I liked the reminder in Ch. 3 (pg. 90-100) that the Constitution was a struggle to create and that the Founding Fathers strongly disagreed. What do you see as the role of the constitution? Is it a living, evolving document, or one that must be adhered to exactly?
Monday, August 11, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Since we are all Mormon here, I think we can talk openly about how we view the gospel as compared to how we view politics. As a Mormon, I can see Christ and His Church as "unchanging" (although that could be disputed). So my natural inclination is to think of the constitution as set in stone. But Mr. Obama makes a fine case for the constitution to be seen as a changing document based on changing times. The morale of society certainly dictates how issues are perceived and addressed. We are facing problems now (i.e. child pornography) that the founding fathers never dreamt of. So we have to hope that the constitution will be continually used to protect rights and promote a moral society. But the fact that the US is such a melting pot of beliefs and cultures, the issue of "morality" becomes very very difficult to define and legislate. At what point are we invoking our religious/moral beliefs on another person vs. creating a moral/productive society?
I definitely view the Constitution as a living, evolving document. Even using the Church example, I think Christ's Church DOES change. Certainly the doctrines and principles remain the same, but the way we practice them changes-that's why we have living prophets, to help the Church as an organization adapt to the needs of its members.
Similarly, the Constitution provides us with a framework--a system under which we can govern. As the United States changes, so should the way our government governs. If I think about the Founding Fathers, who were clearly brilliant, inspired leaders, I realize that there is no possible way they could have planned in detail for the country that now exists. When they said "separation of church and state," they were talking about not having a state sponsored church, but I certainly doubt they imagined a day when there would be so many non-Christians living in the US. As a result, simply not having a state sponsored church is not sufficient if we want to treat everyone justly.
Did I make sense? Sometimes I'm afraid I'm just rambling.
Post a Comment