Wednesday, 3 Jan 2007
By Katelyn Sills
“Our President has lied to us.” “He has falsely led us into this war.” “He has abused our civil rights.” “He has exceeded his Presidential powers.” “Americans are dying because of this war that should have never been fought.”
You might have thought that I was talking about our current president, but actually, I was referring to criticism about the 16th president, Abraham Lincoln. Now considered one of our greatest presidents, Lincoln was bombarded with criticism from the press, from the Democrats, and even from within his own Republican party. Because the presidential criticism is very similar today, it is valuable to examine how the public opinion of President Lincoln has changed.
One of the main complaints against Lincoln was that he had dishonestly led the United States into the Civil War. In fact, a Democratic rhymester wrote:
“Honest old Abe, when the war first began,
Denied abolition was part of his plan;
Honest old Abe has since made a decree,
The war must go on till the slaves are all free.
As both can’t be honest, will some one tell how,
If honest Abe then, he is honest Abe now?”
At first, Lincoln rebuffed all claims that the war was against slavery and maintained that the Civil War was solely to save the Union. He stated in 1862, “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could do it by freeing some and leaving the others alone, I would also do that.” Then, after his Emancipation Proclamation, which declared all Confederate slaves free, many slavery-supporting Northerners began rejecting Lincoln.
Similarly, Bush has been the object of criticism saying that he lied about the reasons for going into Iraq. Senator Ted Kennedy, who has been re-elected by Democratic constituents since 1962, called the decision to invade “dishonest” and stated, “The Bush administration misrepresented and distorted the intelligence to justify a war that America should never have fought.” Soon to be Majority Leader of the Senate, Harry Reid stated, “We all know the vice president’s office was the nerve center of an operation designed to sell the war and discredit those who challenged it.” (Hardball with Chris Matthews’ for November 3) Some today go as far as to say that Bush is seeking revenge for his father, George H. W. Bush. Others say that it is a war for oil or a means to get the company Haliburton rich. Also, like Lincoln, Bush has been accused of changing his reasons for invading Iraq. Critics state that the initial reason was Saddam’s Weapons of Mass Destruction, and now, it is liberating the Iraqi people. They fail to see that by overthrowing Saddam, the Iraqi people are freed, just like Lincoln’s critics failed to see that in order to reunite the Union, slavery must be abolished.
The second complaint against Lincoln was that he was overstepping his role as President and violating our civil rights. During the Civil War, Lincoln often took matters into his own hands, such as when he proclaimed a blockade against the South, arbitrarily increased the size of the Federal army, and advanced $2 million to three private citizens for military purposes, all without the approval of Congress. Moreover, he suspended the writ of habeas corpus during the Civil War, defying a ruling by the chief justice of the Supreme Court (Merryman, ex parte). The criticism was so strong that “His enemies termed him a dictator and a tyrant.” (Encyclopedia Americana).
Likewise, critics of Bush claim that he has violated our rights through the warrantless wiretapping of terrorist suspects. For example, political magazine CounterPunch refers to our nation as being in “the national security state that kills people abroad while destroying our rights here at home.”
Generally, Lincoln was criticized greatly during the Civil War. “He was beset not only by the difficulties of the war, but by opposition from men on his own side. His cabinet was rent by internal jealousies and hatred; radical abolitionists condemned him as too mild; conservatives were gloomy over the prospects of success in the war.” (The Columbia Encyclopedia) “Throughout the war Lincoln was the subject of frequent, and often vitriolic, attacks, both from the Democrats who thought he was proceeding too drastically against slavery and from the Radicals in his own party—men like Charles Sumner, Benjamin F. Wade, and Zachariah Chandler—who considered him slow and ineffective. Partisan newspapers abused the President as “a slangwhanging stump speaker,” a “half-witted usurper,” a “mole-eyed” monster with “soul … of leather,”"the present turtle at the head of the government.” Men of his own party openly charged that he was “unfit,” a “political coward,” a “dictator,”"timid and ignorant,”"shattered, dazed, utterly foolish.”” (Encyclopedia Americana). In fact, even Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address was branded as “ludicrous” by the London Times and by Democratic editors as “dishwatery” and “silly”. The now famous speech attracted little attention at the time.
