If there's one thing my holiness upbringing emphatically grilled into my head as a child, it's that it isn't about me. I grew up on a stable diet of "dying to self," which primarily meant that I was to surrender my will entirely to God. There was to be no part of me that resisted God's will or that pulled against God.
Of course that's easier said than done, and it's not what I have in mind today. This goal of selflessness spilled over into the way we are to treat each other. We are to live "in honor, preferring one another," as my father used to say. You put others above yourself. This plays itself out down to the dinner table. Go ahead, you take the last piece of pie.
I remember a big aha moment in college when reading Romans 14--it's not about my rights. It's about what's best for everyone and the kingdom. It may be my right to do something, but that doesn't mean the right thing to do is to take advantage of my rights. Rather, let this mind be in you which was in Christ Jesus--who was God and not only became human for us, became a slave for us, but died for us a horrible death (Phil. 2).
I'm still not to what I had in mind for this post. The above is just about how Christians are supposed to behave in this world. There are legitimate situations, but let it be rare that you hear a Christian say, "I've got my rights." In fact, Paul advises the Corinthians that sometimes it's better to lose than to stand up for what is rightfully yours (1 Cor. 6:7).
With this background, you can imagine that it grates on my nerves to hear Americans talking about any number of rights they have, on both sides. I hate hearing "health care is a universal right" just as much as I hate hearing, "It's my right to take a gun anywhere I want." It's not that I don't believe it is important for us to speak up for the rights of Americans... and I do think Christians will do it that way--standing up not so much for their own individual rights but for the rights of others. My problem goes to another aha moment I had once upon a time.
None of the rights of the Constitution are absolute. That is to say, there are exceptions to almost all of our rights as Americans. To hear some Americans speak, there are no limits to my individual rights as an American. (And, yes, the current American climate has become dangerously egoist--my rights rather than our collective rights) Because the rights of individuals sometimes pull against each other, rights have to be prioritized.
For example, my freedom to religion is not absolute. If I am a Jehovah's Witness who doesn't believe my child should have a blood transfusion, tough cookies if the life of my child is in danger. If my religion says I should kill abortion doctors or murder Christians, sorry Charlie. If my religion calls for ritual virgin sacrifices, I'm out of luck. The freedom of religion isn't absolute. There are exceptions.
My freedom of speech is not absolute. It's a fine line, but if my speech is urging people to violence beyond a certain point, I will be legally forced to shut up. No one is free to incite violence against the government or to speak toward the murder of government officials. At some point, a line is crossed and my rights end.
The same applies to other freedoms in the Bill of Rights. After due process, the government can take away my property to build a highway. A murderer does not have the right to carry a gun. Capital punishment, when legal, can deprive a person of his or her life. Our freedoms as Americans are not absolute. They are extensive, but they are not absolute. I personally think we need to be reminded of this fact.
And it makes sense because the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one. This is the primary principle of people living together. The greatness of the American experiment was the Bill of Rights, which set down certain boundaries for how far this overarching utilitarianism could go. We set up a framework that located individual freedom within the boundaries of a peaceful society.
The precise limits of those boundaries are constantly changing. I can understand a child having to wear a seat belt. I'm less comfortable with an adult being forced to wear one. I understand keeping public places free from smoke and with drinking limits for driving. I'm less comfortable when laws try to force me as an individual to eat healthily.
But it's a give and take. There aren't clear lines. You can't just say, "It's my right." We're in this thing together, not just as individuals.
It's worth reminding ourselves of the Preamble to the Constitution. We the people have established a more perfect union to establish justice, to ensure domestic tranquility, to provide for the common defense, and to promote the general welfare. And, yes, we established a Constitution to ensure the blessings of liberty too--primarily our corporate freedom but also our individual freedom.
