It is my sad duty to report that the Onion is no longer publishing fictional farce.
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."
Wow. Did they nail it or what? It gets better.
"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."According to sources who have read the nation's charter, the U.S. Constitution and its 27 amendments do not contain the word "God" or "Christ."
Hee hee....I'm giddy....
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."
Paging TSM commenters....
Mortensen's passion for safeguarding the elaborate fantasy world in which his conception of the Constitution resides is greatly respected by his likeminded friends and relatives, many of whom have been known to repeat his unfounded assertions verbatim when angered.
Verbatim? Uh oh...
"The freedoms our Founding Fathers spilled their blood for are vanishing before our eyes," Mortensen said. "In under a year, a fascist, socialist regime has turned a proud democracy into a totalitarian state that will soon control every facet of American life."
The Onion completely nails The Cult. Well done, ma'ams and sirs....well done!!!
22 comments:
And yet it is you who is the Christian, and your "Cult" commenters who are likely as not to be atheist.
That rather makes you "a passionate opponent of what you imagine The Cult(tm) to be", doesn't it?
Well M, the view of the Constitution being skewered there is about as accurate as your own, so I don't see why you find it so amusing.
Nor should someone who said democracy is some kind of god-given/god-approved form of govt, say much of anything about anyone elses dopey views about church and state.
Oh and please do not start claiming that verbatim is a right-wing code-word. I can just picture you doing that, and it isn't a pretty picture.
Mark,
When your view of us aligns with The Onion, that's called a clue that something is wrong!
In case you didn't notice, that piece bashed both sides:
""Dad's great, but listening to all that talk radio has put some weird ideas into his head," said daughter Samantha, a freshman at Reed College in Portland, OR. "He believes the Constitution allows the government to torture people and ban gay marriage, yet he doesn't even know that it guarantees universal health care.""
The representations of both sides are inaccurate. That's why it's called "satire." Unlike you, however, I recognized that the caricature of the leftist side (both sides, really) Is Not Real.
Let's see if I understand your point here, Markadelphia.
I'm supposedly a member of this "cult."
I'm an atheist.
I've actually read the Declaration, the Constitution, and all of its amendments.
Reviewing one paragraph you excerpted: "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 supposed to perfectly reflect my beliefs, yet sodomy was prohibited in the fledgling U.S. after passage of the Constitution in 1789, and not found to be a "right" until Lawrence v. Texas in 2003. I was not aware that a pro-sodomy amendment had been passed prior to that date, so stare decisis is terrific when it upholds something you want, but is an unconstitutional obstruction when it prevents something you want, or upholds something you don't, thus defining "judicial activism". (And, for the record, I agree with the outcome of Lawrence, I just can't support the way it was reached.)
On flag-burning, I think it should be protected political speech. In fact, I prefer it when assholes self-identify.
On "mandatory crackdowns on immigrants," there's that wonderful left-wing "language manipulation" you proclaim is a right-wing phenomenon and claim to hate. It's illegal immigration we want to "crack down" on. We call it "enforcing the law." You call it "harassing Lupe and her children when going to the ice-cream parlor."
And finally, as to "the right of citizens not to have their hard-earned income confiscated in the form of taxes," the Sixteenth Amendment pretty much puts-paid to that assertion, unless you're one of the Spoonerites that reads TSM. It's the level of taxation we object to. Look at the level of taxation the people of the founding era objected to - going so far as to tar and feather tax collectors (which was almost invariably fatal to the tax collector.)
Elaborate fantasy world? We're not the ones who elected the guy promising unicorn farts - excuse me, "hope and change."
juris,
Are you aware of the history of "verbatim" when in comes to Mark and TSM?
Oh, indeed I am Ed. That was the source of my caution to him since he appeared ready to leap - like a lemming off a cliff.
Sometimes, M is a self-punching bag.
LOL! When he hands us such a large club, it would be impolite not to use it.
It's always an honor to have Kevin comment on my blog. Thanks dude!
I'll save my comments on your usual short sightedness regarding immigration, illegal or otherwise, for another debate. My main reason for including this article in my running diatribe on the Cult is that the "satire" is actually the equivalent of reality when it comes to the Constitution. It's not an exaggeration at all to say that I have read similar things on TSM although not verbatim:)
Ed and Kevin, both of you pride yourselves on being the end all and be all of knowing EXACTLY what the Constitution means. Kevin, you may not be religious like the fake Mortensen but you have very rigid beliefs (similar to many conservative Christians) when it comes to the founding fathers and the Constitution. Just as a large number of conservative Christians seem to know what God thinks and feels, you know exactly what men over 200 years ago thought and felt. Moreover, you and the folks that read your blog (as well as the Mortensens of the world) know exactly how the founding fathers wanted the Constitution used...in 2010. Really? Like Mortensen, purity of essence is all important and also like Mortensen, you may never be swayed.
