Let's do it the way our Founders did

Many kudos for 'guest opinion' contributor Courtney Theander and her astute observation that the fundamental building block to a healthy society is a strong family unit, including her correct assertion that parents, much more often than not, are more intimately equipped at deciding the fate of their own children than the Federal Government. Rebuttal-ist Jeff Bourget (Jan. 29 Press) would have us believe, as did the federalists of the late 18th century that the Constitution was (is) an end in itself. It is not! It was by law to be balanced with the Bill of Rights and the other 17 amendments added since our founding. This is why lawyer and anti-federalist Thomas Jefferson, (writer of the Declaration of Independence) said he would not endorse the Constitution if there was no "Bill of Rights" attached to it. Further quipping, "A Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference." Why were Jefferson and others so adamant about this? Simple: to safeguard individual liberty by limiting specific prohibitions on government power. The debate became so heated between the Federalists and Anti-federalists, it contributed (at least in part), with the dueling death of Alexander Hamilton by politician Aaron Burr. Consequently, it is a self-evident truth that "rights" must be tempered with responsibility, and anyone who owns a driver's license knows this. Another self-evident truth is this: children belong to their parents. They are not owned by the Federal Government, nor are they wards of the state. Children can become wards of the state if parents don't act responsibly. But in order to keep "programs" funded, federal and state agencies have become hyper-intrusive into the affairs of the American family. Due to the disintegration of the American family, intervention is becoming more the rule than the exception, as multi-faceted government solutions have money to burn (our money), and a perpetual fixation to turn the exceptions into more rules!

But consider the upbringing of Abraham Lincoln, raised in a one-room, dirt-floor cabin in the Kentucky wilderness. No running water, probably an open pit bathroom, no electricity, barefooted, and with sheer survival dictating, the conditions of his upbringing probably broke most modern-day child protection laws. Abe, of melancholy temperament, a homely and lanky bookworm, fit the modern-day profile of an underprivileged nerd (at the least), and severely abused (at the most). Presidential material? Today he would have been swooped up by Child Protective Services, his parents arrested, and the hardships that would have forged his stick-to-it-iveness character, would have been too underdeveloped to save the Union had he been lavished upon with all we deem as contemporary necessities! God saved the child (America) by not sparing the rod with his emancipator "Father Abraham," who like that other great Deliverer long before him, was a man of sorrows, acquainted with grief.

Dissension sometimes necessitates war, but not always systematic hate. Proving this point is the Civil War's coercion of "brother against brother," and Lincoln's authentic motive: "with malice toward none." Now imagine jumping to the "hate" conclusion every time our boss, mate, or professor disagreed with us. Why so many fund that roller coaster ride is beyond me because happiness is a choice! But if hate-less disagreements do exist, why the misinterpretations by the LGBT who are castigating people of faith with their not so gay (happy) three responses of: "bigot, hateful, homophobe?" Which instantly precludes the rest of the English language, which ironically could be an immense aid to anyone wanting to advance a serious, sagacious debate, especially if they seek genuine understanding? Not exactly Dale Carnegie tactics! Similarly, the LGBT's careless dispensing of (as if expendable) the other 32,000 verses of the Holy Writ, to redundantly settle on the worn out "Judge not." If buggery and SIDS (sexual identity disorders) tickles gay pantaloons, then be tickled without suing businesses. How worthy of respect can an "alternative lifestyle" be if it has to force others to accept it? And how far will the 'resentment rift' widen if the gay community keeps posturing behind the robes of impetuous judicial interlopers, who with the stroke of a pen negate majority democratic say and centuries old marital definitions?

Respect is earned, not arbitrarily given. Freedom is never free. True causes are never proven simply because they flamboyantly dock at the port of demagoguery (prejudicial emotionalism), but they do find their way to the fresh stormy seas of critical thinking, where if, ignorance and self-interest can finally be seen as the superfluous and expendable cargo that it is; it is tossed, and the ship (the cause), has proved its worthiness to continue on. This is the way our Founders did it, and we are here 225 years later to testify that their way works.

Dan Cooper is a Post Falls resident.