The Amish and The Constitution.
Who decides when progress becomes evil? Who gets to call a halt to it?
I have often wondered who in the Amish culture decided at which point progress became evil. How did they pick a point at which it MUST stop? Why have nice, round, metal clad wheels and spring suspension on your buggy - why not be dragged between a couple of poles or ride in a chariot standing up with no suspension or just freakin' walk?
I would like to apply this same question to the members of Congress who allegedly are all about the "intent of the Constitution" and what those who wrote it meant and wished for our country WHEN they wrote it. Well, the document has been amended 27 times. These amendments providided clarification, more detail and sometimes (GASP) made outright changes to things that were going on.
In 1865 we did away with slavery - why did we screw around with the INTENT of the Founding Fathers if everything they wrote was sacrosanct? How on earth did we decide to create/define income tax in 1913 if Holy Writ (the Constitution) did not accomplish this when it was originally written? Why on earth did we have to allow WOMEN the vote in 1920 - wasn't the intent of the writers perfectly clear in The Constitution? According to the intent we should own other human beings and not allow women to vote.
You can read The Constitution here: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
A lot has changed in America since the Constitution was written - we keep trying to make it a better place for everyone who is here.
Quit turning back the clock or trying to - get off your high horse ladies and gentlemen and embrace change.
I have often wondered who in the Amish culture decided at which point progress became evil. How did they pick a point at which it MUST stop? Why have nice, round, metal clad wheels and spring suspension on your buggy - why not be dragged between a couple of poles or ride in a chariot standing up with no suspension or just freakin' walk?
I would like to apply this same question to the members of Congress who allegedly are all about the "intent of the Constitution" and what those who wrote it meant and wished for our country WHEN they wrote it. Well, the document has been amended 27 times. These amendments providided clarification, more detail and sometimes (GASP) made outright changes to things that were going on.
In 1865 we did away with slavery - why did we screw around with the INTENT of the Founding Fathers if everything they wrote was sacrosanct? How on earth did we decide to create/define income tax in 1913 if Holy Writ (the Constitution) did not accomplish this when it was originally written? Why on earth did we have to allow WOMEN the vote in 1920 - wasn't the intent of the writers perfectly clear in The Constitution? According to the intent we should own other human beings and not allow women to vote.
You can read The Constitution here: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
A lot has changed in America since the Constitution was written - we keep trying to make it a better place for everyone who is here.
Quit turning back the clock or trying to - get off your high horse ladies and gentlemen and embrace change.
Comments
For a lot of the Amish community, the distinction is completely arbitrary, but for others they decide which technologies they partake in according to the principle of spending quality time with their families. Cell phones, they might say, promote distance between family members, and automobiles make conversation among family members trivial by decreasing the amount of time people are anywhere near one another. I think it is interesting that, like most forms of religion, politics or assembly of people, there are those who stick with arbitrary rules and those who analyze the living intent that the rules attempt to approximate.
I've always been a personal fan of trying to intuit the intention of the Constitution, but I think there are good and bad ways to do it. I think it is interesting to think of the stories of the individuals who penned the Contitution, to think of the important revolutionary and courageous emotions and the ideas of protecting the unprotected from those in power, from tyrants. Most people, I think we can agree, would rather focus on the details: George Washington thought we all needed guns for the sake of killing invaders, so I think we still need guns for the sake of killing invaders.
I think the important thing that you're getting at here is that some people attempt to force rules that worked in the 18th century on 20th century issues while we should find in our Constitution certain timeless emotions and motivations that we apply in different ways, evolving our politics with the evolving world.
That was a long way of expressing short praise: Great post, Cliff!