The Bible and the Constitution

The Tea Party, which has become ubiquitous these days, has been driving the political conversation for some time. A large number of these Tea Party regulars are also religious conservatives. One direction in which they seem to be taking the country is in treating the Constitution as a document delivered straight frrom the Godhead Himself. This approach to the Bible has been part and parcel of the religious conservative's approach to religion, but there can be some real dangers in approaching the Constitution in the same fashion.

We have already discussed a more realistic approach to understanding the Bible in earlier blogs and will likely pursue that discussion further in a later blog. At this time I want to consider some of the ways in which this raising the Constitution to the level of scripture is actually a misunderstanding of the framers intent and can box us into being unable to achieve important ends and appropriate progress for our country. Too many Tea Party regulars have chosen to deify the framers of the Constitution, but they are not meant to be deified and the Constitution is not a religious documnent.

First lets look at some of the ways in which the Bible and the Constitution may in fact be similar. In the first instance the Bible serves as the book by which Christians determine their beliefs and govern their behavior. The Constitution is the basis for all the laws of the land and thus, it is the document by which we govern ourselves. The Bible is interpreted literally, or more flexibly by some, or in the case of Catholicism, the Pope and heirarchy become the final arbiters of what the Bible means. The Constitution is also interpreted in a strict or loose fashion by scholars having various beliefs. The Supreme Court was established as the official determiner of the meaning of the Constitution. In that sense it is something like the Pope interpreting scripture. So there are some similarities.

Whatever one's religious beliefs, however, treating the Constitution as if it is some sacred document is not a good idea. First of all, because it isn't. Nor is the Supreme Court a religious body that has some infallible insight into the truth of the Constitution. Nor in fact does the Constitution always get it right on every issue. There are clear instances of this reality without even resorting to the decision to make every African Slave the equivalent of 3/5 of a person. In terms of the Supreme Court there are many decisions that are not only considered erroneous, but have been reversed by later courts. Bottom line, believing in the Constitution as one might believe in the Bible is a formula for serious problems. Even the founding fathers were conscious of their limitations and insisted on a mechanism for amending their own document.

Three issues that exemplify the problem might include the Health Care Reform Bill, the second amendment, and campaign finance reform. If the individual mandate is declared unconstitutional but we need an individual mandate to provide health care to our citizenry then we need to amend or enlarge are understanding of the Constitution to make that happen. If the second amendment permits all citizens to carry guns, and that means young people are carrying and using guns all over the streets of Detroit, Philadelphia, etc, then we need to find a way to make our country safe for all of our people. If money is a form of free speech and this means that the rich and powerful can set policy and determine who will govern and how they will govern, then we are compelled to redress the wrong that makes those of us with less power and wealth have less say in our government.

The point is that the wording of the Constitution is not meant to limit what we can do as a free people but to facilitate our efforts. It is our obligation to make the Constitution work for our country and it's citizens. It is not the words of the Constitution that should determine our actions, but rather the legitimate needs of our people. After all, it is the preamble of the Constitution that tells us that we have established this Constitution for the express purpose of forming a more perfect union. It can be debated whether the issues discussed above merit changing the Constitution or our approach to its interpretation. What cannot be debated is that the Constitution is not meant to prevent the enactment of laws to advance our nation. It is not meant to stand in the way of our building that more perfect union, but rather it is meant to make it possible for us to do so.

A rigid or strict construction of the Constitution seems to miss the point of what the framers were attempting to do. Just as many religious conservatives seem to have forgotten that the Bible was written by human authors, they also tend to forget how fallible and limited were our founding fathers. The founding fathers were conscious of their own limitations and were attempting to produce a document that would allow its people to operate as appropriate in the years ahead, not to fit it with a straitjacket. Clearly the Constitution is embedded in the culture in which it was generated and the conditions prevalent at the time. So many present day circumstances were unheard of and could not have been envisioned when the Constitution was written. Yet if anyuthing is clear, it is the expectation that this document will provide the framework for the country to be successful and for its people to prosper. To allow a strict constructionist view to prevent our people from taking our country in directions deemed proper would be to demonstrate a failure to understand the purpose of our Constitution. Thomas Jefferson was unlear in his own mind whether the Louisiana Purchase might be unconstituional, but he went ahead with it anyway because what was clear was that it was the right thing to do for the health and benefit of the nation he led. That is a good example or principle for us to follow.