MINOT — The state of North Dakota should not elevate one set of religious beliefs above others.
It’s a fundamentally un-American notion. More so, it’s illegal. Article I, Section 3 of the North Dakota Constitution states, “the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference shall be forever guaranteed in this state.” Further, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says that our government “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”
ADVERTISEMENT
Yet state Rep. Nico Rios, who is
lately under fire from his own party
for
antisemitic comments he made on social media about the president of Mexico,
has sponsored
House Concurrent Resolution 3020,
which would have “North Dakota acknowledge the Kingship of Jesus Christ over all the world so that this great state may at last receive the great blessings of real liberty, well-ordered discipline, peace, and harmony.”
That’s a Christian dogma; indeed, our Christian friends and neighbors are free to believe it. They have a constitutional right to that belief. But it’s not what North Dakotans who are Jewish or Muslim (and a lot of other schools of religious thought) believe. Our government belongs to them, too. Our state government has no business officially endorsing religious dogmas.
But there’s more to this resolution than meets the eye. Admitting that I’m at risk of devoting too much time to a resolution that isn’t likely to pass, and would not have the force of law if it did, I still scrutinized the language of Rios’ resolution in depth. It turned me on to some fascinating history.
In the recitals for HCR 3020 is this passage: “Whereas the founding fathers of this great state begin the constitution with the words, ‘We’, the people of North Dakota, grateful to Almighty God, and, as expressed by Reverend R.C. Wiley during the First Constitutional Convention of North Dakota, we desire there shall be a recognition of Almighty God as the source of authority; of the Lord Jesus Christ as the rightful ruler of nations.”
Who was R.C. Wiley? His name was actually Richard Cameron Wylie (it’s misspelled as Wiley in the records of the constitutional convention). He wasn’t a North Dakotan.
Per the transcripts of North Dakota’s constitutional convention of 1889,
Wylie was from Indiana. He addressed the convention as a representative of the National Reform Association. You can see a picture of him in
a 1929 book about the national reform movement by David McAllister (page 39).
The things Wylie said to the constitutional convention are chilling, especially in light of Rios’
views on race, which have been established in the public record.
Wylie was a religious bigot. “Our civilization is not heathen Mohammedan or Atheistic. It is Christian or it is nothing,”
ADVERTISEMENT
Contrast that with what Rios said to a law enforcement officer
arresting him for DUI in December 2023.
“Your country is being taken over by f***** migrants and refugees,” Rios said (the officer had an English accent).
“You’re arresting me for driving home, and people are coming to your country and raping your women,” he continued.
Keep in mind that the United Kingdom was convulsed last year by
violent right-wing riots against Muslims and refugees.
Contributed / Library of Congress
Wylie was a racial bigot, too. During a portion of his convention address in which he inveighed against laws allowing divorce, he said this: “The glory of our Anglo-Saxon race has consisted largely in this — whatever its other vices might be it has guarded safely the marital relation.”
What’s remarkable is that someone — perhaps Rios, perhaps someone else who helped him draft HCR 3020 — read Wylie’s address to the constitutional convention, with its overtones of white Christian supremacy, and thought it was something worth crediting in modern legislation.
Interestingly, the
(like the gun rights organization, they also call themselves the NRA) still exists. They have
They have (infrequently updated)
It’s not clear what, if any, influence the modern organization had on Rios and his resolution, but they certainly share roots.
Notably, Wylie wasn’t all that influential on the delegates at the convention. Our state’s founding documents do not recognize the supremacy of Jesus Christ, as he advocated for. They didn’t listen to him on the question of divorce, either. In territorial days, North Dakota’s divorce laws were so lax
that Fargo became a destination for quickie divorces.
The city even had
a minor league baseball team for a time
whose name, the Divorcees, was a nod to that history. The constitutional convention did pull the pin on Fargo’s cottage divorce industry by requiring that those seeking a divorce be residents of the state for a year first, but the state’s liberal accommodations for divorce for North Dakota residents persisted.
ADVERTISEMENT
But Wylie is clearly influential among some state lawmakers today. Rios, obviously, but also the cosponsors of his resolution, including Rep. Nels Christianson, of Grand Forks; Rep. Donna Henderson, of Calvin; Rep. Dawson Holle, of Mandan; Rep. Jeff Hoverson, of Minot; Rep. Desiree Morton, of Fargo; Rep. Dennis Nehring, of Williston; Rep. Lori VanWinkle, of Minot; Rep. Karen Anderson, of Grafton; Rep. Jorin Johnson, of Fargo; Sen. Chuck Walen, of New Town; and Sen. Kent Weston, of Sarles.
These lawmakers apparently looked back through history and plucked Wylie’s white Christian supremacist advocacy from obscurity and decided this was something worth supporting in a modern legislative context.
The proponents of this legislation will say that it’s only a resolution that wouldn’t have the effect of law. They might write off Wylie’s comments as flowery rhetoric beholden of some of the common cultural myopias of its day. But is that how non-Christian North Dakotans will view this resolution, introduced by a demonstrated bigot, which endorses the supremacy of Christian dogma?
It’s a question worth asking.