Showing posts with label Constitution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Constitution. Show all posts
Friday, November 29, 2013
Sunday, March 10, 2013
The Function of Rights
The set up of the US Constitution--and all modern democracies--is brilliant. It/they balance two important principles:
1. Majority rule
2. Individual rights
1. Majority rule
The idea of majority rule in itself is a great privilege, although not without potential pitfalls. It is a privilege because we are not ruled by a dictator who can oppress the majority. Its danger is mob rule, where the majority rule in a self-destructive way or a way that oppresses a minority group. This is why it is important to have an educated majority that understands the nature of self-governance.
2. Individual rights
"The greater good for the greater number" (utilitarianism) is the fundamental assumption of a democracy. It is important to balance this ethical principle out with a second, "without violating individual rights." The Bill of Rights, the first amendments to the US Constitution, provide protections for these rights.
They include famous rights like 1) freedom of religion, 2) freedom of speech, 3) freedom to keep arms, 4) right to a speedy trial, 5) etc...
The rights aren't absolute. Judges have to decide which is more important in certain certain circumstances. Judges also have to decide when they trump majority rule. Also, rights do not apply to all citizens. Criminals, for example, can have certain diminished rights. The government can also institute martial law in a time of chaos.
These dynamics are all in play right now on a number of issues. I doubt we have done a good job as a nation teaching these principles to the populace. My impression is that Americans use whichever principle works for what they want: "I've got my rights" and "Majority rules." What they don't have a good sense of is how these two connect to each other.
1. Majority rule
2. Individual rights
1. Majority rule
The idea of majority rule in itself is a great privilege, although not without potential pitfalls. It is a privilege because we are not ruled by a dictator who can oppress the majority. Its danger is mob rule, where the majority rule in a self-destructive way or a way that oppresses a minority group. This is why it is important to have an educated majority that understands the nature of self-governance.
2. Individual rights
"The greater good for the greater number" (utilitarianism) is the fundamental assumption of a democracy. It is important to balance this ethical principle out with a second, "without violating individual rights." The Bill of Rights, the first amendments to the US Constitution, provide protections for these rights.
They include famous rights like 1) freedom of religion, 2) freedom of speech, 3) freedom to keep arms, 4) right to a speedy trial, 5) etc...
The rights aren't absolute. Judges have to decide which is more important in certain certain circumstances. Judges also have to decide when they trump majority rule. Also, rights do not apply to all citizens. Criminals, for example, can have certain diminished rights. The government can also institute martial law in a time of chaos.
These dynamics are all in play right now on a number of issues. I doubt we have done a good job as a nation teaching these principles to the populace. My impression is that Americans use whichever principle works for what they want: "I've got my rights" and "Majority rules." What they don't have a good sense of is how these two connect to each other.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
I like the Constitution...
What I Like About the Constitution, by Ken Schenck :-)
1. The Preamble
This is a lovely eighteenth century social contract, literally entered by its signers and by the states that ratified it. Following Rousseau's sense of "tacit consent," all those who live within our borders (legal and illegal alike), implicitly agree to the contract. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse." If you do not wish to abide by the contract, leave or face consequences.
I like the fact that the social contract is entered for the benefit of everyone in the society rather than for a certain privileged few. It is entered for the "general welfare," for the "common defense," to "secure the blessings of liberty." This implies that the government serves to guard these values. It also implies that no one has absolute freedom but we willingly surrender a modicum of our freedom for the mutual benefits of the union.
2. Division of Powers
I like the fact that our system of government combines the best of previous government in a balance of powers. The executive office provides the benefits of a monarchy without the potential detriment of a tyrant. The 22nd amendment was an excellent modification of the possibility that a president might be so continually reelected that he or she in effect becomes a king. I like that amendment!
The legislative branch provides the benefits of "rule by a few good individuals," the original meaning of the word aristocracy. At the same time, these individuals are elected by the populace, ensuring the benefits of a democracy. But these individuals and the president represent, which means they do not have to follow the whims of the fickle populace when they know it to be against the people's own best interest.
The judicial branch is a wonderful arbiter of the social contract. I love that Supreme Court justices are for life and so are relatively insulated from politics. I like the way the membership of the Supreme Court has a tendency to even out over time because of the interchange of presidents with opposing points of view.
