What’s So Magical About the US Constitution? (updated)
I get what makes it “special” in terms of what it signifies historically and how people want it to function, but I just can’t get my head around why it is so sacred. Mozaic Law seems more important, and I don’t even observe it. I hope someone can convince me to take it a bit more seriously, because as of now it only seems worth what it might possibly mean—like any other piece of political literature.
What makes the prose so imposing? Do we really need something like this? England doesn’t have a constitution.
Even more confusing to me is what I owe the US constitution as a Catholic. I feel that there is such a treasure trove of Catholic thought out there that, comparatively, renders the constitution nearly irrelevant. I mean, should we really be so comfortable that this thing got it right the first time—even considering amendments and interpretation over the past 200 years—when the Church’s tradition and teachings have been growing for over 2,000 years?
For my part, I find “constitution worship” in this country to be creepy. (removed and replaced with text below)
For my part, what I don’t understand is how something being “unconstitutional” or “constitutional” is understood as having deep moral significance (which, of course, I don’t find very compelling to begin with).
When we say, in common parlance, that something is “unconstitutional,” I wonder why people gasp at the horror of the thing’s lack of constitutionality. Or, why they applaud the constitutionality of thing they liked already in the first place. As I see it, being “constitutional” amounts to, “something I like already that I can call an interesting word that has a cool piece of paper to rest on.”
Killing innocent persons is not “unconstitutional;” it is depraved, heinous, and ugly. Most like to call it immoral or impermissible—fundamentally, it is a mystery.
In other words, take this question as an extension of my comments on morals (see: Is There Anything ‘Moral’ About Morals and Tragedy and Morals). Constitutionalism may offer tremendous resources for governance, history, or what have you, but, what it cannot (it seems to me) offer us is anything approaching morals.
To be as clear as I can, just as I find morals to be a linguistic substitute for aesthetic intuitions, I find the constitution to be a further substitute for morals. All of these substitutions obfuscate us from the flesh of the matter and from God, I think.
Any thoughts?
Trackbacks
Comments are closed.
I think the Constitution fills a role in American life that in other countries is filled by the Monarch. So that’s part of it.
So, if the constitution is the equivalent of the Queen of England, then, why isn’t it relegated to a ceremonial-only role? That could be fun, we could say, “Long live the parchment!” or something like that.
The US federal constitution infamously didn’t get it “right” the first time, of course….
England does have a constitution. Just not a written one, of course….
And there are written constitutions older than the US federal constitution, like that of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (the initial draft of which was largely the work of John Adams, but there was lots of tussling, especially over religious matters, including by his cousin Sam), and it’s interesting to note that, while slavery was not banned by that Constitutions, with 3-4 years after its adoptions, the Massachusetts courts overturned slavery without requiring compensation to the erstwhile owners, and the legislature did not revolt and say the courts had overstepped their bounds (interesting especially given explicit language in the constitution about the different roles of the legislative and judicial branches).
One mistake people often make when they analyze the relationship of Americans with their federal constitution is to neglect the state constitutions, especially the early ones before federal constitutional law took on greater weight. It was the much-overlooked invention of John Adams to encourage the legislatures of each of the newly independent colonies to craft their own constitutions and submit them for ratification by the representatives of the people.
Then you can contrast states like Connecticut and Rhode Island, which pretty much kept their colonial charters (and just substituted governor for king), which led to quite a mess in Rhode Island in the 1830s and 1840s, with something of a civil war over the updating of the charter.
So, if the constitution is the equivalent of the Queen of England, then, why isn’t it relegated to a ceremonial-only role?
Isn’t it? ;)
Sam – check out Prof. Russell Hittinger’s lecture, American Constitutionalism – it’s available here. Also, I did a few posts about the signficance of the American Constitution a while back – it’s kind of an overview of the Professor’s lecture. They are available here. Check it out and let me know what you think.
For my part, I find “constitution worship” in this country to be creepy.
Yes.
Those who engage in “constitution worship” focus precisely on the parts they shouldn’t, downplaying the only parts that are really worth a damn.
And yes, “worship” is an accurate term.
