Evelyn Beatrice Hall, a British writer, wrote this phrase to summarize Voltaire’s attitude toward free speech:
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
Voltaire never said these exact words; they encapsulate his views on freedom of expression and tolerance. I bring this up to talk about the latest controversay confronting aspects of the new government stance- the MAGA stance. They said that the extreme, liberal left has been pushing its belief system on America; however, for the past 50 years, what has been happening is adherence to the U.S. Constitution. The Republican Party (MAGA movement), which contradicts itself (see my notes on contradiction below) consistently, is now pushing for the bible to be taught to young children in public schools.
To paraphrase Evelyn Beatrice Hall, “I disapprove of how you practise your religious beliefs, but I will defend to the death your right to practise it.”
The United States Constitution, the one that was forged after a bitter battle to break free from the English King and his religious persecution, addresses religion primarily in the First Amendment and in Article VI, reflecting the foundational principle of religious freedom and the separation of church and state. Here’s what the Constitution says:
First Amendment
The First Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights, explicitly protects religious freedoms:
• “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; …”
This establishes two key principles:
1. Establishment Clause: Prevents the government from establishing an official religion or favoring one religion over another.
2. Free Exercise Clause: Protects individuals’ rights to practice their religion freely without government interference, as long as it does not violate public laws or safety.
Article VI, Clause 3
This clause ensures that no religious test is required for holding public office in the United States:
• “… no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
This clause underscores the principle that government positions are open to all individuals, regardless of their religious beliefs or affiliations.
Interpretation
Together, these provisions establish:
– A secular government that does not promote or establish a national religion.
– A protection for individuals to practice their religion freely and publicly or to not practice any religion.
– A guarantee that religion cannot be a condition for participation in public life or holding office.
These principles have been interpreted and expanded upon through landmark Supreme Court cases, shaping the balance between religious freedom and the role of religion in public life.
My thoughts on Contradiction, the statement of a position opposite to one already made
In 2016, following the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, President Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland to fill the vacancy. Senate Republicans, led by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, declined to hold hearings or a vote on Garland’s nomination, arguing that the vacancy should not be filled during an election year and that the next president should make the appointment. This stance was based on the so-called “Biden Rule,” referencing a 1992 speech by then-Senator Joe Biden suggesting that Supreme Court vacancies should not be filled in the midst of a presidential election campaign.
In contrast, in 2020, following the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, President Donald Trump nominated Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. Despite it being an election year and the presidential election being just weeks away, Senate Republicans proceeded with Barrett’s nomination. The Senate confirmed her on October 26, 2020, marking one of the swiftest confirmation processes in modern history.
Critics argue this represented a contradiction in the Republican Party’s approach to Supreme Court nominations during election years. In 2016, they maintained that the American people should have a voice in the selection through the upcoming election. In contrast, in 2020, they moved forward with the nomination and confirmation process despite the proximity to the election. Supporters of the 2020 decision contended that the circumstances were different because, unlike in 2016, the same party controlled the presidency and the Senate, justifying the expedited confirmation.
Republicans are inconsistent, especially regarding their interpretation and application of constitutional principles, including and specifically regarding the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms. Here are some examples of those contradictions:
1. Constitutional Purism vs. Regulation
Republicans often advocate for strict adherence to the Constitution, emphasizing limited government intervention. However:
– Second Amendment Advocacy: They strongly defend the right to bear arms, opposing most forms of gun control, citing the Second Amendment’s language. For instance, they resist universal background checks or restrictions on assault weapons, framing these as infringements on constitutional rights.
– Exceptions in Other Areas: In other contexts, Republicans have supported government restrictions, such as bans on certain protests or speech deemed unpatriotic (e.g., flag burning), which critics argue contradicts their purported commitment to minimal government interference in constitutional rights.
2. States’ Rights vs. Federal Power
Republicans often champion states’ rights, claiming the federal government should not impose on individual states. However:
– Gun Laws: When states pass stricter gun control laws (e.g., bans on assault weapons or high-capacity magazines), Republicans frequently challenge these laws in court, advocating for federal intervention to protect Second Amendment rights.
– Selective Federalism: Critics argue that this is inconsistent, as the party often supports states’ rights in areas like abortion or environmental regulations but pushes for federal power to override state gun laws.
3. Originalism vs. Modern Realities
Republicans often adhere to a judicial philosophy called originalism, which interprets the Constitution based on the framers’ original intent. However:
– Modern Firearms: Critics argue that modern firearms, such as assault rifles, were inconceivable at the time the Second Amendment was written, which referenced well-regulated militias and muskets. This raises questions about whether the Second Amendment can be directly applied to today’s technology.
– Inconsistencies: In other areas of law, Republicans have accepted modern interpretations of constitutional principles (e.g., extending free speech protections to online platforms).
4. The Sanctity of Life vs. Gun Violence
Republicans frequently cite the sanctity of life in their opposition to abortion rights, but:
– Gun Violence: They resist gun control measures that could potentially save lives, such as universal background checks or red flag laws. Critics argue this stance contradicts their commitment to protecting life, as firearm-related deaths remain a significant issue in the U.S.
5. Freedom vs. Safety
Republicans emphasize individual freedoms as a cornerstone of American values, but this can clash with public safety concerns:
– Guns in Public Spaces: Republicans often support laws allowing concealed carry or open carry of firearms, arguing that individuals should be free to protect themselves. However, this can conflict with the broader community’s desire for safety, particularly in schools or places of worship.
– Other Freedoms: In contrast, the party has supported restrictions on other individual liberties, such as curtailing access to voting under the guise of election security, leading critics to point out inconsistencies in their defense of freedom.
6. Federal Funding for Gun Control Initiatives
Republicans often advocate for fiscal responsibility and oppose federal overreach in state matters. However:
– Gun Control Programs: Some have supported using federal resources to arm teachers in schools rather than funding preventative measures like mental health programs or community-based initiatives. Critics argue this contradicts their broader stance on reducing federal spending and intervention.
7. Supporting Law Enforcement vs. Armed Militias
Republicans frequently champion law enforcement, emphasizing law and order. However:
– Armed Militias: They also defend the right of private citizens to form heavily armed militias, even when these groups challenge law enforcement or government authority. This tension was evident during events like the Bundy standoff or the January 6 Capitol attack, where some Republicans downplayed militia actions despite their clashes with law enforcement.
These contradictions stem from prioritizing ideological agendas over a uniform application of constitutional rights.