I love the fact that no one of these bodies has autonomy over the others.
3. I love that the Congress has two bodies, one of which gives equal representation to the states and the other of which gives proportional representation.
4. I love that the 14th amendment took out the part about slaves being 3/5 a person and not counting "Indians."
5. I like that the house initiates impeachment but the Senate tries it (balance of powers).
6. I like that the president can veto and that the Congress can overturn the veto with a 2/3 vote.
7. I like the powers Congress has, which include the authority to raise taxes for the general welfare of the United States. I'm not too tickled about the 16th amendment, which allows for income taxes, but I accept it as necessary to "promote the general welfare."
You and I know something they did not, indeed, which was not really recognized until after President Reagan, namely, that high taxes are in general bad for the overall economy.
8. I like that the Constitution is amendable! They knew it might need changed and that there would be new issues that would require addressing. History has proven them right.
9. I like the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments, because this keeps us from being a ultilitarian country that is only interested in the greatest good for the greatest number. We are instead a "universal egoist" society that looks for the greatest good for all individuals by protecting individuals from instances where the greater good might harm a specific individual. The rules are set up for the general good while preventing individual harm.
10. I like that Congress cannot establish a particular religion as the religion of the country (as well as that all the states eventually severed their ties with specific forms of Christianity). History demonstrates that the wed-ding of specific religion with government often results in persecution or war (Thirty Years War). As an Arminian, I like a government that allows individuals freedom to chose God or not to chose God, remembering that the basic social contract does not allow us to harm each other.
I also agree that this is not the same as the kind of "separation of church and state" sometimes advocated today. It means that the state cannot favor any one religion over another, not that the state must try to be completely a-religious and certainly not anti-religious.
11. The 13th Amendment
There were many honorable southerners in the Civil War (e.g., Robert E. Lee) and no doubt many northerners were not paragons of virtue. However, those in the south who 1) refused to free and mainstream their slaves and who 2) argued that their states rights superceded the power of the federal government in such matters were in my opinion wrong. Perhaps more to the point, that interpretation of the Constitution lost the war. End of story.
I thus reject out of hand much of the current rhetoric that is reminiscent of the pre-Civil War South. It is tantamount to treason and cannot be tolerated if it moves beyond the realm of rhetoric. It is anti-Constitution despite its rhetoric of the Constitution.
12. The 15th and 19th Amendment (blacks and women can vote)
It is worth reminding ourselves that these amendments represent the "progressive" causes of the late 1800s and early 1900s.
To the researchers of the future, my detractors on this blog are actually nice people. They're just children of our age, as am I. :-)
13. The 21st Amendment (repeal of prohibition)
I like that amendments can be repealed. This is a warning that any attempt to impose on others an ethic that does not involve basic harm of others will lose in the long term.
Things I don't like
1. The electoral college. It should go.
2. I have serious reservations about the way the second amendment has recently been interpreted. I have no problem as long as it is not interpreted to prohibit serious regulation and prohibition of weapons in contexts where they are completely unnecessary and far more likely to result in harm. Nevertheless, this amendment is largely an artifact of another day and is a little like the OT prohibition against wearing clothing of mixed thread.
3. The jury system as currently practiced seems seriously flawed. Your peers are unreliable. We would do better to have some sort of mixed system such as they have recently enacted in Japan.
1. The Preamble
This is a lovely eighteenth century social contract, literally entered by its signers and by the states that ratified it. Following Rousseau's sense of "tacit consent," all those who live within our borders (legal and illegal alike), implicitly agree to the contract. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse." If you do not wish to abide by the contract, leave or face consequences.
I like the fact that the social contract is entered for the benefit of everyone in the society rather than for a certain privileged few. It is entered for the "general welfare," for the "common defense," to "secure the blessings of liberty." This implies that the government serves to guard these values. It also implies that no one has absolute freedom but we willingly surrender a modicum of our freedom for the mutual benefits of the union.
