Teaching history of Constitution on secular level belittles the miracle

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • joanbeatri Danville, CA
    Jan. 25, 2013 7:19 p.m.

    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.

  • JustGordon Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Sept. 20, 2012 4:33 a.m.

    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 perspective.

  • Salsa Libre Provo, UT
    Sept. 19, 2012 4:04 p.m.


    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".

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Sept. 19, 2012 3:05 p.m.


    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 audacious.

  • Instereo Eureka, UT
    Sept. 19, 2012 2:45 p.m.

    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.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Sept. 19, 2012 10:16 a.m.

    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.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Sept. 19, 2012 8:08 a.m.

    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.