The Constitution is the underpinning of American law. I have always liked this encounter in A Man for All Seasons:
What precisely do you mean by “Constitution worship”?
I see what it could imply… I do not mean the old guard of originalist vs. progressivist approaches. I mean them both, the very foundation of the idea that it is something extraordinary to be taken seriously and, in fact, venerated as an idol (or, at least, a relic) of some kind.
The “constitution worship” is secular sola scriptura, and so is not suprising in a Protestant culture. Personally, I find it rather anachronistic.
Not a surprise, the usual suspects have no respect for law, even if there’s nothing wrong with it.
I guess one could phrase it, what is wrong with the Constitution from a Catholic point of view? Is there no room for local culture and laws?
The “constitution worship” is secular sola scriptura
I’m not sure I get the analogy. Who is the Pope is this example?
The U.S. Constitution is the underpinning of all law in the United States. There is a mechanism for changing it, as there is for changing any law.
The trouble is, it is routinely ignored. We ignore our own laws at our peril. To simply dismiss concerns about the Constitution as “Constitution worship” is dismissive and misses the point entirely. The point at issue is whether we are a nation of laws.
If we are not, then we should make it official and descend into anarchy. If we are a nation of laws, though, we should follow our laws. We have killed 50 million of our children because we have chosen to ignore our laws, based on the Constitution. It was the trashing of the Constitution that led to Roe v. Wade and the bloodbath that followed and continues.
I’m not sure I get the analogy. Who is the Pope is this example?
There is no Pope in this example. Sola scriptura.
To simply dismiss concerns about the Constitution as “Constitution worship” is dismissive and misses the point entirely.
Whether “constitution worship” is an appropriate phrase in reference to “being concerned about” the constitution is, of course, debatable.
I have encountered christians who literally believe that the constitution is analogous to scripture, as in they invoke notions of biblical inspiration, inerrancy, etc. (Protestant understandings of these, too, not Catholic.) I think describing these views, or views that tend toward them, as “constitution worship” is appropriate and not at all “dismissive.”
The “constitution worship” is secular sola scriptura
The Constitution and the Bible have entirely different purposes, composers, and interpretive traditions. The Bible was not written to establish a government; the Constitution was. The Bible is divinely inspired; the Constitution was written by politicians. The Constitution is ‘interpreted’ by the Supreme Court; the Bible is properly interpreted by the Church – there is no analogue for Papal authority in interpreting the Constitution, and originalism is, in one sense, as valid an approach as any other (although I think any grand-sweeping Constitutional theory runs into problems).
I think the ‘sola scriptura’ analogy is basically a rhetorical jab (or cheap shot) that implies it is somehow un-Catholic to take the laws of this country seriously, based on a superficial similarity between documents and interpretive traditions in completely different contexts.
On the topic of the post, I don’t suppose there is anything ‘magical’ about the Constitution. Judges, politicians, etc. take oaths to uphold it; as David gestured at with the quote from A Man For All Seasons, the Constitution sets forth certain individual rights, and grants certain powers to the states and the federal government. I don’t find anything magical about politics in general, much less in political documents; but it’s proven to be somewhat useful over the years.
I think the ’sola scriptura’ analogy is basically a rhetorical jab (or cheap shot) that implies it is somehow un-Catholic to take the laws of this country seriously, based on a superficial similarity between documents and interpretive traditions in completely different contexts.
Baloney. I worked with a christian who told me that he believed the constitution was scripture. It’s not a “jab.” These folks exist.
Lutherans have the Doctrine of the Left Hand and Right Kingdoms. We are to support the state because God is hidden and working in the Left Hand Kingdom. If the state does anything contrary to to the Christian conscious, the the Christian can not obey the state but the Christian needs to face the consequences.
I spoke with a christian who thought aliens existed, pigs flew, and Michele Obama was deserving of a spot in the 100 hottest celebrities list. These folks exist too.
But then again, what does that have to do with the question at hand?
I worked with a christian who told me that he believed the constitution was scripture. It’s not a “jab…
Michael, your response has nothing to do with my comment. I argued that the analogy between sola scriptura and originalism is inapposite because the Constitution and the Bible have completely different purposes, authors, etc.. You responded “baloney, some people believe the Constitution is Scripture.” That may be true (and such people are morons and/or uneducated), but your derisive description of such people supports rather than contradicts my suggestion that the analogy doesn’t work.