2. Division of Powers
I like the fact that our system of government combines the best of previous government in a balance of powers. The executive office provides the benefits of a monarchy without the potential detriment of a tyrant. The 22nd amendment was an excellent modification of the possibility that a president might be so continually reelected that he or she in effect becomes a king. I like that amendment!
The legislative branch provides the benefits of "rule by a few good individuals," the original meaning of the word aristocracy. At the same time, these individuals are elected by the populace, ensuring the benefits of a democracy. But these individuals and the president represent, which means they do not have to follow the whims of the fickle populace when they know it to be against the people's own best interest.
The judicial branch is a wonderful arbiter of the social contract. I love that Supreme Court justices are for life and so are relatively insulated from politics. I like the way the membership of the Supreme Court has a tendency to even out over time because of the interchange of presidents with opposing points of view.
I love the fact that no one of these bodies has autonomy over the others.
3. I love that the Congress has two bodies, one of which gives equal representation to the states and the other of which gives proportional representation.
4. I love that the 14th amendment took out the part about slaves being 3/5 a person and not counting "Indians."
5. I like that the house initiates impeachment but the Senate tries it (balance of powers).
6. I like that the president can veto and that the Congress can overturn the veto with a 2/3 vote.
7. I like the powers Congress has, which include the authority to raise taxes for the general welfare of the United States. I'm not too tickled about the 16th amendment, which allows for income taxes, but I accept it as necessary to "promote the general welfare."
You and I know something they did not, indeed, which was not really recognized until after President Reagan, namely, that high taxes are in general bad for the overall economy.
8. I like that the Constitution is amendable! They knew it might need changed and that there would be new issues that would require addressing. History has proven them right.
9. I like the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments, because this keeps us from being a ultilitarian country that is only interested in the greatest good for the greatest number. We are instead a "universal egoist" society that looks for the greatest good for all individuals by protecting individuals from instances where the greater good might harm a specific individual. The rules are set up for the general good while preventing individual harm.
10. I like that Congress cannot establish a particular religion as the religion of the country (as well as that all the states eventually severed their ties with specific forms of Christianity). History demonstrates that the wed-ding of specific religion with government often results in persecution or war (Thirty Years War). As an Arminian, I like a government that allows individuals freedom to chose God or not to chose God, remembering that the basic social contract does not allow us to harm each other.
I also agree that this is not the same as the kind of "separation of church and state" sometimes advocated today. It means that the state cannot favor any one religion over another, not that the state must try to be completely a-religious and certainly not anti-religious.
11. The 13th Amendment
There were many honorable southerners in the Civil War (e.g., Robert E. Lee) and no doubt many northerners were not paragons of virtue. However, those in the south who 1) refused to free and mainstream their slaves and who 2) argued that their states rights superceded the power of the federal government in such matters were in my opinion wrong. Perhaps more to the point, that interpretation of the Constitution lost the war. End of story.
I thus reject out of hand much of the current rhetoric that is reminiscent of the pre-Civil War South. It is tantamount to treason and cannot be tolerated if it moves beyond the realm of rhetoric. It is anti-Constitution despite its rhetoric of the Constitution.
12. The 15th and 19th Amendment (blacks and women can vote)
It is worth reminding ourselves that these amendments represent the "progressive" causes of the late 1800s and early 1900s.
To the researchers of the future, my detractors on this blog are actually nice people. They're just children of our age, as am I. :-)
13. The 21st Amendment (repeal of prohibition)
I like that amendments can be repealed. This is a warning that any attempt to impose on others an ethic that does not involve basic harm of others will lose in the long term.
Things I don't like
1. The electoral college. It should go.
2. I have serious reservations about the way the second amendment has recently been interpreted. I have no problem as long as it is not interpreted to prohibit serious regulation and prohibition of weapons in contexts where they are completely unnecessary and far more likely to result in harm. Nevertheless, this amendment is largely an artifact of another day and is a little like the OT prohibition against wearing clothing of mixed thread.
3. The jury system as currently practiced seems seriously flawed. Your peers are unreliable. We would do better to have some sort of mixed system such as they have recently enacted in Japan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