Similarly, Bush has been labeled as stupid and tyrannical, and his historical speeches, such as the infamous “Axis of Evil” speech, have to my knowledge only been ridiculed by the mainstream press.
However, the tide began to turn in Lincoln’s favor in his 1864 campaign for reelection. In order to take power away from the anti-war Democrats, the Republican Party banded with the Democrats that supported the war to form the Union Party. In fact, Lincoln’s own running mate was a War Democrat. Also, soon before the election, the North had a series of victories. With that and the votes of the Union soldiers, Lincoln won the presidency for a second time. Almost a year later, Lee surrendered and the Civil War was over, to the great relief of the people. Lincoln died at the very pinnacle of his fame, only five days after the end of the bloodiest war in American history.
Thus, the criticism against Lincoln is very similar to that against President George W. Bush. The allegations against him, like Lincoln, include lying about the purpose of the war, being incompetent, overstepping presidential powers, and violating civil rights. However, somehow Lincoln was able to regain his popularity and more. The reason, of course, was because he managed to win the Civil War. Likewise, I believe that Bush, too, will be seen as one of our greatest presidents if he can only establish a peaceful Iraq in the Middle East. This is not to compare Iraq to the Civil War, but only to compare the similar criticism. Therefore, Republicans and the rest of Americans should not give up on Bush. Now, some might try to argue that Bush will never achieve greatness like Lincoln because he is too stupid, too wrong, too whatever. Nevertheless, they forget that these were exactly what were said about Lincoln too. Thus, if history does indeed repeat itself, then the critics will be wrong once more.
January 28th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
Your arguments is not valid. Not valid at all.
You can’t compare a president, the criticism, opinions and such between another president in the history. This is impossible. And when you’re doing this, you’re telling everyone that it is legitimate to do whatever you want, as long as a person who got criticized before, but now is respected as a great person. This means, that a football player, can kick someone in the nuts only because a great player 100 years ago did that, but now, today, is respected as a great player and person.
Can’t you see that your reasoning completely fails through a logical perspective?
You can’t say that something is okay, only because the circumstances, a couple of years later, made something accepted. Live today, open your eyes, and be critical against everything. Don’t let your personal political opinions rule your actions and opinions, cause if you do, you’re the cattle. Do you think you fit into the cattle? I don’t. It’s completely obvious why you’re writing this on your site. You’re conservative/You _think_ you’re conservative which makes you defend G.W.B. I don’t know if I should judge this by your age, or simply by your political opinion, or by the human factor, but please, reconsider this.
Use this little method in order to understand what you think is wrong or not, and use this method in order to realize that something needs to be done; “As long as there’s someone who thinks that an action made by a person/organization is wrong, it’s worth listening, because a group got offended and has suffered from his/their actions, and respect to their opinions needs to be given.!
If someone protests over something, then logically, something is wrong, maybe not for you, but for the person who got offended. It’s ofcourse hard to say what to do, but respect other opinions and try to find the best solution possible in order to avoid offending and hurting people. This can lead to serious consequenses later on. Obviously, people think that G.W.B has made some serious misstakes, and we really need to listen to them, evaluate them, and hopefully find a solution/answer/resolution. If we use your way of taking care of critisicm/problems, then nothing would be done. We would only sit, relax, and refer to stupid historical events and persons actions and worldwide opinions, today, and not back in the time they were active, without really thinking about whats going on today, and the reason people are upset.
Sure, Lincoln is accepted and respected as a wonderful person, but this doesn’t mean that G.W.B can ignore all the criticism, and most important, this DOES NOT mean that the rest of the world can ignore the problems G.W.B’s actions resulted in. Absolutely not.
I apologize for my English, since it’s not my mother language.
I hope you’ve understood what I wanted to say.
Take care and live in prosperity, without trespassing on others freedom.
D
January 28th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
D, comparing events and people is the heart of history. Comparing and contrasting two presidents is a common practice.
