Constitution Nazi: Sarah Palin Calls Constitution “Irrelevant” To Non-Religious Americans

A few weeks ago Sarah Palin said the nastiest thing she could think of about Pope Francis, all because he took a stand against economic inequality. She called him a liberal (ouch). A couple of days later she had second thoughts and apologized to the Pontiff, who probably couldn’t have cared less. But that wasn’t the end of her pontificating on faith.

Sarah Palin

Be Sure To “LIKE” News Corpse On Facebook

Last week Palin made an appearance to peddle her “War On Christmas” book to the Tea-vangelicals at Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University. Her standard stump speech was typically littered with patriotic cliches and liberal bashing. But she introduced a new theme in this theo-con venue that goes a step further than her routine divisiveness and exclusionist rhetoric, saying that…

Palin: …our Constitution was created wholly for a moral and religious people and our Constitution would be irrelevant and impossible to follow, it would be no good, it would be inadequate for any other people.

So Sarah Palin, and her Liberty U. hosts who heartily agreed with her, regard the United States Constitution as a document that is “irrelevant” and “inadequate” to all but the devoutly religious like themselves. Never mind that the first amendment explicitly states that there shall be “no establishment of religion.” Palin is essentially denying the benefits of constitutional liberties to the 20% of Americans who describe themselves as non-religious. For these wayward heathens the Constitution is “impossible to follow.” In fact, she goes so far as to say that the absence of religion removes all reason to follow it.

Palin: [T]here will be no reason to follow our Constitution because it is a moral and religious people who understand that there is something greater than self, we are to live selflessly, and we are to be held accountable by our creator, so that is what our Constitution is based on.

Where Palin gets the notion that understanding the Constitution requires living selflessly she didn’t bother to explain. However, if she believes that, she has a funny way of showing it. Was she being selfless when she betrayed the people of her state so that she could pursue a lucrative career as a talking head at Fox News? Are her positions against food stamps, health care, the minimum wage, and tax fairness for the wealthy (like herself) examples of selflessness?

What’s more, her assertion that the Constitution is based on being “held accountable by our creator” was apparently manufactured from the thin air circulating between her ears. Nothing in the Constitution even hints at that. To the contrary, it is evident that the Founders intended to place the power to govern in the hands of the people and their designated representatives, not their deities.

The hypocritical and false piety of grifters like Palin is all too common coming from right-wingers who wish they could restrict our nation’s liberties to just themselves. It’s the sort of country club constitutionality that forbids membership for people who are different, like minorities, immigrants, and those unclean peasants who populate our working class. But rarely do cretins like Palin come right out and say that, unless you believe like they do, you are incapable of understanding freedom and are therefore undeserving of it. And when they do come right out and say it, they demonstrate that they know as little about the Constitution as they do about morality.

Advertisement:

19 thoughts on “Constitution Nazi: Sarah Palin Calls Constitution “Irrelevant” To Non-Religious Americans

    • Although I’m not country club – to answer your question – freedom from government tyranny to live how you wish (so long as you’re not hurting anyone else). To apply it to this blog – government tyranny is the progressive policy of government theft from the people to hand out to their chosen few – and that doesn’t just mean redistribution to the poor and non-productive, it includes corporate interests and banks – both who own the government now.

      • So by progressive policy you mean the government forcing you to pay taxes? That to you is Tyranny? Let me inform you of something, no progressive/liberal government in the world right now oppresses it’s people or has tyranny over them. However CONSERVATIVE governments all around the world have always repressed their people and stolen their rights. See right wingers are fine with government stealing the rights away from gays, blacks, Mexicans, women, and Muslims–they don’t label that tyranny. However you touch their pocket book–that is PURE TYRANNY!! You are a spoiled rotten brat that doesn’t understand what real tyranny is! OMG! The only way the economy works is through progressive taxation of incomes. You do not know anything about economics just by your statement. Did you know that government is giving out 1/2 as much welfare to each individual citizen as it did under Ronald Reagan? Did you not know that per capita welfare benefits has been declining for decades now? I bet you didn’t. You think democrats and progressives want to push through an agenda that forces the working class to subsidize the lazy class. What you don’t understand is that is the republican agenda. Example: zero out taxes on the rich and force the working class and poor to pay them all. Eliminate the minimum wage to allow corporations to pay workers NOTHING so that the rest of us will be forced to redistribute our meager wealth to help those workers while the top 1% lay back and hoard all the fruits of the working classes labor.

        • I’ll agree, as i’ve stated on this blog before – several times, that our current REPUBLICAN (not conservative) party when it runs government is very much as you note – pretty bad with respect to our civil rights – no argument. You are a fool to believe theft of taxes by the government from it’s people is not tyranny – you’ve been duped. Actual conservatism would not steal money or rights from the people – there hasn’t been any conservatism for a LONG time, if ever. Republican presidents happily spend the peoples money on whatever they can. Conservatism as defined by this current republican party – isn’t conservative at all – too much spending, too much military, too much “security”, too much corporatism – so don’t confuse republican with conservative – they are most certainly not the same.

    • Freedom to live exactly like the bible thumpers say you should, of course!

      • Yeah, i don’t think i’ve ever taken a position remotely suggesting that – Rick Santorum – you can make that argument, but not me. Funny how we can be so distrustful of each other – you wonder how we’ll ever actually move things forward. I could say something similar about ANY progressive on this blog. Of course most normal people just want to get along with their lives not being told by anyone – religious or government – how to live.

  1. Let’s also address the former governor’s claim that Thomas Jefferson was such an ardent Christian that he would, of course, been a solid booster of that painfully inane “Jesus is the reason for the season” tripe.

    Maybe someone should send her a Jefferson Bible for Kwanzaa.

  2. I’m a little worried that, as I get older, I sort of have a new appreciation of Sarah Palin as the bellwether of the Republican party. Although I am aware of her shortcomings, she’s just a heck of a lot more entertaining then John Boehner, Rush Limbaugh, Eric Cantor
    and the rest.

  3. Sarah Palin is irrelevant! She sure does like to hear herself make noise. We can’t call it speaking if it makes no sense. It is just noise that no thinking person could ever take seriously.

    • Thank you for stating that for these folks – you’re clearly one of the few who get it. She was part of a failed party ticket and had her 15 minutes – why anyone thinks she is still relevant, I can’t figure out. Yes, she makes noise and some still listen to her – but she is far from influential – in any group. In fact, the way Mark attacks this WOMAN suggests he is anti woman unless they are liberal women.

      • Wait, so if she were a MAN, he would be anti man? Where do you get any misogyny out of this article?

  4. Does this stupid bitch EVER speak without making an ass out of herself and her party???

  5. I don’t know why Martin Bashir resigned over his suggestions concerning Half-Governor Palin. Every time she opens her mouth she proves that she has already undergone such punishments as he alluded to.

    • I always enjoyed Bashir’s sharp wit and intellect. I also understood why he said what he said. He was trying to educate Palin about the term “perspective.” He didn’t say that someone should shit and/or piss in her mouth. He was trying to educate her about the HORRORS of slavery and she may want to THINK before she compares an “insurance policy” to being an oppressed minority, owned by slave owners, and abused, sometimes to death.
      Unfortunately, Mr. Bashir worked for what is commonly known as a “news organization.” With the exception of Fox News, these “news organizations” have “standards and practices” that draw a line at what someone can say on air and also off air in public.
      If he had been on Fox News and said the same thing about Pres. Obama, he would have immediately been removed from his 3pm time slot and moved directly into one of the “primetime” slots! Or at a minimum, be moved to primetime Fox Business Channel!
      I don’t think anyone could dispute that.

Comments are closed.