The political religion of the nation

Constitution is "the political religion of the nation".

That is the core reason why the Character, and Memory of Lincoln has been under attack..

the Constitution allowed for many abuses and needs amending. And there are other documents that contain ideals that are better than the Constitution.

But I guess referring to the Constitution as a religion allows some people to regard those with different opinions as heretics.

Your wrong view is not honored.

by some like you, not by all.

Are you with ideological enemies of the Nation and/or with their collaborators?

Some of these ideological enemies intend to replace the Constitution with the Islamic Law as the Supreme Law of the Land, for instance.

In this case there is nothing to talk about.

You and I are in opposite forces in the current battle of U.S. Ideological Civil War.

with you as enemies of this country?

Do I count people who disagree
with me as enemies of this country?

What a silly questions!

I count those people who disregard, attack, abuse the Constitution of the United States - the only Supreme Law of the Land, as IDEOLOGICAL ENEMIES of the Nation.

When you say "there are other documents that contain ideals that are better than the Constitution" you sound like an ideological enemy.

I just wonder, what are those "other documents"? Communist Manifesto?

I see documents that can help us improve the Constitution, not overthrow it. Only arrogance assumes that one's own is the best

A real arrogance is even to think about "improving" the Constitution.

How in a world can one improve absolute Ethics and perfect Esthetics?

Do you think that you can "improve" The Ten Commandments?

How about improving the Iliad and the Odyssey by Homer?

Have you ever thought about improving The Divine Comedy by Dante Alighieri?

Or to improve Gargantua and Pantagruel by Francois Rabelais?

Hasn't the Constitution already been approved with amendments?

Also, are you equating the 10 Commandments with the Constitution? If so, should we put the Constitution in the Bible?

Finally, I think the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is superior to the Constitution. It is a kind of unfair comparison, but the declaration. But we don't live in an exclusive-or world. With your declarations about the Constitution, you have more-less established your own secular religion. It is not arrogance that cause people to not go to your church.

The Amendments to the Constitution never define the Constitution, but the Constitution defines all the Amendments.

Therefore, the Amendments are not "improvements" of the Constitution, but right or sometimes wrong attempt to clerify the Constitution.

In other words, if any amendment to the Constitution does not convey the Spirit, the Word and the Intent of the Constitution it can be repealed.

That precisely what happened in 1933 to the Amendment 18 - Liquor Abolished. "The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed."

I have never been "equating the 10 Commandments with the Constitution" in any of my writings.

Although, I do compare absolute Ethics and perfect Esthetics of both, the Ten Commandments and the Constitution of the United States.

Your very comparison of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Constitution of the United States is a total absurd.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a bureaucratic document without any personal responsibility of those who signed this declaration: "words, words. words..." that never worked.

The Declaration of Independence, for instance, was a mutual pledge of "Life, Fortune and sacred Honor" by those who signed it, and that is why it worked.

Saying that "the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is superior to the Constitution" puts you in ideological opposition to and contempt of the Constitution of the United States.

Is that what you want?

So, let me remind you that, the Constitution of the United States is the Supreme Law of the Land everyone in the United States MUST abide.

your comments, and for being an American.

Most of us were liberal/leftist/socialist and utopian at some point during our childhood, and, maybe, even into college years. "A conservative is a liberal who got mugged by reality." (Stockwell Day)

Having always been a liberal/leftist/socialist/utopian, someone like caday5 cannot understand for the life of him what went wrong with us. What we cannot understand is why the caday5s of our world never grew up, got mugged by reality, came to a real understanding of human nature.

Yes, complying to the Constitution once meant that you treated Blacks as inferiors and kept women from voting. Certainly that was changed but at what price? A civil war and over a century of state sanctioned hatred was necessary before Blacks could begin to become equals in society. And even now, that full equality has yet to be realized though it is more real now than before. So does a horrific amount of suffering, death, and turmoil, in order to ensure that Blacks could become equals in our society a testimony for the Constitution or against?

Both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Constitution are mere words when not adhered to. The former shows more respect for all and thus there are things our Constitution can learn from it. In addition, take away the amendments and most of what you have are procedures. That is superior to the Universal Declaration of Human Right?

Your replies look like you either do not understand, or refusing to understand what I am talking about.

So, let me try once again.

The Constitution of the United States is an embodiment of absolute Ethics and perfect Esthetics.

As long as this TRUTH is not accepted, there is nothing further to discuss.

All those who do not deem the Constitution as a moral Authority and a model of Beauty in every day life of the Nation are either ideological enemies, or collaborators with ideological enemies of the Nation.

that is your starting point or presupposition. The problem is that neither history nor the present supports such a regard for the Constitution.

