Diary

Statesmen needed in 2012--Politicans MUST apply

This entry started as a comment responding to conteach’s entry, “Statesmen needed in 2012 – Politicians need not apply.”

We need to nominate someone who is BOTH a statesman and a politician. Anyone who throws his or her hat in the ring is by definition a politician. I am in the minority on this, but I don’t think “politician” is a dirty word. I love politicians, because a politician is someone who was democratically elected (or who is trying to be), and that means we live in a society that allows for self-determination. The constitution protects our rights in a democratic republic, and that is one of the best things about America.

Conteach makes the following assertion:

If politicians no longer believe in the infallibility of scripture or that it was a Divine revelation given by our Creator so we would know how to exercise our inalienable rights, then by default they also are free to question the validity of the Constitution that was based on those scriptural principals. In short, if they believe the 2000 year old document is fallible, then by default the 200 year old document based on it is also fallible. Ergo, they may apply it situationally.

I do not believe in God or the infallibility of Scripture, but I do believe our Constitution was based in part on the principles of the Bible. Having said that, anything created by man, including the Constitution, is fallible. Clearly the Constitution as it was drafted was a compromise among men that permitted slavery. That is as fallible as it gets. But it was a vast improvement over the abuses of the monarch (see the Declaration of Independence for details). The Constitution is fallible, but it is the best we have. We need to defend it. If we want to change it (to ensure a balanced budget, for example) we should promote the process to do so, not try to interpret it like a liberal judge to fit our own definitions.