My point was not to say that actions are justified by simply being approved of. On the contrary, I have noticed that the people who hate Bush also love Lincoln. Therefore, I wrote this to show that their views hold a great contradiction, and that they cannot hold both views. Either both Presidents were correct, or both Presidents were wrong. I believe their actions were correct, but on the value of those actions alone, not on their approval. If you have read my other posts, you will realize that I already have addressed the complaints against President Bush. So, please follow your own advice and listen to my “protests” on those subjects, which can be found here.
Since yesterday, I’ve gotten a ton of trackback spam at my blog from your IP address. Coincidence or hypocrisy?
January 29th, 2007 at 7:13 am
Hi.
There’s nothing wrong with comparing presidents, but comparing actions made by presidents, and even justifying them, only because a president/leader in the history made some doubtful actions but later on got respected as a person, is wrong.
Compare presidents as much as you like, but don’t try to convince people that a person living right here, right now, can do anything, only because another individual today is respected, but made some doubtful actions earlier. Those doubtful actions will still remain doubtful, maybe not for you, but for the people who had to suffer. Do you understand me?
I do not wish to disrespect your opinion or anything, I am just trying to say that as long as there’s people who is suffering from your actions, there’s nothing you can say to make it accepted and legitimate to continue, and it doesn’t matter if a great leader in the past also went through the same scenario, but got respected in the long run. It doesn’t really matter at all.
I feel dissapointed that you pointed out my spelling/grammar error (Yes, I have the ability to read between the lines even though my english isn’t excellent, actually, I don’t care, but nvm…) and tried to be funny over the “trackback spam” flaming.. No, I actually had some problems posting, and had to restart my Mozilla Launcher a couple of times. You just lowered the discussion to a level where I don’t want to be in. I will not visit this page anymore, so there’s no need to answer, but no hard feelings, I wish you good luck in the future.
I hope that you could learn something from what I wrote.
Take care.
Kindest regards
D
January 29th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
As I stated, I was comparing President Lincoln and Bush to show that people cannot both hate Bush and love Lincoln, since they had many of the same policies and faced similar situations.
As I also already stated, I was not justifying their actions based on the comparison. I have already justified them in my other posts, simply based on the facts.
Lastly, I used quotes to point out that I was using your word, “protest.” And, about the trackback spam, is it coincidence that I am receiving hundreds of trackbacks at standupandspeakoutblog.com from your area as soon as you begin posting? Of course, it could be that your computer is being used with you unaware, but that is something for you to look into. And, no, I was not trying to be make fun of you.
-Katelyn
February 7th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
Very good post, Katelyn! You surprised me when you said those quotes referred to Lincoln!
February 14th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
Great thoughts. Awesome opener. I’ve often wondered how history will look at George W. Bush…I’m honestly not sure. It’s possible he may be viewed upon as another Lincoln…Though his speaking is not as polished.
Either way, good essay. I completely enjoyed it.
April 11th, 2007 at 5:56 am
Starting out, i’d like to show my appreciation for this website, b/c i’d like to see what the conservative youth has to say.
secondly, Dam it, i must’ve messed up on the addition…i coulda sworn i added right, maybe i forgot to put the # there. Let’s retype this
ok, this is a pretty good article ya got, and i’d like to point just some tsy-bitsy differences b/w Bush and Lincoln:
1. why the context is different, why the comparison is not completely logical, why their lies are different.
2. Can people REALLY love lincoln and Hate Bush? yes they can.
1a. So, you said Bush and Lincoln both had to lie and exceed their pres. power to get what they wanted, and that pt i agree with, BUT
Lincoln lied that he wanted the war to “preserve the Union”…if ur comparison is valid, did Bush lied that he wanted the war to “preserve the….empire?” Of course, no he didnt.
1b. assuming that comparing these two guys is ok:
–Lincoln Lied that he wanted to preserve the Union, but instead free the slaves.
–If my memory serves me correct, Bush (lied?) that we’re there to free the Iraqis…Before anyone said he went to secure our empire, or get their oil or w/e.
sooo…does that chronological comparison fit?
if it doesnt,…then why should YOUR comparison work?