In the meantime, if it was up to you, you would implement another inquisition, like the Spanish inquisition, only you would employ your understanding of the Constitution as the litmus test. Such is against the spirit of the Constitution as written in the 1st Amendment.

Dear caday5,

The problem is that neither YOU nor ALL THOSE who take the similar position ever regard the Constitution of the United States for what the Constitution is: "the political religion of the nation".

By trying to shut me off with your statement "that neither history nor the present supports such a regard for the Constitution" and my "understanding of the Constitution... ...is against the spirit of the Constitution as written in the 1st Amendment" you only confirm my statement above.

Just one comment.

You do not seem understanding what the Spirit of the Constitution is either.

That is why you substitute the Spirit of the Constitution with a reference to the Text of the 1st Amendment.

Just for your education, no Spirit can ever be "written". Only a word could be!

Alas! I could catch you in distorting the Spirit of the Constitution, but I am not able to stop you from abusing the 1st Amendment here, or anywhere else.

By the way, this is a choice made by ideological enemies of the Nation and their collaborators too.

So, let me continue to regard the Constitution of the United States as "the political religion of the nation" the way President Abraham Lincoln did, and end this long and hopeless discussion.

FIN

We have a religious difference. I regard the Bible as God's Word while you regard the Constitution as God's Word. I regard the Constitution as the words of men which have good points and bad points. The mistreatment of many people was rationalized by appealing to the Constitution. And there was the slavery issue as well as the voting rights issue.

BTW, I didn't try to "shut you off" as much as I was simply saying that the abuses that the Constitution has allowed through History do not lend one to revere it as a religious document with its source coming from God.

And I will repeat what I said before. WHen you regard others who do not share your reverence or interpretation for the Constitution that you do and either hope or work for their punishment, that is similar to having another inquisition.

I am sorry, but your last reply is irrelevant and totally off the subject.

Do you know what a metaphor is?

Metaphor is "...a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them "

The Abraham Lincoln's phrase "the political religion of the nation" is a metaphor.

This particular metaphor has nothing to do with religion; it defines a level of significance of the Constitution in every day life of the American people.

This metaphor also suggests that the most important properties of the Constitution are principles of a moral conduct and ability to distinguish Beauty from ugliness in politics.

The end of discussion.

that despite the metaphor, anyone who any document the standard for absolute truth is practically equating it with God's Word. Metaphor is not the issue, making something the final standard over conscience is. In addition, there are other human documents that are on par if not better than the Constitution. That doesn't mean that one is overthrowing the Constitution by believing that, it simply means there is additional stuff we can add to the Constitution to make it better

a PS to the end of the discussion

PSS. Leave the Constitution of the United States alone and strive to MAKE BETTER YOURSELF in your everyday life according to absolute Ethics and perfect Esthetics, the Supreme Law of the Land is an embodiment of.

it is unconstitutional to prohibit people from amending the Constitution.

What are you talking about?

Amendments to the Constitution are the reality no one in clear mind can deny and/or argue.

However, it is unconstitutional to "believe" that any amendment should serve to redefine (in your terminology - to "improve") the Principles of the Constitution.

when blacks were free and given the right to vote, that altered the Constitution which was based on the belief of White Supremacy.

Your opinion of "amanding the Constitution" doesn't seem to limit itself to acccepting the Document for it's core belief. Whatever you don't like should be scrapped.

You're kind of like the Catholic who does not accept Papal authority, priests celibacy, sanctity of marriage, ban on abortion and so many other things. Then you say, "if they would change these things I'd be a happier Catholic."

How wrong you are! Your are violating common sense with your ideologically charged garbage that the Constitution "was based on the belief of White Supremacy"!

Reread the Preamble to the Constitution. Where is "White Supremacy" here?

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

I do not entertain any hopes that the Preamble to the Constitution will some how miraculously change your mind. At least for a few seconds your poor mind will be fed with worthwhile words that convey the embodiment of absolute Ethics and perfect Esthetics.

And this is THE END of my communication.

prove Ron White wrong. It was he who said, "You can't fix stupid."

There was at our founding no right to vote in federal elections. There was even still after the Emancipation Proclamation no right to vote in federal elections. There was even still after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 no right to vote in federal elections. There remains today for anyone no right to vote in federal elections. None-nil-nada-zip-zilch.

In addition to stupidity, ignorance doesn't help either.

the people referred to were White People. I believe the Constitution was very specific in stating the value of a Black person and Indians did not count at all.

Maybe you've seen this guy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xOvNWEAtiM&feature=channel_ page