The constitution is obviously not scripture. What a lame straw man. It is, however, a profound work of political genius.
John Henry – Are you or are you not criticizing MM for saying that many americans have a view of the constitution that amounts to treating it like scripture?
All I am saying is that the analogy he is making, calling such views a type of “secular sola scriptura”, is a good one.
The analogy does not fall simply because “[t]he Constitution and the Bible have entirely different purposes, composers, and interpretive traditions.” Analogies involve similarities and differences.
Perhaps I am missing something in your argument.
The constitution is obviously not scripture. What a lame straw man.
Well, yes, obviously. Not to serious Christians, it’s not. But there are Christians who actually believe it is scripture. And there are Christians who would deny that it is scripture but who end up treating it like pseudo-scripture. And of course there are non-Christians who would do the same. These latter two categories exist because the constitution does play a role analogous to scripture in american civil religion. It’s really easy to say “that’s a straw man” to try to deflate arguments, but in this case we’re not dealing with a “straw man” at all. There are multiple ways in which the scripture analogy rings true.
I am saying the analogy is defective; that originalism, whatever its other defects, is not analogous to sola scriptura. There are superficial similarities, but I think they dissolve under the slightest scrutiny, at least as held by their academic proponents, rather than by strawmen with inferior intellectual gifts. I doubt you’d be terribly impressed if I dismissed liberation theology based on the obviously ignorant opinions of a former co-worker; similarly, no one familiar with either Scripture scholarship or orignalism would see the analogy as particularly illuminating. I’m not even an originalist; I just think it’s obvious that sola scripture and originalism have almost nothing to do with each other.
There is a book that I own, but have not yet read, by Jaroslav Pelikan called Interpreting the Bible and the Constitution. The product description on Amazon.com is as follows:
Interesting, David. I am sure Prof. Pelikan would have very interesting things to say on the traditions of interpretation of the Bible and the Constitution. As I said above, I do not think the originalism/sola scriptura analogy suggested by MM is particularly helpful, but numerous other parallels could be drawn that may be more illuminating. I wonder, though, if such comparisons necessarily either secularize the Bible and the Magisterium or assign more respect to the Constitution than it deserves. In any case, it sounds like it would be a good read.
I am saying the analogy is defective; that originalism, whatever its other defects, is not analogous to sola scriptura.
Sam isn’t talking about “originalism.” He explicitly said he wasn’t talking about originalism but a more basic idea: the “very foundation of the idea that it is something extraordinary to be taken seriously and, in fact, venerated as an idol (or, at least, a relic) of some kind.” That’s all. Nor was MM talking about originalism. As such, the analogy stands I think.
It seems you think the analogy between veneration of the constitution and Protestant views of scripture breaks down because of the following:
The Constitution and the Bible have entirely different purposes, composers, and interpretive traditions. The Bible was not written to establish a government; the Constitution was. The Bible is divinely inspired; the Constitution was written by politicians. The Constitution is ‘interpreted’ by the Supreme Court; the Bible is properly interpreted by the Church – there is no analogue for Papal authority in interpreting the Constitution, and originalism is, in one sense, as valid an approach as any other (although I think any grand-sweeping Constitutional theory runs into problems).
You’re simply pointing out differences, but differences are part of analogies.
The Bible was not written to establish a government; the Constitution was.
The Bible was not “written” at any one particular time and place, obviously. But a central aspect to the process of writing and solidifying “the” canon (actually, at least three canons: Jewish, Catholic and Protestant) has to do very much with the establishment of a people. There are both similarities and differences on this point.
The Bible is divinely inspired; the Constitution was written by politicians.
The Bible was certainly divinely inspired, but it was also certainly written by human beings. The constitution was certainly written by human beings, but many Christians believe it was also divinely inspired.
I’m also not sure why you are quick to exclude the views of everyday Christians when talking about the question of “constitution worship,” and want to center discussion on what “academics” believe about the constitution. I’m not so sure that there are no “academics” who believe that the constitution is “sacred.”
