We're the real Americans

Let's see… There's been a lot written about how certain Christian denominations claim they are the one true faith and if you don't believe the way they do you are most certainly going to hell and you probably caused a hurricane just because you exist. Never mind that their doctrine contradicts the major themes of the Bible, most notably the ones about loving your neighbor as yourself and leaving judging to God.

There has also been a lot of ink spilled over trying to "prove" that America is really a Christian nation, founded by devoted Christians, and that the separation of Church and State was created by those dratted liberals. Never mind that the separation from Church and State was originally promoted by religious conservatives to make sure the government stayed out of their way or that most of the founders were Deists, not Christians.

I haven't hear as much about these two claims lately, though I'm sure they haven't gone away. Perhaps the general public is getting wise? One can hope. Perhaps the arguments no longer have sufficient heft to sway public opinion. Time for bigger guns.

I've started hearing a new chorus giving cry. They're essentially saying, "We're following the American Constitution and you're not. We're the real Americans."

The chorus has gotten loud based on two related events. The first is the release of the Mt. Vernon Statement, yup named after George Washington's estate. Didn't we just have some kind of Fundie manifesto? Ah well, we can deride and ignore this one too. The second is the CPAC (Conservative Political Action Committee) Conference that has just concluded.

The Mt. Vernon Statement decries the how America has lost its way and must return to its roots. It claims that Constitutional Conservatism (as opposed to, say, the current GOP from which there is a carefully defined distance) is based on these principles:

* It applies the principle of limited government based on the rule of law to every proposal.

* It honors the central place of individual liberty in American politics and life.

* It encourages free enterprise, the individual entrepreneur, and economic reforms grounded in market solutions.

* It supports America’s national interest in advancing freedom and opposing tyranny in the world and prudently considers what we can and should do to that end.

* It informs conservatism’s firm defense of family, neighborhood, community, and faith.

The declared signers include the usual Fundie, anti-gay suspects -- people who won't be upset if we're murdered.

Of course, this contains the usual Fundie double-speak. You had doubts? Two major problems (Only two? Well, two I'll talk about).

That little point about individual liberty… Yeah, it sounds good, something that Americans will agree to, but given the track record of the signatories they mean individual liberty for them. If you don't fit into their worldview -- gays, those who are pro-choice, women -- need not apply. You see, individual freedom means they want the freedom to denounce gays and make our lives as miserable as possible. (I'm not providing links to the Statement itself, you can find it through this link).

The other problem is highlighted in the pronouncements by Kathryn Lopez, editor of the National Review Online, who attended the CPAC. In an interview on NPR Lopez, describing the Mount Vernon Statement, said:

A conservative is somebody who respects the Constitution. He wants to support policies that advance freedom. A conservative is someone who believes that we don't need to reinvent the wheel and that the founding fathers knew what they were talking about. They established a republic based on moral principles, and these are things that we don't want to get away from.

Did you catch that little phrase "a republic based on moral principles"? Very few moral principles, and none of the ones mentioned in the Mt. Vernon Statement, are in the Constitution. I looked. There is a lot of talk about how the government functions, who is allowed to vote, what a president can do, what the House and Senate are allowed to do, what happens when a president dies in office, that there is a Supreme Court and lower courts may be established as Congress desires. Boring details of how government works.

I suppose the lists of what Congress can and cannot do is the basis for an insistence on limited government, but then we're back to the issue of saying something they don't mean. Remember their definition of activist judges?

Then one gets to the amendments. A few of them might have moral overtones.

1. No established religion, freedom of speech, press, assembly, right to petition grievances.
2. Right to bear arms.
3. Must ask permission to quarter soldiers in a home.
4. Citizens secure from unreasonable search and seizure.
5. If detained a citizen must be charged, must have due process, can't incriminate self.
6. Right to speedy trial and confront witnesses.
7. Right to trial by jury.
8. Cruel and unusual punishment is banned.
13. Slavery is abolished.
15. All races may vote.
18. Liquor is abolished.
19. Women may vote.
21. Amendment 18 is repealed.
24. Poll tax banned.
26. 18 year olds may vote.

The Constitution says nothing about capitalism being the preferred economic system. Nothing about America must push for democracy around the world. Nothing about defense of family, neighborhood, and community. It does defend faith, but not in the way the signatories mean, not that their faith and religion trumps my faith.

It's clear what this crowd is doing. The Constitution is a sacred document in America. We don't tamper with it lightly (note the tough amendment process) and highly respect it. We get indignant when president or Supreme Court glaringly don't uphold it. But it is also a document the average American hasn't read and doesn't understand all that well. So claiming that something is in the Constitution gives it a cachet that might dupe the rubes.

This assault on the Constitution reminds me of the rise of fascism in Germany. They gained power and an early act was to suspend the German constitution.