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.

Small town evangelicals talk about why they support Trump

He offers them power against the scary cultural tide

Fascinating, disappointing, interesting, and concerning article, talking with people in Sioux Center, Iowa, where Donald Trump gave his famous “Fifth Avenue” shooting comment during his 2016 campaign, but where he also promised his evangelical Christian audience that, under his presidency, “Christianity will have power.

“I will tell you, Christianity is under tremendous siege, whether we want to talk about it or we don’t want to talk about it,” Mr. Trump said.

Christians make up the overwhelming majority of the country, he said. And then he slowed slightly to stress each next word: “And yet we don’t exert the power that we should have.”

If he were elected president, he promised, that would change. He raised a finger.

“Christianity will have power,” he said. “If I’m there, you’re going to have plenty of power, you don’t need anybody else. You’re going to have somebody representing you very, very well. Remember that.”

What struck me in reading this was the irony that a religion whose founder was killed by those in power, and who taught the virtue demonstrated and grace given when refusal to compromise principle for power leads to persecution, has so many followers who just want to be the ones “in charge.” To have Caesar promise them power in exchange for their support at the ballots.

Not necessarily malicious power (though clearly there are some), but just comfortable power. Their scripture in all public places. The assumption that they are “normal”. Laws that adhere to their religious code. And those who aren’t of their belief, left on the margins, at best.

And if their perceived rights conflict with those of others? Women who want equal treatment, or those of other races, or sexual orientation or gender expression or religious faith? Well, the advantage of firmly believing God is on your side is that you don’t worry about others who don’t believe as you do. You can argue that you need the power to have the nation do what you want, but frame it as making sure someone isn’t oppressing you.

Explained Jason Mulder, who runs a small design company in Sioux Center: “I feel like on the coasts, in some of the cities and stuff, they look down on us in rural America. You know, we are a bunch of hicks, and don’t know anything. They don’t understand us the same way we don’t understand them. So we don’t want them telling us how to live our lives.”

One has to consider some are projecting concerns that they will find themselves being treated as poorly on the margins as Jews, or Muslims, or atheists, etc.

The irony is that the nation’s history shows that when Christianity “has power,” it turns on itself as much as on those outside. Along racial lines. Wealth lines. Most importantly doctrinal lines. Catholic vs Protestant. Evangelicals of different flavors. James Madison grew up seeing Baptists tarred and feathered, which led to his pressing for protections against the church being entangled with the state.

When Christians “have power,” it’s not all Christians, ever.

“Obama wanted to take my assault rifle, he wanted to take out all the high-capacity magazines,” Mr. Schouten said. “It just —”

“— felt like your freedoms kept getting taken from you,” said Heather’s husband, Paul, finishing the sentence for him.

Is Christianity “under siege”? Well, it’s losing numbers. And it’s losing (to coin a phrase) the “special rights” of being the assumed norm, of having the presumed power when push comes to shove, of having its values be the values everyone has to adhere to (in theory).

And, weird thing, as that norm has faded, some people in some groups who have been pushed around by Christians following what they think is Christian doctrine, when they get a chance, they speak out. They verbally attack Christianity. Sometimes they push back, too.

She worried that the school might be forced to let in students who were not Christian, or hire teachers who were gay.

“Silly things. Just let the boys go in the boys’ bathroom and the girls go in the girls’,” he said. “It’s just something you’d think is never going to happen, and nowadays it could. And it probably will.”

“Just hope nobody turns it upside down,” he said.

“But we feel like we are in a little area where we are protected yet,” she said. “We are afraid of losing that, I guess.”

And it all feels so much like a zero-sum game. That the only way for someone to get freedoms, liberty, rights, is to take them from someone who already has them. The idea of rights being a universal pool to which only some people have been invited, and that those people were now insisting on their fair share … doesn’t matter to them, maybe because they don’t know or acknowledge some of the groups insisting on their freedom, liberty, rights.

The years of the Obama presidency were confusing to her. She said she heard talk of giving freedoms to gay people and members of minority groups. But to her it felt like her freedoms were being taken away. And that she was turning into the minority.

