Concerned “Woman” Declares Independence from Brain
Fundie pressure group Concerned Women for America is so full of concerned women that they have to use men to do all their work. I guess they can’t spare any women to do the writing, because they need all of them to sit around looking concerned.
The opinion column duties usually fall to J. Matt Barber, but he was probably busy today suppressing women’s rights, so they could have even more stuff to be concerned about. Today, Mario Diaz takes over the writing job.
OK, Mario, what do you have for us today? Why, look! He takes his job seriously! He has given us a column with the very ominous title “Judge Declares the Declaration of Independence Unconstitutional”. Good job, Mario! The concerned women will be so proud! In fact, the column is so good, that is one less thing for them to be concerned about! Let’s see what Mario has to say:
Judge Declares the Declaration of Independence Unconstitutional
Okay, so the headline is a bit premature, but it’s the logical precursor to the legal philosophy of liberal extremists, isn’t it?
Oh, Mario, Mario, Mario! Where do I begin? First of all, the Declaration of Independence could never be declared unconstitutional, because:
a. It isn’t a law, and
b. It predates the Constitution.
Second, I don’t think you mean “precursor”. What you are doing is taking your paranoid delusions about the Left and extrapolating. That’s not a precursor. I think you mean “logical conclusion”. Even then, that isn’t correct. You have to be extremely careful when extrapolating, because you are going way beyond the point where you have any data to support your claims. Finally, this whole extrapolation fantasy of yours is just that: a fantasy. You’re going to create a giant future straw man, then show us how easily you slay it!
Ever since the Supreme Court erroneously elevated Thomas Jefferson’s “wall of separation between church and state” metaphor to a constitutional doctrine in the 1947 landmark decision Everson v. Board of Education…
Wrong, Mario. Even though the phrase “separation between church and state” does not appear in the Constitution, the concept clearly does.
…a growing sort of legal fog has been setting in on our constitutional religious freedoms, ending in what can only be described as a requirement of government hostility towards religion.
Wrong again, Mario. If you read my report on Abington v. Schempp, you’d know that the Court has ruled that the government must not be hostile to religion.
The many perils of reading into the Constitution a “wall of separation between church and state” where none exists came as no surprise to many of us. Nothing good ever comes from deviating from the clear text and context of the Constitution.
Then it’s a good thing that the Court didn’t deviate from the clear text, isn’t it, Mario? “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” is clear to just about everybody.
Many well-intentioned, smart people have argued for a “living, breathing” Constitution, changing with the times and looking for small immediate “advances,” but this interpretation has only one result in the long run: tyranny.
The Constitution has to be living and breathing. That’s the only way to deal with the numerous conflicts that have arisen that the Founders could not have foreseen. That’s the whole point in writing a constitution!
Should the government censor television and radio? Why not? They aren’t mentioned in the Constitution. Freedom of the press only applies to things with printing presses!
In no other area of law has this proven truer than when it comes to our religious liberty. In the last sixty years, we have seen a constant attack on prayer in schools, the Ten Commandments, the sanctity of life, Christmas, Christian symbols and even religious doctrines. In many instances, our religious rights have been so inhibited that the result is exactly what the founding fathers where [sic] trying to prevent: the government dictating what the people can or can’t do when it comes to religion.
Wow! That’s a hell of a laundry list, Mario! It’s every paranoid delusion you people have!
Despite your fantasies, Mario, your religious freedoms are actually greater today than at just about any time in our history, because the government has gotten out of the religion business.
Because of their hostility toward religion and their unveiled hatred toward anything related to God, these extreme liberal scholars are forced to ignore history, precedent and facts and are forced to decide cases from what they feel is best for the country.
Now I’m confused. Who are “they”? Are we talking about some fantasy “extreme liberal scholars” that you’ve invented, or are we talking about Supreme Court Justices, few of whom are liberal and none of whom are extreme?
It is astonishing how they can go back in history and erect a temple for a distorted “wall of separation between church and state” phrase, while ignoring the text of the Constitution and the volumes of documents showing the people’s real concern when enacting the First Amendment.
