---------------------------------------------------------------------
By: Paul S. Marchand
In the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, “disobeying God” is apparently sufficient grounds to prevent legislative speech.
In the Pennsylvania House of Representatives in Harrisburg the other day, Pennsylvania State Rep. Brian Sims, (D) Philadelphia, rose to speak on SCOTUS’s ruling in U.S. v. Windsor. As the openly gay legislator (the only one in the Commonwealth’s General Assembly) prepared to comment on the demise of DOMA, Republican State Rep. Daryl Metcalfe invoked a procedural objection to prevent Mr. Sims from speaking. Metcalfe’s objection will go down as one of the most outrageous and astonishing interventions in the history of the Commonwealth, and possibly in American history.
In justifying his astonishing misconduct, Metcalfe declared that
“I did not believe that as a member of that body that I should allow someone to make comments such as he was preparing to make that ultimately were just open rebellion against what the word of God has said, what God has said, and just open rebellion against God's law.”
Later, Metcalfe doubled down:
“For me to allow him to say things that I believe are open rebellion against God are for me to participate in his open rebellion. There's no free speech on the floor.”Were such an event to take place in a Muslim country, hard right wing bloviators such as Metcalfe would have been quick to take the podium to vent theatrical outrage.
In this country, Metcalfe’s misbehavior symbol represents another manifestation of what has been called “Christian Entitlement.” It is a theory which postulates that the profession of a particularly hard-edged, “God said it, I believe it, that settles it” Christian ideological line necessarily trumps the rights of others to believe as they see fit and to articulate ideas which may make ostentatious “Christians” uncomfortable.
Leaving aside for a moment the grave theological error --- to say nothing of the deadly sin of pride --- into which Metcalfe falls with his facepalm-inducing nonsense, Metcalfe’s hard line invocation of “Christian Entitlement” necessarily calls forth an equally hard-line response.
As a number of progressive Christian thinkers, the Rev. Canon Susan Russell among them, have noted, you are not being persecuted when you are prevented from persecuting others. “Christian Entitlement” turns this reality on its head, claiming not only that Christians are persecuted when they are prevented from persecuting others, but that Christians --- being in possession of Truth with a capital T --- are entitled, by virtue of their claims possession of that Truth with a capital T, to silence, intimidate, and even persecute those whose views and ideology are not precisely congruent with their own.
Thus, the need for a hard-line, bright-line response to the misconduct of oath-breakers and moral perjurers like Daryl Metcalfe. A few simple points will suffice.
First, to be authentically loyal to our American ideals and commonwealth, one must reject absolutely the idea that it is ever permissible to appeal to or invoke any denominational scripture or theology when forming public policy. America was founded upon the allied and intertwined principles of freedom of religion and freedom from religion. You cannot be loyal to America’s founding principles and insist that you have the right to invoke what you believe is “God’s law” to shut down speech and debate in a representative chamber.
Second, the right of any individual to authentic, first-class membership in our American body politic, should never be infringed, abridged, or denied to assuage the religious, political, or ideological discomforts of any other individual whomsoever. America is a raucous, vibrantly diverse society, and one of the prices we pay for the freedoms we treasure is that others will believe, think, worship, or speak in ways that may cause us discomfort, and with which we may disagree vehemently. Putting up with differences of opinion and belief is part of our social contract: “I do not agree with what you have said, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” We have the right to insist that our elected representatives do us and their colleagues the constitutional courtesy of respecting differences of opinion. For once a religious sanction is invoked, the mind turns, thought departs, and we are a step away from the horrors of the Inquisition or Europe’s stomach-turning Wars of Religion.
Third, the civil rights of discrete and identifiable minorities within the body politic are not properly the subject of popular votes. California has a deplorable history of using the ballot box to pass hateful and discriminatory laws intended to cause harm to disfavored minorities. The Chinese, Japanese, Latinos, African-Americans, and queerfolk have all found themselves on the receiving end of such nastiness, and in every case, the courts have intervened to redress the constitutional imbalance created by such legislation. The so-called will of the people ends where the Constitution begins.
Finally, there is no right, anytime, anywhere, to seek to exclude from the commonwealth those who do not look like us, live like us, love like us, work like us, worship like us, or vote like us. When Republican members of the U.S. House of Representatives threw a temper tantrum and sought to prevent a Hindu chaplain from delivering an invocation in the cap house, they, like Daryl Metcalfe in Pennsylvania, not only raised serious questions about their own fitness for public service, but also raise serious questions about the extent to which they had perjured themselves in taking an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, which very clearly declares that “Congress shall make no law respecting an Establishment of religion prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
So-called Christians who believe that it is ever right to invoke denominational scripture into public policy formation process, or who believe that it is permissible to infringe the civil rights of one to assuage the religious comforts of others, or who believe that civil rights are ever legitimate subjects for popular vote are simply wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
To the extent that the egregious Daryl Metcalfe sought to impose his Christian Entitlement views on his colleague, he was not only wrong, but he also violated his oath of office. If he knew at the time that he took the oath that he intended to violate it in such fashion, then he may well have committed the crime of perjury, of telling a deliberate and material untruth under oath. If so, Daryl Metcalfe may well have committed an impeachable offense.
At all events, Daryl Metcalfe has demonstrated his utter unfitness to hold any office of trust or profit under the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, or of any other state or jurisdiction, anytime, anywhere. Having served eight years in public office myself, and having also been throughout that period a confirmed, communicating Episcopalian, I never had the slightest difficulty conforming my conduct as a public official to the requirements of the Constitution.
Why is it apparently so difficult for the Daryl Metcalfes of this world to do so?
The current mayor of Cathedral City, who infamously declared that “as a Catholic” she could not support marriage equality, should take note.
-xxx-
Paul S. Marchand is an attorney who lives in practices in Cathedral City, California, where he served eight years on the city Council. He is a confirmed, communicating member of the Episcopal Church, and has been for more than 30 years. The views contained herein are his own, and not necessarily those of TEC, and are not intended as, and should not be construed as, legal advice. Heretics and haters take note, your comments will not be published.
No comments:
Post a Comment