“I do not love Trump. I think Trump is good for America as a country. I think Trump is going to restore our freedoms, where we spent eight years, if not more, with our freedoms slowly being taken away under the guise of giving freedoms to all,” she said. “Caucasian-Americans are becoming a minority. Rapidly.”

But if Christianity is diminishing in the US, it’s not because of those attacks. It’s not because of Hollywood, or liberals, or Satan whispering in the wings. It’s ultimately because Christians, in all their different flavors, are not being persuasive that theirs is the better way, the right way. That the salvation they trust is coming, and the peace and joy they claim to feel in their lives, and the righteousness of their cause, is worth it as a belief system and lifestyle.

Taking a shortcut by having power in secular terms doesn’t seem to fit into any of the New Testament teachings I can find. And the more they grasp at that, the more they drive people away,

They want America to be a Christian nation for their children. “We started out as a Christian nation,” she said.

“You can’t make people do these things,” he said. “But you can try to protect what you’ve got, you might say.”

One might think, if this were simply a matter of faith, the folk talked with here would be focused on their beliefs and their relationship with God. They would bear the insults and slights as signs that they’re doing something right. (They might also consider any justice of the accusations against them, but one step at a time).

Instead, what we hear about is all about Us and Them, and fear, and discomfort, and change, and Donald being the guy who will Restore Our Power, take away the insecurity, the questioning, the (gasp) marginalization, the laws and culture that say they’re “wrong” or “silly” or “hurtful.” He’ll keep them safe, their religious schools pure, their bathrooms binary, their neighborhoods white … just like they’ve always been.

“Trump’s an outsider, like the rest of us,” he said. “We might not respect Trump, but we still love the guy for who he is.”

“Is he a man of integrity? Absolutely not,” he went on. “Does he stand up for some of our moral Christian values? Yes.”

The guys agreed. “I’m not going to say he’s a Christian, but he just doesn’t attack us,” his friend Jason Mulder said.

It’s a transactional scam on Donald’s part — he’s no more pro-Christian than my cat is — but they don’t see it, or they don’t care. They’re terrified, they feel that power, power from the modern Caesar, is the only cultural salvation for them in the short run, and they don’t care what it is costing them in the long run.

Tweetizen Trump – 2019-10-07 – “My Great and Unmatched Wisdom”

Trump’s betrayal of the Kurds is just another step in dismantling US foreign policy and reputation

And when people ask, “Why do other countries not trust or like the US,” it’s because we pull shit like this.

That’s the US telling Turkey, “Hey, you feel free to go in and attack the Kurds that we convinced to disarm because we would protect them while they helped us fight ISIS, but you guys have always (and not without some reason) considered them terrorists and know that the Kurds have aspired for an independent state for over a century, so, hey, it’s all yours, we’re out of here because nobody’s paying us to be here.”

In the face of people worried about the folk we took under our wing and promised to protect, Donald was right there with a more egomaniacal statement than is normal even for him.

“In my great and unmatched wisdom.”

Humility has never been one of Donald Trump’s strong points. Though usually even he doesn’t end up writing like one of Kim Jong Un’s publicists.

It’s also a laughable way to try to disarm grave and bipartisan concerns (heck, even Lindsey and Mitch seeming peeved) about his throwing our Kurdish allies once more to the wolves.

(I can imagine the Senate GOP actually using this as a cover to convict on Trump if they need to, even if it’s not one of the Articles of Impeachment. I can also imagine them using it as a cover to say, “How dare you suggest I am a lackey of Donald Trump? Look, I expressed sincere reservations about his Syrian policy, even though I didn’t really do anything about it.”

I’m sure the Trump Tower Istanbul has nothing to do with Trump’s caving to Erdogan’s desires to wipe out the Kurdish areas in Syria. And I’m equally certain Trump’s threat to “totally destroy and obliterate the Economy of Turkey” is as empty as … well, when he … did it before? (When was that, precisely, and how long did it take Turkey to recover in the last three years?)

Trump’s casual assertion that the US “captured 100% of the ISIS Caliphate” would probably irk some of those allies that assisted at great cost, like the Kurds, if they weren’t facing an attack from a Turkey that has longed to destroy their separatist aspirations.

