Skip to main content

What exactly does the Constitution mean to many self-described "Constitutional" conservatives?

After seeing the results from a recent Public Policy Polling (PPP) poll of Republican primary voters, I have to now beg the question, "What exactly does the Constitution mean to many self-described 'Constitutional' conservatives?"

According to this national poll, 57% of these voters support "establishing Christianity as the national religion," even though the First Amendment of the Constitution plainly states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

How does that work exactly?

Coyote Blitzer: "So, how would you describe yourself politically? Would you say you're a conservative, a liberal, a moderate?"

Anthony Baloney: "I'm a Constitutional conservative through and through, like most of my GOP and Tea Party brethren."

Blitzer: "But it says here that you would support a measure making Christianity the national religion of this country; is that true?"

Baloney: "Yes, that's 100% true."

Blitzer: "Well, doesn't it state in the U.S. Constitution that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion'?"

Baloney: "I'm not sure. Does it?"

Blitzer: "It does."

Baloney: "Okay then... So, what are you trying to say?"

Blitzer: "You label yourself as a Constitutional conservative, correct?"

Baloney: "Yes, that's correct."

Blitzer: "How can you call yourself a Constitutional conservative if you support a measure which goes against the First Amendment in the U.S. Constitution?"

Baloney: "I don't follow..."

Blitzer: "You call yourself a Constitutional conservative, yet you support making Christianity the national religion in this country even though it says in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.' Based on that, how can you accurately describe yourself as a Constitutional conservative?"

Baloney: "Because I believe in the Constitution through and through and am conservative."

Blitzer: "Except for that one part of the Constitution?"

Baloney: "Which part?"

Blitzer: "Jesus fricking Christ..."

Baloney: "What?"

Blitzer: "Oh, nothing. I just need some Aleve for an incoming migraine."

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/02/25/3626717/majority-republican-primary-voters-want-establish-christianity-national-religion/
Labels:

Comments

  1. kate59February 26, 2015 at 11:15 AM

    This is great - Thanks! Needed a laugh today.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The RozFebruary 26, 2015 at 11:27 AM

      Thanks, and you're very welcome! I'm glad you got a much needed laugh out of it (the writing/the hypocrisy of "Constitutional" conservatives) today!

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun
2 comments
Read more

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i
Post a Comment
Read more

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"
Post a Comment
Read more