https://buy-zithromax.online buy kamagra usa https://antibiotics.top buy stromectol online https://deutschland-doxycycline.com https://ivermectin-apotheke.com kaufen cialis https://2-pharmaceuticals.com buy antibiotics online Online Pharmacy vermectin apotheke buy stromectol europe buy zithromax online https://kaufen-cialis.com levitra usa https://stromectol-apotheke.com buy doxycycline online https://buy-ivermectin.online https://stromectol-europe.com stromectol apotheke https://buyamoxil24x7.online deutschland doxycycline https://buy-stromectol.online https://doxycycline365.online https://levitra-usa.com buy ivermectin online buy amoxil online https://buykamagrausa.net

What $100 Million Ad Campaign Would Jesus Do?

An effort to attract back unchurched young adults has a good message, but the wrong target

A $100 million ad campaign is being launched to attract young adults back to Christianity.

This week, an alliance of Christian media ministries announced the launch of an extensive $100-million-dollar national ad campaign to share inspirational messages about Jesus Christ with “skeptics and seekers.”

The “He Gets Us” campaign features stark ads with messages such as “Jesus was homeless,” “Jesus suffered anxiety,” and “Jesus was in broken relationships.” They direct people to a website where they’re then connected to national ministries and local congregations.

As an example …

So let’s put to the side whether spending $100 million to actually help homeless people, anxious people, or people in broken relationships would be more in keeping with Jesus’ actual message.

The problem, I think, is that the target of the campaign is totally misaligned. The research that went into it actually makes the case.

Starting in April 2021, a representative sample of 5,000 U.S. adults answered an online survey designed by Haven, followed by additional quantitative polling and interview-style qualitative research. […]

Skeptics of Christianity represent one-fourth of the U.S. population, according to the research. Half of them, “especially those with children,” are open to learning about Jesus, if obstacles can be overcome, Haven states. The biggest obstacle: Jesus’ message has been distorted as “hate-filled.”

Based on these insights, Haven’s goals became to “communicate that Jesus is for everyone and is a worthy example to live by”—and that his teachings are “positive for society as a whole.”

I mean, that’s cool — but maybe a more productive goal would be figuring out how “Jesus’ message has been distorted as ‘hate-filled.'”

I suspect the problem for “young adults” is not with Jesus’ message or perceived relevancy. It’s that they see Jesus’ ostensible reps here on earth spending their money on jets (and ad campaigns) and preaching to mega-churches (and the press) about how those young adults’ gay friends are going to hell, and how wealthy companies should get tax breaks because capitalism is God’s way, and if you just donate enough money then God will reward you with a bunch of money, too. Oh, and that Jesus’s representatives should take over the country on behalf of all the white people.

One Nation Under God
This is the message the Religious Right sends about Jesus.

I believe the evangelical Religions Right — the brand of Christianity that has spent the last fifty years elbowing itself in front of the microphone as the One, True Representatives of Christianity in the US — has done more with its venality and cruelty to drive people away from Christianity in this nation than any “sex, drugs, and rock and roll.”

More impactfully, by the Religious Right locking themselves in with the Republican Party in the pursuit of the power to force their agenda on the rest of the nation, they have become associated inextricably with folk like Trump, Cruz, McConnell, DeSantis, Gaetz, MTG, Boebert, Hawley, etc.

Trump and Bible
This is the face of US Christianity to too many people.

These “young adults” now see those deplorables as the representatives of Christ (because they claim to be  and/or there are plenty of religious types willing to assert they are), and it’s profoundly unappealing to them.

After all, who’s going to be believed as to what Jesus’ message is?  A slick ad campaign, or the religiously-anointed political representatives of the church trying to kick people off welfare, force LGBTQ folk back into the closet, require rape victims to give birth, suppress the vote of people of color, lock down the borders to desperate refugees, kick homeless out of town, and legalize discrimination under the banner of “religious freedom” … all with the blessing of various groups and ministers saying that this is all being done in Jesus’ name.

There are a lot of Christians and churches that aren’t into all that, to be sure, that focus on charity and compassion and humility — but they’re not the ones parading around, wrapping themselves in flags and waving around crosses. They’re not the ones crowing about how Christianity is all about  nationalism, capitalism, partisanship, guns, and power.

Trump being prayed over
This may garner some votes, but it probably doesn’t encourage “young adults” to go to church.

Maybe Jesus’ ad campaign shouldn’t be focused on trying to draw unchurched young adults to faith. Maybe it should be focused on changing the hearts of those who are driving those young adults away from Christianity. Because right now they’re drowning out Jesus’ words, whether or not He Gets Us.

And They’ll Know We Are Christians by Our Love

Except for those ostensibly Christian leaders who want to execute LGBTQ people. Yeesh.

I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.
John 13:34-35

(Not to mention a hymn I grew up with.)

Two stories I ran across today. First:

Authorities ‘looking into’ pastor’s church sermon calling for execution of LGBTQ people | TheHill

Here’s Pastor Grayson Fritts, preaching at All Scripture Baptist Church:

“Here’s how it should work. It shouldn’t work when we go out and we enforce the laws, because the Bible says the powers that be are ordained of God and God has instilled the power of civil government to send the police in 2019 out to these LGBT freaks and arrest them,” Fritts said in his June 2 sermon.