(I’ve been reading a history of the post-WWI Paris Peace Talks, and it’s probably only one of those weird coincidences of history that it was a century ago this year that the West sold out the Kurds to the Turks, too.)

Finally, as Donald takes some well-deserved mockery for the ego, pomposity, and zaniness that is involved in referring to one’s “great and unmatched wisdom” ….

(Also waiting for the Trump fanatics to say, “Well,  you know, he is pretty darned wise!”)

Meanwhile, the one thing Donald is probably not worried about:

He’s not worried because Pat and his Christianist cronies have been more than happy to support Donald up to the gills, regardless of what he’s done, in order to get all the juicy anti-abortion, anti-gay, pro-religious-freedom-trumps-everything laws and regulations and Justice Dept., and they’re not about to actually turn on him now.

 

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.

Alabama’s draconian abortion law made one unanticipated demographic happy: rapists

And the state’s done the minimum amount to fix that.

Alabama has been an outlier in the US for allowing rapists to assert parental rights — child custody, visitation, etc. — over the offspring their assaults result in.

That particular bit of local charm slipped lawmakers’ minds when Alabama gleefully passed its new anti-abortion law, which provides no exception for cases of rape. The state legislature has since had to scramble to put some sort of provision into state law to deal with the presumed increased number of cases where women who are raped are forced to carry their baby to full term … and then potentially forced to associate with their rapists for the next couple of decades.

Scramble they did, and now Alabama will prevent that from happening. Kind of. Sometimes. Maybe. Their new “Jessi’s Law” only allows a court to terminate or restrict parental rights of rapists when there’s a conviction for first degree rape or incest.

Given the dramatic underreporting of rape, and the low numbers of convictions even when reported, that dependency on conviction makes it a minor comfort indeed.

And the limitation to first degree rape means second degree sexual assaults — which includes statutory rape — are excluded from the law. So when Mom’s skeevy boyfriend assaults and impregnates her 13-year-old daughter, he can still ask for parental rights for the baby (or, more likely, threaten to do so to get them to drop any possible charges).

Huzzah for family values!

Do you want to know more? Alabama Banned Abortions. Then Its Lawmakers Remembered Rapists Can Get Parental Rights. – Mother Jones

The End of Marriage in Alabama (not really)

Dropping most state marriage paperwork is a good thing for sketchy reasons.

Alabama is ending state marriage licenses and ceremony requirements. File an affidavit and you’re hitched. Apparently a way to keep some judges from getting pissy about having to issue same-sex marriage licenses, but whatever.
https://t.co/fa7mfaiVwY

So this is kind of interesting. Alabama has been still struggling with government workers — probate judges in particular — refusing to sign marriage licenses for same-sex couples, even though it’s been established as  completely legal. Somehow they feel they are going to get sodomy cooties or something by “participating” in a marriage between two people of the same gender, even though there’s no sign that they do any similar vetting of all the other marriages they are willing to sign off on.

(Judicial signing of a marriage license indicates that it is a lawful marriage, not necessarily a moral one or praiseworthy one or attractive one or one that meets one’s interpretation of God’s approval. If the latter were the case, I would expect a whole lot fewer marriages, and a lot less patience for judges.)

Current Alabama law only says that a judge may sign licenses, so county probate judges who object to gay folk getting married have been refusing to sign any licenses, meaning people are sometimes forced to drive to another county to get their paperwork done, regardless of their sexual orientation.

Ew! Gay wedding cake cooties!

Rather than telling people to do their job or get fired for it, Alabama is pulling an end run: they’re getting rid of marriage licenses and compulsory marriage ceremonies altogether. Now nobody has to “sign off” on a marriage except the participants.

That’s actually not a bad thing, even if it’s for, um, dubious reasons. Couples wanting to marry will now need only sign an affidavit that they are legal to do so. Zip-zoom, you may kiss your partner. No judges required to sign on the license. No officiant “solemnizing” and signing off that they witnessed the ceremony as an official witness. Like any other legal contract (which, from the perspective of the state, marriage is), the participants sign on the dotted line and it’s done.

