By Kathleen Bergeron

Special to the Salisbury Post

I was struck by the article in the Aug. 3 issue of the Post by Byron York of the Washington Examiner. He writes regarding the appearance at the Democratic Convention of Khizr Khan and his wife. Their son, a captain in the U.S. Army, was killed in combat. Mr. Khan spoke out against Donald Trump’s proposals regarding Muslims in this country. Mr. York’s article has, as its theme, that, as the subheading of the piece says, “Trump’s policy ideas may be bad, but not illegal.” Mr. York takes great effort in erecting and then knocking down false assumptions to support his premise.

In one of his arguments regarding Trump’s idea of banning Muslims from emigrating into the U.S., Mr. York says that “Khan was suggesting that the ban would violate the 14th Amendment,” and then quotes that amendment and argues that the 14th Amendment only deals with U.S. citizens. He says, “It may be that…deporting illegal immigrants, and temporarily banning the entry of foreign Muslims are all terrible policies. But among the Democrats and anti-Trump Republicans touting Khan’s performance, there appears to be a belief that if something is a terrible policy, it must also be unconstitutional. That’s not necessarily so.”

Mr. York’s article is doing two dishonest things: First, it makes assumptions of what element of the US Constitution Mr. Khan referred to in his speech. Selecting the 14th Amendment works best for Mr. York’s argument, so he uses that. Second, he selectively states what it is that Mr. Trump has said regarding Muslims. York focuses solely on immigration issues, and he makes sure to include the words “illegal” and “temporary” to narrow the areas Trump was speaking of. I don’t believe Mr. Trump has made such distinctions. In addition, Mr. Trump also has called for several restrictions on citizens of this country who are Muslims.

And that gets to the real heart of the matter: Mr. Trump is advocating having the U.S. government take action against people of a particular religion, because of their religion, never mind whether they are immigrants or citizens. For that, one doesn’t have to go beyond the First Amendment to our Constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

That religious freedom, in fact, is why many people, from the Pilgrims at Plymouth included, came here in the first place. And the error many of us make is that we believe this country was founded on a particular church or religious belief. It wasn’t. That’s just the sort of country the Pilgrims came here to get away from. This country is founded on the belief that a person or group of people can believe what they want and not have the government tell them it isn’t acceptable. For the government to do so — just as Mr. Trump has been advocating — would, indeed, be unconstitutional.

Kathleen Bergeron lives in Salisbury.