It is my hope that someday that both you and Ed will see how ludicrous this is given that there was not a founding father named Nostradamus. Nor were any of them, being products of the Age of Enlightenment, be that full of pride that they wouldn't admit that future generations would have to build upon their framework in a way that was best for our country.
And none of them would be so foolish as to stubbornly adhere to a strict interpretation of many outdated 18th century ideas and norms.
...know exactly how the founding fathers wanted the Constitution used...in 2010.
Bullshit.
Those words have a discoverable meaning, Mark. For someone who teaches history, you'd think all it would require would be reading comprehension.
Does that mean you know exactly what they would think and feel in 2010? Of course not. But it does mean you should be able to tell what they meant when they wrote it. And because it's possible to tell, you can tell that they laid out a particular system of government, and rules for changing it when it no longer serves your needs.
This is the distinction between commenters at TSM and you and others on the left. They can find lots of laws they disagree with and think should be changed. On the other hand, you and others here find laws you dislike and think they should simply be disobeyed and not enforced.
Presumably that's why you're comfortable with a Supreme Court Justice openly flouting the law when it fails to meet the standard of her prejudices, and comfortable with a tax cheat in charge of the IRS.
I'm sure you've heard of "liberation theology". So far as I can tell, the kind of government you're looking for is "Liberation Theocracy".
that they wouldn't admit that future generations would have to build upon their framework in a way that was best for our country.
They certainly did not believe that the Constitution was the be-all, end-all for all time. They had already seen how that had failed in the first U.S. Constitution - the Articles of Confederation. Thus, they gave us a key element missing the first time around. No, it wasn't the doctrine of a "living Constitution" - it was the amendment process laid out in Article V.
Conservatives understand this. They may propose stupid amendments like banning flag burning, but they understand that there is no other legitimate way around the 1st Amdt. Liberals/progressives on the other hand think that just 5 Justices should be able to redefine the meaning of any clause to suit progressive purposes. When I disagree with conservatives, I can at least respect the way they approach the issue; not so much with progressives.
Let me give you some simple examples. I love the national park system, it is great and it is a great idea, and yes it works. There is just one problem - it has no Constitutional basis. It all hinges on a power that Congress granted the President and the Supreme Court blinked. But that is NOT a legitimate Constitutional basis - that all three branches agree to doing something NOT in some way called out in Article I. The War on Drugs is likewise lacking a real Constitutional basis, but a horrendously biased (against Chinese and Negros) Supreme Court let the cornerstone go unchallenged. Can you see why I might just question the basis on which to institute national healthcare? To borrow from Gertrude Stein - there is no there there.
Yes, technology has changed. But…
How has human nature changed in the last 225 years? Heck, how has it changed in the last 10,000 years?
How has mathematics changed in the last 225 years?
Has basic economics changed in the last 225 years? (Computers allow more complexity, but that complexity still cannot violate basic economics.)
Has the nature of logic changed in the last 225 years?
How about truth?
Let's look at some of the complaints from the Declaration of Independence:
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
Would this somehow not be a problem today? What if George Bush had implemented this?
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
So would large numbers of government officials reducing people to poverty not be a problem today?
Or let's look at the Bill of Rights:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Is total government control over what people can and cannot think or read something that could be implemented today without any moral problems?
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Is it no longer a problem if police grab people off the street and "disappear them"? Or how about summarily shooting someone?
Not a problem? Hey it's 2010 now! Things have changed!
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
And hey! We have perfect people who can be in charge of government now! We can make them our King For Life! And hey, there's not problem with our leaders receiving money from foreign governments anymore, is there? After all, it's 2010 and things have CHANGED!!! We have HOPE now!
I could go on, and on, and on, and on, hitting every part of the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and its Amendments. But I don't have the time, and comment lengths are limited.
"How has human nature changed in the last 225 years? Heck, how has it changed in the last 10,000 years?"
Great question, Ed. You have brought up a point which has massively perplexed me regarding the conservative movement in this country. Or at least the many of them that are evangelicals. How is it the such a large group of people can believe in the original sin concept of human nature yet at the same time subscribe to Smith's rational choice as seen in the Wealth of Nations? The two philosophies are polar opposites.
