Critics of 'God' being in the constitution argue that the presence of the word 'God' in the constitution is intrinsically Judeo-Christian and imposed such a worldview on other faiths ,and those of no faith.
My counterargument is as such :
The Oxford dictionary defines God as widely as follows :
noun
The Merriam-Webster dictionary has the following definition :
1
capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as
a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe
b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2
: a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
3
: a person or thing of supreme value
4
: a powerful ruler
As we can see here the word ' God' can be interpreted to mean the God or supreme being ( Or energy, or concept etc.) of ANY religion known to man. So the presence of 'God' in the constitution does not in my view discriminate against any particular faith or belief system.
God can also be taken to mean a person or thing of supreme value, a powerful ruler, an image that is worshiped. To give an example , the myth of Santa Claus who has the supernatural ability to move at near-light speed on christmas eve in order to deliver presents can fall under the definition of 'god' if you consider leaving milk and cookies for him a form of 'worship' (meal offerings to a deity being a common part of most religions).
Regarding athiest and agnostic persons , how can a group of people who don't believe in a concept feel discriminated or slighted by that concept being present in the constitution?
I dont believe in Santa claus , and i dont feel slighted by the promotion of his existence and bbenevolence in music and movies , so i have trouble understanding how an athiest can take issue with 'God' in the constitution.
Onto a bit of theology : Calling upon the proper name of God is generally a fundamental part of worship in any religion , and each religion uses unique names to identify the supreme being :
Christianity :
Jehovah , Yahweh or Yahwah which means " I am Always" , or "I am That I Am"
Also Jesus or Yashua which means " God (Yah) is Salvation".
Hinduism : Vishnu, Brahma, Lakshmi, Parvati, Krishna etc.
Islam : Allah
Al-Quddūs : The Holy , The Divine
Judaism : Adonai which means , Lord , the Most High
God can also be taken to mean a person or thing of supreme value, a powerful ruler, an image that is worshiped. To give an example , the myth of Santa Claus who has the supernatural ability to move at near-light speed on christmas eve in order to deliver presents can fall under the definition of 'god' if you consider leaving milk and cookies for him a form of 'worship' (meal offerings to a deity being a common part of most religions).
Regarding athiest and agnostic persons , how can a group of people who don't believe in a concept feel discriminated or slighted by that concept being present in the constitution?
I dont believe in Santa claus , and i dont feel slighted by the promotion of his existence and bbenevolence in music and movies , so i have trouble understanding how an athiest can take issue with 'God' in the constitution.
Onto a bit of theology : Calling upon the proper name of God is generally a fundamental part of worship in any religion , and each religion uses unique names to identify the supreme being :
Christianity :
Jehovah , Yahweh or Yahwah which means " I am Always" , or "I am That I Am"
Also Jesus or Yashua which means " God (Yah) is Salvation".
Hinduism : Vishnu, Brahma, Lakshmi, Parvati, Krishna etc.
Islam : Allah
Al-Quddūs : The Holy , The Divine
Judaism : Adonai which means , Lord , the Most High
Ha'Kodesh : The Holy One
El-Shaddai : God Almighty.
Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh : I am That I am ( I am Always)
If the constitution used the name of God from a particular religion you could claim it discriminates against other groups , but it uses the generic term 'God' which can be interpreted in non offensive and non discriminatory ways.
The Constitution of North Korea is a good summation to my argument , it states in its preamble :
Regarding “The people are my God” as his maxim, Comrade Kim Il Sung always mixed with the people, devoted his whole life for them and turned the whole of society into a large family which is united in one mind by taking care of the people and leading them through his noble benevolent politics.
So from a the perspective of North Korean Jurisprudence The Trinidad and Tobago Constitution says :
"“The People of Trinidad and Tobago have affirmed that the Nation is founded upon principles that acknowledge the Supremacy of The People (God)"
If you were to adopt such a broad view of the word 'God' in the constitution , it would be indeed impossible to find it wrong ,or offensive.
Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh : I am That I am ( I am Always)
If the constitution used the name of God from a particular religion you could claim it discriminates against other groups , but it uses the generic term 'God' which can be interpreted in non offensive and non discriminatory ways.
The Constitution of North Korea is a good summation to my argument , it states in its preamble :
Regarding “The people are my God” as his maxim, Comrade Kim Il Sung always mixed with the people, devoted his whole life for them and turned the whole of society into a large family which is united in one mind by taking care of the people and leading them through his noble benevolent politics.
So from a the perspective of North Korean Jurisprudence The Trinidad and Tobago Constitution says :
"“The People of Trinidad and Tobago have affirmed that the Nation is founded upon principles that acknowledge the Supremacy of The People (God)"
If you were to adopt such a broad view of the word 'God' in the constitution , it would be indeed impossible to find it wrong ,or offensive.
No comments:
Post a Comment