Procedure and the Preamble
One of the reasons why the Constitution has the ambiguity it has (both with respect to its rules and its principles) is because the 39 signatories of that document could not agree sufficiently on the hermeneutical specifics of the provisions inherent in the rules and principles of the Constitution in order to be able to map things out in more detail. Alternatively, or, perhaps, in addition, they did not have the foresight to understand such ambiguity did exist in the Constitution and the problems which this would create for subsequent generations. Or, possibly, they did have the foresight to understand the foregoing sort of difficulties, and just didn’t know what to do about it, and, therefore, left those problems as an exercise for later generations to foul up any way they wished, and, therefore, perhaps, like all would-be government officials, the framers of the Constitution were very good at leaving messes for other people to try to clean up.
If one moves from the 39 people who shaped and signed the Constitution, to the larger set of people who selected those individuals, to the even larger set of individuals who were not represented in the selection process, and, then, throw in all those people who were entirely disenfranchised by the process (women, Native Peoples, Blacks, and children), then, really, whose Constitution are we talking about here? Whose purposes? Whose meanings? Whose values? Whose ideas? Whose modes of logic? Whose needs? Whose interests? And, how does one justify selecting any sub-set of meanings from this array of possibilities as constituting that which should govern the lives of people and define what is meant by the rights of people to a more perfect union, justice, tranquility, defense, welfare and the blessings of liberty?
Undoubtedly, one would find themes of commonality among all these various sets of individuals – places of agreement about what was right and what was wrong. However, if the history of human kind has proven anything, the far more common thread of human events is about disagreement, not agreement.
Problems usually don’t arise when people agree about things. Problems arise when people disagree.
Yet, the one thing which the Constitution does not do is map out how to find solutions in the context of disagreement – solutions which serve everyone’s rights to a more perfect union, justice, tranquility, defense, welfare, and the blessings of liberty. The Preamble to the Constitution does not talk about a majority of the people, it alludes to ‘all’ people – “We the People”.
Anyone who supposes one can, or should, water down the inclusive language of the Preamble, and, thereby, suggest that Constitutional democracy really only means one needs to satisfy just some simple majority of the population – and which simple majority this may be is entirely arbitrary and a matter of the fortunes of politics – doesn’t have the slightest understanding of why the Declaration of Independence came into being in the first place. Or, maybe they do have such an understanding, and in order to protect their interests, they wish to ensure that no one else is in a position to follow the logic of that document – the very logic which made the Constitution possible and which is inherent in the Constitution’s Preamble.
Furthermore, anyone who wishes to reduce democracy to a simplistic and brain-dead form of majority rules, doesn’t understand the concept of a right. Rights belong to all citizens of a democracy, but they are intended to prevail against a majority, if necessary, for the very idea of the protections afforded by rights is that such protection should stand even against the wishes of the majority. A right which cannot guarantee this protection against the majority is no right at all.
Similarly, when the Preamble to the Constitution talks about forming “a more perfect Union”, establishing Justice, insuring domestic Tranquility, providing for the common defence, promoting the general Welfare, and securing the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, the logical character of rights is in force here and the underlying intention is that protections should be afforded to everyone to enable them to benefit from such establishing, insuring, providing, promoting, and securing.
How to do this so that both minorities and majorities are equally protected and served is another matter. The Constitution represents a procedural blueprint for how to approach this problem, and the signatories of that document may not have known how to do it, and we might not know how to accomplish this, but the basic challenge is clear.
Consequently, one simply cannot ignore the Preamble as a nice-sounding piece of literary fluff which merely introduces the, supposedly, real business of the Constitution. Indeed, the whole purpose of forging the Constitution was to serve the integrity of the Preamble. In other words, the procedural rules and principles of the Constitution are intended to constructively assist the realization of the Preamble’s purpose.
Unfortunately, many people have entirely misunderstood the meaning and significance of such procedural measures, interpreting them to mean that elected officials have the right to pass laws, via majority votes, to tell people what is meant by Justice, or Tranquility, or common defense, or the general welfare, or the Blessings of Liberty. Such an interpretive approach to the Constitution flies in the face of everything which led up to the writing of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution – to follow such a line of thinking is an exercise in revisionist history which serves the powers that be.