If man's nature is inherently wicked, he won't make the "right" choice given a completely unregulated and free market, correct?
Mark, your straw man is still burning…
"given a completely unregulated and free market"
How many times do we have to tell you that one of the legitimate purposes of government is to prevent the use of force and fraud before you understand that we mean that force and fraud are wrong, and that therefore, we are NOT promoting a completely unregulated market?
And how many times do you have to use this LIE before it's appropriate for me to get well and truly pissed off at you?
Get this through your thick fucking skull:
What you wrote is a LIE!!!
What you wrote is a LIE!!!
What you wrote is a LIE!!!
What you wrote is a LIE!!!
Do you get it yet, LIAR?!?
"You have brought up a point which has massively perplexed me regarding the conservative movement in this country."
It's because you believe a lie. Here it is:
"given a completely unregulated and free market"
How many times have we told you over the years that one of the legitimate purposes of government is to punish and attempt to eliminate the use of fraud and force in the market? It has been too many to count.
How many more times do we have to repeat this before you understand that we're convinced that the use of force and fraud in the market are WRONG? And that as a result, we think an appropriately regulated market is NECESSARY, which is why a government is NECESSARY? When will you admit that the idea of a "completely unregulated market" is purely the invention of the little Alinsky in your head?!?
In other words, your repeated claim that we want a "completely unregulated market" is a god damned LIE!!!
Get this through your thick skull you fool:
What you wrote is a LIE!!!
What you wrote is a LIE!!!
What you wrote is a LIE!!!
What you wrote is a LIE!!!
What you wrote is a LIE!!!
What you wrote is a LIE!!!
What you wrote is a LIE!!!
Do you get it yet, LIAR?!?!?
The LORD hates six things;
in fact, seven are detestable to Him:
arrogant eyes, a lying tongue,
hands that shed innocent blood,
a heart that plots wicked schemes,
feet eager to run to evil,
a lying witness who gives false testimony,
and one who stirs up trouble among brothers.
(Proverbs 6:16–19 HCSB)
Google seems to be eating comments, so I'll try one more time with a simple response:
This is why you're confused:
"given a completely unregulated and free market"
That is the lie. This is the straw man.
Until you actually understand what our real position (that government exists to eliminate force and fraud in the market), your straw man will continue to burn, and I will continue to think of you as a fool.
Until you actually understand what our real position
Do you ever get the feeling you are explaining the mechanics of flight and logistics to a Pacific islander with a pair of coconut halves strapped to his head wondering why the wonderful goodies have stopped dropping from the sky?
I sure do feel that way at times.
Do you ever get the feeling you are explaining the mechanics of flight and logistics to a Pacific islander with a pair of coconut halves strapped to his head wondering why the wonderful goodies have stopped dropping from the sky?
I sure do feel that way at times.
Well I would have put it differently, but it's basically the same experience. For me it's like suddenly realizing that the "person" you've been trying to teach basic electronics to is actually a Buzz Lightyear action figure. The sheer embarrassment of it is daunting, it's like having been caught trying to explain something to a telephone voicemail system, you feel stupid for having been fooled into thinking it was a real person with a real brain.
The strawman is burning.
"one of the legitimate purposes of government is to prevent the use of force and fraud before you understand that we mean that force and fraud are wrong"
Then I really don't understand why you support the people you do, Ed. If you believe the above statement to be true, how does the government prevent force and fraud from occurring in the health care industry? The insurance industry? The financial services industry? From what I have seen, any time President Obama or the Congressional Democrats try to do what you say you believe in above, the insanity about brown shirts and Hitler begins. I guess what I'm wondering is how would YOU regulate the insurance industry, for example?
I think it's pretty funny that some of you think I'm "stupid" for basically listening to what you saying and demonstrating how the actions based on these words and beliefs have no practical application in reality.
Then I really don't understand why you support the people you do, Ed.
M, then what you need to do is ASK, not formulate caricatures.
However, there is still a problem. You think you were subjected to force or fraud in the Centerpoint/RMR fiasco. That is not a problem we can help you with, because it proceeds from a fundamental failure to grasp reality. Even the people who know you, or support your political positions, acknowledged this.
A Pacific island cargo-cultist wasn't "stupid", but he was ignorant of the reality of flight and logistics. He could be happy in his ignorance, but he couldn't make the planes come back.
you and the folks that read your blog ... know exactly how the founding fathers wanted the Constitution used...
Well, we can sorta figure out how they feared it might be used:
“A Republic, if you can keep it.”
BENJAMIN FRANKLIN 1787
Post a Comment