Robert B. Simpson: Cherry-picking the Constitution

A long while back, I wrote about a 5-year-old cherry-picker, namely me, who created serious trouble for himself. Ignoring my mother's specific instructions, but following my older brother's much more attractive encouragement, I climbed a ladder to the top of a chicken house, picked two bunches of the much more reachable cherries hanging just above the roof, and fell to a rocky slope below, breaking my arm.

Today the term "cherry-picking" seems used less often for small boys picking fruit and more often to describe someone who picks and chooses from an information source in order to select items that fit his or her personal agenda. It often describes the opinionated Christian who bolsters his arguments by ignoring parts of the Scripture that don't support them and quoting those that do. We say this person is cherry-picking the Bible.

During the Pope's recent visit to the U.S., I heard a person describe himself as a "cafeteria Catholic," choosing which official Catholic positions to follow and which to ignore. That struck me as an illustration of the same thing, coming from the same motivation, though not quite on the same level, as cherry-picking the Bible.

The practice of cherry-picking Scripture seems to have slid over into politics, as have so many things in this country. Politicians, and their true-believer followers, swear allegiance to the Constitution. They speak of it in reverent tones, as if it is the next thing to sacred, handed down to us by those noble creatures the Founding Fathers (who were actually just politicians too, but don't tell anybody). Apparently, though, not every part of the document is sacred, just those parts that agree with one's preferred positions.

It is interesting to read and hear the claim, sometimes implied and sometimes stated outright, that Muslims should not be allowed to ascend to the presidency in this country. Yet Article VI, paragraph 3 of the Constitution contains the famous No Religious Test clause, which states that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

Obviously this clause has no power over the conscience and freedom of choice of the individual voter, who can be as prejudiced as he or she wishes to be. But it makes clear that you can be elected to any position, with no restriction as to your religious beliefs, if enough people vote for you.

Some of those, and I would wager that it is a considerable portion, who rage most vehemently against the possibility of any Muslim ascending to positions of political power in this country are also just as vehemently in favor of the Second Amendment's "right to bear arms." Evidently only some parts, not all, of the Constitution are sacred to them.

My comments are not intended to be an evaluation of the merits of either the clause prohibiting any religious test for office or the article prohibiting any infringement upon American citizens' right to bear arms. Nor are they intended to suggest how people should vote. They are, though, intended to point out that we can't have it both ways. We either believe the Constitution is the foundation of our government or we don't. It was never set up as a menu from which we can choose parts we wish to abide by.

It appears to me that cherry-picking the Constitution carries the threat of much more serious and widespread damage than a mere broken arm.

Robert B. Simpson, a 28-year Infantry veteran who retired as a colonel at Fort Benning, is the author of "Through the Dark Waters: Searching for Hope and Courage."

This story was originally published October 4, 2015 at 12:00 AM with the headline "Robert B. Simpson: Cherry-picking the Constitution ."