Basically I think the issue Sam and MM are pointing to is a strange tendency to venerate the constitution of the united states. Sam asks what the hell that tendency is about. MM suggests that many american Christians treat the constitution like scripture. That’s an appropriate analogy and I think a pretty uncontroversial one.
I really don’t thnk there is Constitution worship. If there is we as a whole are very bad Disciples. Most Americans are just referencing a few parts of the Bill of Rights when they reference it
Most don’t sit up at night and contemplate the wonders of the commerce clause
I guess an excepton to my above comment is the military since they actually take an aoth to defend it so they might think about it more
Sam isn’t talking about “originalism.” He explicitly said he wasn’t talking about originalism…”
I missed that comment of Sam’s, and wasn’t replying to Sam in any case. I was responding to MM, who frequently compares originalism to sola scriptura. It may be that MM didn’t mean to refer to originalism here, but he has made the analogy often in the past:
See here: http://vox-nova.com/2009/05/01/obamas-first-scotus-nominee-arriving-soon/#comment-54574
And here: http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=1417 (where he’s corrected by Rick Garnett)
And here: http://vox-nova.com/2008/06/26/a-shameful-supreme-court-decision/
If MM was not referring to originalism here (in a departure from past practice), then apologies for the non-responsive comment, but in that case I’d like to know, what was MM referring to?
You’re simply pointing out differences, but differences are part of analogies.
Right, but at some point the differences are significant enough that the analogy doesn’t work; imo and Rick Garnett’s and Poli’s, that’s the case with originalism/sola scriptura analogy. Your mileage on the relevance of the metaphor may vary; people are reluctant to let go of their favorite pejoratives, after all. In any case, this line of discussion is irrelevant if MM was not referencing originalism.
Sam asks what the hell that tendency is about. MM suggests that many american Christians treat the constitution like scripture.
Well, I’m at a disadvantage here because I’ve never met anyone who held this position (or at least expressed it to me). To the extent people think the Constitution is some sort of quasi-Revelation, then, yeah, that’s wrong. But then it’s not clear what Sam means by ‘Constitution worship’; I don’t think there is anything wrong with having a higher respect for the Constitution than, say, the Declaration of Independence – the Constitution is meant to be a document used for governance. But ‘respect’ is not ‘worship’ and I’ve never met a self-described ‘Constitution worshiper’, so there you go: we must run in different circles.
I’m not surprised to see this topic heating up.
There is Constitution myth, and Constitution reality. The desire to sort of cling to the Constitution is a natural reaction to the rapid fluctuations in society.
But if we’re honest, the Constitution as originally proposed didn’t even have a bill of rights. We have to thank those who were actually opposed to the Constitution at the beginning for those. And of course, the Constitution couldn’t prevent the Civil War… not that any document could have anyway.
Michael is right about Constitution worship, though. Spend just a little time around people on the far far right. You’ll hear it.
For my part, I like the Constitution. But I’m not in love with it.
This is a horrible tragedy and I am at fault. If you read nothing else, read this: I am sorry.
I can now see how I language in a such a way that it seems to have a suppressed premise that originalism and conservative approaches to the constitution are bad and stupid. And, of course, that liberal interpretations that treat it as a living document, an open canon, so to speak, are good and smart. Let me be clear: I think the exact opposite.
I actually think that the original intent method of interpretation is a much more sane method of exegesis. I have very little respect for the lukewarm constitutionalism of Democrats. If the constitution is something to be had, then, I think the conservative approach makes sense—when it is used consistently, of course, we all know that most “conservative” originalists simply invoke the constitution when they like what it says (and the same for the other side).
But, the principle of interpretation I favor is straightforwardly conservative. Period.
Sadly, that is not (I am resisting using capital letters here) my question. Not at all. Not even close. You see, while I would favor a consistent the use of a conservative hermeneutic to distill the constitution, I still don’t find any reason to do so for more fundamental reasons.
So, once again, I am not trying to divided the world into different degrees of constitutional (ab)use, on the contrary, I want to know what good reason there is to take it up as text in the first place. As I said, certain countries don’t even have one and the Church lacks on too, I see none of those cases as anarchy (sorry Iafrate).
