Published: Wednesday, Sept. 19 2012 12:00 a.m. MDT
It's only a miracle if you assume the end result before the process begins.
An easy thing to do 200 years later. Even if you do now you are required to
explain the incompleteness or messiness of your miracle. The same thing as why
do humans have a tail bone, or an apendix (small examples I know but..). A more
honest explanation is we have what we have because of what we had. The founding
fathers weren't ignorant uninformed farmers who prayed their way to the
constituion, they were well read, students of government including both modern
and ancient governments. They understood democracy, both modern (1787) and
acient. They also were very aware of their own differencies and pragmaticly
worked those differences out.
The constitution is no 'miracle'. Maybe the miraculous part of it was
that a room full of lawyers could get a document even this comprehensive agreed
to by all. And they were lawyers, not theologians. Some of them even studied
sciences. All embodied intelligence.
Amazing article because it ignores so much of what really happened. Yes it was
amazing that it happened, that they agreed, that it was signed, and then
ratified. While they may have agreed on certain structures quickly, most votes
about how those structures would look were agreed on in extremely close votes,
sometimes being overturned and then overturned again. Not all states were
represented. Not all members were present, some not even attending. Not all who
participated signed the document and some like George Mason fought against it.
It didn't deal with many issues like slavery, or women, or even males who
didn't own property. If you truly want to know how much of a miracle it was
read "Plain, Honest Men" by Richard Beeman. But this book will give you
a brutally honest look that some may to like. The true miracle of the
constitution is that it was written as a living document to solve their problems
and can be changed to solved new problems as needs arise.
pragmatistferlife,Permit me to disagree. Whether you view it as
divine intervention or providential influence, the constitution is a phenomenal
document - far different from its predecessors and competitors of the day and a
harbinger of the future (our present).Were they amazing men? Sure.
But the result (despite the terrible compromise on slavery) was astounding and
Huh?99.99% of the American people probably don't view the
genesis of the Constitution the same way you do. So you need to phrase your
appeal to address their perspective. If you insist on having them accept your
view, you may find your words falling on deaf ears.When one
considers the actual history surrounding, first, the Articles of Confederation,
and then the writing of the Constitution, and the men involved, it is difficult
to see much "divine" in it. Inspired, perhaps. Drawing from centuries
of English history. But definitely not "heavenly".
Wow...when the every day events of life are viewed as "miracles" then of
course any historical event or creation is also a miracle!Certainly
God can create miracles, if he needs to, but to think that He has created a
Universe where He needs to create them almost daily belittles the omnipotence of
the Creator. There may be wonder in the Universe daily, but wonder, in my view,
is rarely the result of miracles, but rather the end result of one's
Ok. So it's a remarkable document. Why can't some of the readers
see that it was inspired? Remarkable, brilliant men wrote it and ratified it.
Were those men there just by chance? Or were they there for that specific
purpose? Today's Constitution, despite the Supreme Court and some Chief
Executives meddling over the years, is still an amazing, yes, amazing, document,
so brilliant that it has been used as a model by many nations. However, sadly,
its 225th anniversary came and went last year without much fanfare. So many of
our citizens know nothing of the protections in place for each of us because of
it. This year is the 225th anniversary, I believe, of its ratification and of
the Bill of Rights. I hope there is much more recognition of the men who wrote
it and those who have defended it since 1787.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments