Every election cycle I desire to remind us of our definitional disagreements. “America” is ideologically divided (almost completely in half). I regularly have conversations regarding this fact; having to continuously point-out the obvious observation that we must examine, logically – the definition of “America.” We can argue at length concerning the advantages and disadvantages of our competing ideologies, but we cannot refute the logic of “America” by definition.

The notion of “America,” itself, is an ideology of how the United States is to function. The name “United States ‘of America’” makes this point obvious. What is overlooked concerns the definition of “America.” There are two main competing premises of what “America” means. But two competing premises cannot both be logically true (the First Law of Logic: the Law of Non-Contradiction). Thus, the discussion must be definitional (the Third Law of Logic: The Law of Common Ground or The Law of Identity).

As an ideology, “America” has as its first principle the Constitution of the United States (including its Amendments). That which defines “America” must be its first principle, otherwise the definition is relative, the ideology irrelevant, and the point mute. By comparison, the Christian first principle is the Scriptures. The definition of “Christianity,” therefore, is dictated by the Christian first principle. Without a first principle, the definition of “Christianity” becomes relative, its ideology irrelevant, and its point mute.

This being true, then, based on the logic of first principles, the definition can be interpreted (as with the Amendments to the Constitution), but such interpretations cannot contradict the original intent. Therefore, logic dictates that the original intent of the Scriptures cannot be contradicted by their interpretation. And, likewise, the original intent of the Constitution cannot be contradicted by its interpretation. Thus, “America” must be defined by the Constitution’s original intent. Just as we ask what the writers meant when they penned the Scriptures, so we ask what the founders meant when they penned the Constitution. We can certainly change the meaning of the original intent by our interpretations, but we cannot call any such conclusions “American” by definition, or logical according to the Laws of Logic.

So, the argument is that we either seek the Constitution’s original intent in context or we redefine the constitutions intent according to our own context. The former defines “America,” while the latter defines something else. This conclusion is not an opinion but a logical fact. If one wishes to disregard the original intent of the Constitution that one may do so, but that one is not defining “America” by doing so; that one is defining another ideology altogether. One cannot redefine “America” because the “American” ideology has already been defined by its first principle (the Constitution). If one ignores that first principle then it is not “America” which is being defined but “The United States of ‘Something-Other-Than-America,’” logically speaking. Redefine what you wish you cannot logically redefine “America,” you can only define another ideology altogether. Whether it’s logical or not is another discussion.

Do with that what you have to…