Op-Ed by Evan Hunt | Democratic Candidate, TX-03
Keith Self asks whether our Constitution is strong enough to resist Sharia. I have a different question: Is his commitment to the Constitution strong enough to withstand his fear of Islam?
His argument shows an astonishing lack of faith in the document he swore to defend. He treats an entire religion as a threat to American freedom, then calls for government action against its spread. He wants to protect the Constitution by weakening the freedoms it guarantees.
The Constitution Protects Every Faith
The Constitution already answers this. Article VI makes it the highest law of the land and bars religious tests for federal office. The First Amendment prevents government from establishing a religion and protects our freedom to practice one. Those protections belong to all of us. Being Christian is not a requirement for being American.
Thomas Jefferson explicitly included Muslims in his understanding of religious freedom. Looking back on Virginia’s religious-freedom law, he explained that it protected “the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo and infidel of every denomination.” Mahometan was the term he used for Muslim. Their inclusion was deliberate.
Self quotes John Adams to argue that our Constitution depends on Christianity. But President Adams ratified the Treaty of Tripoli in 1797, whose approved English text declared that “the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion.” Americans can hold deep religious beliefs without their government belonging to a religion.
No religious doctrine gets to override the Constitution. That applies equally to Islam and Christianity. But letting people practice their faith does not give them power over anyone else. There is a clear difference between living by your own religious beliefs and using government to force them on your neighbors.
The Role of the Courts
The most revealing passage comes when Self calls the judiciary the “primary obstacle,” complaining that courts have expanded protections for religious freedom. He also treats Muslim Americans’ preference for Democrats as evidence that they cannot think for themselves. Apparently, even exercising the right to vote becomes suspicious when the voters worship differently and choose the wrong party.
When courts stop government from unlawfully targeting a religion, they are doing their job. The Supreme Court has struck down laws designed to target religious practice. A politician’s fear of a faith does not cancel its followers’ rights.
Of course we need laws against violence, threats, and coercion. And of course we need to maintain constitutional government against anyone who would replace it with religious rule. But we must apply those principles consistently. Muslim Americans have the same stake as everyone else in a government that protects their freedom of conscience.
James Madison laid out that same rule in 1785: government should protect religious freedom “by neither invading the equal rights of any Sect, nor suffering any Sect to invade those of another.” That means we protect everyone’s rights, and allow no one to violate someone else’s. We need to stand against religious rule without treating everyone who practices a religion as an enemy.
Religious Freedom Cannot Be Selective
Religious freedom means very little if it protects only the faith the majority is comfortable with. Giving government the power to decide which religions are American enough is exactly the kind of overreach the Constitution protects us against.
Writing to Newport’s Jewish congregation in 1790, George Washington affirmed: “All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship.” He described a government that gives “to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance.” That promise matters most when politicians like Self find it useful to turn people against a religious minority.
The one thing I agree with Self is that the Constitution needs people willing to uphold it. That includes elected officials willing to respect its limits, even when stirring up fear might win them votes.
Keith, you do not defend the Constitution by carving your neighbors out of its protections. In fact, you betray its very purpose.
Editor’s Note: This op-ed was submitted by Evan Hunt in response to Keith Self’s October 25 column, “Is Our Constitution Adequate to Resist Sharia?”, published in The Western Journal. Published with the author’s permission. Views expressed are his own.