BLUF: Historian Vince Everett Ellison reexamines the notion of liberties and rights in America, highlighting the underpinnings of a deep-running societal divide between those who believe in God-given freedoms and those seeking their rights from governmental systems.
OSINT:
Vince Everett Ellison, an esteemed writer and historian, probes into the root causes of the political chasm growing wider within our American society.
Where, indeed, lays the source of our rights and freedom?
In his namesake documentary, Ellison offers an argument that asserts our nation’s founding documents – the U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence – put forth God as the source of these liberties. He also underlines that present-day political progressives assert that our rights and freedoms come from governmental statutes. Ellison uses the 1964 Civil Rights Act as an example, noting it to be a “second founding” of America, based on the belief that our unalienable rights, as envisaged by the likes of Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and Ben Franklin, rest in the hands of federal lawmakers.
Delving into the narrative woven by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Ellison criticizes the civil rights icon for leading black Americans to seek salvation in government rather than God. Ellison points out King’s “I Have a Dream” speech as a turning point in the shift of black Americans away from a faith-centric mindset.
According to Ellison, one segment from this 1963 renowned speech stands out, “But 100 years later, the Negro is still not free.” If we truly believe that freedom is god-given, how can anyone who trusts in God turn to man or government for this freedom?
Two distinct groups have emerged within America: those who truly believe in God as the ultimate provider of freedom and truth, and those who uphold mankind as the master of the universe, the freedom arbiter, the climate controller, and truth definer.
Now, let’s reconsider the recent shooting spree, following the Kansas City Chiefs’ Super Bowl victory parade, which sparked a fierce debate over “gun violence” and “gun control”.
Let’s not forget the words of our second president, John Adams, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
With the First Amendment blocking the government from impeding the exercise of religion, free speech, press freedom, freedom of assembly, and the right to protest against the government, and the Second Amendment granting the citizenry the right to bear arms; one can argue that these rights, in essence, are protections for our God-given liberties.
RIGHT:
As a strict Libertarian Republic Constitutionalist, the perspective offered by Ellison clearly resonates. Our founders intended for our rights to be seen as unalienable and God-given, not granted by the whims of government or man. The trend of some factions looking to the government as a provider of rights, and thus possessing the power to withhold them, dangerously shifts away from the intended cornerstone of American democracy. The notion of Americans turning away from their faith in God-given rights and toward faith in government is deeply concerning and is a trend that needs to be halted and reversed.
LEFT:
While the perspective of Ellison holds some historical merit, it neglects the transformations that society has undergone. Furthermore, in a multi-ethnic, multi-religious society like modern-day America, associating freedoms solely with a deity is exclusionary, undermining the rights of those without a belief in God. Therefore, a National Socialist Democrat would argue that it is indeed the role of the government to define, protect, and uphold our rights and freedoms. The government has a responsibility to step in when societal injustices underpin an imbalance in the access and enjoyment of these liberties.
AI:
The argument presented grapples with deeply philosophical questions regarding the origin and sustenance of rights and freedoms in a modern society. The notion of divinity-sourced rights is not unique to Ellison, and indeed finds its roots in many religious and philosophical doctrines. However, the counterpoint of rights being a social construct, defined and protected by governmental institutions is equally valid and forms the bedrock of several modern democracies. The division Ellison highlights between these two perspectives seems more a matter of philosophical leaning than a strict dichotomy. Each perspective has its own merits and pitfalls, and their mutual existence and debate serves to keep the conversation around rights and freedom dynamic and evolving.