Constitutional Fundamentalism

RyansWill

Virgin
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Posts
13
I've been lurking under a different alias and recently came across this that a friend had posted I thought I'd share for your consideration:

I find it troubling how easy it is for some to regurgitate a Constitutional fundamentalism that, like any religious fundamentalism, is a socially constructed, historically conditioned interpretation that protects the interests of a few, attempting to bind us to a text that is ultimately sexist, racist, and elitist. Women, blacks, and non-property holders were denied rights in our Constitution - how can we return to its foundation as something to be bound by in our world today? If we are so unwilling to, at minimum, acknowledge, appreciate, and celebrate our common humanity - across our socio-cultural differences - than what do we have left? These are the underlying principles of the US Constitution - principles that literalist interpretations will not acknowledge as it doesn't protect their privileged status - or their feeble attempts to hang on to or make claims to a position of privilege.

Thus, we begin to understand why, from day one, there have been attacks against Obama that transcend the normal non-sense of political rancor. Conspiracy theories about Obama are being produced and circulated at hyper-rates, in every attempt to erase him from the political scene. He was not born in the US, he’s a Muslim, he’s a socialist, he’s gay – all bigoted attempts to exile him from the White House, as each claim is seen as delegitimizing him. Ultimately, all they want to really say is that Obama is black…
 
Why create a new name to post this?

Don't tell me you have a cock av.
 
Thus, we begin to understand why, from day one, there have been attacks against Obama that transcend the normal non-sense of political rancor. Conspiracy theories about Obama are being produced and circulated at hyper-rates, in every attempt to erase him from the political scene. He was not born in the US, he’s a Muslim, he’s a socialist, he’s gay – all bigoted attempts to exile him from the White House, as each claim is seen as delegitimizing him. Ultimately, all they want to really say is that Obama is black…

Speaking of "delegitimizing," one of the most popular applications of that technique is to miscategorize all opposition to Obama's policies as rooted in surreptitious racism.

In other words, we've heard this crock of shit before. Fuck off.
 
Those items that you list as being vile were considered quite acceptable at the time. By the very nature and design of the document that is the U.S. constitution, as social and political views changed over time, the document could be peacefully modified to reflect the changes. The rest of what you wrote is gobbledygook.
 
Constitutional religious fundamentalist white heterosexual male American checking in. :cool:
 
Those items that you list as being vile were considered quite acceptable at the time. By the very nature and design of the document that is the U.S. constitution, as social and political views changed over time, the document could be peacefully modified to reflect the changes.

What she said. It's a living document and your friend is free to try and change it.

The other thing about this document is that the oath of office which Mr Obama took as Congressman, Senator, and President included the phrases "protect, preserve, and defend the Constitution of the United States", so presumably he respects it, too.

Shouldn't that be good enough for your friend?
 
I've been lurking under a different alias and recently came across this that a friend had posted I thought I'd share for your consideration:

I find it troubling how easy it is for some to regurgitate a Constitutional fundamentalism that, like any religious fundamentalism, is a socially constructed, historically conditioned interpretation that protects the interests of a few, attempting to bind us to a text that is ultimately sexist, racist, and elitist. Women, blacks, and non-property holders were denied rights in our Constitution - how can we return to its foundation as something to be bound by in our world today? If we are so unwilling to, at minimum, acknowledge, appreciate, and celebrate our common humanity - across our socio-cultural differences - than what do we have left? These are the underlying principles of the US Constitution - principles that literalist interpretations will not acknowledge as it doesn't protect their privileged status - or their feeble attempts to hang on to or make claims to a position of privilege.

Thus, we begin to understand why, from day one, there have been attacks against Obama that transcend the normal non-sense of political rancor. Conspiracy theories about Obama are being produced and circulated at hyper-rates, in every attempt to erase him from the political scene. He was not born in the US, he’s a Muslim, he’s a socialist, he’s gay – all bigoted attempts to exile him from the White House, as each claim is seen as delegitimizing him. Ultimately, all they want to really say is that Obama is black…

Vetteman and koalabear were quick to iggy you because they're two of the most racist members of the GB.

