Living Documents Or Political Perversions?

Posted on November 8, 2005

The US Constitution is constantly referred to as a “living” document or a document that changes to meet the needs of the people, as the needs of the people change. Interestingly enough, a scholar of the Koran has voiced the same opinion of Mohammed’s teachings. Dr. T.B.Irving said in his preface explaining his work translating the Arabic version of the Koran to English,

“The Quran could be considered untranslatable, because each time one returns to the Arabic text, he finds new meanings and fresh ways of interpreting it. It is a living document.” (emphasis mine)

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Scalia, in February of 2001, made the following observation of the US Constitution at a conference at Princeton,

“that supporters of the “living Constitution” view, allowing for flexible interpretations molded to meet the changing times, really wanted “rigidity.”

“They want the whole country to do it their way from coast to coast. They want to drive one issue after another off the stage of political debate “? Every time you insert into the Constitution – by speculation – new rights that aren’t really there you are impoverishing democracy. You are pushing one issue after another off the democratic stage.”(emphasis mine)

In other words, the Constitution when viewed as a “living document” becomes the political perversion tool to undo democracy in our country. A tool, which the ACLU and liberals use to promote civil liberties from a socialistic (not democratic) point of view (…”They want the whole country to do it their way from coast to coast. They want to drive one issue after another off the stage of political debate…”). An extreme perversion politically for the country – when viewed from the standpoint that through this “living document” approach of the Constitution – terrorists from foreign countries are given rights with priority over those citizens of our own country who they are killing.

Terrorism promoted through politically perverted interpretations of a “living document” is not limited to the Constitution, as an equally perverted interpretation of the Koran can be seen as a call to arms for those whose social and political agenda calls for a justification for their actions.

Dr. T.B.Irving said of a particularly questionable (and politically inflammatory) translation of the Koran,

“… translations by Muslims are not always acceptable. Muhammad Ali’s is clear but his commentary and at times the English text can be affected by his sectarian tendency.”Dr. Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilali Ph.D. & Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan and is illustrated here, “1.7. The Way of those on whom You have bestowed Your Grace, not (the way) of those who earned Your Anger (such as the Jews), nor of those who went astray (such as the Christians).”, or the same line interpreted by Dr. Irving which reads, “Guide us along the Straight Road, the road of those whom You have favored, with whom You are not angry, nor who are lost!” Based on scenes of the rioting coming from France, it would appear that the Muslim youth are reading the former, rather than the latter interpretation. Political or social agendas can create situations in which religion or secular laws are perverted to suit the needs of those persuing their own agendas. In France, according to a report in the TWS,

“Matters have reached the point where some young “Gauloises” have testified that, in a kind of inverse assimilation process, they converted to Islam to escape harassment by Muslim thugs.”

A recent story run by the TWS voiced concern over the distribution of the secularized interpretation of the Koran in universities and prisons. In that piece, the author suggested this version be removed by the government due to it’s politically motivated agenda. Of course, this will not happen without a fight over the interpretation of the other “living document”, the Constitution, in which those who liberally and politically interpret this document, will become through their own single-mindedness, the unwitting accomplices to the perversion of it when their “living document” becomes a tool for those dealing death and destruction under the laws of their own politically perverted “living document”, the Koran.

Crossposted from Is It Just Me?

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

» Filed Under 1st Amendment, Activist Judges, News, War On Terror

Trackback URL

Comments

One Response to “Living Documents Or Political Perversions?”

Kathy on November 8th, 2005 9:17 am

Chris, I appreciate the attention you have drawn to this piece, but I think you have read something entirely different into the piece than what I intended in writing it. You said,

“In their post, which is supposedly about the evil nature of the Koran, they compare those who don’t share the conservative ideology regarding the Constitution to terrorists.”

First of all, you wrote “evil nature of the Koran” which leads your readers to believe that I think all translated versions of the Koran are evil. This is far from the truth, as the point I was attempting to make was that there are politically motivated translations of the Koran that are being used to promote the political aims of those who have sympathy with the radical Islamic factions. I point out in the article that scholars of the Koran are concerned about the politicalization of the Koran which is far from the original teachings of Mohammed (who actually had good relationships with the Jews and Christians when he handed down his visions from Gabriel).

Secondly, the tie I make in the piece is not to terrorism or extremist thinking, but that of the misconception that the Koran and the Constitution were written as something more than rules of conduct set on paper. There was no visionary eye to the future by either documents creators to create a “living document” which was to change with the needs of the people. The rules were the rules as they were simply written down at the time. The “living document” terms used liberally in this era to describe either document is far from the intent and purpose of the originators of either document. The term “living document” henceforth is a modern means to justify a way to change the original contents of either document to become (for political reasons) something other than what it was originally intended. Justice Scalia addressed this in the piece I referred to in which he points out that the Constitution is not anything more than what it was when it was written (i.e. not a living document), that reading more into the document leads away from democracy with the judiciary branch changing laws through their interpretation of the existing rules, and that is not what the originators of the Constitution wanted – they wrote with the intent that the legislation would change the laws to reflect the needs of the people.

I hope this helps you understand that my reason for writing this was not to “further the cause of the radical right”, nor was it intended to be an “amazing political manuever”. It was written as a lament that both documents have been “politicized” to further agendas instead of the simple and honest rules that were originally intended to be.