The separation of powers among the Executive Branch, the Legislature, and the Judicial system was intended as a system of procedural checks and balances to protect the integrity of the principles and purposes inherent in the Preamble. Instead, the whole idea of a separation of powers has become a tug of war among little children squabbling to protect their territorial powers to impose themselves and their thinking upon others, and in doing so they have all demeaned their offices, the Constitution, and the people who have died so that the Constitution might be written and enacted.
The Constitution did do one thing, and it did this fairly well. The document provided a starting point which gave people a context around which to focus and to explore possibility.
The document provided a way to get things going. However, there is a downside or dark side to such momentum, and that is the inertial forces which have come into play that resist – blindly and obsessively -- moving in directions which may be much more conducive to securing and guarding the rights of citizens to a more perfect union, justice, tranquility, defense, welfare, and liberties than is presently the case.
What Does the First Amendment Mean?
Amendment 1 of the Constitution, passed some four years after the Constitution came into being and which was made possible by the procedural rules set forth in Article V of that document, stipulates:
“Congress shall make no law representing an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Some people refer to the first part of this Amendment as the ‘Separation Clause’. Such individuals maintain that the purpose and meaning of this portion of the Amendment is to demarcate the boundaries of governmental conduct so no form or process of religion may be instituted as a matter of public policy, and, simultaneously, to ensure that government may not interfere with anyone’s right to exercise one’s choice of religious practice – including, by implication, the right not to make a choice concerning, or practice in accordance with, religious doctrines or practice.
Procedural speaking, this part of the Amendment, as is also true of the remaining aspects of the Amendment, is an excellent way to create conditions through which the rights of the Preamble may be pursued by people without prejudice to what they believe, do, say, write, or the reasons for which they assemble, as long as other principles inherent in the Preamble -- such as ‘domestic Tranquility’ Justice, common defense, the Blessings of Liberty, or the general Welfare -- are not disturbed, compromised, or undermined thereby.
However, a very important question to ask at this juncture is the following. What is religion and is religion a matter of rules or principles or both?
One can go to any number of dictionaries, look up the word “religion” and run down through the primary, secondary, or tertiary designations. Nonetheless, one should try to remember that a dictionary is not the word of God even though some lexicographers might like to think otherwise.
A dictionary is nothing more than a compilation of common and not so common usages of a word. Dictionaries presuppose the linguistic practices of people.
Dictionaries provide parameters of possibility in order to inform one how people do, and have, used such words in order to facilitate communication. Whether the meanings inherent in, or the basis of usage for, a word are right, wrong, true, or false with respect to the nature of reality is actually irrelevant to being able to come to understand what someone is saying by using words in certain ways.
In addition, etymologies provide a history of the evolution of usages and transitions in such usages across languages for particular words. Again, recording this history or noting the changes in usage over time says nothing about the truth or falsity of such linguistic practices.
If one wishes to add n-dimensions of nuance to a dictionary’s rendering of a word’s meaning, then, one may read what various individuals have written about such a word as these people develop their respective theologies, philosophies, mythologies, sciences, sociology, anthropology, psychology, histories, moralities, or legal perspectives in relation to that word. Like the reiterated equations underlying a fractal, one can take almost any word and explore the possible meanings and significance of that word to an indefinite extent ... as many levels down, up, and in other dimensions, as one likes, without necessarily coming any closer to the truth or end of a matter or issue.
The Constitution says nothing about whose usage is to be preferred concerning a word such as “religion”. The Constitution gives no guidelines about what any of its words do mean or should mean or could mean.
The Preamble to the Constitution does provide some indication that our approach to these matters should be as broad as possible without being forced to drop off the edge of the world of intelligible meaning into nihilism, sophistry, or nonsense. Moreover, there is some indication in the Preamble that this broad spectrum engagement of issues should be consistent with the preservation of the integrity of the several principles (a more perfect union, justice, tranquility, common defense, general welfare, and liberties) which are mentioned in the Preamble.
As an exercise, let’s consider some possible ways of reflecting upon the idea or concept of “religion”. For instance, one prominent theme of religion is ‘faith’.
