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.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government

Happy Independence Day. The past few weeks have been fairly trying and I slept late this morning. When I awoke, I glanced at a couple discussions on Facebook. My eldest daughter was asking if believed there could be such a thing as a just war. Friends were discussing the implications of the Hobby Lobby decision. There is probably enough material in the Hobby Lobby decision for several blog posts, so I’ll save that for a later day.

Tomorrow, Mairead will be a facilitator in a discussion, “America and Japan: Talking About Peace” in Kobe Japan. She says that “probably the reinterpretation of the Japanese constitution to allow for collective self-defense will be a big topic”.

As we celebrate the signing of the Declaration of Independence today, I suspect many would suggest that was a just war. To the victors go the spoils of war, and after the fact, I suspect most Americans believe the revolution was a just war and a good thing. However, this does not seem to have been the thinking in colonial times.

The most common piece of evidence cited in numerous books about the Revolution is a letter of John Adams indicating that one third of the Americans were for the Revolution, another third were against it, and a final third were neutral or indifferent to the whole affair.

See more at: http://hnn.us/article/5641.

I’m interested in genealogy and know that I have ancestors that fought on both sides of the war. So, how do we determine if this, or other wars are just? Perhaps a useful, but maybe slanted viewpoint can be found in the section of the Declaration of Independence quoted above.

While we call this the Declaration of Independence, it is really talking about our interdependence. Governments derive their power from the consent of the governed, to protect our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. The problem is that one person’s pursuit of happiness may threaten the life, liberty of pursuit of happiness of others, so we need to seek ways to find balance between different peoples pursuit of happiness.

Those supporting the revolution felt that King George’s pursuit of happiness, for himself and his friends, was done at the expense of the colonists, that the form of the British Government had become destructive to the rights of the colonists.

A just war, would then be considered a war that seeks to protect the rights of the oppressed. Those arguing for war are bound to frame their arguments in this context, even if the war is about land or access to natural resources, and both sides will try to wrap themselves in the mantel of protecting the oppressed.

In all of this, it seems like the underlying issue is not individual independence, but corporate independence, the independence of one group of people from another group to find ways to work together to protect the interdependent rights of all the individuals in the group.

Unfortunately, too much of the American dialog these days is about individual independence at the expense of the individual independence of our family, friends and neighbors. I hope that as people in Japan think about collective self-defense, they focus on what they are defending and whether or not such a defense is truly justifiable.