I’m guessing we’re talking about the Supreme Court here. It was certainly more liberal in the past than today, but the Court has always looked at the text of the Constitution first and foremost. As far as the “volumes of documents showing the people’s real concern when enacting the First Amendment”, many of those documents show a clear and profound preference for a wall of separation.
This is why they seem to virtually ignore the Declaration of Independence. It’s too simple, too direct and too straightforward. If they were to be honest, they would have to say unequivocally that the Declaration of Independence is unconstitutional.
Now we finally come to what Mario promised us at the beginning, a false argument. The Declaration of Independence is just that: a declaration. It isn’t a law.
After all, here is what this horrible, oppressive document says:
When, in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume, among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s GOD entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the Causes which impel them to the Separation.
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their CREATOR, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
OK. I see the words “Nature’s God” and “creator”. Those are clearly theistic statements. They reflect the prevailing worldview at the time. They are also clearly vague and non-specific. The terms can apply to any theist: Christian, Jew, Muslim, or pagan. I’ll tell you what I don’t see: the Christian God. If Mario is trying to tell us that we’re supposed to open every school day with a prayer to Jesus and his dad, he’s looking at the wrong document.
“Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” “Endowed, by their Creator”? Let’s pass a bill including this language today and see what happens. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) would bring suit before the vote was even cast; Michael Newdow’s daughter would somehow be deeply affected by it, prompting him to bring yet another suit; and Barry Lynn would be invited to every major news show to “educate” us as to why this kind of rhetoric is okay as long as you keep it to yourself, but once you actually express it, well, then we have a problem.
Well now Mario is just making stuff up. Out of straw.
But liberal scholars consistently encounter one little problem: there would be no Constitution without the Declaration of Independence.
But fundie Mario consistently encounters one little problem: The Declaration of Independence is not a foundation of our laws.
The enemies of God in our government have a problem with the Declaration of Independence…”
Here he’s making stuff up again. What “enemies of God in our government”? I don’t know how many “enemies of God” there are anywhere, let alone in the government. Most of the people who hold opinions contrary to Mario’s are theists themselves. They just understand the dangers of mixing government and religion.
…and ignoring a problem does not make it go away – we learned that the hard way on September 11, 2001.
You’re absolutely right, Mario. Nineteen extremely religious men killed over 3000 people that day. Imagine what they could have done with an army backing them! Imagine what they could have done if they had the power of a state acting as the muscle for their religion.
Actually, Mario’s September 11 comment is a non-sequitur. I don’t see how it’s in any way related to his other points.
The Declaration of Independence is the foundation of our legal jurisprudence.
Again, it’s not.
And in fact, it makes reference to what they hate the most, God.
Again, the “they” is vague. I guess it’s some undefined group of liberals. Or maybe it’s this gang of God-haters in government. Tell you what, Mario. You bring me a list of all of the people in government who hate God, and then I’ll listen to the rest of your passion play.
So liberal activists should be truthful for once, or at least intellectually honest (remember, they believe there is no truth; everything is relative),…
I was about to chide Mario for painting a large group of people with such a broad brush, but then I realized that he still hasn’t told us who he’s talking about. First it appears to be all liberals. Then it appears to be Supreme Court Justices. Then it appears to be the “God-haters in government”.
…and stop their little nonsensical lawsuits against “under God” in the pledge of allegiance, the 10 Commandments in the public square, “In God We Trust” in our coins, etc.…
Oh! Now Mario is talking about the people who care enough about the Constitution that they actually try to protect it, instead of shred it.
…and ask a judge (perhaps the brilliant Ninth Circuit) to declare, once and for all, the Declaration of Independence unconstitutional.
Again, Mario, I told you: The Declaration of Independence is not a law, and it predates the Constitution. Why don’t you have kitty litter declared unconstitutional while you’re at it? You’d be on the same legal footing.
After that perhaps they can finally take their cases to the House of Lords.
And again, Mario throws in a non-sequitur! Way to go, Mario! What a way to end your brilliant essay!
Now I finally understand what those women are concerned about: Poor, deluded Mario.