Mendacious Idols
I have more or less committed to write a series of articles on the U. S. Constitution for the local newspaper. Coincident with my preparations for the articles I have also continued to participate in a weekly discussion group which is ostensibly a Bible study. This morning it was actually a Bible study, the subject being Psalm 115. In the course of the group’s dissection of the Psalmist’s words, it came up that the barbs he threw at the pagans for their idol worship were somewhat a distortion of the truth. The pagans actually believed in transcendent Gods and the idols were nothing more than representations of those Gods. And that’s where this discussion of the Psalm coincidentally tied into my study of the activities leading up to the writing of the Constitution.
I had been struck by some of the measures the Constitutional convention had considered. One of the sticky points the delegates had to handle concerned the matter of representation. Under the Articles of Confederation each state had been equally represented in the federal government, an arrangement the large states found unacceptable, since it gave the smaller states an amount of power disproportionate to their population. The delegates from New Jersey – at that time, one of the smaller states – had proposed (probably for strategic reasons) a radical alternative. They suggested that the boundaries of the current states should be eliminated and a new set of districts be formed in which the population would be approximately equal. Hamilton, one of New York’s delegates, countered with a magisterial proposal that the states be eliminated altogether. Neither proposal met with success. The states were left as they were and the government as we know it today (with a few differences) became the structure implemented in the Constitution.
I mention these radical proposals only to show that the convention was serious about their business. They ruled out nothing. They were even at one time considering a monarchical form of government, with George Washington as the king. (That was probably the agenda behind Hamilton’s proposal.) These were men determined to do the right thing.
But what was their overall grand objective? Given the far-ranging scope of their considerations we may legitimately conclude that they were not seeking any pre-ordained form of government, but were striving to design a government that could be trusted to implement and maintain the ideals of freedom. They had a purpose that transcended the forms and functions of government. They had an idea that was to them so perfect they were willing to consider any constitution, however radical, that would enable them to assure for themselves “and their posterity” a way of life infused with liberty. The Senate, the House of Representatives, the Supreme Court, the Presidency … all these were means to an end. We might even say that they held their ideals above even the land then known as the thirteen states, though I concede that the land and those ideals were so closely knit it would be hard to say they were different. Nevertheless, we can say without fear of contradiction that the Founding Fathers regarded the constitutional government they finally constructed as the best means they could devise to bring about the realization of their ideals.
It must be added that these men, at least some of them, primarily James Madison, recognized the dangers inherent in federalizing so much power in the hands of so few men. They knew human nature to be such that, in time, the means might be transformed into the ends, and the ideals of liberty and justice sacrificed on the altars of security. It was with eyes wide open that those men entrusted the destiny of their ideals to a government elected by and administered by men.
I doubt, however, that they imagined that the government they had designed would degenerate to the point where it would relate to their ideals as did graven images to the Gods they represented. I doubt that they imagined serious men proposing that government dictate the terms of marriage, that government should be empowered in times of danger to suspend the guarantees of liberty, or that government would actively implement policies designed to favor one class of citizens over another. I doubt that they imagined that political partisans, seeking raw power, would cater to religious majorities, actually denying the fundamental separation of church and state. I doubt that they could possibly have imagined a nation so completely given over to material possessions that it would condone the manipulation of currencies for what are euphemistically called “economic necessities.” I doubt they would have envisioned the nation being so blinded to the ideals of freedom that it would pursue policies designed to impose “freedom” on foreign nations at the point of a gun. I doubt they would have imagined the nation they founded would have become an aggressor hated by half the world.
We have become idol worshippers, devoted to our government more than to our ideals. We have become like those religionists who worship their Bibles and their theologies more than their God. We are more in love with a scrap of paper, more devoted to this piece of real estate, more committed to politicians than to justice. We would today answer Patrick Henry in the affirmative. “Yes, Mr. Henry, we do love peace and life so much that we are willing to purchase them with the chains of slavery.”
Well, maybe that’s a bit too strongly worded. I at least do have the liberty to speak freely, to worship or not as I please. If I and my happiness were the only things that mattered, I should have no complaints. If I were assured that my children and theirs were destined to enjoy as much of the fruits of liberty as I have, I would have said none of this. If I did not see the last bastion of liberty – the free press – being bought and paid for by fascist powers, if I did not hear with my own ears respected religionists claiming that our Constitution was based on their Bible, if I were not fearful that the forces of economic tyranny were every day strengthening their grip around the throat of the American dream … if I were hopeful … I assure you I would have writ not a word of this.
