It all started with someone named Lizzie Marbach. We admit we never heard of her before today, but her profile says
Saved by grace through faith in Jesus ✝️ | Former @OhioGOP, @RNC, & Trump 2020 Campaign. Passionate about helping others use their brains.
So, given that profile it shouldn’t surprise us that she said this:
There's no hope for any of us outside of having faith in Jesus Christ alone.
— Lizzie Marbach (@LizzieMarbach) August 15, 2023
This ended up offending Max Miller. Again, we never heard of him before today, or if we did, we literally forgot about it. But Miller is a Republican Congressman, representing Ohio’s 7th District, and even enjoys a free grey checkmark indicating that he is who he says he is. And he says this on his profile: ‘Proud Jew. Semper Fi.’ And good for him on both counts. But he took umbrage to her post, writing this:
This is one of the most bigoted tweets I have ever seen.
— Max Miller (@MaxMillerOH) August 15, 2023
Delete it, Lizzie.
Religious freedom in the United States applies to every religion.
You have gone too far. https://t.co/QCx8oAT1Kr
Mr. Miller was getting Freedom of Religion wrong, because what Marbach said is an act of Freedom of Religion (not to mention Freedom of Expression—the two are not mutually exclusive).
Each person is allowed to believe what he or she wants. The right of belief is absolute, even if the belief is horrible. Your right to speak on matters of faith is nearly absolute—only limited by the same limitations that apply to Freedom of Expression. But what you do when motivated by faith can be limited.
For instance, you can believe your god wants you to sacrifice a bride on her wedding day. You can even say as a general proposition that you should be allowed to do that, and you can do things like advocate for laws that would allow you to do such sacrifices, as long as you don’t cross the line into threats or incitement of violence when pushing for such laws. But if you want to actually do such a sacrifice, the law can rightfully stop you.
Therefore, Marbach has a right to believe that Christianity is the one true religion. She has the right to wish that everyone in the world would become a Christian—even her particular brand of Christian. And she has a right to express those wishes, peacefully (threats and incitement are not peaceful expressions, in this author’s book).
Of course, if she said ‘and every non-Christian should be forcibly converted to Christianity’ while she would be free to say it, she would be advocating something that would violate the First Amendment and the natural rights of others. But she didn’t do that. She just expressed a belief that Christianity is the only correct belief and everyone should convert. We should always be charitable in our interpretation of other people’s words, so we don’t read that as hoping for anything but peaceful persuasion: Billions of people ‘seeing the light.’
And honestly, that’s how it is for most people in most religions—including Judaism. Jews don’t hold that their belief that there is a God to be equal to the belief of people in other religions (or atheists) that deny that there is a God. They believe that the story of Exodus happened and they don’t pretend it is equally true when someone denies that story.
Thus, there is no suppression of freedom of religion if someone merely says ‘my religion is the one true religion and to the extent any other religion disagrees with mine, you are wrong.’ In fact, such expressions are what Freedom of Religion allows. The reality is that Freedom of Religion includes the right to offend other people’s beliefs. For instance, this author believes Jesus is the son of God, while Jews and Muslims deny that claim. That is, just by being a Christian, we commit heresy, if not blasphemy, against two other major religions and their beliefs naturally are heretical or blasphemous to Christians. And the answer isn’t to pretend these differences don’t exist, or to suppress them, but simply for the law and our society to accept that people have a right to believe and say things highly offensive to each other’s faith. You have a right to be wrong. There is no Ministry of Truth, on religion or any other subject. It’s the only way we can live together.
He also wrote this in reply.
God says that Jewish people are the chosen ones, but yet you say we have no hope.
— Max Miller (@MaxMillerOH) August 15, 2023
Thanks for your pearl of wisdom today.
That statement is more reasonable, expressing disagreement with her statement, but not pretending that freedom of religion doesn’t allow her sentiment.
(For the record, we don’t 100% agree with her, either, but we don't want to get into a theological debate.)
This led to Matt Walsh denouncing Miller, as well as others:
As a GOP congressman from Ohio why in the world would you think it a good idea to condemn someone as bigoted for professing their Christian faith and demand that they delete it? https://t.co/fnahK8QPD5
— Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) August 16, 2023
Shouldn't have been sleeping during that Civics Class Congressman...
— Jeff Carlson (@themarketswork) August 16, 2023
Basic Christian theology (John 14:6) is one of the “most bigoted” things you’ve ever seen?
— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) August 16, 2023
And proclaiming the gospel on Twitter is somehow an attack on freedom of religion?
What?
Max's new Masterclass: How to lose your next election with a single tweet.