1c. the Context is wrong. because the Confederates broke away from the Union, on the specific issue of Slavery…Iraq didnt break away from us. Further more, Confederates might actually pose danger, since its pretty close, while Iraq, after 1993ish, did not regain military power.
2. Now…CAN people REALLY hate Bush AND like Lincoln…yes they can. why?
-Certainly Lincoln was trying to give the slaves the right to vote, right?
-But does the same goes for Bush? im not sure, due to that Florida case, where there were experts accounts that the election was fake, and that there was disenfranchisement of black people to vote during that election.
anyhow, thats all i have to say for now. retyping all this stuff took time, haha.
If u got anything to say, please reply, as i await for one.
pce out
Dieu Huynh
a Junior HS student in San José, California
April 11th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
Thanks for commenting.
First, let me clear up some things. I did not say that Bush and Lincoln lied and exceeded their presidential powers. That was simply the criticism of the time.
So, the first comparison between Bush and Lincoln was that the people misunderstood their reasons for war, and then criticized them for supposedly lying. I’m not comparing their reasons, just the criticism that they got for the reasons. Therefore, it doesn’t matter what order the reasons were given, or whether Iraq was a part of the US that seceded. If the situations have be exactly the same in order to make a comparison, you will never be able to make a comparison.
Iraq did pose a danger. Read these comments from leading democrats: http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp
Moving on to your second point:
Lincoln was just getting African Americans out of slavery, not necessarily wanting to give them the right to vote, but that’s beside the point. However, of course Bush wants to allow people to vote. If you examine the rumors about the 2000 election that you mentioned, you can see that they are false.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election%2C_2000_Florida_results:
“a systematic investigation by the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice found no evidence of racial discrimination”
Btw, what the heck do you mean by a “fake election”?
Besides, even if the cliaims were true (and they are obviously not- “fake election”, indeed), why would Bush be responsible for a fake election/disenfranchisement in Florida? Is it the old standby- If anything goes wrong, blame Bush?
I too, hope to hear back from you.
April 11th, 2007 at 11:00 pm
cooool. thanks
April 11th, 2007 at 11:44 pm
i read your sources.
Interesting indeed =). I always like to hear the opposition view in politics or things of this sort. So now i guess we come to agree to one thing. That BOTH the Democrats AND the Republicans thought there was WMD…and there wasnt…hahahahaha
I guess you ARE right about my over exaggeration on having all the necessary situation to be the same =) But my comparison was nevertheless, a comparison, and i guess it didnt make sense.
so how about i make a new one? haha:
people “misunderstood their reasons for war, and then criticized them for supposedly lying”
–Lincoln’ reason: fight slavery, though he denied, and said he only wanted to bond the Union. Misinterpretation: he wanted power “tyrant” “dictator”
–Bush’s reason (still unclear): Free Iraqis, anti terror, but he didnt deny that, and said he was gonna get those WMDs the gov’t(liberals and conservatives alike) all wanted to get(we even had the receipts from 1993! =) . Misinterpretation: He wanted power “dictator” (like the Patriot Act, which is totally not real ?)
anyhow, Critics DO change their views quite often right? my history teacher always tell us “you know how we say we study history so we learn from the past, cusx ‘history repeats itself’? We’re suppose to be VERY GOOD AT PREDICTING the future right? well…We’re NOT! hahaha” .
So i really wonder now, how critics will view Bush, After we settle down those little warfare (Muslim conflicts..blah blah blah) in Iraq, and maybe not get into Iran, or Korea, who knows what they will view Bush eh?
After all, our great Lincoln was assasinated and gained great popularity. I sure Do NOT hope Bush will gain popularity in the same way. It’s just a little comparison, but, do you?
April 12th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
Your new comparison is basically what I’m saying, too. Both Lincoln and Bush were seen as “dictator”/”tyrants”.
It’s true that critics change their views. In the case of Lincoln, however, the general public has had a consistent, positive view.