Some people describe faith as being nothing more than beliefs, values, or opinions to which one is attached with considerable conviction and passion despite an absence of evidence. Other people characterize faith as either a true or heuristic (and this is not the same thing as being true) insight into the way one’s experience links up with, or connects to, the nature of reality, despite the possibility of error with respect to such an insight.
Is there anyone who does not have faith in either of the foregoing senses? Is there anyone who does not hold her or his beliefs with conviction or passion, or does not consider such beliefs and convictions to be constructive or heuristic leads to engaging and/or seeking the ultimate nature of truth or reality -- and, yet, simultaneously, realizes one could be wrong with respect to that which one believes one is right?
Another term used in conjunction with religion is “soul”. Who amongst us does not believe human beings have a soul ... and possibly animals, plants, and the rest of the universe as well?
The issue has never been about the idea of soul. The controversy has been over its nature and purpose.
Does the soul transmigrate? Is the soul accountable, and, if so, to whom – God? the community? the judicial system? ourselves? our family? the Universe?
Is the soul the seat of the intellectual machine? Is the soul that which motivates and inspires creative activity? Is the soul the source of feeling of empathy for things? Is the soul really just a way of referring to the psyche by another name and, therefore, is merely a psychological construct or artifact? Is the soul destined for either eternal perdition or salvation? Is the soul a miracle of random, evolutionary forces? Is there an Over-soul to which we are all connected via the agency of our individual souls? Is the soul material, psychological, ethereal, spiritual, mythological, rational, irrational, illusory, permanent, or transitory?
Whether true or not, most of us believe the existence of a soul, however it may be described, is one of the things which distinguishes human beings from other beings of the Universe. This is not because other beings (whether animate or seemingly inanimate) may not have a soul, but, rather, because the structural character or quality or nature of the human soul is somehow different and, consequently, defining of what being human entails – both in the way of possibilities, as well as in relation to responsibility and accountability.
Some people say that the notion of a ‘conscientious devotion and scrupulous care’ to certain precepts is the hallmark of religion. This devotion or commitment to a set of ideals, values, principles, morals, and priorities which are intended to guide the living and engagement of life is said to characterize the essence of religion.
We all have ideals, beliefs, ethical precepts, codes, and so on to which we are devoted and to which we -- according to our capacities, inclinations, and circumstances – seek to follow with some degree of scrupulous care. If we don’t choose to call these things religious, does this make them any less consonant with some of the principles inherent in religious discourse ... a rose by any other name is still a rose.
Of course, some demand that religion must be about one’s relationship with a Supreme Being. Numerous wars have been fought over what the name of this Supreme Being is or should be.
One commits a logical fallacy when one confuses the name of something as having a greater claim on the nature of reality than the actual nature of the reality to which the name allegedly makes identifying reference. One is reifying language rather than understanding that language is nothing more than an elaborate way of pointing to, and describing, something which lies beyond the horizons of linguistic limits.
In the Old Testament, the Hebrew tetragrammaton YHWH is used to allude to the reality that the Supreme Being does not use any name to identify the reality of “I Am That I Am”. In the penchant of some people to invest language with more reality than it deserves, they have transformed the foregoing tetragrammaton into a name Yahweh, when no such naming process ever was intended.
In this context, the very act of naming distorts that to which the tetragrammaton is seeking to direct our attention through a modality of alluding. The process of naming tends to distort because we are projecting our way of coding experiences, understandings, interpretations, and values onto reality whenever we do this. In so doing, we tend to reduce the richness of the infinite – or, at the very least, the indefinite – down to the names we invent in order to make reference to our experience – both individual and collective.
Oddly enough -- although not really -- the Buddhist inclination not to name ultimate reality is right in step with the aforementioned tetragrammaton. The Void which is Fullness alludes to the presence of a Reality, but this Presence cannot be captured through the use of any name.
Some people speak of Buddhism as a godless religion. One would be more accurate to refer to Buddhism as an approach to the engagement of reality which shies away from naming That which cannot be named because to do so introduces substantial distortion into the conceptual and hermeneutical landscape.
Names imply ‘thingness’ or having the status of an object. The Buddhist and the Jewish scriptures, along with many mystical traditions, are trying to draw our attention to the idea that the ultimate nature of reality is not a function of thingness, nor objects, stuff, material, substance, or even spirit.