“Have a trial for them, and if they are convicted then they are to be put to death … do you understand that? It’s a capital crime to be carried out by our government.”

Do we feel more comfortable that Pastor Fritts is a detective in the Knox County Sheriff’s Office?

The next headline is relatively innocuous in its text …

Christian Hate-Preachers Are Hosting a “Make America Straight Again” Event | Hemant Mehta | Friendly Atheist | Patheos

… until you start reading about these preachers who, remarkably, don’t include Pastor Fritts, above.

There’s Steven Anderson, who celebrated the [Pulse Nightclub] massacre as soon as it happened because there were “50 less pedophiles in this world.” He added that he’s “not gonna sit here and cry about it and say it’s a tragedy, because it’s not.” He’s also said if he could push a button and kill every homosexual, he would “push it until it breaks.”

There’s Roger Jimenez, who said the worst thing about the massacre was that the shooter “didn’t finish the job.” He also longed for the government to round up all the gay people, “put them up against a firing wall, put a firing squad in front of them, and blow their brains out.”

There’s Tommy McMurtry, who wishes we could go back to the time when society put gay people in their place: “six feet under.”

[…] The man hosting the conference is Patrick Boyle of Revival Baptist Church in Orlando, so it’s presumably at his church or somewhere close by. Boyle, by the way, insists he’s just echoing the Bible when he says gay people “are worthy of death.”

Those folk are preachers at Faithful Word Baptist, Verity Baptist, and Liberty Baptist Church, and Revival Baptist Church.

Three points.

First, I am not suggesting this is the “Christian,” or even “Baptist” attitude toward LGBTQ folk. I know too many Christians, and read too many more, to make such an assertion.

Second, I am always seriously reluctant to brand people as not being “Christian.” That’s a tactic that’s been used by tyrants and theocrats down the centuries to discredit and persecute folk of all stripes.

But I find it impossible to reconcile the gleeful homophobic bloodthirstiness of these self-identifying Christian preachers with anything in the Biblical teachings of Christ, let alone the beliefs of many Christians I know.

Third, whenever there is a terroristic crime, or even violent sentiment of precisely this sort, by self-identifying Muslims, there is a public demand that other Muslims pointedly condemn such things, so as to demonstrate that they don’t support such sentiments (and, even then, law enforcement is encouraged and follows through on efforts to monitor Muslim organizations and gathering places to ensure we’re not seeing a terror attack in the making).

It would not be inappropriate, given these particular individuals, to similarly insist that Christians condemn their sentiments, lest people draw the conclusion that this is how all Christians feel (and, presumably, want to act upon), or even use as a justification to put Baptist congregations under police and FBI observation.

Consider this my own condemnation of same.  This is, as I said, antithetical to my own religious beliefs, and my understanding of Christianity, not to mention my beliefs as to how a civil society operates in general, and how America operates specifically.

I would say more about the individuals involved … but it would involve language that doesn’t seem particularly loving. Because some folk make it very difficult to love them, Jesus’ dictates or not.

The Banning of Segregation

As a nation we once stood against discrimination, even when dressed up as “religious freedom”

RT @BeschlossDC: Brown v. Board of Education—Supreme Court found segregated schools unconstitutional 65 years ago this week: https://t.co/b…

This week we commemorate the banning of “separate but [though it never was] equal” as a dodge to allow segregation.

Gosh, remember back when claims of “religious freedom” (as some folk used to defend “the Biblical separation of the races”) as an excuse for discrimination (racial discrimination in particular) were laughed out of court?

Yeah, I get nostalgic for those days, too.

Fire at the Cathedral

The damage to the 800+ year old Notre Dame structure is a cultural tragedy

As an historian, watching the gutting of the Cathedral of Notre Dame in Paris is wrenching. In my life, and in my studies, I’ve come to realize that nothing material is permanent, but watching entropy take its toll is awful.

It appears that most of the external structure is still intact, and at least some of the rose windows as well. What was there can be rebuilt, though as one scholar noted, the “layers of history” — the things that were tweaked, covered over, redone, repainted, revised over the centuries, that “revision trail” has been lost. One can theoretically replace the appearance of everything that was there (in such a highly photographed and studied structure), but it will always be a replacement.

From a Christian perspective, it’s both tragic as a loss, but also darkly ironic as Lent is wrapping up — Remember, man, that dust thou art, and to dust thou shall return. Again, nothing material is permanent, and relying on such permanence is vanity and delusion.

My thoughts go out to the people of France, and Paris, and my appreciation to the fire fighters who struggled in the face of danger to protect what they could.

Do you want to know more?

 

“Oppression is whatever a body’s obliged to do”

The hijab can be a symbol of oppression or of freedom

The hijab — the scarf-neck-head covering worn by some Muslim women — is not actually dictated per se by the Koran, but is a traditional dress in some parts of the Muslim world that has been tied to religious and theocratic rulings. It’s controversial in a number of places as religious wear, and as Muslim religious wear, but also as a sign of oppression against women in the Muslim world (and, as such, often conflated with other and more restrictive garb to hide, mask, or enforce the modesty of women).

