Thomas Aquinas was said to have raised this theological question: How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?” It was argued with all the passion and logic of the day. Great debates were held by the wisest thinkers throughout Christendom. Fast-forward 750 and this religious inquiry has now become a metaphor for wasting time debating topics of no practical value, while more urgent concerns accumulate. Those still obsessing over the matter seem to have settled on something like: it is possible that an infinite number of angels could dance on the head of a pin.
The Declaration of Independence was written and adopted by 56 white men in 1776. It was created to express anger regarding unfair taxation and regulations from what was regarded as an increasingly remote, oppressive and self-serving government. We all know what happened. In the years following our successful war of independence, there were other monumental gatherings of white men. This time to discuss, debate, wrangle over, write and finally adopt a Constitution for the newly formed United States of America.
The Preamble of that Constitution says: “We, the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” The words Union, Justice, Tranquility, Welfare, Blessings of Liberty and Posterity all have initial caps. In 1791, the First Amendment, along with nine other amendments, called the Bill of Rights, were added.
Today, more than two centuries later, arguments rage as to what John Adams, Josiah Bartlett, Benjamin Franklin, John Hancock, Thomas Jefferson, John Penn, and all the other men actually meant when they adopted these historic documents. Two things seem self-evident: First, it is impossible to know what they all would have thought about present day issues. Constitutional scholars who call themselves “originalists” cannot know and should not have the hubris to promote and protect their own views by using words such as freedom, conservative, Christian, original and patriotic as cover for their own rationale.
Second, flawed as they may have been, these American men were the humanists of their time. The arc of their words bends toward justice, equality, empathy, freedom from tyranny, and the end of oppression. What else could they have meant about wanting “a more perfect union?”
They didn’t say, “We, the educated, We, the enlightened, or We, the landed.” No. Their entire approach was aspirational in terms of wanting to be indusive, wanting to be humane, wanting to end the privileged vs. the non-privileged society of Europe. You can hear it dearly. Were they blinded to slavery? Well, yes and no. First they wanted to create a union and decided it would be more productive to sidestep the issue of slavery. We know what happened and what still rages.
Still, theirs was a framework that begs for humane treatment of all people. Were they blinded to women as equal citizens? Unfortunately, yes. and what a window that was on traditional cultural oppression. The 19th Amendment corrected that. It only took 143 years.
We are doing the “how many angels thing” again. We are wasting time arguing about originalism vs. so-called activism while humans suffer healthcare deprivation, food deprivation, shelter deprivation, education deprivation, voting deprivation, dignity deprivation, and planet survival deprivation.
This cannot be what “We, the People of the United States” wanted… originally or ever.
Flo Stahl lives in Greenfield.