Recently Republican presidential candidate, Donald Trump, spoke to a group of Christians in West Palm Beach telling them that if they voted for him that they will not have again. “We’ll have it fixed so good, you’re not gonna have to vote.” I am not sure where he was going with all of that and I will not speculate what he meant by fixing “it.” “It” most often can be ambiguous and vague, as in this case.
There is nothing new about a politician seeking votes from various groups, or making promises to groups of voters. In Colonial times getting voters plastered on election day was a common practice. According to Smithsonian Magazine, “When twenty-four-year-old George Washington first ran for a seat in the Virginia House of Burgesses, he attributed his defeat to his failure to provide enough alcohol for the voters. When he tried again two years later, Washington floated into office partly on the 144 gallons of rum, punch, hard cider and beer his election agent handed out—roughly half a gallon for every vote he received.” In 1777 James Madison lost his first election because he ran a dry campaign.
Christian groups are the choir in Trump’s congregation. So, there is no surprise when he asks them to turn out in November and sing his praises. But the promise of “Christians, get out and vote, just this time…You won’t have to do it anymore. Four more years, you know what, it will be fixed, it will be fine, you won’t have to vote anymore, my beautiful Christians.” There is something ominous about “you won’t have to vote anymore.” Is this like a Monopoly “Go Directly to Jail Do not Pass Go, Do not Collect $200 Card; or is it the Get out of Jail Free Card.
There is no more important guarantee in a constitutional democracy than free, fair, and functional elections. The current Constitution is at once too vague and too specific about the electoral process. It does not explicitly guarantee the right to vote and under specifies the conditions under which elections should be conducted, but also provides for presidential election through a misguided Electoral College. National Constitution Center
When we consider voting is a fundamental right in America, how does one not vote–and still influence an election. It is interesting, however, that the Constitution does not mention the right to vote until the Fifteenth Amendment in 1870 while religion pops up from the beginning in the First Amendment. It took almost a one-hundred years after the Constitution was approved for the federal government to address voting rights. Voting was always left up to the individual colony. Later, voting, like so many other nebulus government functions, or “powers not delegated to the United States…nor prohibited” by the Constitution were “reserved to the States respectively or to the people” in the Tenth Amendment. I would assume since the Constitution does not address it, not voting is a right left up to the states, too.
Meaningful freedom requires the ability to make a decisive choice. A person does not have real religious liberty, for instance, if he has a one-in-60-million chance of being able to determine which religion to practice. Similarly, a one-in-60-million chance of deciding which views one is allowed to express in public is not meaningful freedom of speech. Even a one-in-100,000 chance (the odds of casting a decisive vote in some smaller elections) is not enough to provide anything like genuine choice. Ilya Somin Voting with Our Feet
According to Ilya Somin, writing Voting with Our Feet in nationalaffairs.com: “Most people believe ballot-box voting is the ultimate expression of political freedom. It is how we exercise the power to decide what government policies we will live under.” So why would Trump tell Christians they would not have to vote anymore. Will the rapture occur on January 20, 2025. Or, have Christians already ascended to higher plane of voting rights. And does this higher plane of voting rights require some sort of Christian ID card or special Ap not to vote? Thus, leaving non-Christians to be condemned with some sort of heretic mark, banished to a refurbished Devil’s Island as some sort of card-carrying infidel. I am just asking because this could be ripe for some sort of voting fraud and serious misunderstandings on many fronts.
But just maybe we are moving backwards in time. A time in American history when Christian governments did rule. The notion that the United States was founded as a Christian nation has some basis. Not trying to sound sacrilegious, but the big reason we believe this is because a bunch of malcontent European religious dissenters from various sects decided to establish religious colonies in the New World. In some cases, they were colonies of exclusion when religious freedom seeking, like-minded believers congregated together while excluding and forcing other nonconforming believers out. It gave new meaning to Matthew 18:20: “For where two or three gather in my name…”
Without a doubt the first Europeans who came to this shore came to get away from religious persecution, and prosecution, in Europe. Europeans knew how to torture god out of or into somebody. European history is rife with some poor unfortunate soul losing his (or her) head, being hung and then disemboweled (we hate you so much we will kill you twice) or burnt at the stake for their “misplaced” religious conviction. Voting back then was not even an issue.
Maybe what Trump is doing is sort of reverse Toleration Act of 1689 passed by the English Parliament. According to Oxford University Press the Toleration Act granted “freedom of worship to dissenters (excluding Roman Catholics and Unitarians–and no doubt Jews) on certain conditions. Its real purpose was to unite all Protestants under William III against the deposed Roman Catholic James II.” I wonder if Parliament actually defined “certain conditions.” That sounds as foggy as Trump’s “it will be fixed, it will be fine.”
It was in this atmosphere of dissent that various religious groups started voting with their feet to the New World. According to the Library of Congress: Religions and the Founding of the American Republic, “The religious persecution that drove settlers from Europe to the British North American colonies sprang from the conviction, held by Protestants and Catholics alike, that uniformity of religion must exist in any given society.” This belief resulted in some colonies establishing governments to save and protect their souls from the myriad of outside beliefs they were escaping from in Europe.
Early colonial laws had no problem defining what religion ruled the pulpit. It goes beyond a partisan divide. In many cases you either were or you weren’t. Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson were banished from Massachusetts for who they were (or weren’t) when they started voicing their dissenting religious opinions. Hanging, pillorying and banishing nonconforming heretics from their colonies was not unheard of. Especially when the civil government, composed of “spiritually” like-minded, elected officials who were empowered to enforce religious laws. We will have no Golden Calves in our colony.
“In newly independent America, there was a crazy quilt of state laws regarding religion. In Massachusetts, only Christians were allowed to hold public office, and Catholics were allowed to do so only after renouncing papal authority. In 1777, New York State’s constitution banned Catholics from public office (and would do so until 1806). In Maryland, Catholics had full civil rights, but Jews did not. Delaware required an oath affirming belief in the Trinity. Several states, including Massachusetts and South Carolina, had official, state-supported churches.”–America’s True History of Religious Tolerance, Smithsonian Magazine
Additionally, blasphemers and heroticts “were also considered traitors to their country because they did not belong to the official state religion.” These religious freedom seekers may have been fleeing persecution but they still brought Old World ideas with them. According to thehistoricpresent.com, “This was true throughout Europe in the century following the Protestant Reformation: whatever religion the king chose became the official state religion of his country, and all other religions or sects were made illegal.” In the New World it may have been more democratic but the results could be the same.
It seems the Constitution is following the same sort of downward glide path of 15th and 16th Century religion when a king or queen not only controlled the crown but the state religion, too. Trump’s claim of fixing “it” will involve fixing the Constitution. This is not hard to fathom with the recent Supreme Court ruling making the president immune and above the law. Thus, giving us a monarch much like King George III, whom colonist called a tyrant. It makes Ben Franklin’s response when asked when leaving the Constitutional Convention what they came up with: “A Republic if you can keep.” Today that seems very prophetic.
mystoryorhistory 