The problem with both conservatives and liberals when it comes to the Constitution is that they are often like Christians in that, like Christians with the Bible, they tend to read into it what they want, ignore the parts they disagree with, and in fact probably have never read it in the first place.
These “Constitutional Fundamentalists” are also very similar to religious ones in that when they do interpret the document, they always find that the unchanging and clear words in the document mean exactly what they already believed anyway.
You never see one of these people go “The Constitution is clear and unambigous and cannot be interpreted! We have to read it exactly as the founders intended! Unfortunately for me, it’s obvious that they intended something I disagree with.”
No, it’s always “We must obey the will of the founders who clearly wanted everyone to have an assault rifle without any restrictions whatsoever!”
If you’re a regular follower of this blog, you’re certain to have seen some of Darrin Bell’s political cartoons. They cut to the chase and often make a serious point without any attempt to be funny like many cartoonists. They’re hard-hitting journalism in cartoon form.
I’ve been a fan of his work for years, ever since I discovered his comic strip “Candorville.” I ended up writing the afterword for one of his collections, and interviewed him on my writing blog.
He agreed to do the artwork for my upcoming book HOW TO ARGUE THE CONSTITUTION WITH A CONSERVATIVE, due from Gray Rabbit Publications in August.
Here’s the cover illustration:
Anyway, I was amazed and please to discover this week that he was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for editorial cartooning, which is well deserved.
So congratulations to my friend — and the first person I’ve ever known personally that won a freakin’ Pulitzer!
(Also: If you have a political blog, radio show, TV show, or other media outlet and you’d like to do an advance review of the new book, please contact me!)
Look, let’s not get distracted.
The burning of Notre Dame is a tragedy. It’s a very old beautiful building — that in itself is a loss. It contained wonderful art and architecture that cannot be replaced.
The fact that it is a religious place diminishes that not one bit.
I’ve seen the posts some of my liberal friends have made. “How come you didn’t cry when black churches in Louisiana burned?” one said. “Haha, it’s a bunch of priests burning their child pornography and it got out of hand,” says another.
Just pretend for a minute that it was a museum instead if that helps — because it basically was. A museum of a time when the church ruled over people and religious leaders dictated what the laws should be. (Okay, maybe it’s not that much different today.)
Cry over the loss of art. Ignore the religious aspect.
(At the same time, seeing people pour donations into rebuilding kind of bugs me when there are people who could use that money to cure disease, provide clean water, house the homeless, and do the kind of things Jesus told the church to do.)
(If anyone knows the cartoonist, tell me so I can give proper credit)
Whenever I read “Lincoln gave the slaves freedom” or “Roe v. Wade gave women the right to their bodies” or “The Supreme Court gave gays the right to get married,” it always sounds strange.
If I steal your car and then return it, you don’t say “Michael gave me a car.”