Wednesday, September 23, 2009

Conservatives Destroyed and Took Ownership of "Liberal." Taking Ownership of Constitution Next?

Democrats, liberals and progressives have not picked up on the escalating attempts by conservatives to "own" the U.S. Constitution, by constantly mis-interpreting it to fit their own radical agenda. Pretty soon, their partisan "constructionist" theory will be the generally excepted interpretation, and history will be rewritten to make the founding fathers look like the Joe Wilson's and Rick Perry's of their time.

That's why this story from Fox News is not just some sort of wacky tale of t-shirt messaging:

Listen to the tea party rants. You'll always hear them bring up the constitution. Hell, the conservative activist Supreme Court is about to overturn 100 years of limiting corporate money in elections, just like they did when they overturned a 100 year precedent on price fixing. That's right, you can do that now. This has given rise to the Second Amendment gun toting town hallers, gave life to the Tenthers and politicized religion.

Check out what Justice Antonin Scalia said recently in this interview:
… Whatever the Establishment Clause means, it certainly does not mean that government cannot accommodate religion, and indeed favor religion. My court has a series of opinions that say that the Constitution requires neutrality on the part of the government, not just between denominations, not just between Protestants, Jews and Catholics, but neutrality between religion and non-religion. I do not believe that. That is not the American tradition.
According to
Scalia's opinion is disappointing, and reflects an ugly and unflattering bias. The government should not accommodate religion; the government should not favor religion. The policy of neutrality is the American tradition. By denying the tradition of neutrality, Scalia wants to claim black is white and up is down.

If Scalia was intellectually honest, he would acknowledge that the founding fathers were deists. While they may have invoked the name of God, they meant something much different than the literal Biblical interpretation of Christianity that is so prevalent now.

No comments:

Post a Comment