Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Progressive Christian
Sports and Religion
“Democracy Dies in the Dark” — Trump’s Suppression of Dissent

“Democracy Dies in the Dark” — Trump’s Suppression of Dissent

Last updated on: October 14, 2018 at 11:56 am by Jim Meisner Jr.

“Democracy Dies in the Dark” — Trump’s Suppression of Dissent 2018-10-14T11:56:27-04:00 Jim Meisner Jr.

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

“Democracy dies in the dark.” ~ Judge Damon J. Keith

On Aug. 28, 1963, more than 200,000 people gathered on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial to demand equal rights for all Americans and to hear Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. deliver his famous “I Have a Dream” speech.

“I think this has been one of the great days of America,” King said afterwards. “And I think this march will go down as one of the greatest, if not the greatest, demonstrations for freedom and human dignity ever held in the United States.”

The march led to passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

If the Trump administration succeeds, Washington D.C. may never see such a demonstration again.

Trump’s National Park Service is proposing wide ranging changes to curtail where demonstrations can be held, how people can protest, and considering a plan to charge demonstrators for costs associated with exercising the Constitutional right to peaceably assemble.

The proposed changes are sweeping and carefully inserted into a massive 21,125 word document.

Released with little fanfare, the administration allowed only four weeks for public input.

Deep within the proposed regulations, are things like this:

The NPS seeks comment on whether it should increase the maximum number of persons that may demonstrate at Franklin Park and McPherson Square without a permit. The NPS also requests comment on whether it should establish new exceptions for Farragut Square and Dupont Circle that would allow demonstrations larger than 25 persons to occur without a permit. … The NPS seeks comment, however, on whether the numbers could be raised in a manner that better aligns the current limits with sizes and locations of the designated areas in order to increase opportunities for spontaneous demonstrations.

By appearing to include changes that benefit demonstrators, the administration cynically can claim it is acting on behalf of everyone, but this simply isn’t true.

Trump officials are looking to silence dissent by demanding people pay for the right to voice opinions.

The NPS seeks comment on how it could establish a set of clearly defined, objective categories and criteria in advance for what costs would be recovered. These categories could include direct costs associated with event management (other than costs for law enforcement personnel and activities), set up and take down of structures; material and supply costs such as barricades and fencing needed for permitted activities; costs for the restoration, rehabilitation, and clean-up of a permitted area such as sanitation and trash removal; permit application costs; and costs associated with resource damage such as harm to turf, benches, poles, and walkways. The NPS requests comment on whether it should establish an indigency waiver for permittees who cannot afford to pay cost recovery, and how this waiver program could be implemented to safeguard the financial information of permittees.

The proposals can result in a process that charges the producers of a televised concert on Fourth of July the same way they charge the organizers of a rally demanding equal rights — civil rights activists seldom have the funding of HBO.

The Trump administration defends the restrictions by claiming:

These restrictions further the NPS’s interest in securing these memorials and maintaining the intended atmosphere of calm, tranquility, and reverence, and in providing the contemplative visitor experience intended for the memorials. The restrictions in this rule are limited and apply only to those areas necessary to further the interests identified above. At each location, there are several other nearby areas available for a more full range of free expression, including demonstrations and special events.

In other words, dissent will be charged, managed, and controlled by the government in ways that will “… further the NPS’s interest …” and ensure “an atmosphere of calm.”

These are the words of oppressive governments, not a nation dedicated to freedom of speech.

This is not what the founding fathers had in mind. This is exactly opposite of what the Bill of Rights intends.

Rights that are restricted by the government are seldom restored. Americans flying commercially in the United States must remove their shoes, for example, because of one failed terrorist attempt.

Restricted rights are seldom restored.

You can comment on the proposed changes here.

The deadline to comment is Oct. 15.

I will update this post as the process progresses.

If the Trump administration succeeds, protests like King’s “I Have a Dream” speech may never happen again.

Follow Faith on the Fringe on Facebook.

Civil Rights

culture

in the news

Channel - Politics Blue

Civil Rights Act of 1964

Freedom of speech

March on Washington

Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.

Trump

Voting Rights Act of 1965

“I Have a Dream”

Previous Post

September 27, 2018

Can Rape be a Question of Semantics?

Next Post

October 20, 2018 Mr. Rogers Knows You Can

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Celtic spirituality Christmas Civil Rights culture Easter Faith images in the news Prayer Quote Scripture Uncategorized vocational ministry Writing

Select a Month August 2026 July 2026 May 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 July 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 July 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 October 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who replaced Haman as the king's chief adviser?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Ezra Sanballat Zerubbabel Mordecai