But here is my main point: This thread almost makes me want to cry—I am being completely serious. I am guilty here of baiting some of you with language that I forgot to take my own advice on, and for that I am very sorry.
Please, please, please I am willing to take back any words (e.g. constitution worship, which I clarified earlier when I wrote, “I do not mean the old guard of originalist vs. progressivist approaches. I mean them both, the very foundation of the idea that it is something extraordinary to be taken seriously and, in fact, venerated as an idol [or, at least, a relic] of some kind.”) or even the very question itself if it will give you any hope to imagine that we can ask fundamental questions about the world without having to necessarily become a “usual suspect” or a partisan hack. Unless, of course, you don’t trust my question which more an issue of relations than fundamental questions.
Once again, my issue here is the very idea of a constitution, in addition to everything we have to consider as Catholics. Sorry to enable these comments that I see as a defeat for all of us, so far.
Something I’ve noticed in Internet debates, and in particularly with certain people here at VN, is a foundational difference between how we view things and are willing/unwilling to give people a degree of credit. There’s a tendency to project on people views that aren’t necessarily derived from anything the person really said or did. Even if the person objects and tries to clarify, he is usually dealt with as if he the projected view were still true and the person is just ignorant of his own views. How much worse it is when dealing with others who aren’t part of the current discourse. It’s easy to build a prejudice, make a caricature of a type of person or belief, and project it on another, especially if you don’t like the other person or their ideas.
Michael, I’ve never encountered anyone who thought the Constitution was scripture – or even treated it similarly, but I’ll take you at your word that you encountered that belief. That said, so what? In Chestertonian fashion I’d point out that this seems like a case of the exception proving the rule. I’m sure I could go to the fourth floor of the local hospital and find who believe half the population are really extraterrestrial aliens.
I readily admit that I’m a fan of the US Constitution, and I say that knowing from here on out in some minds I’ll be known to some as a misguided, ignorant, Constitution worshiper. Oh well.
If I were charged with forming a new government, I can’t think of any form that would be preferable. Regardless of what you think of the founders and the various prejudices and worldviews held, they did a pretty darn good job establishing a government – and here’s the shocker – I think it’s pretty much in accord with Catholic teaching.
There’s nothing unCatholic about a constitution. Even our religious orders have constitutions, aka a rule, that basically does all that the US Const. does. There’s nothing unCatholic about having and upholding laws. There’s nothing unCatholic about a republic. There’s nothing unCatholic about applying democratic principles to your government. There’s nothing unCatholic about having a separation of powers in your government. There’s nothing unCatholic about recognizing that the individual and family are the foundation of society and that they willfully and democratically grant the government certain powers to be used for the common good.
Not only are the above things not unCatholic, they actually gel very well with Catholic teaching. I’d even argue that outside a Catholic confessional state with a saintly monarch, you will find no better scenario. That’s not to say that a society under that government still can’t go wrong, that they can’t be an unjust society, much of that has to do with character of the citizens. However, a just and moral people will do quite well under this Constitution. An immoral and unjust people will fail under it…but that would happen regardless of which form of government they have.
May parchment with s’s that look like a silly f bless you.
After clarifying, I would ask that we devote attention to the question I posed. I hope that is not too arrogant of me, but otherwise I would rather just delete this whole affair—it is bringing out the worst in us.
the very foundation of the idea that it is something extraordinary to be taken seriously and, in fact, venerated as an idol [or, at least, a relic] of some kind.”
I appreciate the clarification Sam, and, as I said above, my comments were not specifically addressed at you. I was addressing what I see to be an illegitimate move by MM (which, to be fair, he may not have intended to make here).
As to your question about why anyone cares about the Constitution, I think the reasons are primarily historical and cultural; basically, that’s how the U.S. has always done things. I don’t think there is anything illegitimate about Constitutional forms of government (or non-Constitutional forms of government) from a Catholic perspective. If you are suggesting otherwise, I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts…like most things in the political realms, there are probably drawbacks and (perhaps) benefits to both approaches.
Thanks John. That is very reasonable and I may try to parse this out a bit more closely in the future. I am going to revise this post, in an effort to be more clear and less inflammatory.
