These two groups are similar in their ideology
because their most sacred belief is that a document, once written, is subject
to no
interpretation other than what they see as the
plain meaning of the document. The Federalist Society believes that
the Constitution
of the United States is dead weight, and the
religiously insane theocons believe the same about the Bible. Both
believe that any who
hold a differing view are treasonous and are
enemies of all that our society embraces as moral or right. In reality,
the exact opposite
is true. Our founding fathers clearly intended
that our nation should grow according to the advancement of modern thinking.
And God
surely intended that we make full use of the
one gift not granted the rest of the animal kingdom, abstract thinking.
The main thing that becomes apparent when examining
the philosophy of these groups is that it really makes no difference what
the
word of God actually is, or what the founders
really said. What is most important to their philosophy is that your
interpretation of what
the founders said, or of what God said, must
give way to theirs. Simple education is a problem with these people.
Anything that adds
to your knowledge of history, science, or even
of the arts, that has the tendency to exercise the ability to think abstractly,
only makes
you suborn, and a less pliant sheep. Both
groups work diligently to destroy public education. Both work diligently
to limit admittance
to college, but for a chosen few.
Illustrative of The Federalist Society is their
view on abortion. They dismiss it merely by stating that the Constitution
offers no “right to
an abortion.” And of course it doesn’t.
Yet it doesn’t forbid it either. If the argument ended there, it
would be up to the government,
either federal or local, to make laws in favor
of allowing abortions or to prohibit them. But the argument doesn’t
end there.
What the Supreme Court recognized in its decision
regarding Roe v. Wade (The Federalist Society and theocons rely that the
vast majority
of Americans will never read this enlightened
opinion) was an individual’s right to privacy. The government has
no right to intrude on a woman’s
personal consultations with her doctor, and the
government has no right to instruct the doctor as to what is best for his/her
patient.
“Ah, ha!” shout the Federalists. “The Constitution provides no right to privacy either. The word privacy appears nowhere in the Constitution!”
It is true that the word, “privacy,” does not
appear in the Constitution. What does appear is a defined right of
people to be “secure in their
persons, houses, papers and effects.” In
fact the Constitution is replete with references to what appear to be the
founders’ recognition of a
right to privacy, unassailable from common law.
For the Federalist Society argument to have any
weight what-so-ever, we must treat the Ninth Amendment as though it doesn’t
exist at all.
Without looking it up, I’d bet there are very
few people reading this right now who have any idea what the Ninth Amendment
says. While The
Federalist Society would like to take redaction
tape to the amendment, most people never know quite what to make of it,
so they tend to forget
about its inclusion altogether.
First it must be noted that when the founders
wrote the base of the Constitution, many presumed that the governmental
engine they had created
would sufficiently protect the people from governmental
abuse. But it occurred to some that in the far off and distant future,
some organization
like The Federalist Society would come along,
arguing that no rights are specifically enumerated in the Constitution,
so none should be recognized.
These people argued that a “Bill of Rights” simply
must be included. Others were skeptical and worried that such an
inclusion might lead future
generations to believe that the rights enumerated
at the time would be construed as the people’s only rights. That
the first congress couldn’t
possibly anticipate all of the rights of man,
leaving the people only with what was written in the Bill of Rights.
With that in mind, they included
the Ninth Amendment, which states: “The
enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed
to deny or disparage others
retained by the people.” [Emphasis added.]
The Constitution does not state what these rights
are, but it says that they are "retained by the people." Meaning
that the people already have
these rights. It doesn’t say “rights that
the people will have, just as soon as they can get something through the
amendment process. The
amendment assumes that things will come up over
time, identifying rights that weren’t given much thought previously.
It presumes an enlightened
judiciary that would be sufficiently liberal
in its thinking to add to what the founders had begun.
No one speaks better for the founders than Thomas
Jefferson. The Federalist Society doesn’t like Thomas Jefferson.
While they attempt to
cherry pick his quotes, much the way George W.
Bush cherry picks CIA intelligence reports, they cannot escape this quote
which puts the lie
to their entire organization.
I am certainly not an advocate for frequent
and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections
had better
be borne with; because when once known, we
accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their
ill effects.
But I know also, that laws and institutions
must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that
becomes more developed,
more enlightened, as new discoveries are made,
new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of
circumstances,
institutions must advance also, and keep pace
with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the
same coat which fitted him
when a boy, as civilized society to remain
ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors. (Jefferson to
S. Kercheval, July 12, 1810)
And barbarous ancestors brings us back to the
theocons. Specifically here, theocon Cal Thomas, who writes for the
Washington Times.
To begin here, let’s let Cal speak for himself:
If you tell me you do not believe in God and
then say to me that I should brake for animals, or pay women equally, or
help the poor,
on what basis are you making such an appeal?
If no standard for objective truth, law, wisdom, justice, charity, kindness,
compassion
and fidelity exists in the universe, then
what you are asking me to accept is an idea that has taken hold in your
head but that has all
of the moral compulsion of a bowl of cereal.
You are a sentimentalist, trying to persuade me to a point of view based
on your feelings
about the subject and not rooted in the fear
of God or some other unchanging earthly standard. [Emphasis
added.
This was from an article Cal wrote on gay marriage.
His argument is that since gay marriage never appears in the Bible, arguing
the morality
of the notion that gays have the same rights
as anyone else is purely “moral relativism” with no foundation in anything
lasting. Am I wrong here,
or does Cal manifestly state that the only folks
who are truly moral are those who fear God’s wrath?
Cal apparently believes that the only concrete
moral influence in the history of man comes from the Bible. He does
not mention that "moral
relativism" is routed in the Bible as strongly
as anywhere else. Take any two people, sit them down in a room and
have them read the Bible,
and you will hear two entirely different interpretations
as to what God commands. Cal, of course, would disagree with both
and use his
Moonie Times license to lecture us about what
God really says.
It's time for those of us who have gained, after
lifetimes of reason and experience, our very personal understandings of
what God is, and is not,
to fight back against this kind of ass holiness.
It's time to throw down the gauntlet.
Cal, I believe in God, but I do not believe in
your God. I do not believe in that petty, ego maniacal, megalomaniacal,
vicious monster that you
have created in your own image. I don't
need a Bible to tell me whether or not to use my car to create road kill
of children's pets. I don't need
a Bible to tell me that all human beings share
equal rights, and that women should be paid at the same rate for performing
the same job that a
man does. I don't need a Bible to tell
me that I have a duty within my culture and community to attempt to alleviate
the suffering of the
underprivileged (no matter in what form).
I don't need the Ten Commandments tattooed on my forehead to discuss the
difference between
right and wrong. I would use the Bible
as a tool to expand human reason and understanding, and not as a tool to
justify bigotry.
Cal, if you can't justify what you believe as "moral" without pissing on the Bible, I'm not the moral relativist, you are.