• Constitutional conservatism for dummies

    by Jesse Loren

    They love the Constitution, but not the foundation of separation between church and state. They love freedom, but not the kind of freedom practiced in America. It’s an enigma wrapped in a flag, wrapped in a mystery, with Michelle Bachmann holding a cross on top. It’s a threat to our country’s foundation, and it’s here!

    According to Constitutionalconservative.wordpress.com “Constitutional Conservatism flows from Judeo-Christian Biblical principles…”

    In other words, it is based on a limited interpretation of the Old Testament. It removes the Jesusy “take care of each other, do unto others” type behaviors and leaves us with, “Am I my brother’s keeper?”

    It seeks to embrace Bible principles, but then refers to itself as “religion neutral.” “Religion neutral” is code for believing that the Constitution meant for us to have freedom of religion, not from religion. Religion neutral seeks to enshrine a specific religious establishment into government. The goal is to establish no separation between church and state. Think dogma without spirituality. Think of all the freedom there is when you don’t have to worry your pretty little head about choice. Instead, it’s neutral/neutralized.

    Minnesota schools had a Michelle Bachmann inspired position of being “sexual orientation neutral” and that policy meant that teachers couldn’t protect kids who were bullied, peed on, teased, due to perceived sexual orientation. A rash of suicides followed, then a big lawsuit. Minnesota’s “Neutral” policy enshrined violence into school board policy. It was the Radical Right’s way of putting their version of “God” first. “Neutrality” misused is code for gag ordered silence and institutionalized bias. It undermines the very principles of being created equal. Undermining the Constitution in the name of “God” is blasphemous to rule of law, but that’s what they want. Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

    Once government and religion can be sewn up together like stripes on the flag, there are four tenets.

    “Textual interpretation of the Constitution, fiscal responsibility, a new definition of charity, personal responsibility.”

    Textual Interpretation: First, the Constitution must NOT be seen as a living document. (This is important to understand up front because it contradicts rule two.) The Constitution must be seen as a static document, with one strict interpretation of what it means. There are 27 ratified amendments to the Constitution. These are all not part of the original static document.

    Some of our top 10 Amendments are:

    1. Freedom of speech, freedom of the press and the right to assemble. (Goodbye Occupy and NPR, artwork, poetry and literature. Hello censorship.)
    2. The right to bear arms. (Momma hunts deer.)
    4. No unreasonable searches. (Hello 1984.)
    5. The right to a fair trial. (Hello Scotsborough Boys.)
    6. The right to a speedy trial. (Hello indefinite detention of citizens)
    13. Abolishing slavery, ( Hello new right to own humans as property.)
    16. Allows income tax. (No more taxes. But, no government as we know it either.)

    Basically, all of the human and inalienable rights that you think you have now, you will no longer have. The textual interpretation will cherry-pick some of these. I am sure whomever the Christian Imam is would cherry-pick, but I think it would be a Republican president pressured by a Tea Party congress who supports this idea of Constitutional Conservatism.

    Fiscal Responsibility: Balanced budget amendment. Change the Constitution to have a balanced budget amendment. It does sound completely contrary to the first principle. But, one can cut a lot of programs without any oversight if this passes and becomes enshrined in the Constitution.

    Charity — Government shouldn’t take care of people. It is people’s problem to help others, not governments; therefore all New Deal legislation would be abolished. No Social Security, no welfare, no student loans, no housing loans, no human services, no more Americans with Disability Act, no nutrition programs for pregnant women, no federal oversight for citizens, no more fair labor laws, no FDA, no regulation. If government shouldn’t take care of people, then government can’t regulate corporations or banks.

    With corporations being people without limiting regulation, they do what they want. It makes corporations into pirates. Pirates do not have your best interest in mind.

    Personal Responsibility — society shouldn’t support people. Whatever happens to you is your own fault. It’s leaner, it’s meaner, and it is about as far removed from Jesus’ teachings as I am from being canonized into the Roman Catholic church.

    Personal responsibility can be boiled down to one catchy phrase. “Am I my brother’s keeper?”
    Isn’t that what Cain said after he slew Abel?

    It’s government that abandons all of the governing roles of government, one that no longer governs by taking care of the citizens; instead it makes government a legal device to insure church and corporations have no pesky interference. It truly is Fascism and Theocracy all stuffed into a bomb.

    God help us.



    • If the Bible and the Constitution are fixed documents, than no one has to evolve!



    • This makes me so sad and I just can’t fathom a world like this. I am my brother’s keeper and I try to do onto others as I would want them to do onto me (okay a few I have might not been as good to as I would have liked) but come on we all try our best. Or at least we should. I am a social democrat and will pay more to make sure that all people are housed, clothed, fed and given the ability to have the American dream in their own way.


      • Jesse

      • March 11, 2012 at 6:59 pm
      • Reply

      Deb, actually, we have to devolve. If the constitution has been improved to include such issues and abolishing slavery and civil rights, it would have to devolve to a prior place where these things didn’t happen. And for Christianity, they aren’t talking about jesus, the far right is invoking a fictional interpretation more closely aligned to the old testament. It’s really awful.



    Leave a Comment