Also, I think that Lincoln’s assassination was one of the reasons he is so popular. His life was ended at the time of his greatest triumph, and so that is what he is remembered for. I would hope that Bush can find a better way to regain popularity.
April 13th, 2007 at 9:44 pm
he has been trying, i think, lol. with that recent incident of disaster that he responded quickly to, (unlike Katrina, which he was highly criticize for)
April 30th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
I hope you don’t mistake me as a liberal doing everything to bash the president, (because that is not what I am) but I have a couple points I disagree with.
I want to look at the quote you gave from Lincoln:
“If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could do it by freeing some and leaving the others alone, I would also do that.”
I hope you see the problem with this. His allegiance is not to the states, but to the union. No wonder he was receiving criticism from politicians who where loyal to their states.
This is what we call nationalism. It was exactly what the founding fathers (both federalist and anti-federalist) where wanting to avoid.
If I may present this (rather long) quote from the Federalist No. 39 (see: http://www.vote-smart.org/reference/fedlist/fed39.htm)
“On examining the first relation, it appears, on one hand, that the Constitution is to be founded on the assent and ratification of the people of America, given by deputies elected for the special purpose; but, on the other, that this assent and ratification is to be given by the people, not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong. It is to be the assent and ratification of the several States, derived from the supreme authority in each State, the authority of the people themselves. The act, therefore, establishing the Constitution, will not be a NATIONAL, but a FEDERAL act.” [bold emphasis added]
So, now president Bush is telling us that he wants to promote democracy, something the founding fathers also wanted to avoid. (Federalist No. 10 deals with this issue) For now, let’s look at the commentary of one particular founding father opening the constitutional convention:
“The general object [of the Constitutional Convention is] to provide a cure for the evils under which the United States labored; that in tracing these evils to their origin, every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy.” (Records of the Constitutional Convention, quoted: Morley, Felix. Freedom and Federalism. Indianapolis: LibertyPress, 1959. p 27.)
If the founders recognized the turbulence and follies of democracy why can’t we?
This is the same thing that Lincoln was doing. Holding an ideal up (the union or democracy) that was not the primary goal of the founders.
But thank you for your historical analysis. I enjoyed the articles.
May 1st, 2007 at 3:16 pm
You say that Lincoln’s allegiance was “not to the states, but to the union.” However, it was a union of the states so any allegiance to the union is also to the states. The quote that you gave from the Federalist No. 39 is taken out of context and interpreted wrongly.
At the end of the very document that you provided, it states:
“The proposed Constitution, therefore, is, in strictness, neither a national nor a federal Constitution, but a composition of both. In its foundation it is federal, not national; in the sources from which the ordinary powers of the government are drawn, it is partly federal and partly national; in the operation of these powers, it is national, not federal; in the extent of them, again, it is federal, not national; and, finally, in the authoritative mode of introducing amendments, it is neither wholly federal nor wholly national.”
Thus, both federal and national, contrary to your earlier point.
Secondly, the reference to democracy is to pure democracy, which is not what Bush is referring to. For instance, in Federalist No. 10, which you mentioned, Madison states, “From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction… A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking.”
Perhaps I am missing something, but Bush has never promoted a pure or direct democracy. In fact, I’m sure he would agree with Madison. Democracy by definition means a “Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.” It is the latter that Bush is referring to.
May 1st, 2007 at 11:40 pm
aaaaahh…
thank you, this can be my next TOK presentation.
How do you define democracy
u see. Tok is not really about Learning knowledge. its about knowing that there are so many ways to look at things, that we should take in consideration of those ways.
i guess Bush was referring to the latter, a republic kind of democracy.
but clearly, thats not in the mind of the people that the word he used meant that way…
i wish i can find it. but i saw a commercial during the Olympics. something like, it showed “184 countries have democratic gov’t, in 2004? there are 200 democratic gov’t. Fight terrorism” or something, iono
but yea, as i said, i dont know if that was the intent of Mr. Pres. but his message was “fight terrorism”, “spread democracy”….
and a lot of people took it the way i think a lot of people took, “democracy means freedom for the people”.
so…whats YOUR definition of Terrorism Katelyn? Whats Your definition of democracy? i dont want to hear what Bush means, i want to know what YOU mean, since i consider u a friend. truthfully, we dont always talk this much to our friends at school…some of them we do, but not a lot.
aight then, g’night
May 5th, 2007 at 11:12 am
Katelyn, thanks for your thoughtful response. I respectfully have to address some of the problems with your points.
