Posted on 01/05/2011 8:25:09 PM PST by RogerFGay
I'm a little amazed at the number of hits you can get googling for anti-Constitution arguments. Once past that amazement, I'm not so amazed by the unimaginative, unthinking, often downright stupidity of the repeated talking points and mindless personal attacks from the left, currently aimed against the left's current biggest boogie-man; the TEA Party.At the War Room, Michael Lind says Let's stop pretending the Constitution is sacred and claims that Freedom rests on a culture of constitutionalism, not a particular document. That almost sounds right. In WSJ, Roger Pilon argues brilliantly that in order to maintain freedom, there is a need to continue focused debate on the Constitution. But it's difficult to imagine Michael Lind's vision of a culture of constitutionalism without a Constitution.
Somewhere in the midst of a circuitous argument intended to cast TEA Partiers and others who aren't members of his cult as stupid southern racists especially if they're Protestant - Lind manages to choke out just what you'd expect ye old living document dogma. And if you're not convinced of its wisdom, just ask the foreigners.
The blending of Protestant fundamentalism and neoclassical Legislator-worship explains the semi-religious reverence with which the Founders or Framers or Fathers of the Constitution have long been discussed in the United States. Other, similar English-speaking democracies -- not only Canada, Australia and New Zealand but modern Britain itself -- achieved self-governance or universal suffrage generations later, when these Protestant and neoclassical traditions had died out in their domains. The Canadians do not revere their first prime minister, John Macdonald, and to this day the British do not even have a formal, written constitution. Our Anglophone peers regard American constitution-worship as bizarre and quaint, like our fondness for displaying the national flag.At Newsweek, where writers are too cowardly to sign their work, the article Americas Holy Writ says Tea Party evangelists claim the Constitution as their sacred text and promises to tell us Why thats wrong. The words sacred text appear to be from the Newsweek writers themselves, as they are never actually attributed (in quotes) to anyone. The authors associate their characterization with 2010 Republican Senate candidate Christine ODonnell, who says (in quotes) American values and There are more of us than there are of them. (Newsweek writers added no quotes enshrined in our sacred text after American values.)But I suppose the only thing more boring than Newsweek's continuous stream of misrepresentations and twisted attacks is reading an article explaining them to you. (The link is given above if you want to read the article yourself.) Don't be surprised when Newsweek also blames fundamentalism - you know, those stupid southern racists that make up the Tea Party. Like Lind, Newsweek thinks it all wrong because Protestants are stupid.
At The Economist, someone named PRINT EDITION penned an article entitled The perils of constitution-worship. PRINT EDITION claims One of the guiding principles of the tea-party movement is based on a myth. His or her argument is that the Constitution doesn't say whether homosexuals can marry or what the founding fathers would have made of the modern welfare state. PRINT EDITION seems certain this is an intelligent argument, for it is inspired by the writings of Harvard Law School professor Michael Klarman, who labels this urge to seek revealed truth in the sacred texts as constitutional idolatry. The final blow of the argument is that the Constitution does not belong to the Republican Party and wasn't written for tea-partiers. OK. I'll accept that. It was actually written for me, for I Am A Citizen!.
Greg Sargent at The Washington Post carries on PRINT EDITION's legacy with an article titled The Tea Party does not own the Constitution. Whether the assertion is correct or not, he makes it no clearer why this would invalidate the document. Instead, he quotes a legal scolar (sic) who's written some gibberish claiming the Constitution is a forward looking (read politically progressive) document intended to maximize federal power.
I've left the most fanatic, dogmatic, goof-ball extremist fundamentalists of the left to last. Samuel G. Freedman writes On Religion in an article titled; Tea Party Rooted in Religious Fervor for Constitution. Freedman is a Columbia University professor writing in the New York Times. That's two strikes. The third is the common nonsensical logic of his argument.
Freedman noted that a reverend who attended a Tea Party activity in Washington had quoted both the preamble to the Constitution and the Bible in his remarks. Therefore, he reasons, the Tea Party movement, and --- well --- you know, everyone who's not a member of his cult, can be characterized as a religious rather than a populist or Republican or reactionary movement. He then proceeds to transform the Constitution into a bible for the unthinking. To cap off this bit of extra-intellectually gibberish, he throws in de facto televangelist, Glenn Beck and asks his followers to recall the religious battles throughout American history between literalists and interpreters of Scripture.
Managing to at least spell scholars correctly, Freedman claims the term du jour is Constitution worship. (Maybe his law professor see below can get together with Michael Klarman on whether it's worship or idolatry? I think idolatry does more to mocking religious people.) For him, the problems of religion and not being part of his cult long predate the Tea Party, apparently all the way back to the time of Jesus. Some trace back to the implicit spirituality of Americas self-image as a chosen people, Freedman writes. ... the image of this nation as a city on a hill. (From the Sermon on the Mount.)
Freedman's law professor is Sanford Levinson at the University of Texas. Levinson opines that In a country as fragmented as the United States is we dont have a national religion, a really shared ethnicity the kinds of emotions that would be directed at organic nationalism are displaced onto the Constitution.
Well, that proves it I guess. Now if we can just figure the oil companies into this and work out how George Bush is to blame
Nancy Pelosi fetishized God and the Constitution today.
The Left is just livid. Now they have to sit, like surly schoolkids, through a reading tomorrow. For them, it must be sheer torture to hear about the Constitution.
Heh
Ping to read later
I notice the Left is getting more open about rejecting the Constitution as a basis of government. They think they have effectively dislodged it a bit and are trying to complete the kill while they think they can.
The United Nations is the main force behind the effort to demolishing organized religions, not only across the globe but especially here in North America. They see the Mormons as being far too self reliant. Self reliant people will never accept fascism or socialism. The Catholics have the Pope as their religious leader. The UN cannot accept that because true Catholic believers will never accept any other religious leader, especially not one selected by Moslem UN leaders.
Prepare for tomorrow.
IMO, it should be common knowledge where your city, state and federal officials, the county bureaucrats, local and federal police superior officers live, every single one of them!
It is not difficult to make someone live in fear for their lives as many of you already know. If our government tries to do it to us, do you have a plan?
Making our elected local, county, state or federal officials acutely aware of that feeling is not a popular idea amongst the posters on this thread but having that taste in your mouth is not one quickly forgotten. Dont go after them in their protected offices when their families are as vulnerable as our are.
If our LEOs or military troops under the orders of our elected local, county, state or federal officials ever administer violent treatment to US citizens then it should be returned in equal force to their superiors families.
I promise you that a single bullet through the kitchen window of the Mayors house will make for an excited dinner conversation at his table. The Mayor will then understand exactly what he did when he ordered violence against his townspeople.
The Chief of Polices wife isnt immune from explaining to her husband what a wonderful job hes doing if her home receives a copper jacketed message through her front door or bedroom wall.
There is no need to go after the street level officers, their bosses are the ones who issue the orders and they should be the ones to receive the 1200+ foot per second message.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.