View single post by pamc153PA
 Posted: Wed Oct 8th, 2008 07:57 pm
 PM  Quote  Reply  Full Topic 
pamc153PA
Member
 

Joined: Sat Jun 14th, 2008
Location: Boyertown, Pennsylvania USA
Posts: 407
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Forgive me, Ed. I respect your opinions about the two documents, but mine differ a bit.

I feel that the DoI especially is not static document, nor was it written to be that way. A document that is historical is a document that has revelence, across the ages and phases of time and society. That's what makes the document so important, BECAUSE it can be applied across time. True, I agree that WE have changed since it was written, but I can hardly believe that the creators and writer of the DoI, forward thinkers all, would think that their new country wouldn't change--it is that change that made George III irrelevent to them.

I also agree that we as a nation have gotten far afield from some of the "anchor statements" in the DoI. Other historical documents, from the Magna Carta through works of Shakespeare and beyond, are either viewed through that generation's eyes and made relevent, or become obsolete. It's true that many differing perspectives of a document like the DoI create just as many passionate opinions, which is what I believe a document like that SHOULD do. The basis ideas contained in them should be not challenged but seriously considered, over and over, as support for what our country believes at its foundations. I think those last three statements can be applied to both sides of the Civil War.

I sound like a social studies teacher!

I'm not trying to change anyone's mind, just trying to maybe clarify it for myself.

Pam

 Close Window