Sorry Sam, my post came after yours but it was a cross post. And while you set things in motion with the words you used, my frame of reference in replying wasn’t really focused on you. However, I do think my text does respond in some way to your queries.
Understood and it does do that, but it was confusing me a bit because I thought that you had read it and were addressing and then launching back into the fray. Goes to show the need to walk gingerly! I hope my update helps the matter.
Sam,
Your right that people often do use the categories of constitutional/unconstitutional as is they were substitutes for right/wrong or good/bad, at least in certain political contexts (in a personal context it’s a different story; no one says “hey, that guy cut me off, that’s unconstitutional!”) What I’m not clear on is how this fact relates to your views on the relation of moral and aesthetic intuitions.
Also, I’ve written a separate post on the sola scriptura constitution issue, so if people want to keep arguing about that, they can go do so there.
Sam – the Constitution is the foundation of the rule of law in this country. As such, some people think that if something is unconstitutional, it is in some significant way flouting the rule of law. This is also thought to be a bad thing, because the rule of law ensures order and whatnot.
This is probably painfully obvious, but it is the reason that people are concerned with the constitutionality of things.
BA: Thanks for posting. And the funny thing is in the sentence you used, (“hey, that guy cut me off, that’s unconstitutional!”), while the use if rare (if not altogether absurd) the connotation is clear nonetheless, just a bit silly to boot.
My concern is whenever we use language to objectify reality in such a way that forgets what it is we are dealing with. The language of constitutionality come from a general sentiment about the document itself and together they seem to function in a way that is hardly fundamental, as I see it. As a Catholic I don’t have much use for it—and I have read it over many times trying to figure out its contribution. But I may just be too dense to make the connection.
Zach: Exactly. My question is asking whether that is really, necessarily the case. I tend to think not. I mean its fine and good to pretend like the sky will fall without it, but is this really the kind of myth we should go about keeping? I tend to think there are much more defining texts that play much bigger roles in salvation history—which is the only history we should be concerned about, everything else is a subsidiary.
Zach: One more thing, when you wrote: “the Constitution is the foundation of the rule of law in this country,” you can’t possibly be serious. Are you? If so, then, what do you mean by foundation?
I initially assumed that you were joking, but reading it again you seem not to be.
Thanks Sam.
Let me try responding directly to your update. I would say it’s possible to observe a behavior or listen to someone and put more stock in your observation than what is there. C.S. Lewis writing in Mere Christianity makes a great observation about fair play. That basically every person from every culture or belief system has some notion of fair play (I’m shortcutting and not elaborating on his examples). There’s something similar (and also greater) going on when someone references the Constitution. Think of the Constitution as a sort of contract; an agreement between parties on how things should operate – who will be responsible for what and how they will perform it, what will happen if someone doesn’t hold up their end of the bargain, etc.
The appealing to the Constitution by most people is just an appeal to fair play. You have a hole in your roof and I tel you what needs to be done to fix it and agree to repair it for $1000. We draw up a contract stating that I will use aluminum flashing and tar to patch the leak, will do the repair within 3 days, and guarantee that it won’t leak for 5 years. We also agree that you will give me a $500 deposit and pay the balance upon completion of the job. So, the next day I come over to your house go up on your roof and just smear a little tar around to make it look like I did what we agreed to. You pay me the balance of $500 and I leave. It rains the next day and you still have a leak. What do you do? You would probably call me, inform me of the leak and ask that I come repair it properly. You will no doubt cite the agreement we had. If I refuse to honor the contract, saying something like “well that is just a piece of paper with ink on it and of no relevance, besides I think what things are better without it”, you will probably be on the horn with a lawyer. You’ll take me to court and cite that contract repeatedly in the proceedings – and you will expect the judge to side with you. If he doesn’t, you will no doubt consider yourself a victim of two injustices.
Appealing to the Constitution is more similar to the above scenario than it is an appeal to high moral order. The real difference here is that regarding the Constitution there is a lot more at stake than $1000. The whole social order, for better or worse, is at stake. Not to mention how things will affect our posterity.
David cited the scene in a Man for All Seasons. I too agree with the sentiment.