Some spiritual traditions of Native peoples use the term “the Great Mystery”. Is this so different from the Christian idea of the Cloud of Unknowing about which some mystics have talked that alludes to the veils which stand between, on the one hand, human experience, language, or reason, and, on the other hand, the reality which transcends our experience, language, or reason, even while that Reality makes such experience, language and reason possible?
Einstein spoke about the ‘Old Man’-- his way of alluding to the truths to which the ultimate nature of reality gave expression. Was he a religious man? Well, whatever the answer to this question might be, his writings do indicate, in many places, that he held truth and reality to be sacred trusts which were one’s obligation to understand and respect.
“Supernatural” is another word one often hears in the context of religious discussions. What exactly, however, do we mean by this?
Someone once said words to the effect that one culture’s magic is another culture’s technology. Might one not suppose that one culture’s notion of the supernatural is another culture’s knowledge concerning the nature of Nature?
Are the infinite dimensions of mathematical space supernatural? Even if one were to accept the idea of String Theory in physics to be true, does this mean there is, or can be, nothing beneath such a truth? Are so-called ‘dark matter’, and the similar sounding, but very different notion, of ‘dark energy’ supernatural entities?
Currently, we do not have a defensible Grand Unified Theory capable of explaining all physical phenomena, since, among other things, we suffer from an absence of any way to reconcile the general theory of relativity with the other fundamental forces. And, this is just one of the obstacles to such a ‘Theory of Everything’, for, among other things, we also suffer from the rather embarrassing fact that all of the important constants of science have to be arbitrarily introduced into such GUT discussions since, currently, there is no way to plausibly account for why, say, the Planck constant has the value it does and how that value arises from first principles of any such GUT framework, or why the electron has the precise charge it does, and so on. Yet, even if we were to have a fully realizable Grand Unified Theory of all the known physical forces is such a GUT framework really capable of providing an accurate and satisfying account for consciousness, intelligence, creativity, soul, purpose, choice, personality, the search for meaning, faith, and trans-personal experiences, or Being? And, if we do not have such an account, then, how does one go about determining what might be meant by the ‘supernatural’?
Astrophysicists claim they can trace back events to mere pico seconds from the Big Bang, but they have absolutely no explanation for what would have brought this all about, and the plausibility of most cosmological models of the Big Bang depends on, among other things, an event known as “inflation” for which absolutely no one has the slightest idea of why or how such an event would have physically occurred -- although by assuming the existence of such an event, the Big Bang model is saved -- theoretically, at least -- from a substantial embarrassment. Was the Big Bang a supernatural event with material consequences? Is ‘inflation’ a sign of supernatural intervention?
Evolutionists love to claim they have nailed down, precisely, how life arose or – barring that, they purport to have the only scientifically plausible account for the emergence of life. Any evolutionist who wishes to claim this is talking through his or her spectacles of faith and nothing more.
The key to trying to understand the possible nature of the transition from non-living to biological systems does not rest with the work of Darwin, neo-Darwinians, nor with the findings of those who have developed the field of population genetics, but, rather, lies hidden in the darkness of, as yet, undiscovered, scientific country. As someone who has looked at most of the so-called evidence bearing on this matter – from prebiotic chemistry, to: molecular biology, cytology, membrane functioning, thermodynamics, as well as chaos and complexity theories, along with a number of other disciplines -- I have concluded that investigators really don’t have a smoking gun ... not even remotely... with respect to providing a reasonable, scientific account of how biological systems evolved out of non-biological systems.
Evolutionists have a lot of technical data with no way to piece it together in an intelligible and defensible manner that would be acknowledged as such by any impartial, objective individual. This state of affairs does not mean that any of the so-called Creationist schools of thought are correct.
What it says is: we really don’t know how things came about. If we are honest with ourselves and the available evidence, this is how and where things stand at the present time.