Ilhan Omar, in hijab

The first article below demonstrates, though, that it’s not a matter of either-or. Some Muslim women (such as Ilhan Omar) wear hijab as a sign of their religious devotion, and celebrate it as a personal freedom. Others, esp. those living in some Middle Eastern Muslim nations, have it forced on them by state law, and consider it as a constriction of freedom.

The conflict seems perfectly understandable to me, analogous to another example of religious identification. I know a number of Jewish people, especially women, who wear a Star of David as a necklace, as an expression of their religious belief. Nobody (aside from anti-Semites) thinks a thing of it, save perhaps observing how cool it is that someone can choose to wear the symbol openly and without government sanction.

But if you had a law (as in Nazi Germany) where Jews were forced to wear a Star of David on their clothing to identify them as Jews … that’s clearly oppressive.

From there, it seems straightforward to celebrate that  Muslim women who choose to wear the hijab have the freedom to do so … but to condemn nations who mandate that all women do so (or even more).

Do you want to know more?


Title via Mark Twain, who put it regarding work and play in Tom Sawyer:

Work consists of whatever a body is obliged to do, and that Play consists of whatever a body is not obliged to do.

How too many people learn all they ever learn about Islam

Memes can be funny. But, really, people, they aren’t truly educational, let alone accurate.

Using a meme as a basis for learning about a complex faith system is … well, kind of goofy. Especially when it’s a meme based scriptural translations by people who have left that faith and want to put forward the message that it’s dangerous (with further modifications to attack a Muslim politician).

(Consider whether folk who are willing to believe such Quranic interpretations would be so fast to accept Biblical translations from ex-Christians who were avowed enemies of their former faith.)

This FactCheck post looks at a meme that’s been floating around for a while, with gobs of reposts on (of course) Facebook. It looks at some scholarly opinions of the passages quoted (or paraphrased, or misquoted) as well as providing a more scholarly-accepted translation.

In pretty much every case, the translation and meaning ascribed is, where not deceptive, certainly not the commonly accepted meaning.

In many of those passages, it is worth noting that a chunk of the Quran does dwell on armed conflict — part and parcel of Muhammad’s history.  I won’t act as an apologist for Islam or the writings ascribed to the Prophet. But … well, consider:

On this account I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ’s heralds to publish this everywhere and to persuade all people of whatever rank, foot-soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians and to destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends. I say this to those who are present, it meant also for those who are absent. Moreover, Christ commands it.

All who die by the way, whether by land or by sea, or in battle against the pagans, shall have immediate remission of sins. This I grant them through the power of God with which I am invested. O what a disgrace if such a despised and base race, which worships demons, should conquer a people which has the faith of omnipotent God and is made glorious with the name of Christ! With what reproaches will the Lord overwhelm us if you do not aid those who, with us, profess the Christian religion! Let those who have been accustomed unjustly to wage private warfare against the faithful now go against the infidels and end with victory this war which should have been begun long ago.

That was a sermon by Pope Urban II at the Council of Clermont in 1095, widely re-preached across all of Western Europe, speaking on behalf of God, to urge all of Christendom to launch the First Crusade to the “Holy Land,” to wrest it from the Muslims. The language is … well, not unlike that ascribed to Muhammed, and in similar circumstances, and it initiated a century of bloody warfare in the Near East.

Now, it’s certainly true that there are some Muslims today who do preach from some of these passages just as they are dubiously translated here, to attack non-Muslims, or attack Muslims who aren’t of the “right” denomination, or to generally stir up hatred (and justify their own hatreds) and violence. From al-Qa’eda to ISIL, there are those people who parse out hatred and calls to war in the Quran as a basis for their own actions.

But Christians who want to take on airs of superiority (or fearmongering)  over such things should consider how the Gospel of Christ (let alone passages in the Old Testament) have been used by Christians over the centuries to justify everything from wars of conquest, to oppression and torture over doctrinal differences, to pogroms, to chattel slavery. Even in modern times, Christian Scripture has been used to justify racial segregation, oppression of Jews, inequality of women, jailing of gay people, and, yes, warfare and violence.

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

“But those aren’t true interpretations of the Gospel, Dave! They’re twisted and distorted readings used to justify base emotions and hurtful passions. You can’t blame Christianity for those who have used its message to further their own hateful ends.”

Just so. And thus endeth the lesson.

Do you want to know more? Meme Distorts Quran Verses – FactCheck.org

The “Equality Act” is back in the legislative queue

But will Republican Senators have to pay any attention to it?

The analysis here is, honestly, optimistic. Even though a significant majority of Americans overall favor the Equality Act — extending federal civil rights protection for employment, housing, and public business access to the LGBT populace — a majority of Republican voters don’t.  And so, presumably, the GOP in the Senate will block it, en masse or simply by Mitch McConnell issuing a pocket veto by not bringing it to the floor.

The only glimmer of hope is the Senate race in 2020 is as bad for the GOP as it was in 2018 for the Dems. There are a number of GOP Senators running in “purple” states (including my own Cory Gardner) that might find their race all the more difficult should they be too hardline against this bill, whatever their personal preferences.