But as it is, I cannot in good conscience erase a word of it.
I had been struck by some of the measures the Constitutional convention had considered. One of the sticky points the delegates had to handle concerned the matter of representation. Under the Articles of Confederation each state had been equally represented in the federal government, an arrangement the large states found unacceptable, since it gave the smaller states an amount of power disproportionate to their population. The delegates from New Jersey – at that time, one of the smaller states – had proposed (probably for strategic reasons) a radical alternative. They suggested that the boundaries of the current states should be eliminated and a new set of districts be formed in which the population would be approximately equal. Hamilton, one of New York’s delegates, countered with a magisterial proposal that the states be eliminated altogether. Neither proposal met with success. The states were left as they were and the government as we know it today (with a few differences) became the structure implemented in the Constitution.
I mention these radical proposals only to show that the convention was serious about their business. They ruled out nothing. They were even at one time considering a monarchical form of government, with George Washington as the king. (That was probably the agenda behind Hamilton’s proposal.) These were men determined to do the right thing.
But what was their overall grand objective? Given the far-ranging scope of their considerations we may legitimately conclude that they were not seeking any pre-ordained form of government, but were striving to design a government that could be trusted to implement and maintain the ideals of freedom. They had a purpose that transcended the forms and functions of government. They had an idea that was to them so perfect they were willing to consider any constitution, however radical, that would enable them to assure for themselves “and their posterity” a way of life infused with liberty. The Senate, the House of Representatives, the Supreme Court, the Presidency … all these were means to an end. We might even say that they held their ideals above even the land then known as the thirteen states, though I concede that the land and those ideals were so closely knit it would be hard to say they were different. Nevertheless, we can say without fear of contradiction that the Founding Fathers regarded the constitutional government they finally constructed as the best means they could devise to bring about the realization of their ideals.
It must be added that these men, at least some of them, primarily James Madison, recognized the dangers inherent in federalizing so much power in the hands of so few men. They knew human nature to be such that, in time, the means might be transformed into the ends, and the ideals of liberty and justice sacrificed on the altars of security. It was with eyes wide open that those men entrusted the destiny of their ideals to a government elected by and administered by men.
I doubt, however, that they imagined that the government they had designed would degenerate to the point where it would relate to their ideals as did graven images to the Gods they represented. I doubt that they imagined serious men proposing that government dictate the terms of marriage, that government should be empowered in times of danger to suspend the guarantees of liberty, or that government would actively implement policies designed to favor one class of citizens over another. I doubt that they imagined that political partisans, seeking raw power, would cater to religious majorities, actually denying the fundamental separation of church and state. I doubt that they could possibly have imagined a nation so completely given over to material possessions that it would condone the manipulation of currencies for what are euphemistically called “economic necessities.” I doubt they would have envisioned the nation being so blinded to the ideals of freedom that it would pursue policies designed to impose “freedom” on foreign nations at the point of a gun. I doubt they would have imagined the nation they founded would have become an aggressor hated by half the world.
We have become idol worshippers, devoted to our government more than to our ideals. We have become like those religionists who worship their Bibles and their theologies more than their God. We are more in love with a scrap of paper, more devoted to this piece of real estate, more committed to politicians than to justice. We would today answer Patrick Henry in the affirmative. “Yes, Mr. Henry, we do love peace and life so much that we are willing to purchase them with the chains of slavery.”
Well, maybe that’s a bit too strongly worded. I at least do have the liberty to speak freely, to worship or not as I please. If I and my happiness were the only things that mattered, I should have no complaints. If I were assured that my children and theirs were destined to enjoy as much of the fruits of liberty as I have, I would have said none of this. If I did not see the last bastion of liberty – the free press – being bought and paid for by fascist powers, if I did not hear with my own ears respected religionists claiming that our Constitution was based on their Bible, if I were not fearful that the forces of economic tyranny were every day strengthening their grip around the throat of the American dream … if I were hopeful … I assure you I would have writ not a word of this.
But as it is, I cannot in good conscience erase a word of it.
posted by Benedict S. at 2:04 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home