Fundamentally Flawed
Director's Editorial
Fundamentalism acts as a lense which focuses much of the world view of the right-wing. Christian fundamentalists believe that the Bible is to be interpreted literally and offers inflexible truths that stand apart from the historical context. Clearly fundamentalist theology underlies many of the positions taken by religious political extremists like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell.But fundamentalism is not just a form of theological interpretation. Fundamentalism has become a political perspective which many on the right apply to the constitution. Ten years ago these individuals were found predominantly in fringe groups like the Posse Comitatus and the John Birch Society. Unfortunately, in the last several years, as the country has drifted further and further right, constitutional fundamentalists have entered the political process with some success.
It is easy to see the attraction of fundamentalism. Complexity washes away as the fundamentalist sees only one source of truth and authority. Gray areas become black and white as the fundamentalist denies the legitimacy of a host of historical and legal doctrine, precedent, and principle. To the fundamentalist it all comes down to the base document. If it is not addressed there it does not exist. If it conflicts with the simple language of the base document it is simply wrong.
Two of the most glaring examples of the fundamentalist perspective on the constitution and our government are Libby Representative Scott Orr and Billings Representative Wes Prouse. After getting numerous tickets for driving with out a license, Prouse finally said that he questioned the government's right to require him to have a driver's license and to register his car because, of course, it wasn't in the constitution. Scott Orr refuses to fill out a form for the EPA describing what substances he pours down the floor drain in his recycling business. To most people this seems a small request which helps protect ground water and drinking supplies from contamination. But according to Scott Orr, "administrative law" lacks a constitutional basis and is therefore not legitimate. Further Orr argues that requiring him to fill out the form presumes he is guilty and violates his constitutional right to a presumption of innocence.
Prouse and Orr are birds of a feather. Orr, however, is far more dangerous. In claiming his self-defined constitutional rights he seeks to build a political constituency based on ignorance and antipathy to the government. It is a constituency he is likely to be able to organize rather easily because what he is really promoting is the fundamentalist view of government. The EPA isn't even mentioned in the constitution. How can it have any right to ask anything of any citizen? Just like the snake oil salesman, Orr offers one cure to fit all ills. . . one simplistic argument which explains so much. It is as seductive as it is wrong.