article vi of the u.s. constitution
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
That seems pretty clear doesn't it? The public officials elected by "we the people" are required to take an oath to support the U.S. Constitution. It is expressly forbidden that they be made to take a religious test in order to take office. That seems so simple, but, sometimes, even we Christian conservatives can't comprehend the very simple.
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53235
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061227/OPINION/612270349/1002
I'm sure that most of you have heard of the "controversy" over incoming Rep. Keith Ellison (D.-Minn.), who is a Muslim, wanting to use a Quran at his swearing-in ceremony. The above links give you "fair and balanced" commentary on the controversy.
I'll tell you right up front that Dennis Prager, who regularly writes for WorldNetDaily.com, is one of my favorite columnists. He is a strong Christian conservative and I respect him. I will also tell you that I detest Sheila Seuss Kennedy (columnist in the IndyStar.com link). She used to head up the Indiana chapter of the ACLU, she is a proud member of the lunatic left, and her ideas about how America ought to be operated run to the dangerously secular progressive/socialist end of the spectrum. So, naturally, I agree 100% with........... S.S. Kennedy. Arghhhhh! Somebody get me a doctor! This is the second week in a row I agreed with her column! Put the bullet right behind my ear!
Seriously, if we are committed to being true Christian conservatives, we must be committed, among other things, to intellectual honesty. This guy Ellison was elected fair and square to the U.S. Congress. The good people of Minnesota's 5th District knew the guy was a Muslim, and they elected him anyway. That's OK. There's nothing wrong with that! At the official swearing-in ceremony, nobody will be using any kind of religious book. All of the electees will simply stand up with their left hand raised and their right hand by their side, and they will swear to defend, support, and uphold the U.S. Constitution. Then, if they so choose, they will each conduct their own, private, unofficial swearing-in ceremonies. If this guy chooses to put his hand on the Quran, THAT'S OK!! He can put his hand on The Minnesota Vikings: A Pictorial Drama for all I care! You and I have nothing to say about that. If Minnesota people don't like that, they can vote the guy out of office in 2008. WE MUST FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION!
If you are getting the impression that I am somewhat irritated with some of my fellow Christian conservatives because of their views on this matter, you would be correct. One of the things that I despise about liberalism is the whole "our Constitution is a living, breathing document" B.S. philosophy. What that means in plain English is that liberals believe that the Constitution means whatever liberals say it means. That's just wrong, and Christian conservatives can't fall into that trap. Leave Ellison alone, and follow the Constitution and the Bible!
That seems pretty clear doesn't it? The public officials elected by "we the people" are required to take an oath to support the U.S. Constitution. It is expressly forbidden that they be made to take a religious test in order to take office. That seems so simple, but, sometimes, even we Christian conservatives can't comprehend the very simple.
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53235
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061227/OPINION/612270349/1002
I'm sure that most of you have heard of the "controversy" over incoming Rep. Keith Ellison (D.-Minn.), who is a Muslim, wanting to use a Quran at his swearing-in ceremony. The above links give you "fair and balanced" commentary on the controversy.
I'll tell you right up front that Dennis Prager, who regularly writes for WorldNetDaily.com, is one of my favorite columnists. He is a strong Christian conservative and I respect him. I will also tell you that I detest Sheila Seuss Kennedy (columnist in the IndyStar.com link). She used to head up the Indiana chapter of the ACLU, she is a proud member of the lunatic left, and her ideas about how America ought to be operated run to the dangerously secular progressive/socialist end of the spectrum. So, naturally, I agree 100% with........... S.S. Kennedy. Arghhhhh! Somebody get me a doctor! This is the second week in a row I agreed with her column! Put the bullet right behind my ear!
Seriously, if we are committed to being true Christian conservatives, we must be committed, among other things, to intellectual honesty. This guy Ellison was elected fair and square to the U.S. Congress. The good people of Minnesota's 5th District knew the guy was a Muslim, and they elected him anyway. That's OK. There's nothing wrong with that! At the official swearing-in ceremony, nobody will be using any kind of religious book. All of the electees will simply stand up with their left hand raised and their right hand by their side, and they will swear to defend, support, and uphold the U.S. Constitution. Then, if they so choose, they will each conduct their own, private, unofficial swearing-in ceremonies. If this guy chooses to put his hand on the Quran, THAT'S OK!! He can put his hand on The Minnesota Vikings: A Pictorial Drama for all I care! You and I have nothing to say about that. If Minnesota people don't like that, they can vote the guy out of office in 2008. WE MUST FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION!
If you are getting the impression that I am somewhat irritated with some of my fellow Christian conservatives because of their views on this matter, you would be correct. One of the things that I despise about liberalism is the whole "our Constitution is a living, breathing document" B.S. philosophy. What that means in plain English is that liberals believe that the Constitution means whatever liberals say it means. That's just wrong, and Christian conservatives can't fall into that trap. Leave Ellison alone, and follow the Constitution and the Bible!
posted by hondo at 10:33 PM
1 Comments:
As a 75 year old leftist Christian, I appreciate your take on the Keith Ellison controversy and on the need for intellectual honesty.
Therefore, I want to challenge you a little on the issue of the Constitution as a "living, breathing document".
I don't agree that "What that means in plain English is that liberals believe that the Constitution means whatever liberals say it means."
Instead, I think it means that there are elements in the Constitution that are imprecise and, indeed, "relative". They have to be re-adjudicated from time to time in a process of legal and cultural contention. I think that's a fairer presentation of "the liberal view" than yours.
Neither "left" nor "right" has a lock on the process. The "right" has certainly benefited from the Supreme Court breathing personhood into corporations in 1886. A "living, breathing" process could well reverse that innovation -- and rightly so, in my view.
Examples of relativism: the phrase "cruel and unusual punishments" is explicitly relative, as are "excessive bail" and "excessive fines". "Unusual" is a statistical concept -- a moving target. Ideas about what constitutes cruelty have changed through time and will continue to change and be acknowledged by the legislatures and courts.
The 9th and 10th amendments are notably imprecise and therefore relative to changes in cultural perceptions and standards:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"; and
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
It requires a lot of heavy breathing, a la Ezekiel's valley, to put flesh on those bones.
If you consider those amendments in the context of the Preamble's "general welfare", you really put a lot of issues on the table. Definitions of "the general Welfare" and notions of how "to promote the general Welfare" are inevitably going to clash.
It's as tricky as the Golden Rule -- what could be more relativistic and changeable in terms of specific behaviors than doing unto others what you would have them do unto you? Me, my great-grandfather, a contemporary Indonesian Muslim, and, say, a 19th century Sioux would have very different wishes and expectations.
We look for a core of kindness, justice, and mercy underlying the many different systems of behavior that have existed in the world and make our tentative judgments accordingly. But it's not always clear. We struggle to discern.
Post a Comment
<< Home