Our political problems right now do not strike me as problems of the virtuous. In very few places do I ever hear mention of virtue. Public or private varieties. Defending the weak, honoring oaths, justice, mercy, forbearance, etc. Additionally, we don't understand what we are doing. When Senators Pelosi and Lee (as examples, there are many) swear their oath of office, either their understanding of the document they are swearing to protect is at cross purposes or one of them is violating their oath. That's an ugly way of saying it, but I lack the wisdom to state it otherwise. I do not hold them wholly responsible, because we as a people elected them. We are confused as much as they because we reelect them.
My sense is that you are right about that. For a long time, that's been the case. But we're getting down to the place where it's going to depend on those of us who do still think about 'defending the weak, honoring oaths, justice, mercy, forbearance, etc.'
The author's questions matter. What does my oath mean? Where does my loyalty properly lie?
The meaning of an oath depends on the relationship of the meaning of the oath itself, the virtue of the giver of the oath, and the basis upon which the oath is given. There may also be some interpretation by the hearers of the oath and any cultural implications?
Loyalty is to the king first. The nature of that loyalty varies by the virtues of the king. The king being who gives you sustenance, protection and identity. Secondary loyalties will then flow from there. For God, family, and country seems reasonable for a Christian in the US, at least historically. This touches the articles notion of competing loyalties. I don't see an issue with swearing an oath to the Constitution as a Christian. The lower Constitution does not claim to be higher or have provisions in conflict with the higher power.
There also seems to be an expectation of an oath with regard to time. I give oath I will follow regulation xyz. Politician changes regulation xyz. What is my oath to?
This may also be why oaths to persons mortal are unwise. In a written paper or office made by law, changes may be seen. In a person, meaning and purpose can be hidden and changed in the complexity of our imperfections. Is the oath to as they are now or then? As you perceived them to be now or then?
This discussion also falls back to the other conversation of judges and precedent. The oath in the article is to the Constitution, not a judge's interpretation of same, which may explain some of the hard lines drawn (which part of shall not be infringed...).
But we're getting down to the place where it's going to depend on those of us who do still think about 'defending the weak, honoring oaths, justice, mercy, forbearance, etc.'
Only if Ymar's predictions last decade were correct. If you were correct, Grim, you have nothing to worry about on that score.
Our political problems right now do not strike me as problems of the virtuous. In very few places do I ever hear mention of virtue. Public or private varieties. Defending the weak, honoring oaths, justice, mercy, forbearance, etc. Additionally, we don't understand what we are doing. When Senators Pelosi and Lee (as examples, there are many) swear their oath of office, either their understanding of the document they are swearing to protect is at cross purposes or one of them is violating their oath. That's an ugly way of saying it, but I lack the wisdom to state it otherwise. I do not hold them wholly responsible, because we as a people elected them. We are confused as much as they because we reelect them.
ReplyDelete-stc Michael
My sense is that you are right about that. For a long time, that's been the case. But we're getting down to the place where it's going to depend on those of us who do still think about 'defending the weak, honoring oaths, justice, mercy, forbearance, etc.'
ReplyDeleteThe author's questions matter. What does my oath mean? Where does my loyalty properly lie?
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/12/a-liberal-comes-clean-we-hate-the-constitution.php
ReplyDelete-Mississippi
Ginsberg
ReplyDeletehttp://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/06/ginsburg-to-egyptians-wouldnt-use-us-constitution-as-model.html
-Mississippi
The meaning of an oath depends on the relationship of the meaning of the oath itself, the virtue of the giver of the oath, and the basis upon which the oath is given. There may also be some interpretation by the hearers of the oath and any cultural implications?
ReplyDeleteLoyalty is to the king first. The nature of that loyalty varies by the virtues of the king. The king being who gives you sustenance, protection and identity. Secondary loyalties will then flow from there. For God, family, and country seems reasonable for a Christian in the US, at least historically. This touches the articles notion of competing loyalties. I don't see an issue with swearing an oath to the Constitution as a Christian. The lower Constitution does not claim to be higher or have provisions in conflict with the higher power.
There also seems to be an expectation of an oath with regard to time. I give oath I will follow regulation xyz. Politician changes regulation xyz. What is my oath to?
This may also be why oaths to persons mortal are unwise. In a written paper or office made by law, changes may be seen. In a person, meaning and purpose can be hidden and changed in the complexity of our imperfections. Is the oath to as they are now or then? As you perceived them to be now or then?
This discussion also falls back to the other conversation of judges and precedent. The oath in the article is to the Constitution, not a judge's interpretation of same, which may explain some of the hard lines drawn (which part of shall not be infringed...).
-stc Michael
But we're getting down to the place where it's going to depend on those of us who do still think about 'defending the weak, honoring oaths, justice, mercy, forbearance, etc.'
ReplyDeleteOnly if Ymar's predictions last decade were correct. If you were correct, Grim, you have nothing to worry about on that score.