Skip to main content

View Diary: I am a fundamentalist (278 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Most of what you write I agree with (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RandomActsOfReason, Lonely Texan

    This, however, is fatally misguided.

    In the realm of religion, believe all you want. That's the nature of faith, and there is no need in that domain for nuance or interpretation. You get to believe what you want to believe for no other reason than you're own free choice. That is fundamentalism.

    If you want to believe that a magic ghost invaded a virgin who then gave birth to god, go for it. No need to ground that belief in anything other than your own personal preferences.

    But when you take on the Constitution, a document written by privileged, fallible human beings, the idea that there is such a thing as "fundamental" is absurd on its face. Anything that is open to interpretation is, by definition, NOT fundamental. To think otherwise would be to obviate the need for at least half of our court system, including the Supremes.

    I'm not sure what prompted this, but it doesn't rise to your usual level of insight and thoughtfulness.

    •  if it is not fundamental, why does it guide? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KJC MD, James Protzman

      The Constitution itself makes clear that it is fundamental in the second paragraph of Article VI:  

      This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

      do we still have a Republic and a Constitution if our elected officials will not stand up for them on our behalf?

      by teacherken on Wed May 05, 2010 at 10:49:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It has schizophrenia (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Lonely Texan

        On one hand the Constitution thinks it's sacrosanct, but on the other hand, it leaves itself open to continuing interpretation by setting up a court system to, well, interpret.  It's a weird combination of tautology and paradox.

        Being sacrosanct is all well and good if you're an old scrap of paper or a religion, but for living human beings, the acceptance of fundamentalism seems wildly out of line with how the world actually works. When even the basic language of the Constitution is open to wild ranging interpretations, it's hard to make a case for certainty.

        For the most part, I live my life starting with the question, "What if I'm wrong?"  That question makes fundamentalism quite nearly impossible to entertain in any arena, let alone one so politically loaded as government.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site