You say “any allegiance to the union is also to the states.” Hmmmm. Sorry, I don’t get it. That sounds like the fallacy of composition to me.
The quote from Madison is not out of context. This documents proves the exact point I wish to make. Madison goes on to say:
“Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution.” (http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/whatsdem/whatdm2.htm)
This is the point I wish to make. Each of the states, by virtue of the manor of ratification, where sovereign of each other. Submission to the union was voluntary. This was, however, contrary to Lincoln’s goals. So, Lincoln developed the idea that the Union had the sovereign right.
As for what you said: “Thus, both federal and national” is misleading because the passage clearly points that the government is only national in its function, not national in its origin. The origin is really what is important when we are examining a state’s right of secession. For example, if I wanted to move this computer to my room, it wouldn’t matter if the computer functioned as if it where mine because I am experienced in using it. What would matter would be that my parents originally bought it, they get to decide what happens with it.
Now, on a democracy. You bring up a good point, just as the founders had a different definition of federal, which was changed by Lincoln, so the founders had a different definition of “democracy,” which has since been changed by… pretty much all the politicians
The Department of State says this about their definition of democracy: “Democracy is indeed a set of ideas and principles about freedom, but it also consists of a set of practices and procedures that have been molded through a long, often tortuous history. In short, democracy is the institutionalization of freedom.”
How can any good government be anything but a democracy? The institutionalisation of freedom? This phrase now has a moral meaning, almost equivalent with liberty itself. Lincoln did the same thing with Union; he made it a synonym with unity, who can argue with that?
You never addressed what the intent of the Constitutional Convention was, but I’ll just leave that for now so I can present this quote from the constitution we helped establish “democratically:” The founders wanted a republic, not a democracy, but that seems contrary to Bush’s, and his allies’, goals.
“First: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation:
A. No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.
B. No law that contradicts the principles of democracy may be established.”
(Iraqi Constitution, Section I, Article 2, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/12/AR2005101201450.html)
Rule by the people, destroying religious freedom. I hate to sound like a Separation of Church and state freak, but, hey, this is definitely “establishment of religion;” all in the name of democracy.
May 8th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
Thanks for responding. I’m in the middle of AP and IB testing, so I’ll try to respond when I have time.
May 16th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
That’s ok. I probably wouldn’t have time to respond to it either.
Finals, man.
ok, just really quick I wanted to post the link to the quote i provided from USINFO (aka: the Department of State):
http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/whatsdem/whatdm2.htm
I accidentally put that link underneath the quote from Madison. oops :-\
As i was reading around this sight, I noticed an article that I recommend on the subject of Lincoln and his “Uncivil war:” http://acyu.org/2006/07/13/the-death-of-the-american-republic/
July 10th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
Hi Brian, I’m sorry it took so long for me to respond. I’ll try to respond to the individual parts, although I’m not sure what the whole point is.
-When I stated that “any allegiance to the union is also to the states” I meant that the states would not survive unless they were part of a powerful whole. Thus, the way to save the states is to save the union.
About state secession- Is it your belief then, that the states have the right to secede now? I don’t think this would be very wise for the future of our country. Therefore, I think it was definitely for the best that Lincoln decided that states could not secede (there wasn’t any written right to secede, anyway- the right to join does not necessarily mean the right to quit).
To answer your comment- the original intent of the first Constitutional Convention was to rewrite the Articles of Confederation, not create anything new.
There is a problem with your analysis of the Iraqi constitution. You are trying to say that because it varies from our constitution, it is undemocratic. However, there is no clause against the establishment of a state religion in the Iraqi constitution, and neither does the definition of democracy outlaw a state religion. I think we should be glad they have any democratic constitution at all.