I passed by a platform of door-mats, designed mostly for dorm room entrances, and a seemingly patriotic door-mat caught my attention. I saw the word, “Life” and then the word “liberty” and finished the sentence in my head… “and the pursuit of happiness.” I was proud of my historical egotism. Yes, siree. I, Kyle Johnson, had the most famous line of the Declaration of Independence memorized.
I continued with my wandering, headed towards the sliding doors to catch a glimpse of what freedom from ‘beyond’ looked like, all the while knowing that my bondage (mom) was still hovering in the midst of the bathroom supplies behind me. Somewhere in the middle of this thought, which I don’t really remember having, I came to a screeching halt once my visual perceptions caught up with the rest of me. Soon, a furrowed brow was added to my frown. I like pretending that I’m an old grouch sometimes. I took a closer look at the aforementioned door-mat and noticed the absence of 3 important words. The door-mat said “Life, liberty, happiness” instead of the Declaration’s real words, “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
Hm…. why is it different?
Is this an immaterial difference? Does it matter?
Perhaps, taken in context the door-mat simply is supposed to mean that, the people living at this house or dorm room have gained happiness because of their right to pursue it. Is that what it means?
Or, does it mean that the Declaration of Independence argues that happiness is a right, just as life and liberty are?
Who knows what the intentions behind this door-mat were, and who knows how many different interpretations people could take from the words. But these few words constitute a huge philosophical difference from what the Declaration actually says.
According to the Declaration, happiness is NOT a right, the PURSUIT of happiness is a right. There is a HUGE difference.
If happiness is seen as a right, someone can validly say that the government has the responsibility to make everyone happy. But this is impossible, and leads to all sorts of injustices.
If happiness becomes a right, life and liberty very quickly are no longer treated as rights. It creates a huge mess.
For starters, how can anyone define what happiness is? Happiness isn’t something that can be defined in moral terms like rights can. What if murder makes you happy? Someone could, rightfully so, argue that murder is not wrong because it makes someone happy, and they have the right to be happy. The right of the victim to live is taken away to give someone happiness.
You’d be surprised what happens when nations don’t remember and don’t define the moral ideas they are based upon.
This is a secular humanist, and in fact nearly a Marxist, idea. Marx would argue that if you change society, you can change people’s definitions of happiness so that they are content, thus government can and should make people happy. So, Marx designed a system that tried to make people happy.
When anything stood in the way of Marxism, the iron-fisted government took away people’s lives and liberty (the first two rights) in order to institute ‘Utopia’ or happiness. That is what happens when happiness is seen as a right.
Life, liberty, and happiness can’t all be considered rights at the same time. Those who want ‘happiness’ always will do so at the expense of liberty and sometimes even of life. People who disagree on what happiness is will try to gain power over the people who have another definition of happiness. The result is chaotic mob rule at worst, and at best, a government that cares more about special interests than liberty or life.
See what a difference a few words can make?
Thomas Jefferson, and those who helped revise the Declaration of Independence took great pains over every single word of that precious document. The document represented thousands of pages of philosophy, ideas, theories, etc… all on one page (granted, a very large page, but still just a page). Every word was important. Changing just a small part, changes a lot.
While we do not have a right to happiness, we have a right to pursue happiness. We have the freedom to make a life of our own, to own property, and to do with it what we will. But we can not use it to take away someone else’s freedom to pursue ‘happiness’. We can not use it to take away someone’s life. We can not use it to take away someone’s liberty. They are all in check, they are all limited, but the existence of the rights do not by their very nature conflict with each other. It’s beautiful. It’s just. It reflects the law which is ‘written on our hearts’, as it says in Romans.
It is this freedom, beauty, and justice which has made our nation the shining city on a hill that it has been referred to by many wise individuals. It is this justice and freedom which has been a testament to what a country founded on the Justice of God can be. It is this Justice that glorifies God. It is this testimony of God’s glory which has been a powerful tool of the Gospel… a picture of what those trying to create a redeemed world can look like.
Sure, we fail. Sure, our country is not what it once was… but what she tries to be, is beautiful.
Ideas have consequences, and just a few words can completely change an idea. With the large amount of historical revisionism forced into our public school textbooks, the last thing we need are stores selling misrepresentations of the principles of our country.
If we forget what our country stands for, we might slowly accept these wrong ideas, and justice will eventually be destroyed. In fact, we’re well on our way. Our government, regardless of which party, currently revolves around using government to make people happy, to ‘fix’ people’s lives. Money is dished out to special interest groups.
Whoever’s definition of happiness is shouted the loudest, gets the benefits. Often at the expense of the liberties of other people. If one demographic demands that they deserve something to make their lives better, a Democrat (or John McCain) will give them a government handout and a Republican will offer them a tax break. Even at the expense of all the other people groups. Either way, government is acting upon the idea that people deserve happiness, just as much as they deserve life or liberty. Even if it means taking a piece of someone else’s liberty away, which is always the consequence of treating happiness as a right. Happiness as a right can not co-exist with life or liberty as rights. Something has to give. Usually, it’s liberty or even life.
(by the way, the great irony is that when people demand something to make them happy, they are rarely really happy. Usually they end up worse off. If not materially, spiritually or emotionally. See Theodore Dalrymple’s book ‘Life at the Bottom’ for more on that).
Where will it end? Could it eventually lead to socialism, and even greater injustices? I wouldn’t be the first to say that America is well on its way to socialism, as are most of western forms of government.
So let me bring you back to the words of the man who wrote our Declaration in the first place. He had some strong words to say on the topic of maintaining justice in our country:
“Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever . . . .” — Thomas Jefferson
