Last week, I attended a talk on campus by Gary. J. Simson, dean of Mercer University School of Law. It was the keynote address for Constitution Week here at Georgia College. One of my colleagues, a political scientist, was surprised to see me there. "I didn't know sociologists cared about the Constitution," she said. "We do," I responded, "when we're tearing it apart." In that spirit, I had a couple thoughts.
It occurred to me that, essentially, we have crystallized the values and the language of a handful of white men who lived in 1790. Forgetting for a second about the "how," why do we feel compelled to defend this?
I fear what will happen as the rise of spirtualism vis-à-vis religion (i.e. individualism over communalism) confronts Constitutional law regarding "religious" practice. Does the Constitution protect "Sheilaism?" Is an individual's spirituality an "establishment of religion?"
It occurred to me that, essentially, we have crystallized the values and the language of a handful of white men who lived in 1790. Forgetting for a second about the "how," why do we feel compelled to defend this?
I fear what will happen as the rise of spirtualism vis-à-vis religion (i.e. individualism over communalism) confronts Constitutional law regarding "religious" practice. Does the Constitution protect "Sheilaism?" Is an individual's spirituality an "establishment of religion?"
No comments:
Post a Comment