Will that be enough? We will see. Especially since the opposition is making it clear and loud their argument is that they have a religious right to discriminate against anyone they want — in employment, in housing, in business services — and so adding another “protected class,” especially one they’re willing to publicly desire to discriminate against, is a profound wrong.

As I said, we will see.

Do you want to know more? Legislation banning LGBTQ discrimination could split the Republican Party – The Washington Post

Don’t worry — it was only a “temporary, episodic medical condition”

Texas Judge Jack Robison disciplined for telling a jury God wanted them to acquit a defendant – CNN

The judge apparently “walked into the jury room after the jury’s deliberations, said he had been praying about the case, and informed the jurors God told him the defendant was innocent.” He went on to ask them to change their verdict. They declined.

After a flurry of complaints over the incident, he ended up with only a public reprimand from the  Texas Judicial Commission.

[Robison] wrote that he had been suffering memory lapses and couldn’t explain why he’d broken protocol to try to inappropriately influence the case, but he said he’d been under extreme stress due to ongoing medical treatment and the recent death of a close friend.

He also provided letters from doctors.

The doctors determined Robison’s actions were driven by delirium, a “temporary, episodic medical condition,” according to the court papers. The doctors argued Robison’s “fitness for duty” was not impaired.

Um … that sounds like his fitness was, in fact, kind of impaired. Certainly his behavior overall doesn’t seem to be advancing the cause of justice. On appeal “a new judge ruled the sex trafficking case a mistrial, on grounds that Robison had made multiple biased comments throughout the trial.”

I feel sympathy for someone who is under such stress that he suffers memory lapses — but that sounds like something that would render him unfit to judge a case as well, especially as he’s still consulting with doctors on the matter.

Apparently the Texas Judicial Commission disagreed.

 

Let’s fight purported anti-Semitism with a big dose of Islamophobia!

Because clearly the only people critical of Israel are un-American crypto-Islamicists

Many folk have dogpiled on Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) over her criticisms of knee-jerk American political support for the Israeli government, which has been interpreted by some as anti-Semitism (even though some of the biggest knee-jerking comes from people other than Jewish-Americans).

So, of course, in a discussion fraught with questions of religious intolerance, hatred and fear of the Other, and the conundrum of what it means to be pro- or anti-American in support of another nation, let’s pivot to … bashing Muslims!

Fox News host Jeanine Pirro on Saturday questioned whether Rep. Ilhan Omar’s (D-Minn.) hijab is a symbol of loyalty to Sharia law, which she warned is “antithetical” to the U.S. Constitution. “Omar wears a hijab, which, according to the Quran 33:59, tells women to cover so they won’t get molested,” she said.

“Is her adherence to this Islamic doctrine indicative of her adherence to Sharia law, which in itself is antithetical to the United States Constitution?” she asked.

Because, of course, only those crazy, evil, un-American Muslim types would ever dream of women covering their heads, right?

Ilhan Omar

Strangely enough the Apostle Paul might disagree.

Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.

[…] Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.

But I mean, even so, that was centuries ago. In this modern era, in America, can you imagine people covering their heads for religious reasons? Only dangerous fanatics would do that!


Oh, but those folk aren’t covering up because of “Sharia Law,” which to Judge Jeanine clearly makes all the difference. “Sharia Law” is bad, so anyone who follows it is, well, obviously evil (and probably hates American and Israel).

Not, I suspect, that Judge Jeanine  has any idea of what “Sharia Law” is, let alone having any coherent argument as to why it is “antithetical to the United States Constitution,” any  more than any other personal religious code of conduct.

(Here are three resources that might be of help in understanding what Sharia is.)

Of course, if someone is concerned about Rep. Omar and her “loyalty” to Sharia Law, maybe someone should ask her. Or, given the breadth and vagueness of what Sharia actually is, ask her about particular beliefs. Or even, if you want to be really lazy, compare popular conceptions about what Sharia means to her public policy statements.

Pirro argued that Omar’s alleged “anti-Israel sentiment” did not come from the Democratic Party. “Your party is not anti-Israel. She is,” Pirro said. “So if it’s not rooted in the party, where is she getting it from?”

Wait, wait, let me guess your answer, Jeanine! Could it be she gets it from Evil Muslim Sharia Law Secret Spy Anti-America radio broadcasts? Am I close? Because that’s the thing you seem to be implying.

It’s also interesting looking at an underlying argument here:

  • Suggesting Jewish-Americans have a divided loyalty against the US in their support of Israel is pernicious and anti-Semitic.*
  • Suggesting Musim-Americans have a divided loyalty against the US in their hatred of Israel is … well, the kind of rabble-rousing thing you can hear about on Fox News.

(* Omar didn’t actually say that, but she’s being characterized as having done so.)

The idea that the way to combat anti-Semitism is to drum up suspicion of Muslims as somehow being un-American is … well, frankly, it’s philosophically incoherent, as it evokes the same sort of paranoia about the Other that is exemplified in anti-Semitism itself. I’m not particularly surprised to find it coming from a talking head on Fox News, but it’s worth calling out even when it shows up there.

