewish citizens at the time asked for a king. A king was granted to them, and the results were moral decay, disobedience, reliance upon secular desires and, ultimately, destruction and exile. Israel had learned her lesson.
In times of great change, mass communications, global travel, and interdependence of sovereign economies, democracies have proliferated. Migration in the world today is primarily from totalitarian regimes and tribal governments to governments that adhere to the principles of self-rule of the people.
If each of these democracies is foundational in adherence to the ordained laws of freedom, why then are they in absolute gridlock and currently, I submit, dysfunctional today? Because they have been timid in standing on the premise that defined their initial purpose. Freedom respected for all people, with the reciprocation of the people’s respect for universal freedom as a governing principle, is necessary to maintain democracy.
Immigration is a political issue in all three countries. It shouldn’t be. Immigration is a natural process of people seeking a better life. What each country faces now are the consequences of the rejection of assimilation and the countries’ lack of commitment to enforce it.
In Israel, 20% of the population is Arab. They are allowed citizenship without an oath to support the State of Israel. They see their brothers in purpose as the Palestinians in Gaza and Lebanon. The Likud and the Blue and White Parties are split evenly. The Hadash-Ta’al Party and other Arab nationalist party groups could join with either major party and form a coalition government. They will not because they fear that it would appear as if they approve of the State of Israel. It is difficult to run a government when certain members of the ruling elected body disavow or reject the national identity and purpose referencing the sovereign state.
In the United States, an oath of office to defend the Constitution is required to be seated in Congress. Certain members take the oath and yet question the historical purpose of the founding principles of America. These individuals denounce capitalism, demand socialism, and overtly call for the diminution of Christianity. It is one thing to disagree with eternal principles. It is another to seek to eliminate them against all the learned lessons of history.
In Great Britain, there seems to be no solution for Parliament to resolve the gridlock of a Brexit deadline. The Guardian, at best a politically moderate observer, today in an editorial blamed the process itself as inadequate for reconciliation. There is no majority coalition for any move whatsoever of government. Parliament is incapable of supporting new elections, a vote of confidence, a referendum on the issue, an agreed upon extension, or any current plan presented. Minor parties of ethnicity are in disagreement or in conflict, in part, with the national purpose.
England always charted its own course in relations with Europe. Defaulting to an EU-led compromise is not in the UK’s best interest. Liberals in Britain have pursued the same strategy that progressives have in the U.S. That is, to achieve more unpopular government control by turning to the courts, bypassing democracy, to achieve their goal by dictation or decree. Similarly in the UK, liberals see their best ally to override the electorate as the EU Parliament.
President Trump is now under the cloud of Impeachment Inquiry by Congress. His crime, if any, does not meet the standard of “high crimes and misdemeanors” any more than President Bill Clinton’s did in 1999. A Republican Senate acquitted Bill Clinton and a Republican Senate will acquit Donald Trump. Democrats may bemoan the process of an impeachment trial. Lawyers for the President will be able to call witnesses that know exactly what Hillary Clinton and Vice President Joe Biden were up to in Russia and Ukraine. My guess is that Vice President Biden’s involvement was no more serious an offense than Bill Clinton’s or Donald Trump’s. None of the three committed the sin of mens rea (the intention or knowledge of wrongdoing).
In today’s world, the alternative to democracy is communism. It is ironic that the Communist Party of China and the State of Israel are 70 and 71 years-old respectively, both formed in the aftermath of World War II. Communism does not tolerate opinion or dissention. Division is cured by force. Hong Kong today is on the front line of history repeating itself.
President Xi, in ceremonies today, bowed three times to Chairman Mao’s statue. This is an undisguised act of worship of a man and this system of things.
When one’s creed is commitment to oneself, identity politics becomes all-consuming. In this creed, all natural laws of peaceful coexistence are violated. When one commits to universal principles of freedom for all, personal identity fades into the common creed of humanity.
Both creeds require faith. Now, more than ever, it is imperative and critical that, in the triad of democracies in crisis, that citizens availed a choice choose their faith wisely.
The world’s future is at stake.
My name is Marc Nuttle and this is what I believe.
What do you believe?