I'm going to iggy you not because of the content of this - most of which I agree with - but because you admit to making at least one alt AND you're making a politically-focused post. In my book, chickenshit.
 
Strange that everyone on here maintains their anonymity and then when one actually admits that is their intent, that becomes "chickenshit"!

Unfortunately. "gobbledygook" doesn't make for a particularly good counter argument. I think the author believes in the idea that the Constitution is a living document, changing to the times. He is critiquing those who believe that we most uphold it in its original intent.

Personally, I think they (Romney, Obama, et al) are all equally corrupt and morally bankrupt, but that is just my humble opinion.
 
Strange that everyone on here maintains their anonymity and then when one actually admits that is their intent, that becomes "chickenshit"!

Unfortunately. "gobbledygook" doesn't make for a particularly good counter argument. I think the author believes in the idea that the Constitution is a living document, changing to the times. He is critiquing those who believe that we most uphold it in its original intent.

Personally, I think they (Romney, Obama, et al) are all equally corrupt and morally bankrupt, but that is just my humble opinion.

There are varying degrees of anonymity, but we all bring our unique persona to the board. What is chickenshit is an attempt to create different personas.

What's the point of that?
 
I've been lurking under a different alias and recently came across this that a friend had posted I thought I'd share for your consideration:

I find it troubling how easy it is for some to regurgitate a Constitutional fundamentalism that, like any religious fundamentalism, is a socially constructed, historically conditioned interpretation that protects the interests of a few, attempting to bind us to a text that is ultimately sexist, racist, and elitist. Women, blacks, and non-property holders were denied rights in our Constitution - how can we return to its foundation as something to be bound by in our world today? If we are so unwilling to, at minimum, acknowledge, appreciate, and celebrate our common humanity - across our socio-cultural differences - than what do we have left? These are the underlying principles of the US Constitution - principles that literalist interpretations will not acknowledge as it doesn't protect their privileged status - or their feeble attempts to hang on to or make claims to a position of privilege.

Thus, we begin to understand why, from day one, there have been attacks against Obama that transcend the normal non-sense of political rancor. Conspiracy theories about Obama are being produced and circulated at hyper-rates, in every attempt to erase him from the political scene. He was not born in the US, he’s a Muslim, he’s a socialist, he’s gay – all bigoted attempts to exile him from the White House, as each claim is seen as delegitimizing him. Ultimately, all they want to really say is that Obama is black…
Yo. Thanks for the lol.
 
Cite specific examples.

What or which part(s) of the Constitution do you disagree with?

Otherwise, critiquing "those who believe that we most uphold it in its original intent." is meaningless.

I think you are referring more specifically to the Bill of Rights, since the rest of it is merely a manual on government operations.
 
Thus, we begin to understand why, from day one, there have been attacks against G W Bush that transcend the normal non-sense of political rancor. Conspiracy theories about G W Bush were being produced and circulated at hyper-rates, in every attempt to erase him from the political scene. He was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, he’s a right-wing christian extremist, he's an idiot, he’s elected illegitimately – all bigoted attempts to exile him from the White House, as each claim is seen as delegitimizing him. Ultimately, all they want to really say is that G W Bush was Republican…
 
Thus, we begin to understand why, from day one, there have been attacks against G W Bush that transcend the normal non-sense of political rancor. Conspiracy theories about G W Bush were being produced and circulated at hyper-rates, in every attempt to erase him from the political scene. He was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, he’s a right-wing christian extremist, he's an idiot, he’s elected illegitimately – all bigoted attempts to exile him from the White House, as each claim is seen as delegitimizing him. Ultimately, all they want to really say is that G W Bush was Republican…

Bush was properly elected in 2000 by a vote of 5-4.
Derp.
 
Back
Top