Rick: Thank you for the reference to “fair play,” it works very well here. Dewey makes a point in “Experience and Education,” in the chapter on Social Control that I have memorized because I like it so much. he writes, “Even the theoretical anarchist whose philosophy comits him to the idea that the state or government control is an unmitigated evil, believes that with abolition of the political state other forms of social control would operate.”
So, while I do not dispute the idea of having rules, contacts, and so on to ensure “fair play,” I do not regard those rules or contracts as literature that plays a major role in the formation of conscience, so on and so forth. In fact, the issue I would have if I broke a rule or a contract is not a matter of the measures of fair play, it is an issue of justice and, ultimately, love.
When I consider the literature that I try to understand, over and over, the constitution is just a contract, and a rather odd one at that. Odd because it is not always clear what it is doing, exactly. This is clear in that the believers in it can’t even agree on how to use it.
I would prefer not to have one or to write one that is more bare, like the contract you described. That way, less people would be confused about it.
Michael, I’ve never encountered anyone who thought the Constitution was scripture – or even treated it similarly, but I’ll take you at your word that you encountered that belief.
Have you never met any Mormons? They are but one example.
That said, so what?
Um, it is obviously related to the topic of the post.
In Chestertonian fashion I’d point out that this seems like a case of the exception proving the rule. I’m sure I could go to the fourth floor of the local hospital and find who believe half the population are really extraterrestrial aliens.
If you say so. Of course the people I’m mostly talking about (not Mormons or anyone else who explicitly uses “inspiration” language to describe the constitution, but anyone who treats it in a pseudo-scriptural manner, as I said) will deny up and down that they treat it like scripture, like they deny up and down that the united states is their god. But when push comes to shove, they are willing to kill and die for these these things, and that is what you do for gods.
I must say this is a bizarre thread and a classic example of people talking past one another and not even being able to comprehend very non-controversial points. Joe seemed to get exactly what I was saying, perhaps because he tends not to be on the defensive all the time when it comes to taking a critical stance toward american culture, unlike others here.
Michael,
I got it because I’ve seen it too. While I am critical of American culture, even if I weren’t, I’d have to concede that I’ve heard it with my ears.
The Constitution has taken on mythological status, as have the founding fathers, in the eyes of a lot of people on the right. Some of their grievances are legitimate. On the other hand, to fail to understand that the Constitution was written for a mostly agrarian nation, while we are now an urbanized, industrial superpower, is to drown in naivety.
After all, we once had the Articles of Confederation and those were deemed inadequate. Some delegates to the Constitutional Convention up and left upon discovering that they were to be abolished. But everyone eventually got over it.
So there is no misunderstanding, I am opposed to the reasons for which leftists want to dispose of the Constitution – to disarm the public and pursue an anti-life agenda – but in theory, I think amending the law of the land should be easier in a modern world of rapid technological transformation than it was for people who lived not much differently than people had lived a thousand years previously.
As always, a Catholic approach is required, that is neither bogged down and immobile in the idealization of the past, nor fanatical and reckless in its desire to solve modern problems.
So there is no misunderstanding, I am opposed to the reasons for which leftists want to dispose of the Constitution – to disarm the public and pursue an anti-life agenda…
Oh, I figured you were against that.
But to be clear — there are different types of “leftists.” I would do away with the constitution because I would do away with the nation-state. And I would do that for PRO-life reasons. The nation-state is one of the most anti-life social forms, IMO.
Surely there is some confusion about matters pragmatic, and matters moral in this discussion. The Constitution establishes the form of government of the U.S., with its three branches. And hanging over them, the rights of the states as against the powers of the central government.
There were some anomalies, as in all things human; thus the [stupid?] business about the 3/5ths of persons who were not persons.
Have you never met any Mormons? They are but one example.
I haven’t had much interaction with Mormons and while I find little in common religiously, I confess I didn’t know they considered the US Constitution to be scripture. I’m somewhat willing to take your word for it, seeing as I like to deal in reality, facts, and truths regardless of what they might be. I’m quite open to be corrected. However, I don’t know how whether to take that as fact or as Michael applying his biases to something and reaching a conclusion that he believes is a fact.