Do you want to know more? Judge Jeanine asks whether Omar’s hijab is ‘indicative’ of her loyalty to Sharia law | TheHill

“Good Omens” drops on May 31

It’s the end of the world as Gaiman and Pratchett knew it, and I feel fine.

I can’t expect the series to live up to the full onslaught of drollery, witty theologizing, and general amusement that was the original book — the difference in media alone stands in the way. I do expect, from what I see here and knowing of Gaiman’s deep involvement in it, for it to be a hell (and heaven) of a good (and evil) time.

Allegiance

I’ve read Rep. Omar’s recent comments about the influence of the pro-Israel lobby in American politics and honestly, they only way they can be considered anti-Semitic is if you consider any criticism of the government of Israel or American foreign policy toward it to be, per se, anti-Semitic.

Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-MN

“But she’s talking about money! And everyone knows the libel against Jews as fat-cat wealthy people!” And, yes, those are pernicious and anti-Semitic stereotypes (ironically garbled from anti-Semitic prejudice that allowed European Jews to lend money at interest, then socially punished them for it).

But the money flowing into pro-Israeli lobbying coffers and political action committees isn’t just from American Jews. Political and financial support for Israel comes from a substantial chunk of the Christian Right (some of whom see an Israeli state as necessary for the End Times). Other non-Jewish Americans see Israel as a stalwart ally (which could be debated, though in Middle Eastern terms they’re probably better than a lot of the alternatives), or as a representative democracy in region full of autocrats (which makes unwillingness to criticize the actions of that democracy all the more odd), or believe in a Zionist goal of a Jewish homeland given the historically terrible and devastating history of European Jewry that culminated in the Holocaust.

So equating criticism of money spent on behalf of Israeli interests through PACs and lobbying with criticism of wealthy Jews is kind of a stretch, unless you make it a whole lot clearer that’s what you’re doing.

I don’t see any of that in Rep. Omar’s statements.

“But now she’s talking about allegiance, and we all know about the pernicious accusation that Jews have a divided loyalty between the nation and other Jews.”  I’m well familiar with that, including the analogous anti-Catholic prejudice that we seem to have gotten over as a nation. And, again, we see the twisted history of a persecuted community ghettoized and forced to band together against prejudice becoming, itself, taken as a “divided loyalty.”

But, again, Rep. Omar didn’t say that Jews were pushing for (or held) an allegiance to a foreign power. She was clearly noting that there are a lot of politicians who are so knee-jerk pro-Israel that, regardless of whether it is in American interests or not, they will support Israeli government actions. As might be demonstrated by, well, anyone criticizing Israeli state actions drawing criticism as being anti-Semitic and anti-American and pernicious and deserving of rebuke and punishment.

Sort of like what’s happening to Rep. Omar.

One might expect it in politicians and pundits framing everything about Israel as a false dichotomy — you either steadfastly stand behind the Israeli state, no matter what it does, no matter what level of apartheid it enforces, no matter how it deals in bad faith with the Palestinians, no matter how it drags down American relations with other states in the region — or you’re un-American, you’re anti-democracy, you want Israel destroyed, and you’re an anti-Semite.

Which does, in fact, seem to be the reaction going on. Which makes suggestions that some folk seem have as much allegiance to Israel as to America a rhetorically uncomfortable but not altogether unjust.

All of which is a ridiculous position to take. We criticize our own government for its actions … why can we not criticize Israel’s government? We can say that Trump, or Obama, or Bush, or Clinton are dumb or corrupt or destructive or whatever … why can we not criticize Benjamin Netanyahu as vigorously? We can say that the US is doing something wrong … why can we not say that Israel is doing something wrong. We can critique our government’s actions without suggesting that America should be destroyed … why is criticism of Israeli government policy made out to be a desire to see Israel destroyed.

It’s altogether possible that someone doesn’t think that Israel isn’t acting wrongly in its relations with its neighbors and with the Palestinian Arabs. Fine. But we should be able to have that debate without recourse either to (a) blaming it on the Jews or (b) being accused of blaming it on the Jews.

But if critical suggestions that a wide array of American supporters (not just Jewish ones) and politicians (ditto) seem to have knee-jerk support for anything that the Israeli government does draw fire as being inherently anti-Semitic … well, I think it merely confirms the suggestions being made.

Do you want to know more?

“Never Forget” and the West Virginia GOP

At “WV GOP Day,” when West Virginia Republicans “Take the Rotunda” of the statehouse for various displays, a number of folk were taken aback by a number of anti-Muslim items, including this particular display:

Now that would be shocking if it were just some random Muslim woman in a hijab being somehow conflated with the 9/11 attacks. But this photo is of Somali-American politician Ilhan Omar, a US Representative from Minnesota, one of the first two Muslim women elected to Congress, and the target of numerous death threats.

So, just to translate how that comes across to me: Muslims are our enemy and they attacked us on 9/11 … but we’ve clearly forgotten that because one of “them” is now in Congress.

