Tuesday, January 15, 2008
American theocracy
Where is William Shatner when you need him:
I wish Huckabee would just follow the prime directive and leave us alone.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Where is William Shatner when you need him:
I wish Huckabee would just follow the prime directive and leave us alone.
7 comments:
the first video is no longer available. is there another source for it?
ditto number two
Sorry, but this has been getting entirely too much play in the progressive camp. There is nothing that Huckabee said here that wasn't said with more inflammatory language by William Lloyd Garrison. Garrison even publicly burned the constitution at at abolitionist meeting once. The difference being that Garrison faulted the constitution for recognizing slavery, not for failing to outlaw abortion or gay marriage. Nevertheless, the basic point that both made is that the Constitution is a product of the minds of men and is there is therefore a higher law to which it is the duty of Americans to try to make their constitution conform. That is to say nothing more or less than that we do not have the obligation nor even the right to place our consciences in the keeping of our fallible forbears. This was the same thinking that was responsible for every amendment to the US constitution, whether it was the freeing of the slaves, the establishment of Negro citizenship, giving the vote to women, or outlawing liquor.
I'm sorry but both Garrison and Huckabee are right on this point. That Huckabee's idea of a higher law is pernicious does not impugn the legitimacy of his calling on one, it only impugns the legitimacy of the particular higher law he invokes. Every time that we seek to amend the Constitution to achieve something closer to our ideals we are doing the same thing.
Sorry, but "man calls for legal amendment of the Constitution because he believes that it currently contains moral imperfections" is neither particularly new nor is it revolutionary. Most of all, it is certainly not un-American.
If we're going to fight the religious right on their intolerance then let's do it square on instead of hypocritically pointing to the Constitution as if it is holy writ.
Perhaps I should read history, I'm not sure how the Constitution recognizes slavery especially given that "all men are created equal" - which sounds like an argument for emancipation if you ask me.
I do totally agree that the constitution is the product of men and fallible - and as the 'higher law' it can be and should be questioned at times - and that it is hypocritical to point to the constitution as holy writ.
I guess I always saw the separation of church and state as a part of a fundamental freedom - the only way to maintain spiritual and religious freedom in a country. I see this freedom as being central for all people's well-being.
Sorry Matt, but I've got to disagree with you here.
First, the "all men are created equal" is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution and the Declaration, or at least that part of it, IS pretty close to holy writ, at least where I am concerned and if you look at it carefully, it is pretty close to a profession of faith. "We hold these truths to be self-evident" is a pretty straightforward statement of belief, not of reasoned argument.
As for the recognition of slavery to which Garrison rightly took so much exception, it appears in a number of places.
In article one, section two it discusses the apportionment of representatives thus:
"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."
The phrase "all other persons" is opposed to "free persons." This is a euphemism for slaves.
Article 1, section 9 begins:
"The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."
"Importation of such Persons" is a reference to slaves. This is a limit on the power of the federal government. It comes right BEFORE the clause guaranteeing Habeas Corpus.
Article 4, discussing the relationship between the states and their duties to one another says:
"No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due."
This was the basis of the Fugitive Slave Act, which denied any blacks accused of being escaped slaves even the right of due process of law before they were served up in chains to the claimant. A number of free blacks were kidnapped off the streets of Northern cities and taken south into bondage because of this law.
Clauses like these led Chief Justice Roger Taney, writing for the court to infamously declare that according to the Constitution, all blacks were "beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect."
Supposing for a moment that all of these sections were still in the Constitution, and that Taney's interpretation was still in force. Would you still take exception to someone saying ""[Some of my opponents] do not want to change the Constitution, but I believe it's a lot easier to change the constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that's what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards."?
Would you feel that way if the preacher were William Lloyd Garrison and "God's standards" was not code for heterosexuality and Focus on the Family's preferred list of appropriate behaviors, but rather another way of saying "all men are created equal" as it was for Garrison?
The Constitution prohibits the federal government from establishing a state church and guarantees the individual freedom of belief. Intriguingly however, it didn't even do that much until it was first amended by the Bill of Rights. Even AFTER the passage of the first amendment, it did not even prohibit the state governments from doing so. Both Connecticut and Massachusetts had established churches until well into the nineteenth century. It guarantees us the freedom of belief, but not freedom from belief.
An appeal to a higher law in the interests of amending the Constitution is a perfectly reasonable and indeed healthy thing for the country. Invoking the name of God in the effort to do so has a long and respected tradition in the United States.
Huckabee is a religious wackjob and I oppose him bitterly because he tries to present intolerance as the higher law to which we must strive to make our Constitution conform. But the basic idea that we have a duty to alter our national charter to conform with a higher law is not only not a bad thing, it is a cherished part of our national heritage and on the whole it has led to far more positive developments than negative ones.
Wow.
That last comment was a bit long-winded.
Sorry.
Got kind of carried away I guess.
interesting reading. related to this was an article i read last week parsing the constitution concerning the right to bear arms, and i remember thinking that some people treat the constitution like a bible.
Post a Comment