Tweet
twolf1
There was an interesting piece in yesterday’s NYT about how the teabaggers’ reverence for the Constitution approaches “religious fervor,” and it reminded me of nothing so much as this brilliant Onion story, Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be:
“Our very way of life is under siege,” said Mortensen, whose understanding of the Constitution derives not from a close reading of the document but from talk-show pundits, books by television personalities, and the limitless expanse of his own colorful imagination. “It’s time for true Americans to stand up and protect the values that make us who we are.”
(…)
“Right there in the preamble, the authors make their priorities clear: ‘one nation under God,’” said Mortensen, attributing to the Constitution a line from the Pledge of Allegiance, which itself did not include any reference to a deity until 1954. “Well, there’s a reason they put that right at the top.”
“Men like Madison and Jefferson were moved by the ideals of Christianity, and wanted the United States to reflect those values as a Christian nation,” continued Mortensen, referring to the “Father of the Constitution,” James Madison, considered by many historians to be an atheist, and Thomas Jefferson, an Enlightenment-era thinker who rejected the divinity of Christ and was in France at the time the document was written. “The words on the page speak for themselves.”
(…)
Mortensen said his admiration for the loose assemblage of vague half-notions he calls the Constitution has only grown over time. He believes that each detail he has pulled from thin air—from prohibitions on sodomy and flag-burning, to mandatory crackdowns on immigrants, to the right of citizens not to have their hard-earned income confiscated in the form of taxes—has contributed to making it the best framework for governance “since the Ten Commandments.”
This is uncannily close to the reality depicted in the NYT piece:
An ordained minister and a Navy veteran, Mr. Manship had also prepared a sort of concordance for the Preamble, connecting its language of justice, liberty, defense, tranquillity and so on to verses in the Bible.
“You had divine providence, intuitive intervention, or something like that,” Mr. Manship, 57, said of the Constitution in a recent phone interview from his Northern Virginia home. “God’s words, the concept of godly government, are woven into the warp and woof of the fabric of our nation and this Constitution.
Not only do the tea partiers persist in viewing the Constitution as some sort of Christian document, but the version of it that they worship is almost entirely fictional. Their Constitution doesn’t separate church and state, protect civil liberties or equality, allow the government to take any action or create any institutions for the public good, or impose any restrictions on anyone other than the disadvantaged and disfavored.
In fact, it’s an awful lot like their religious right allies’ approach to the Bible. They revere it as the ultimate authority on God’s will, yet they consistently interpret it as reflecting nothing more than their own rigid intolerant morality with no message of peace, compassion or forgiveness whatsoever (except perhaps towards their fellow hard-right Christians, who can be forgiven any sin).
If you’re going to center your life around the Constitution and the Bible and use them to self-righteously fulminate against your anti-Constitutional ungodly enemies, is it too much to ask that you at least make an effort to read and understand them?
51 Comments
Dood – yer takin’ the “fun” out of fundamentalism!
But not the “mental”.
heh heh
:)
We are certainly reaching an odd and critical point in our nation’s cultural history: where factions driven by adherence and even worship of our founding documents, which they fail to understand, elect representatives with no intention or ability to make laws supporting the views the rubes elected them to implement.
Should be fun; starting with Scott Brown, I expect the teabaggers to eat their own. Might as well start with a nude model, right?
“starting with Scott Brown, I expect the teabaggers to eat their own”
Won’t happen soon enough for me
what is a warp and woof? i’m too lazy to look it up.
I don’t know which is worse:
43′s ignorance-of-convenience – “It’s just a god-damned piece of paper!”
or
The baggers™ just plain ignorance “Where in the Constitution is it written that there’s to be a separation of church and state?”
well, yeah, eli. It IS too much too ask that we read and the Bible anfd the Constitution. As long as you read the Bible-especially the Hebrewic part in the beginning, then you understand the Constishun. The Bible is all there. No need to read it.
“is it too much to ask that you at least make an effort to read and understand them?”
It is, trust me. I work with a woman who has her doctorate in Biblical Studies and she often blows even ordained ministers out of the water with her knowledge. Meanwhile, I’m a Pagan, and I have to make it clear to them that they are trampling on my religious rights. Heck, I often know more about Christianity than many of these so-called Christians, and I do not bend knee to God at all.
how do you do that trademark superscript thing?
On the Mac – option-2
On the PC – I haven’t a clue.
The Christianists are often unaware of what Jesus actually advocated. They do love the Old Testament…..expecially the rules. I think they don’t realize that Jesus actually isn’t in the Old Testament. I want to ask a fundamentalist which deck of Noah’s Ark the dinosaurs were stashed on. I’m sure Christine (I’m not a witch) could give a ‘scientific’ answer.
I sometimes distinguish between “Old Testament Christians” and “New Testament Christians”. I have nothing but admiration bordering on awe for the latter, but the former just scare the crap out of me.
or just copy what someone else did™ :)
… lazy zapkitty is lazy…
Isn’t that exactly what the TM symbol is supposed to prevent?