Again, this was part of an array of displays and pamphlets and materials sponsored by the West Virginia GOP in the statehouse rotunda. This particular sign was apparently put up by the anti-Muslim group ACT for America.

In the course of the ensuing conflict in the rotunda about it, the House’s sergeant at arms, Anne Lieberman, a Republican, allegedly said that “All Muslims are terrorists.” While denying having said it, Lieberman resigned her post by the end of the day. Mike Caputo, Democratic lawmaker, allegedly injured a doorkeeper during the argument, and is being investigated.

While the GOP House Speaker later condemned “hatred in all its forms,” the comments of most of the GOP politicians were that the poster represented free speech, so they should just put it all behind them and get on with business.

Given the number of death threats Rep. Omar has received, this may be the sort of thing that pushes up against the bounds of free speech. But it’s also worth remembering that “free speech” isn’t just a rug under which to sweep stuff. The West Virginia GOP party had overall responsibility for the displays put up, and they invited the known extremists at “ACT for America” to join in the soiree. While they later denied responsibility for the display, and said that they asked to have it taken down when they “learned about it,” it’s impossible to believe that nobody from the organization didn’t walk around the rotunda first thing in the morning looking at the materials that had been put up but didn’t see it and accept it — until it became a public embarrassment.

Do you want to know more? West Virgina News, West Virginia Public BroadcastingNBC, NY Magazine, The Hill, WaPo.

Because being Muslim apparently means you can’t be Republican

Since, after all, you're clearly a shill for the terrorist horror that is the Muslim Brotherhood. Also, probably, you're not reflexively pro-Israeli Government enough.




GOP Activists Want To Purge Local Official For Being Muslim

Original Post

The Convenience of Considering Correlation to be Causation

It takes some massive blind spots to play the "This awful natural disaster is occurring in this place because They Have Sinned Against The Lord," but that doesn't keep dolts like Kevin Swanson from doing so.

Like, for example, hey, Kev — why does God pay such strict attention to state lines? I mean, why punish California as a whole? Why not, I don't know, punish individual counties based on their voting records or number of gay people or something? I mean, a lot of these fires are happening in some pretty conservative / rural areas of the state — why is God punishing them for the sins of the more liberal population centers?

I'm not sure if I'm more disturbed thinking that Swanson is just a "God must hate the people I hate" sort who can't actually figure out the huge logic gaps in his analysis (let alone his theology), or if he's a publicity hound looking to boost his ratings no matter who it hurts.




Kevin Swanson: ‘God Is Burning Down California’ As Punishment For Legitimizing Homosexuality | Right Wing Watch
Radical anti-LGBTQ radio host and pastor Kevin Swanson said on his

Original Post

Ideals, pragmatism, and the evolving GOP vote

This article discusses how (many, not all) evangelical types in Nevada are rallying around a notorious brothel owner who has won the GOP nomination for a seat in the state legislature.

“This really is the Trump movement,” Hof, 71, told Reuters in an interview at Moonlite BunnyRanch, his brothel near Carson City in northern Nevada that was featured on the HBO reality television series “Cathouse.” “People will set aside for a moment their moral beliefs, their religious beliefs, to get somebody that is honest in office,” he said. “Trump is the trailblazer, he is the Christopher Columbus of honest politics.”

The immediate reaction is to point fingers and talk about hypocrisy. This guy, like Trump, embodies all sorts of non-Christian ideals, but conservative Christians are turning out to support him. What a bunch of maroons! But I think there's more to it than that, and not necessarily a bad more-to-it.

“People want to know how an evangelical can support a self-proclaimed pimp,” Fuentes said in an interview at his home in Pahrump, an unincorporated town of 36,000 people that is the largest community in the sprawling, rural district where Hof is favored to win in November’s general election.

He said the reason was simple. “We have politicians, they might speak good words, not sleep with prostitutes, be a good neighbor. But by their decisions, they have evil in their heart. Dennis Hof is not like that.” The pastor said he felt Hof would protect religious rights, among other things.

In Hof’s Republican-leaning district, seven evangelicals said they voted for him because they believed that he, who like Trump is a wealthy businessman and political outsider, would also clean up politics and not be beholden to special-interest groups and their money.

Politics is about compromise. It's trying to balance the needs of multiple constituents, multiple interests. It's about being willing to take a candidate who is imperfect, but the better (or less worse) choice.

In a sense, this shift is a sign of maturity by evangelicals, an acknowledgment that no candidate is perfect, that no person is perfect, and that even a sinner can do good, can serve the public, can advance a healthy change.

Of course, I also think this particular application of this tolerance is delusional. Coupling "Trump" with "honest politics" is crazy. Assuming that wealth makes one a "political outsider" and therefore will lead to a clean-up of corruption is also myopic, to say the least. Hof sounds like a dubious candidate for change, except for change that lines his own pocket, and Trump seems to have demonstrated that his devotion to evangelical causes is solely occasional throwing of bones, whereas his central agenda strikes me as actually opposed to Christ's preaching.

But while the application is wildly misguided (and a bit desperate), the principle behind it is not altogether out of whack. Refusing to vote for your interests because a candidate imperfectly represents your ideals sounds kind of good on paper, but generally speaking means you won't be represented at all. Figuring out what level of imperfection and compromise is tolerable is a pain in the ass and an uncomfortable thing to do, but it's also a sign of growing up.




