Representative Democracy

I recently read a very interesting article that dealt with the current status of the potential Roe v. Wade reversal. If you have been following The Beast's Lair at all, you know that I have been working through the process of discovering the role that Christianity should play in our democratic processes, especially in regard to the constitution and the freedom of religion, separation of church and state, etc. It has been a process similar to walking through water. Slow and quite tiresome.

I am convinced that our country is at a place where we have no idea what is going on. Although we recognize the undeniable fact that our country was built strongly on Christian principles and that perhaps the framers could "never foresee the possibility that our country would fall into such a non-Christian state," we also have to accept the truth that a continual searching and re-searching of the constitution is not only wise, but essential to maintain the kind of country that operates under the direction of the majority of the people and what ultimately comes out to be simply the right thing to do. We are taking the 10 commandments from the courts, but In God We Trust is still on our money. Schools are becoming less and less able to promote anything of a Christian nature, but we have prayer before every session of congress. We just don't know what to do.

But the thing that really interests me is the distinction between representative democracy and what is just clearly the right thing. In essence, our country operates that those things are one in the same. When the majority speaks, it is the right thing and our country responds. However, there have been times when our country has gone against the majority and said "you are all wrong and this is the right thing." The most obvious example is slavery. You can say to me "come on Phil, slavery is just obviously wrong. Regardless of the majority." So, how do we know when those times have come? How do we know when something is just obviously right or wrong, regardless of what the majority opinion may be.

USA Today ran a column Monday dealing with Roe v. Wade and what the states would do if the decision was reversed. Remarkably, some states are already implementing "trigger laws" that would immediately go into effect if the reversal does happen, making abortion immediately illegal, or at the least make the criteria very narrow for having the procedure. 22 of our states have made steps to impose significant restrictions. In contrast, 16 states would allow abortions at the current levels. 12 states are in middle ground. According to the article, the results show that the 22 states likely to enact the restrictions or ban make up 50% of the population, while the 16 states allowing the current level make up 37% of the population.

So, with that in mind, we can see that the current unrestricted access to abortion is available because of the action of the U.S. Supreme Court and that alone. The court went beyond the majority of the people, and amazingly, 30 years later, the decision does not reflect the majority of the people. So now, let's apply the same sentence to abortion that we did to slavery. "Come on Phil, it's obvious that abortion is just clearly right, regardless of the majority" Doesn't quite work this time, does it?

I return to my difficult walk through the water, even more confused.