The woof is the weft and the warped is the wight.
When the Enterprise goes to a speed beyond the speed of light and a dog barks.
Of course I can’t lay my hands on it now, but it’s characteristic of fascist movements to invent and invoke a mythic, nationalist pseudo-history. And it is characteristic of authoritarian followers to accept such pseudo-facts without question from their leaders.
I’m sure that many of you here saw Christine O’Donnell question Coons on the phrase, separation of Church state in the first Amendment. A lot of people, who don’t follow wingnut thinking (sic) like I do, thought that she was repeating the statement because she didn’t know the first amendment. What she was hoping to do, I think, was get him on a Gotcha. As in, “The WORDS separation of church and state are not in the first amendment.”
She was hoping to go, “AH! Those words are NOT IN THERE!” and win the conversation.
Their ability to be loose with their own words and nitpick on others is a trait many of them share. They LOVE to parse of others people’s words when they feel they have a gotcha.
You know who did this and got away with it all the time? Rummy. Someone would repeat a comment of his but not get it EXACTLY right and he could say, “I never said that.” and technically he was right. He never said those exact words. And usually the journalists was stuck going “hememmememme hummememem” since he didn’t have the exact quote in front of him.
The one time I saw Rummy busted was when a reporter had the exact quote, and context with him and read from it. Then it was Rummy’s time to go ‘hummana hummuna’
If I were to get into a discussion with the fundamentalists I would first force them into statements from the Synoptic gospels.
“I want to understand where you are getting this from, where in the synoptic gospels did Jesus condemn homosexuality?”
And no you can’t go into Paul, just use the words that Jesus supposedly said.
Also, if I really want to play I will ask them how they know Jesus said what he said, “Was there a holy tape recorder?”
Also if they use the “Hate the sin, love the sinner” line? Ask them where that is in the bible?
“It’s in there, somewhere in the back.” – Homer Simpson
Actually it is a phrase attributed to famous Christian Ghandi.
“Are you telling me that you are using a Hindu’s view of the world?”
“You know that you have made God in your image when He hates the same people you do.”
–Anne Lamott from her priest friend Fr. Tom.
Worf is a Klingon and Wolf is a big scary dog that hunts at night and if it bites you you become a Teen Werewolf on a CW TV show.
What may be true about both the Constitution and The Bible is that they are both “living documents” that must be interpreted and often re-interpreted. I do know that Justice Originalist Scalia does not agree with that statement….SO?
The woof is the dog, the weft is the direction you turn your car, and the warped are those who engage in this discussion.
There is NOTHING whatsoever unusual about this conflation in U.S. history. Expansionists, of whom John Q. Adams was a great proponent, attributed the U.S. role to civilize the earth to providence. Many of the founding fathers, when pressed for a reason why the U.S. should expand (one of the first battles of the Revolutionary War, before there even was a U.S., was the invasion of Canada) fell back on the OT.
And Jefferson, who was supposedly a deist, was prone to such arguments wrt Louisiana Purchase.
Let us not forget the Monroe Doctrine, the Mexican War, the Spanish-American War, all of which were to acquire territory because divine providence willed that the American people were better than anyone else. Not much different from W’s invasion of Iraq.
It’s prolly the most enduring theme in U.S. history.
So make fun of all the confused mixing of religion, ‘law’ and motives of the Tea Baggers at your peril because they are tying into one of the most deeply emotional & enduring of U.S. identities.
See Manifest Destiny by Albert Weinberg, published in 1935, for a good history of this.
“Men like Madison and Jefferson were moved by the ideals of Christianity, and wanted the United States to reflect those values as a Christian nation,”
That certainly wasn’t what I learned on my visits to Monticello and Montpelier last month. Should I check myself into the slow learners’ class?
& trade ;
Without the spaces
But with the new update I’m not sure if it works
No. Just don’t believe what they told you. U.S. history as taught in school and historic sites seems to bear little resemblance to what actually was going on. It (taught history) is boosterism in its worst manifestation.
WRT to Monticello, remember that there was NO ref to Sally Hemmings in their presentations until the DNA tests were done on her descendants. Just one of countless examples of how U.S. history has been twisted & whitewashed to serve whatever the interests of the time happen to be.
TBogg is upstairs!
Pop-Up Punditry (Now With Butthurtiness)
“is it too much to ask that you at least make an effort to read and understand them?” Yea, but this is assuming most of these morons can read.
Not only do they have the Constitution wrong, they have no idea what the Boston Tea Party was really about
exactly. never understood how Christians could ignore, like, the Christ part. i mean it doesn’t fit their politics but still….
Thus the wisdom of separating Church and State. One is based on reason, the other faith. One allows rational discourse while the other relies on absolutes. Once you conflate the two, rational discourse is no longer possible as dogma replaces policy and collegial opponents become demons.