In age of Trump, evangelicals back self-styled top U.S. pimp
He styles himself as America’s best-known pimp, a strip-club owner who runs multiple brothels and looks set to win a seat as a Republican in the Nevada legislature with the blessing of many conservative Christian voters.

Original Post

Stage Review: "The Book of Mormon"

We attended a Fathers Day matinee of The Book of Mormon, which is on tour and passing through Denver right now at the DCPA. We all had fun from my entering-college son to my devout mother.

It's an interesting show, beyond having some great tunes. While it definitely pokes barbed fun at the LDS church as both an institution and mythos (and, by extension, organized religion and blind faith in general), it also speaks to both the humanity that spiritual belief can build up, and the human need to create myths to illuminate and inspire that humanity.

Since this is South Park's Trey Parker and Matt Stone (and the analogous talent of Robert Lopez, of Avenue Q fame), the story is packed to the gills with irreverence (and not just about religion — there was more than one moment where I was, "They're singing about that?!) — and, as with all satire, one's personal comfort level with different oxen being gored will vary. But I nabbed a copy of the sound track from the swag shop at the theater ("Warning! Explicit lyrics!"), and plan to get to know the music even better, because there is some funny shit there.

I'm glad we went; it was a fun part of Fathers Day with the family.

Book of Mormon plays at the DCPA until 7 July (https://www.denvercenter.org/shows/specific-series/Get?Id=76cce1c8-11ed-4630-abe9-f78213413f7c)

 

Original Post

On the GOP Scriptural Dedication to the Law and Government

RT @TheDweck: Remember when Kim Davis refused to issue gay marriage licenses and Republicans were all like “You can’t do that! The Bible sa…

Jeff Sessions says the Bible supports Trump’s immigrant family policy

Well, kinda-sorta, but hearing pious Sessions quoting Scripture to bolster the Trump Administration’s decision to separate all children that are brought across the border by illegal immigrants or by families legally seeking asylum … well, it’s a pretty grim stretch, not to mention somewhat nauseating.

My first thought on reading these headlines was that we were going to get some sort of Old Testament horror show about how God told the Israelites that they could steal the children (usually as slaves) of the tribes they conquered (except for the cases where God say they could be out-and-out killed) — and that that would be what Sessions was relying upon.

Nope. It’s less bloody-handed, but even more menacing than that.

“I would cite you to the Apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13, to obey the laws of the government because God has ordained them for the purpose of order,” [Sessions] said. “Orderly and lawful processes are good in themselves and protect the weak and lawful.”

Okay, that’s already a dubious argument, but let’s actually look at that passage (Romans 13:1-7):

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you wish to have no fear of the authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive its approval; 4 for it is God’s servant for your good. But if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for the authority[a] does not bear the sword in vain! It is the servant of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be subject, not only because of wrath but also because of conscience. 6 For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, busy with this very thing. 7 Pay to all what is due them—taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.

So we’ll set aside the Trumpian / GOP multi-faceted irony of quoting a passage that also says, “Hey, those taxes? Pay up!”

Let’s also set aside that this was Paul writing a letter that was readable by any Roman authority, to members of a church in a movement that was already being scowled upon for being a bit dodgy and possibly disloyal to the Empire.

Instead of all that, let’s look at what this passage basically says: The government was appointed by God, to punish evildoers, so put up with what it does, otherwise God will use it to get you.

That sentiment is profoundly un-American. It’s certainly the direct opposite of anything that resembles traditional GOP conservatism. Granted, Sessions is the Attorney General — the chief law enforcement officer (under the President) of the federal government, so one would expect a certain fondness for “OBEY!” as a philosophy.

Still, it’s a breathtaking defense of governmental authoritarianism, esp. for someone who claims to be Christian, and is a member of a political party most often associated with conservative Christianity, a movement that often rails against actions by the Evil Government.

Imagine, if you will, if the Obama Administration had devoutly cited Romans 13 as a defense for the laws and policies it advanced. “Obama declares Islamist theocracy, claims to rule by divine right” would have been the mildest of responses from the Religious Right and every Republican politician.

Sessions’ feeble and pernicious defense of his and his boss’ policies about separating children from their families is the height of hypocrisy, and one that should give any American the chills at its sweeping implications (so, any legal policy of the government should be considered the dictates of God?). And it reminds me of another quotation:

❝The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.
An evil soul producing holy witness
Is like a villain with a smiling cheek,
A goodly apple rotten at the heart:
O, what a goodly outside falsehood hath!❞

— William Shakespeare (1564-1616) English dramatist and poet. The Merchant of Venice




Jeff Sessions Cited the Bible to Defend Separating Immigrant Families
“I would cite you to the Apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13”

Original Post

What’s in a name?

“What’s in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet.”
— Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet, Act 2, sc. 2

A teacher claims he was forced to resign when he refused to call a transgender student by their preferred name, because he (of course) says it goes against his religion.

