In light of recent conversations about the upcoming election, I felt it was essential to clarify some of the critical issues at stake, especially regarding the concept of “states’ rights.” Many in my family and community may feel that this election is about topics like abortion or LGBTQ+ rights. While these are significant issues, they are often used as distractions by those who want to shift our focus away from the larger, systemic implications of "states' rights." Here, I’ll break down why this principle is at the heart of many modern-day political discussions and why it’s essential to understand its historical context and potential impact.
The Historical Roots of States' Rights
The concept of states' rights is not new. It has roots that stretch back to one of the most turbulent times in American history: the Civil War era. When the federal government, through the Emancipation Proclamation, aimed to abolish slavery nationwide, certain southern states chose to “secede” from the Union. They wanted to establish their own governing laws, free from the oversight of the federal government, to maintain systems that suited their interests—including slavery. The federal government ultimately intervened to preserve the Union and to uphold laws that protected fundamental human rights.
What This Means Today
The Civil War led to the centralization of power within the federal government, but states have often pushed back against this power, especially when federal laws conflict with local beliefs or economic interests. Today, the issue of states’ rights is surfacing again, under a new guise, and with some troubling implications. Politicians use divisive issues like abortion and LGBTQ+ rights to gain support, especially within religious communities. But behind these surface-level debates is a deeper agenda: allowing states more authority to operate independently of federal protections and laws.
The Figurehead and the “Powers That Be”
One candidate in particular is promoting states' rights as a central piece of their platform, signaling that issues such as abortion, LGBTQ+ rights, and other moral concerns should be left up to individual states. But the truth is, these candidates are often just figureheads, willfully used by powerful interests to advance agendas that do not prioritize Christian values—or any values, for that matter. Their only aim is to establish state autonomy that would weaken the federal government’s power and oversight, allowing states to act as they wish, even if it means implementing discriminatory or regressive policies.
The Real Consequences of States' Rights
If states’ rights become prioritized over federal oversight, states could gain the ability to create their own laws on essential matters, such as:
- Education: States could control what is taught in schools, including topics related to history, science, and social studies, potentially erasing significant parts of our shared past or skewing facts to fit local biases.
- Religious and Cultural Rights: States could legislate what religions are recognized, what lifestyles are “acceptable,” and how people from various ethnic or cultural backgrounds are treated.
- Civil Rights: Without federal protection, states could pass laws that discriminate against minority communities, limit voting rights, or curtail freedoms for certain groups.
When a political figure promises to leave social issues to the states, this is the broader picture. It is not about a few issues here or there; it is about altering the balance of power so that states can independently choose to enforce or disregard rights and protections.
Manipulation of Religious Beliefs
It is especially concerning that certain groups are manipulating religious communities to support this agenda, often using issues like “abortion” or “gay rights” to appeal to churchgoers. My father taught me to judge people by their actions and the history they carry, not just their words. If someone with a history of immoral or criminal behavior seeks to lead, we must question their motives and examine who stands behind them. Voting for someone based solely on a few select issues, without understanding the full scope of their platform, can lead to harmful consequences.
The Danger of Blind Faith in Leadership
Some religious leaders argue that even morally questionable leaders are “put in place by God” to fulfill a greater purpose. While faith can play an essential role in guiding our beliefs, we must avoid dangerous rationalizations that lead us astray. We cannot allow ourselves, as followers, to be led into destructive paths by those who would manipulate our beliefs for their purposes.
Educate Yourself: Don't Believe the Hype
This election demands more from us than passive acceptance. It is our responsibility to educate ourselves, to question the narratives presented, and to see through any superficial claims. A quick search into the term “states' rights” reveals the history and underlying motives associated with this idea. By understanding this concept and its implications, we can make informed decisions that truly serve our families, communities, and future generations.
In conclusion, don’t be swayed by surface-level promises. Seek out knowledge, verify information, and approach this election with an informed, critical perspective. Protecting our communities means making sure we are not misled or manipulated by those who don’t have our best interests at heart.