We have theories, opinions, paradigms, ideas, and world views. We don’t have certain knowledge, or even reasonably certain knowledge, about such matters. We have lots of speculation trying to parade itself as knowledge ... nothing more, and those who claim otherwise merely are confusing conceptual smoke and mirrors with the rigorous demands of demonstration and proof. Proponents of both the Evolutionary and Creationist schools of thought have often brought more heat than substance to the problem of trying to understand, to whatever extent this is possible, how the origin(s) of life took place. (For those who may be interested in reading further about this issue, please contact me for information about how to acquire: Evolution On Trial -- which is a detailed, rigorous, scientific, non-Creationist, examination of the available evidence that, allegedly, stands in support of an evolutionary account for the origins of life.)
When one doesn’t have determinate answers to the central questions of life, one lacks knowledge about whether, or not, one is dealing with natural or supernatural events. In fact, when one doesn’t have the necessary information, evidence, or proof about such questions, one doesn’t even know how to set the line of demarcation which clearly and definitively distinguishes the supernatural and the natural, and, therefore, everything remains open to further study. Labeling things as being either one or the other really establishes nothing but the arbitrariness of the process used to linguistically identify various facets of experience and which, as such, tends to obfuscate the relationship between language and reality.
“Worship” is another term one finds in a context of religious discussions. Talking, singing, dancing, writing, searching for truth, loving life, communing with nature, as well as serving friends, family, or community are all ways of engaging in worship. One doesn’t have to confine worship to the home or a theologically sanctioned building.
Worship can be manifested through both vocation and avocation. Worship can be expressed through the way one interacts and treats other people. Worship arises through the sacrifices we make for our families or the community, or friends, or the truth. Worship is in the heart when one hears music that moves one or sees a work of art that brings tears to one’s eyes.
Worship is to treat with respect and reverence that which we hold to be sacred. Worship does not depend on language ... it is a state of being ... it is an attitude toward life ... it is a way of engaging our experience of Being.
We are all caught up in the sheer mystery, wonder, awe, inexplicability, beauty, enormity, indefiniteness, richness, possibilities, and terror of existence. We tend to treat these experiences as sacred ground.
We engage such experiences through a combination of faith, doubt, knowledge, and questions. We may, or may not, be dealing with something supernatural – although since we haven’t even figured out the physical side of things yet, we don’t even know what is meant by saying that something is supernatural other than that such a dimension of existence operates by principles beyond what we know or understand to be ‘natural’.
We have a passion about all of this. We commit ourselves to all of this in different, personalized ways which are manifested with varying degrees of being done conscientiously and with scrupulous care.
Some people refer to the foregoing in religious terms. Some people refer to the foregoing in non-religious terms.
The precise term which is used actually is irrelevant. The First Amendment is a principle, not a rule, that both prohibits the establishment of any way of engaging reality that is intended to serve as public policy to which everyone must adhere, bow down, or comply with, and, in addition, the First Amendment indicates that public policy cannot interfere with the way people choose to exercise this right to engage Being or existence or life or the opportunities encompassed by reality – as long as such exercise does not undermine or compromise the integrity of any of the principles inherent in the Preamble, and the reason for which the Constitution came into being as a procedural means of preserving.
Public Policy and the First Amendment
Whether politicians, government bureaucrats, or Supreme Court Jurists like it or not, almost invariably, public policy entails doing what the First Amendment prohibits. In other words, as the preceding discussion concerning the First Amendment indicates, public policy is a means for making laws respecting the establishment of a way to engage reality which satisfies the conditions of what religion, broadly construed, actually involves.
Public policy is really religion in conceptual drag, and such linguistic camouflage is actually intended to hide the underlying identity of the conceptual body which is being paraded before the public. Public policy demands that everyone adhere to its tenets for engaging, analyzing, evaluating, and acting in relation to the nature of existence or reality, and, as such, this is really nothing less than the establishing of a state-run religion hiding in secular-like garments.
The term used to identify a human activity -- in the present case, ‘public policy’ -- can be misleading and, therefore, one needs to look at the structural character and intent underlying the usage associated with a given term. If one looks at the intention and nature of the process to which much public policy gives expression, one would be hard pressed to differentiate such activity from political and legal instances of making, or trying to make, “laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” when one begins to reflect on the complexities, nuances, and breadth of activities which are encompassed by the term “religion”.
