I always get a kick out of Michael Imhof’s flawed logic when it comes to the Constitution. Consider this: “By allowing gays into the Boy Scouts, basically, it acknowledges that the gay lifestyle is totally acceptable.” No, it doesn’t. It acknowledges that race, class, gender, religious belief and sexual preferences do not identify a human being as a citizen of the USA. Can he separate the sex act from the person?
What about this one? “Gradually, step-by-step, our society is being taken down the road to decadence.” No! Substitute the word constitutionality for decadence — and that’s our road to history.
Yes, “there are moral absolutes,” as Imhof wrote, but there are both irrational and rational absolutes, too.
Yes, our Declaration and Constitution are both based upon “humanistic" (this word was not in the lexicon in 1774; it’s a modern word) and "secular” values, with the here-and-now being the emphasis. The Gospels (or Jesus) do not set out a legal code. Instead of using Plato, Aristotle or Saint Thomas Aquinas, our Founders chose John Locke, who had the wars of religion clearly in mind. Therefore, he wrote about the need for a secular Constitution, which the drafters of the Constitution gave us.
Unlike conservatives who did not fight for American independence, the liberals wrote our Constitution, and they absolutely refused to include the words “Jesus,” “God” or “Christian” in the Constitution.
Finally, whatever is yet to come via undiscovered/undisclosed truths are not automatically outweighed by truths of the past to human beings. Locke is the only way to explain our Constitution. He’s “The Way.”
Bill J. Paschal