— Vox Populi (@vox_populi_nl) August 16, 2023
Ohio Republican cites *basic Christian orthodoxy* and Republican Congressman declares she has "gone too far." (corrected, I just assumed Dem, given his reaction)
— Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) August 16, 2023
John 14:6: "Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through… https://t.co/KGHAnZmj55
Dude, take a chill pill. You are outraged over absolutely nothing. https://t.co/uhBsuUreHx
— Amy (@TheLimeSorbet) August 15, 2023
See? She doesn’t seem like a ranty person at all …
This is a terrible take.
— William Wolfe 🇺🇸 (@William_E_Wolfe) August 15, 2023
Delete it. https://t.co/jy7ps52TbK
And that seems to be as good a time as any to segue into the plot twist we promised. Representative Miller didn’t delete it, but he did take it back:
I posted something earlier that conveyed a message I did not intend.
— Max Miller (@MaxMillerOH) August 16, 2023
I will not try to hide my mistake or run from it.
I sincerely apologize to Lizzie and to everyone who read my post. https://t.co/PNd8iSdNCS
So … honest question. Did he see the light and realize he was getting Freedom of Religion wrong? Or did he see the poll numbers? We report, you decide.
But we will say also this. It is vanishingly rare for us to find a politician who 1) will enact the policies we prefer and 2) actually understands why those policies are right. We might get a politician to do the right thing, but not understand the theory that makes it the right thing.
For instance, we recall once watching John McCain on The View while he was running for the Presidency and they had him debating Whoopi Goldberg. We couldn’t find the video, but here is a transcript:
SENATOR JOHN McCAIN (R-AZ): I think what we would be doing is appointing or nominating justices to the United States Supreme Court and other courts who strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States. We would not impose a litmus test on any issue because that’s not fair to the American people. But they would have to have a clear record of strict interpretation. …
GOLDBERG: Can you just, and I don’t want to misinterpret what you’re saying. Did you say you wanted strict Constitutionalists? Because that, that-
McCAIN: No, I want people who interpret the Constitution of the United States the way our founding fathers envision-
GOLDBERG: Does that-
McCAIN: -for them to do.
GOLDBERG: Should I be worried about being a slave, about being returned to slavery because certain things happened in the Constitution that you had to change.
McCAIN: I, I understand your point.
GOLDBERG: Okay, okay.
McCAIN: I understand that point and I, I, [applause] thank you. That’s an excellent point.
We remember wanting to throw something at the television when we saw that he had said that. No, that is not an excellent point. What he should have said was something like this:
No, Whoopi, that isn’t something you should worry about if we appoint judges following my approach to the Constitution. When we talk about following the Constitution as written, we mean the whole Constitution, as amended. So, the Thirteenth Amendment—which Republicans put into the Constitution with minimal cooperation from the Democrats and following a war where Democrats fought for the right to keep slaves—would be enforced by the judges I would appoint because it is part of the Constitution.
What we reject is the notion that judges have a right to ignore or rewrite the Constitution. That is the Democrat Party position and we reject it. And it presents the only practical danger of seeing slavery legalized again. We know that Americans would never in a million years repeal the Thirteenth Amendment. But following the Democrat Party approach, the Supreme Court could warp the Constitution to allow for slavery or involuntary servitude again. Because Democrats don’t believe that the courts should be bound to the Constitution, no part of the Constitution is safe in the hands of their judges. The right to bear arms, freedom of speech, even the right not to be forced against your will to work for others—all of these things could be threatened by an activist Supreme Court. That is why I oppose that approach.
Maybe a politician could state what we just said better, but what we wrote is basic conservative legal theory. We are willing to bet that if you asked ten readers of this site nine of you would have been able to write something substantively the same—even if you didn’t personally agree with it. But John McCain couldn’t defend his position because we don’t think he understood his position. He was simply told to say this to win conservative votes.
And in some sense, maybe you just have to be satisfied with getting these politicians to do what you want them to do, even if they don’t understand why they should be doing it. It’s not ideal, but we might not have a lot of other options. Thus, maybe Mr. Miller doesn’t really understand what he said wrong. But maybe the important thing is what he does, and not what he understands.
Incidentally, we have cited that exchange as a perfect example of why many Republicans like Trump—and whether you like him or not, or want him to be the nominee or not, it’s probably a good idea to ask why people like him. The way McCain rolled over for Goldberg was one of the most shameful displays this author has ever seen. We really wish we could find video so you could see him shrink from her. But we also know that Donald Trump would not say something as weak as ‘that’s an excellent point.’ Of course, he might instead say something like ‘well, that’s because you are fat, Whoopi!’ which isn’t ideal, either, but at least it’s not rolling over. And for Republicans sick of watching their candidates ‘lose politely’ while not feeling like they even fought particularly hard to win, that fighting instinct from Trump was a breath of fresh air.
***
Editor's Note: Do you enjoy Twitchy's conservative reporting taking on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth. Join Twitchy VIP and use the promo code SAVEAMERICA to get 40% off your VIP membership!
Join the conversation as a VIP Member