"The truth is, no one of us can be free until everybody is free."--Maya Angelou
In spite of the fact that we have a constitutional republic and a representative democracy, as a culture this country has struggled with the idea of equal rights for all. It hasn't been easy to determine the definition of "all." Some of that is the hangover left behind from our roots in the European aristocracy, some of it determined by the struggle to survive while settling and developing a vast land full of wild wilderness, some from the inequities of political power and influence created by racial and ethnic rivalries and jealousies because people came here from everywhere and also came into conflict with those already here, some from the manipulation and misinterpretation of religious practice and the presence of religious prejudice as the country was dominated by white Protestants whose churches and denominations developed a unique culture in this country.
Origins of the Social Agenda Quagmire
We now find ourselves in what I call a social agenda quagmire. Many Americans seem to think that the way to make this country better is to restrict the rights of those they don't like or with whom they disagree. And while I will admit I haven't done any real research into the origins of this line of thinking, I blame Rush Limbaugh and the whole genre of right wing media (it's not news and I won't call it that) that has sprung up in his wake for using hatred and people's biases and prejudices to reap a fortune.
Limbaugh wasn't motivated by trying to improve American government and culture. His personal life was more an example of self-serving hedonism than it was of any of the conservative "values" he pushed. He simply observed that there were few media outlets for those who felt bypassed and left out by the "establishment" and launched a network of mostly AM, small town radio stations whose revenue and listenership had been sagging and build enough of a niche to make himself rich. Over time, wannabees scooped up some of the overflow.
Limbaugh advocated for a no-compromise, no-negotiation stand on social issues, motivating people by their fears, their bigotry, their hatred and their lack of education. He dehumanized those he attacked, declaring them unequal and not worthy of the same rights as those who saw things the way he did. There's enough evidence from his past to believe that he was at least partially motivated by his own racist views, as much as he was by figuring out how to build a money-making media niche. If Trump saw him as worthy of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, that says a lot about just how much of a fascist bigot he really was.
As I said, I'm not a sociologist with research on this subject. But I believe you can trace most of the muddled, confusing tangle of the extreme right's social agenda to this person and this point. They are about as un-American and un-patriotic as you can get without actually becoming a Russian citizen, and a lot of them wish Putin was their President.
It's in the Constitution
To have freedom of conscience, characterized by the right to free speech, means that we have to tolerate a lot of disagreeable ideology. After moving to a mid-sized county seat town in Texas, not ever having lived in the South before, I was shocked to see, right on the courthouse square, just steps away from two churches, a neatly kept office building with a sign over the entrance, identifying the building as the headquarters of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. Their emblems were on both sides of the sign.
I was even more shocked to see, as I was driving through the square one evening, about two dozen individuals in white robes and hoods, carrying banners and torches, standing on the courthouse steps. They were rallying about something, and the police were there separating them from a small crowd of counter-protesters across the street.
It would not be difficult to make a logical, reasonable argument as to why such displays are unAmerican and un-patriotic. These are people who are so proud of who they are and what they do that they wear hoods and robes so that they cannot be identified. They achieve their purpose by intimidation and terror, in many cases denying or infringing upon the rights of those they attack. They do not believe in human equality or the sanctity of life, or peace, or justice, they have no integrity as evidenced by the robes and hoods. If the only way you can win your point is by intimidation, then you're a loser.
As bad as all of that is, and it is one of the reasons why Critical Race Theory exists, if they are not permitted to exist and operate in the marketplace of ideas, sooner or later, someone will think about restricting the free speech of other groups a local minority thinks should not be in existence.
We're Already There
The political pendulum swings back and forth. I'm curious to see how many court challenges there will be to the restrictions that are being placed on Critical Race Theory. When it was restricted in Virginia, a friend of mine who teaches there, in Arlington, told me that it will not be difficult to avoid teaching something that was not already in the curriculum. How can you restrict something that doesn't exist? But in the muddled mind of conspiracy theorists, it is the greatest danger to American society since Roe v. Wade. I'd be willing to bet there are already teachers who are introducing it to their classes at this point, to see if anyone picks up on it, or if the unconstitutional restrictions on teaching it get challenged in court.
What I really want to know, though, is how the constitutional rights of others who may have a different religious belief, political opinion or lifestyle than I do interfere with my freedom? I am, because of the effect my Christian faith has had on my personal convictions, opposed to the practice of abortion. I think our society, and even more specifically the Christian churches within it, are capable of providing what is necessary to prevent most of those who consider it from having one. And I believe there is a much better pathway to resolution of the problems that come with an unwanted or unwelcome pregnancy than simply medically terminating it.
But those are moral convictions informed by my faith. I fully acknowledge that there are those who do not have religious convictions who are informed by either science or their own opinion who believe in a different starting point for what we call "life." And they have the right to believe that. And I realize that the government, via the courts, has to consider all perspectives when making a determination that does not constitute an "establishment of religion." The belief that life begins at conception is an exclusively religious perspective. Even though the law takes a position of "religious neutrality," that does not prevent Christians from finding ways to lower the abortion numbers.
I can't think of any right that has been extended to any American that interferes with my free exercise of my faith or my conscience. The courts are charged with the responsibility of determining where the boundaries are located. I am concerned that if these state challenges to CRT, to fair and free elections, and to other free speech and conscience issues are allowed to stand, eventually everyone's rights are going to be open to some kind of challenge or restriction. Once that line is crossed, and the political pendulum swings, no individual rights will be safe.
No comments:
Post a Comment