Reading the Bible will not help you understand it. But it’s pretty clear that the red parts of the Bible only apply when there is a chance that the person you’re in conflict with has the potential to become a Christian. Otherwise you’re free to torture them.
Didn’t someone say, “Facts are stupid things?” The Tea party and most of the GOP are today’s “know nothing party>” They’re 21st book burners. You can’t reason with these people.
…ignore, like, the Christ part…
because
…it doesn’t fit their politics…
As with all good and simple things, he answer lies within.
Suggesting you read my prior comments carefully.
All your examples reference U.S. relations with the outside world. The worrying difference with today’s religious right is that the tendency to want to be on the right side in war between good and evil (which is universal and not confined to just the U.S.) is being directed inward. When you believe you are doing God’s will, you can justify anything in the pursuit of victory which is not such a good idea when you are fighting in your own house.
Can’t argue a bit with you as regards expansionist motives and tendencies as regards US history.
I will say that there is a unique ingredient in today’s mix though. In the past, territorial expansion in the continental US allowed for alternative belief structures to manifest geographically. For instance, the Mormons and Utah.
This is not the case today. There is no more continental US to be had, so there is now an ideological purge within the continent. That’s different than the past.
Your point is well made. And regarding Justice Scalia, his greatest regret in life is that he and his foul shadow Clarence did not have front row seats at the Salem witch trials.
It’s all about intent.
Several pieces of paper by themselves are harmless.
But several pieces of paper in the hands of saints or sinners becomes a function of intent.
It all about intent.
Make Character Map your friend. So that you can put in all that cool stuff like ™ & Ω & Ж.
Find it under Start-All Programs-Accessories-System Tools-Character Map.
I bet Rand Paul would have wanted to apologize to the East India Company for the un-American behavior of the protesters.
Gee, I didn’t expect that I’d ever be defending George W. Bush, but the story that he called the constitution “a god-damned piece of paper” was invented by the always unreliable blog Capital Hill Blue.
What is usually said is “facts are stubborn things,” but your version may be what gets said at Tea party events.
I wouldn’t trouble yourself over it.
Neither statement directly quotes 43 or any particular Gooper (the supposition being that Christine O’Donnell could manage to phrase the statement cohesively)…
That said, extrapolating their intent from their actions, it is pretty hard to argue with the contention that Bush would rather piss on it than observe it’s intent, and O’Donnell or any of her ilk would be hard-pressed to interpret it in a thoughtful fashion, had they troubled to read it.
What more evidence do we need that our education system has totally failed. I remember that as a teenager we spent one complete year studying the Constitution in my California public school in the sixties. Then we had to pass the “Constitution Test” or we did not move on to the next grade. Can you imagine if the schools were to do that today? Failing education and a media that reports gossip as truth have dumbed down this country to not just an embarrassing level, but a very dangerous one. Christian nation, global warming myth, death panels, President is a Muslim, etc.
Now do you understand why Jesus Christ had such a hard time communicating with the hardcore religious fundamentalist conservatives of his day? And why these hardcore religious fundamentalist conservatives wanted him silenced, censored, eliminated? Also, why the early ultra-orthodox Catholic religious movement tried to silence, censor or eliminate as much of the liberal Gnostic gospels and letters as possible from existence, essentially reinterpreting the message of Jesus back then (but along ultra-orthodox conservative lines) like these conservative “Christians” of today are trying to reinterpret the U.S. Constitution, the very foundation document of our liberal democracy?
IOW, if the facts don’t match one’s preconceptions or conservative predilections, then make up different “facts” until the “facts’ match, eliminating all the facts (and often people) that don’t match right-wing-derived “facts” in the process.
We see examples of this from conservatives every day of the week, and twice on Sundays. Global atmospheric temperatures rising and ice melting all over the place? Screw the facts. The cost of President Obama’s trip overseas, comparable to the cost incurred by previous presidents, Republican and Democratic? Screw the facts. President Obama was born in Hawaii and has attended Christian churches for decades? Screw the facts. Faux News is “fair and balanced”? Screw the facts. The earth orbits the sun? Screw the facts. Conservatives crucified Jesus Christ? Screw the facts.
I could go on (and on and on and on) giving further examples of facts that the feckless fact-less conservative folks have a hard time resolving with their “facts,” but doing so would be enough to drive anyone in the fact-based community conservative-loony batsh*t-batty (one reason why I don’t watch Faux News or tune into right-wing talk radio, I might become just another blithering brainwashed fact-challenged right-wing idiot).
Bart Ehrman has some comments regarding The New Testament worthy of contemplation.
Facts, like reality, have a liberal bent…
I do hope they eat their own, but with their own 24-hour propaganda channel to keep them in line, I don’t think it will happen. In fact I think it can’t happen until the Christianitea movement stops watching Fox News, or Fox News stops being a rightwing propaganda tabloid.