Now, I grant that I respect freedom of religion, and being compelled to do something against one’s conscience is a hard thing. And I respect freedom of speech, and being compelled to certain speech by the state is a non-trivial burden.

But. Dude.

What if Mr. Kluge decided to refer to a student who was an unwed mother as “Harlot,” because he felt religiously obliged to do so?

What if he refused to call a student named Muhammed (by birth or through conversion) by his name because he felt the name honored someone who blasphemed against Jesus?

What if he refused to call a student by a new last name due to their mother remarrying, because divorce is a sin against God and to use the stepfather’s last name would be to support such a sinful and destructive action?

What if he refused to allow female students to play in his orchestra because women should keep silent? Or refused to allow them to play the cello because his religious beliefs made him think that it was immodest for women to do so?

Would we even be having this as a serious discussion right now?

“I’m being compelled to encourage students in what I believe is something that’s a dangerous lifestyle,” Kluge told the Indy Star last week.

So, if you felt that playing high school football was dangerous (something that legitimate medical evidence indicates), and you refused to allow students an excused absence from class for participating in that sport, even against school policy, would that be okay?

“I’m fine to teach students with other beliefs, but the fact that teachers are being compelled to speak a certain way is the scary thing.”

No, you are being asked to follow school district policy, which allows for a change of name (for transgender purposes) with approval of the parents and a health care professional.

Using their registered preferred name is not a religious burden. It’s, frankly, none of your business what name is registered in the school database, or why.

I’m sorry, Mr Kluge — your religious identity doesn’t get to trump a student’s personal identity (esp. as affirmed by their parents). That’s part of the respect that a teacher owes their students, even beyond district policy.

——

UPDATE: This newspaper article gives a bit more info According to it, Kluge had been referring to all students by their last name this year, to avoid having to say the particular student’s changed first name. It seems the district decided that wasn’t an adequate solution to the situation, but it’s also not clear we have all the facts here.

Things are further muddled by religious conservative groups swarming to Kluge’s defense, asserting, “”It appears that the real intolerance at Brownsburg High School lies in the hands of the administration against teachers who hold a sincere faith and a sacrificial love for their student.” It’s not clear in what way Mr. Kluge’s approach to this has resembled “sacrificial love.”

The religious groups have also stirred up trouble (of course) over the parts of the district policy that say a transgender student — again, this is after a parent and a health care professional have signed off on this — can use the restroom of their identified gender. Cue parents clutching their pearls and worried that some nefarious teen rapist will somehow go through the process of convincing his parents and doctor that he is actually a transwoman and to submit paperwork to the school district, solely to sneak into the girls’ bathroom. Because of course that would happen.




District approves resignation of Brownsburg teacher who refused to call trans students by preferred names
BROWNSBURG, Ind. – The Brownsburg Community School Corporation says the resignation of an orchestra teacher who refused to call transgender students by their preferred name has been approved.

The announcement was made at Monday night’s school board meeting, which teacher John Kluge was in attendance to try and rescind his resignation.

Original Post

SCOTUS rules in favor of the “Masterpiece” baker. Sort of.

This ruling is being crowed (from the right) or denounced (from the left) as something quite a bit larger than I think it will turn out to be in the long run. In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the baker in the Masterpiece bake shop case. The baker had refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, despite Colorado law saying that businesses could not discriminate based on sexual orientation.

But this isn’t a massive “religious freedom / bigotry trumps all else” ruling, as was being sought by the plaintiff’s deep-pocket supporters. The actual ruling is being described as “narrow” because it’s very dependent on the facts in this case, rather than being a new principle of law being established.

The court found that

  1. Yes, states can and should protect the civil rights of gay people, and can do so under the Constitution.
  2. The plaintiff’s religious beliefs do need to be taken into account, but were dismissed with hostility by the state commission that originally ruled against him.
  3. The plaintiff had a basis in 2012 — prior to Obergefell and the state okaying gay marriage — to believe that he was on defensible legal grounds in how he acted.
  4. The commission had ruled very differently in the case of bakers refusing to produce anti-gay cake decorations, declining to use some of the same rationales they made in those decisions in this one.

The court sort of leaves it open as to how to balanced sincere religious beliefs with Constitutionally permissible protection of individuals who might be discriminated against through those beliefs. That means we will likely see a lot more litigation around this matter. One thing the ruling points out is that showing hostility toward religious and philosophical beliefs (as commission members were shown to have done) makes it easier to stake a claim that religious freedom under the First Amendment is being violated. The court was able to find that the law was not being applied in a religiously neutral fashion, neither favoring nor disfavoring religious beliefs; the problem was not that the law itself was discriminatory, but the way the state commission went about applying it.

But the ruling also makes it clear that the current facts on the ground (esp. Obergefell) have changed things since this matter first came up (i.e., the questionable legality of same-sex marriage is not something a future business person can use as a defense). It also strongly affirmed that “the laws and the Constitution can, and in some instances must, protect gay persons and gay couples in the exercise of their civil rights.”

That’s not necessarily all a bad thing, even if the headlines around the case are disheartening.




Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case – CNNPolitics
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to bake a cake to celebrate the marriage of a same sex couple because of a religious objection.

Original Post