Newer Principles vs First Principles

No free government, nor the blessings of liberty, can be preserved . . . but by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.

That quote above is not from Obama, it's from Article 1 (Bill of Rights), Section 15 (Qualities necessary to preservation of free government) of the Constitution of the State of Virginia, whose drafters included Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry and James Madison.

It should be obvious why, in a constitution, the idea of founding principle is so crucial. You're putting together a document that is literally the foundation of your endeavor. It defines who you are, why and how you're organizing, the manner in which you'll operate and what is permissible within your sphere of operations. I've helped write and amend both corporate and church constitutions and bylaws—very rudimentary examples of the species. These often contain a preamble or statement of purpose, which anchor all that follows to the main thing behind the decision to "found" an organization. Or a country.

For evangelical Christians this concept is vital. The words of ancient scripture carry much more weight than today's best-selling book by a popular pastor. The habits and practices of the first-century church are prized as exemplary and instructive. Both are used as a plumb-line to measure ourselves all these thousands of years later.

But there is a major chunk of Christianity that places less emphasis on the original, foundational writings (ie: the Bible), and more emphasis on later pronouncements. The Roman Catholic Church declares current church teaching and policy equal to the ancient text. I'm puzzled when Catholic conservatives make a big deal out of "original intent" in the U.S. Constitution...yet soft-pedal that point about the source documents of their religious faith.

Which brings us to the Islamic theory of abrogation. I had heard in passing about this principle, but with the visit to Nashville this week of Geert Wilders–member of the Netherlands Parliament—this principle of "newer is better" was highlighted for me. Wilders and his political party are dedicated to opposing Islam's spread into Western democracies. Consider these passages from the Koran:

2:106  

Whatever of Our revelations We repeal or cause to be forgotten, We will replace them with something superior or comparable. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things? Do you not know that Allah reigns sovereign over the heavens and earth...?

16:101 

When we exchange one verse for another, and Allah knows best what He reveals, they say, "You are making this up." Most of them do not understand.

Nice gig for Muhammad: if anybody questions why he's suddenly war-like in Medina (where he's now conqueror and potentate), despite having been such a sweet peace-loving guy in Mecca (where he was just getting started and couldn't risk inflammatory words), the questioner is obviously stupid and/or is resisting Allah. Unfortunately for non-Muslims, the "peaceful" early writings of Muhammad have been abrogated by the "intolerant" later ones. When Muslim apologists claim this principle doesn't exist, we must remember that the Koran also instructs deception in dealing with us kafirs (unbelievers).

So Catholicism and Islam share an institutional trait: an official policy and formal mechanism allowing their leadership to contradict or overrule earlier doctrines. This kinda thing isn't surprising from Muhammad, but I urge my Catholic friends to consider John the Revelator's final words to the church: "If anyone adds anything to what is written here, God will add to that person the plagues described in this book." Hard to be more explicit than that about the importance of first principles.

And then there are our fellow Americans on the left, who now prefer the label progressive. They have given us the idea of the constitution as a "living document", stretched its Commerce clause beyond recognition and generally sought to subvert the whole thing by judicial fiat whenever it prevents them from enacting some new innovation—rather than amending it as the founders prescribed. Their greatest frustration with President Obama is that he is not able to do all the hopey-changey progressive things he promised to do. Not for them musty old words on parchment.

Perhaps my previous mentions of conservatism's three-part credo, first articulated by Edmund Burke, have faded from your memory. I will repeat again here the tripod supporting the conservative mind: tradition, principle and prejudice. That last one doesn't refer to racism, but to deciding in advance what may and what may not be done...which is the reason for constitutions. And is our protection from those in power today who seek to exercise their will in ways that violate America's first principles.