03/28/07
Strict constructionisms -
Categories: Strict constructionism has evolved. A strict constructionist used to refer to one who upholds only those enumerated powers in the Constitution. Now it is one who upholds only those enumerated or specific rights in the Constitution, thus voiding the Ninth Amendment.
I support the first kind of strict constructionism. I abhor the second. The first is an individualist liberal, indeed, libertarian position. The second is a conservative position, one that doesn't allow recognition of rights retained by the people,
and thus denies any furthering of the progress of liberty.
During the period in question, when strict constructionism evolved from a liberal to a conservative principle, there was a change in Christianity, too. Christians too often nowadays — both left and right — do not strictly construe their own religion. They invent new duties that were not present in their founding documents. There is, for instance, no command to get involved politically, or take a political position. There is no call for it in the New Testament. And yet many Christians nowadays pretend that, from their own religion, they can derive a politics.
I doubt if that's possible, considering the apolitical nature of the Christian revolution (AD 33–313*), to define a strictly Christian political philosophy. I've read numerous attempts, and all seem risible to me. A Christian's political philosophy has to be extra-Christian to be honest, and should be humbly recognized as such, not trumpted as The Word of God Absolute.
Jews and Muslims have it easier, of course. Both religions contain quite a lot of leal and political material — for the Jews, to much for their own contemporary use; for the Muslims, too much for the safety of non-Muslims! But Christianity was something else again, and its stance regarding law was Christian liberty, a very different critter. (And not a political critter, either.)
So my point is, Christians as Christians have no way to strictly make a political position. No strict construction
of commands from the New Testament yield any inelectuable political truths. So it is amusing to see Christians on the right say they are for strict constructionism in the Constitution. This position cannot be a strictly constructed Christian position, despite their frequent pretenses. (One such being the pretense that America's status as a Christian nation
has some bearing on developing its laws and polity; it does not.)
Leftist Christians are less hypocritical, more consistent. Those who oppose both conservative and libertarian versions of strict constructionism
in politics mirror their lack of strict constructionism in their own religion. They pretend to find in the New Testament principles that would allow statism to flow directly from their religion. Since there are no such principles, they can be considered the opposite of strict constructionists in both religion and politics.
Of course, both left and right, there are many Christians with more humble approaches to politics. They may or may not support this or that form of strict constructionism in ideology. But, whatever they advocate, they realize that they do so largely as citizens and human beings, not in their special capacity as Christians. They do not receive special blessing from their scriptures, and they know it. They work out their political philosophy with fear and trembling. And, perhaps, even prayer.
Such Christians are a lot easier to take than those who pretend that they get each of their political positions as from the very Word of God.
...
*When Constantine legalized Christianity, and substantially supported the religion, the Christian consolidation began, which was very, very different than the revolution preceding.
Comments:
No Comments for this post yet...
Leave a comment:
Pingbacks:
No Pingbacks for this post yet...
RSS Feed