The Preamble to the Constitution is about people, not Governments. The Constitution is the set of procedural guidelines, in the form of both rules and principles, which establish a framework for serving the principles inherent in the Preamble on behalf of people, not governments.
To whatever extent the public policies of government officials or jurists try to establish a set of values, beliefs, ideas, principles, philosophies, opinions, or theories as incumbent on the people, such government officials and jurists are engaging in practices which are not only in violation of the First Amendment, but, as well, transgressing against the very spirit, purpose, and meaning inherent in the Preamble to the Constitution and all which led to the writing of a document (namely, the Constitution) which is intended to procedurally serve, secure, guard and protect the integrity of the principles introduced into the Preamble. Whether one calls such public policy: economics, judicial review, science, political philosophy, fiscal policy, or a distributive theory of justice, one is establishing a mandatory framework of values which is prohibited by the Constitution and inconsistent with the spirit of the Preamble to that document.
The whole idea of the Declaration of Independence, the Preamble, and the Constitution was to bring an end to tyranny, despotism, and arbitrary authoritarianism. The purpose and intent of writing these documents was to prevent anyone – whether King George, or a President, Governor, Congress, a state legislature, or the judicial system from exercising power in ways that would prevent people from having access to the right to the pursuit of happiness, a more perfect union, justice, domestic tranquility, common defense, general welfare, and the blessings of liberty, by creating obstacles to such principles through making personal philosophies of life (political, religious, scientific, or otherwise) the law of the land and, thereby, having established a religious framework.
The First Amendment says a Government may not interfere with the free exercise of religions by individuals. That Amendment says absolutely nothing – either explicitly or implicitly – about Governments, as Governments (as opposed to private citizens), being entitled to freely practice its form of religion, faith, worship, or beliefs concerning how anyone should engage the truth or reality.
Just as the judicial system was in error when, on several occasions, it extended the quality of being a person to corporations, so, too, Governments have surreptitiously, and through legal prestidigitation, assumed for themselves a right to the exercise of religious freedom which only was intended to be granted to human beings. Just as the classifying of corporations as persons was a legal fiction with real, detrimental consequences that placed people in harm’s way and at a considerable disadvantage (for instance granting corporations the right to free speech gives the people who run them a double kick at the can which is not granted to any actual person – more specifically, not only do the people who run corporations get to exercise their right to free speech as private citizens they also are extended a double-dipping right to do so in their capacity as a cell in corporate bodies which have considerably more money and influence than do most people, and, therefore, the whole playing field is tilted in a way that was never intended by those who signed the Declaration of Independence who wrote the Preamble to the Constitution), so, too, government officials and jurists who, in a very self-serving manner, accrue to themselves the right to establish public policy counterparts to the establishment of religion, have introduced a legal fiction that has destructive consequences which places people in harm’s way and at a considerable disadvantage with respect to securing the rights to which the Preamble gives promise.
All too many politicians have interpreted the so-called ‘Separation Clause’ of the First Amendment as a green light for government officials and jurists to impose their philosophical beliefs upon citizens while, simultaneously, precluding mere citizens from having religious beliefs instituted as public policy. If the purpose of the latter exclusion is to protect the community from having to submit to the personal beliefs of individuals, the logic of this preclusion extends to government officials and jurists, as well, and, therefore, such officials and jurists should not have the right to establish personal philosophies of any kind (economic, judicial, political, educational, or otherwise) as public policy.
The fact something is called ‘public policy’ rather than ‘religion’ does not alter the logical ramifications of the argument or the principle which is being violated. Both public policy and religion are personal visions for, and ways of, engaging reality, in accordance with issues of faith, commitment, passion, belief, and a moral system that treats certain principles as sacred and, therefore, allegedly, worthy of our conscientious and scrupulous attention.
Public policy may not refer to a Supreme Being -- although, on occasion, it does. Nonetheless, the arrogance underlying public policy substitutes for, and plays the role of, a supreme being (although ‘idol’ might be a better term) to which all must bow down.
Submitting to truth and the nature of reality out of choice is one thing. Being compelled to submit to the arbitrary fiats and proclamations of would-be deities is quite another matter.
| Part 1 | Next | Part 4 |
| Return to Education Menu |
|
