Last weekend, SLC saw a 9/12 rally. For those of you who are like me and are not Glenn Beck fans, it would be instructive to search for the 9/12 project and read the 9 principles and 12 values that Beck says ought to define America.
The SLC Tribune ran a story about the rally with a picture. It is the picture that caught my eye. In it, there is a sign. While the wording on the sign is not all visible, the last phrase is. It reads:
We the People declare that We will Never
Yield to those who would place us in
bondage. We will live for the Constitution
and we will die for the Constitution, for we
know that it was inspired of God for all of his
Children.
Now, I am as ardent a supporter of the Constitution as any - though I come to different conclusions from the "patriots" on the airwaves about what the different phrases mean - and I marvel at the genius of those who produced it, but I question using that kind of language to describe the Constitution.
Asserting its divine inspiration places the US Constitution on par with holy scripture. It suggests that the Constitution should be considered inerrant. Implicit in such claims is that there is one and only one true way to read and understand the words.
Do we really want to make such claims? Is our country better served if we do?
I wonder whether those patriots who gathered at the state capitol in SLC believe that the original manuscript of the Constitution that relegated women and slaves to second or third class status was the way God intended it to be? I wonder if those patriots who gathered think that the amendments to the Constitution, with the exception of the "right to bear arms" of course, should be eliminated, since they were not part of the original "inspired by God" words? I wonder if this is what Glenn Beck is preaching to his faithful ones?
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Divine Constitution?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Excellent observation about the amendments and the particularly the Second Amendment. It's probably because the demonstration was in Salt Lake that the Constitution sign was there - it is a standard LDS belief that the Constitution was divinely inspired. There is also a prophecy that at one point the Constitution's existence will be hanging by a thread and a member of the LDS church will save it. Religious speech, as you observed, can have long range ripples in the secular arena.
When reading the 912project website, I couldn't help but notice some irony in principle 3. According to fact checking organizations like politifact.com, (which has claims that I believe to be non partisan) Glenn Beck might want to continually work on being honest. Not that we don't all have problems with honesty, but when you speak as an authority figure you have an added responsibility to check your own information before telling people it is true.
Do you suppose that these people that "intellectuals" like you dismiss as "crazy" may have gotten the idea that the God loving writers of the Constitution felt the influence of the Divine, when they wrote in the Preamble "and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Who do you suppose they felt gave them these Blessings? Which of the 9 principles and 12 values do you reject? Do you imagine that the writers intended the Constitution to be more than a Godless "charter of negative liberties", if you can make anything out of a oxymoronic term like that?
I disagree with the first principle. "America is Good".
In this context I assume that Beck is talking about good as in holy or righteous as in good versus evil.
There are some aspects of America that are good, but there are some that are not. I don't think that people should put out blanket statements including things like America is the best, because that doesn't take into account things that America should improve on. This doesn't make me any less of a patriot by saying that America needs improvement in areas or by saying that America is not inherently good.
You are extending your own fundamental religious interpretations way too far. The people holding the sign were probably legal immigrants or members of the armed services who would have had to declare by oath: "that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law". That would explain the the die for the Constitution part, and leave them a lot less room to join the "Blame America First" group to try to bring meaning to their selfish little lives. Being ready to die for your country surely focuses the mind on what a great nation it is (or was up until recently). Too bad that all Americans do not have to take that oath before they can do things like vote, have children, or collect funds from the public coffers!
The Americans who work for the federal government take the same oath to defend the Constitution that legal immigrants do - I take issue with the last comment about the people with "selfish little lives" blaming America first and then the slam on anyone receiving funds from the public coffers. To view the country realistically and maturely recognizes that the history of our country has been one of humans and that the country has made mistakes, from our treatment of the native population to the internment of Japanese Americans during the Second World War. The strength of America is the willingness to look at the past and current actions and take corrective action.
The public coffers are there for use - the Constitution itself talks about promoting the public welfare. If, as commenter #3 says there is a Divine Inspiration for the Constitution, surely that would encompass the "Christian" values of helping the widow and orphan, taking care of the sick, visiting the prisoner, etc. etc. - from the public coffers!
Post a Comment