Republican senator and presidential hopeful Ted Cruz recently hosted what he called a Rally for Religious Liberty. The campaign event featured music, speeches and several guest appearances. These guests were handpicked by Cruz’s campaign and labeled on his website as “special guests victimized by government persecution.” Cruz spoke with each of his allegedly oppressed supporters and vowed they would see change if he is elected president. Cherry-picking disaffected individuals is a common campaign tactic for candidates looking to campaign on an anti-establishment platform. What sets Cruz’s “special guests” apart is the way in which they have all been “victimized.” The special guest list consisted of eight people, including a couple that was fined by the Iowa Civil Rights Commission for refusing to allow a gay couple to get married in their wedding venue, a print shop owner charged with unlawful discrimination for refusing to print t-shirts for a local LGBTQ group, and two bakery owners who were fined when they denied a lesbian couple’s request for a wedding cake. The theme carries throughout the rest of Cruz’s list: all of the guests had found themselves in legal trouble for discrimination based on sexual orientation in Iowa, one of the states that actually has a statute prohibiting such discrimination.
The irony of Cruz’s insistence that the government stop persecuting its citizens is that the citizens in question were all caught persecuting others. It is an irony he does not seem to notice, but it also raises an interesting question: what do we do when one American exercising his right impedes the right of another? Whose right is more important? Cruz has never given a clear answer. Actress Ellen Page recently approached Cruz to address this issue; the exchange was caught on video and quickly went viral. Page asked Cruz his thoughts on LGBT Americans being fired and mistreated for their sexual orientation. Though she asked multiple times, Cruz never answered the question, instead telling her about the “Bible-believing Christians being persecuted” in this country. Cruz also failed to name a specific instance of persecution of those Christians, other than their legal troubles (bringing into question Cruz’s knowledge of what it means to persecuted).
With so many debates over civil rights, I begin to wonder if Cruz and many Americans have forgotten what the words actually mean. Simply put, a right is a legal entitlement. In the United States, citizens are entitled to get and keep a job without fear of discrimination based on sex, race, age or disability status. In 20 states and counting, that includes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. “Bible-believing Christians” are entitled to practice their religion — to go to church, to study the Bible or to follow whatever religious practices they choose. They are not entitled to discriminate. In fact, it’s illegal in Iowa. Cruz’s complaint isn’t that his Christian constituents have been singled out and persecuted by the government. It’s that those constituents are expected to adhere to a law they don’t particularly like. This is a sign of a larger problem in the United States. There is an enormous misunderstanding of rights (particularly the First Amendment), discrimination and religion in general. There is a growing phenomenon in American political media of throwing around buzzwords, often without a true understanding of the words in question. We ought to be concerned when even a well-known presidential candidate does not seem to understand a cornerstone of our democracy.
The video clip ends with Sen. Cruz growing frustrated and telling Page, “I’m happy to answer your question but not to have a back and forth debate.” But Cruz and his colleagues need to start having a debate, or at the very least stop opting for a type of campaigning that cheapens genuine debate and abandons any effort for public understanding of rights (among other things) in favor of unfounded statements that sound good and mean nothing. When people believe it is their right to discriminate against others or to limit the rights of others, it’s a sign that it is time for a dialogue. It’s a sign that there is a gross misunderstanding of the First Amendment and of what it means to exercise one’s rights. There is a difference between a law that impedes your civil liberties and a law you just don’t like, and religious freedom does not mean exemption from the latter. Sen. Cruz may not want to discuss it, but it’s worth considering: where is the line between exercising one’s own religious freedom and impeding the rights of others? What does it mean for the United States if many of its citizens haven’t even considered that question?
Nora Walls is an Opinion columnist for The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at n.walls@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Celebrating and reflecting on The Cavalier Daily’s independence
By Editorial Board | 5 days agoOur independence grants us the ability to ask the hard questions and to say what University representatives cannot.
ARRAS: U.Va. must revise the Sexual Assault Prevention Training module
By Aoife Arras | 6 days agoIn addition to its failures in interactivity, the module lacks details specific to the University and discusses key concepts in universal terms.
EDITORIAL: Pedestrian safety is an institutional imperative
By Editorial Board | April 15, 2024Amid a national crisis of pedestrian safety, Charlottesville and the University are also struggling to properly maintain pedestrian safety.