Still, I said “so what” not because I thought it was irrelevant to the post, but because finding one oddity doesn’t make for a whole class of people.
If you say so. Of course the people I’m mostly talking about (not Mormons or anyone else who explicitly uses “inspiration” language to describe the constitution, but anyone who treats it in a pseudo-scriptural manner, as I said) will deny up and down that they treat it like scripture, like they deny up and down that the united states is their god. But when push comes to shove, they are willing to kill and die for these these things, and that is what you do for gods.
Here you do the very thing that I react against. You dislike the very idea of a nation-state. You despise the “united states”. Believing yourself to be the true type of Christian, the pure Catholic, you can’t reconcile in your mind that someone can think otherwise about the nation-state or the USA or the Constitution. When they defend the Constitution or the principles contained therein, you think they must be believing it to be scripture and the the USA is their god. They deny doing that, because it would be absurd and they know (or have a pretty good idea of) what they believe. But they clearly don’t believe as you, so you decide what they believe and there’s no point in them denying it. And because Iafrate is incapable of grasping the idea that people can and do fight for love even to the death, therefore they must be worshiping a false god. Then once you’ve convinced yourself of the validity of your own construct, then anything that sounds like your construct must become part of it – and all the denials just prove that you were right along.
I must say this is a bizarre thread and a classic example of people talking past one another and not even being able to comprehend very non-controversial points. Joe seemed to get exactly what I was saying, perhaps because he tends not to be on the defensive all the time when it comes to taking a critical stance toward american culture, unlike others here.
Actually, I’m rather critical of modern culture, in particularly Western culture (including but not limited to the USA), and that says nothing to the amount of criticism I would heap on our governance. But you see, many of the things I would criticize are not the things you would criticize and visa versa. There are things I have read that you and some others have written that I would consider to be an example of our broken culture rather than a valid criticism of it.
At the end of the day, I just don’t think condemning, or imputing motives or beliefs on anyone who doesn’t see things my way is valid or just. And while I may be wrong, it seems to me that has become standard issue stuff in some circles.
My understanding is that LDS do believe the U.S. Constitution was divinely inspired, though I don’t think they would consider it scripture.
My understanding is that LDS do believe the U.S. Constitution was divinely inspired, though I don’t think they would consider it scripture.
They will not use the word “scripture” but the same language is used of the constitution that is used of scripture. “Divine inspiration” is scriptural language. [http://www.inspiredconstitution.org/]
It’s the same old story. “Oh we don’t really believe the flag is sacred,” they say, but when you set it on fire they call it desecration. “Oh we don’t believe the usa is divine,” they say, but criticize it, and we’ll treat you like a blasphemer. “Oh we don’t think america is the holiest nation on the planet,” they say, but they will sacrifice their children to it if need be.
You don’t think these things are holy? Great. Prove it by your actions and by your consistency of speech.
Here you do the very thing that I react against.
I’m not surprised.
You dislike the very idea of a nation-state.
Most anarchists dislike such ideas.
You despise the “united states”.
Yes and no.
Believing yourself to be the true type of Christian, the pure Catholic, you can’t reconcile in your mind that someone can think otherwise about the nation-state or the USA or the Constitution.
Incorrect. I can reconcile such ideas. I disagree with them but I realize that many faithful Catholics are not so critical of the very idea of nation-states.
When they defend the Constitution or the principles contained therein, you think they must be believing it to be scripture and the the USA is their god.
Incorrect. But indeed, when they are willing to kill and die for the nation-state and when they fight with all their might against pacifist Catholics and when they bristle at any criticism of the “united” states of america, THEN i think the usa is their god, an idol.
They deny doing that, because it would be absurd and they know (or have a pretty good idea of) what they believe.
Absurd? Why? Oh yeah, because as you say, …
…once you’ve convinced yourself of the validity of your own construct, then anything that sounds like your construct must become part of it – and all the denials just prove that you were right along.
I never really considered anything to be moral or immoral based upon its constitutional status. Constitutional and moral are like apples and paper airplanes – absolutely nothing to do with each other. The constitution is just a contract between the government and the people which the government honors in its breach.