Opinion: Half-truths have distorted intents of 1st and 2nd constitutional amendments
In theology, half-truths are considered as much a heresy as are false doctrines. It is an arcane and seldom noted religious standard, but is very relevant to several of the core issues we face today. Scholars of ethics and rhetoric consider half-truths worse than lies, because the deceptions are more confusing and longer lasting. There are devastating effects of half-truths in our national debate around the rights guaranteed in our Constitution.
The most obvious of the half-truths that undermine our “domestic tranquility” is the debate regarding the Second Amendment: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
Every student of English grammar knows the first clause of this sentence is a controlling clause that qualifies the second. The right to bear arms is for the purpose of sustaining a militia.
Having militias in every community was the constitutionally authorized method of “providing for the common defense” since there was no standing army then and none was anticipated. The muzzle loading flintlock weapons available then were also used for hunting and, if needed, self-defense. Those additional uses have been confirmed consistently by our courts.
We now have a standing army and it is augmented by a National Guard in each state, the current version of “well regulated militias.” The legality of weapons for sport and for self-defense continues to be appropriate. What is not ethical and was never imagined by the authors of the Second Amendment is the supposed right of any person to have any sort of weapon and claim that as an unalienable right.
The right of civil authorities to regulate firearms possession was a principle affirmed by the Supreme Court in an opinion written by Justice Scalia. Further, the Supreme Court ruled against the individual right to keep and bear arms four times from 1876-1949, (Brennan Center for Justice, NYU) a fact that should enlighten the so-called “originalist interpreters” of the Constitution. To insist on rights noted in the second clause while ignoring the first and this legal history is a gross falsehood.
No less false is the half-truth of these same ideologues regarding the First Amendment. The freedom of religion clause has two parts: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Those two principles have been held in balance for generations, to the benefit of all of us, until recently.
In overturning Roe v. Wade the religious rights of persons who believe that life begins at conception are being codified into law while the rights of those with contrary religious convictions are ignored. The belief that life begins with conception was first articulated by St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) as part of his theological contention that God established the natural order and that anything that interfered was sinful. This view of Natural Law has been taught in catechism to millions of Catholics ever since.
Jewish scholars have debated this issue since the first century. The key consideration in their thought is that the life of the mother is more worthy of preservation than the potential life of the fetus. They have held that the physical and mental state of the mother and of her future are valid considerations, hence abortion should never be totally forbidden or inaccessible. That was the generally accepted standard in Judeo-Christian thinking for centuries before St. Thomas. It was based on the clear passage in Genesis: “(God) breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and he became a living soul” (Gen. 2:7).
At least three historic denominations have official policies that draw the same distinction. The Presbyterian Church (USA) voted in 1970 that “the artificial or induced termination of a pregnancy is a matter of careful ethical decision of the patient, her doctor and family, and therefore should not be restricted by law.” The United Church of Christ in 1971 called for the repeal of laws that forbade physician-performed abortion in the early stages of fetal development. The United Methodist Church has adopted a similar policy.
It is clear that the current Supreme Court privileges a theological view of one religious group over the established views of others and is a violation of the “establishment clause” of the First Amendment. It also prohibits the “free exercise” of the religious convictions of others.
These political half-truths distort our Bill of Rights and are devastating to our “domestic tranquility.”
More: Opinion: Social fabric of America being torn and frayed with distortion Constitution
More: Opinion: It may seem hard to get past divisions caused by Trump but there is a way forward
Rev. Rollin Russell is a retired pastor of the United Church of Christ and professor at Lancaster Theological Seminary.
This article originally appeared on Asheville Citizen Times: Opinion: 2nd Amendment right to bear arms meant to maintain militias