It’s expected most folk will still want a wedding ceremony of some sort — gloom and doom predictions about the death of the marriage industry in Alabama seem wildly exaggerated to me. And now those probate judges who don’t want to sully their fingers dealing with Those People and Their Unholy Alliances (at least until there are wills to be probated) can remain ritually pure and pretend to virtue.

Would you like to know more?

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.

“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.

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

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

A particular welcome to Colorado

There’s a new billboard along I-70 near the Utah-Colorado border.

Welcome to Colorado

The billboard was paid for by ProgressNow Colorado as part of their Keep Abortion Safe project, and is addressed to the not-insubstantial number of Utah women crossing the state border for abortion services that are not readily available in their home state. And, perhaps, it’s just a reminder to returning Colorado citizens the legal protections they enjoy.

Source

[h/t Stan]

Let them not eat cake

Another day, another Colorado businessman who decides that providing professional services to a wedding he doesn’t approve of should let him ignore state anti-discrimination law. In this case, it’s a photographer / videographer deciding not to take pictures at a legal wedding between two women.

“He asked, ‘What’s your fiancée’s name?’ And I said, ‘Amanda.’ And I could tell he kind of paused on the phone, but I thought he was maybe jotting down notes,” said Suhyda. “Then I l got to work and looked at my email.”

The email from Media Mansion stated, “Unfortunately, at this time, we are not serving the LGBTQ community!”

“With an exclamation point,” said Suhyda. “Kind of like a punch in the gut.”

First off, class act turning them down by email. With an odd “Unfortunately” (why “unfortunately” when it’s your decision?), and phrasing it as some sort of tribal group thing (they weren’t asking him to serve their “community,” but them as individuals).

To make matters worse, on Media Mansion’s Facebook page, the owner posted a letter stating the company would by happy to work with the LGBTQ community on business videos, but not film “gay ceremonies or engagements,” citing “personal religious beliefs.”

I guess it’s okay to help them make money to support their sinful lifestyle, just not to take pictures of their wedding.

Meanwhile, Benjamin Hostetter, the owner of Media Mansion, said he is not discriminating against anyone, but has turned down more than one gay couple.

Um … isn’t that sort of the definition of “discriminating”?

“It really like just kind of exploded, and everyone just kind of assumed that we hate gay people, which is sad,” said Hostetter.

Yeah, I mean, what could possibly make them think you hate them?

“I have friends who are gay, and if they want to hang out and me to do a video for them, it’s totally cool. But specifically doing a project that would be against my beliefs in anything regardless of what the specifics of it is not something I want to engage in.”

They aren’t asking you to get married to a same-sex individual, Benjamin. They aren’t even asking you to officiate. They’re asking you to take pictures.

Identifying himself as Christian, he said he is not judging anyone, …

Uh, yeah, you kind of are.

… but he is writing a book about “family, covenant, sex and marriage” and has strong beliefs about the covenant of marriage. “I believe it has to do with family and producing healthy families,” said Hostetter. “I don’t think there’s a lot of good evidence out there that two men or two women can come together and have a really amazing effective family that is good and is everlasting.”

So, first off, yes, that sounds exactly like both “judging” and “discriminating.”

Second, one has to wonder how much you grill the opposite-sex couples who come to you to get married. Do you have a checklist of things you go over with them to make sure that they are treating the “covenant of marriage” as seriously as you are? Are you a pre-marriage counselor to them? Do you talk with their pastors? How are you confirming that when Bob and Sue come in that there is any evidence that they will have “a really amazing effective family that is good and is everlasting” so that you can feel religiously okay about taking pictures at their wedding?

And who else should be allowed to make that judgment? If someone believes that, say, black marriages are more transitory because of [fill in stereotypes about black men and black women here], and so doesn’t believe that a marriage between two black people is likely to be “good and everlasting” and properly “covenential” — do they get to discriminate against black customers, too?

I don’t doubt your religious sincerity, Benjamin — but I’m really not sure how you draw a line here that lets you say that your particular religious beliefs get to trump the law, but any other zany beliefs from the bad old days of legal racial discrimination, religious discrimination, gender discrimination, age discrimination, etc., don’t get to do so as well.

Let’s hope the state board that reviews these violations of the anti-discrimination law does a bit better job this time of providing a non-hostile atmosphere in doing so, since that was the primary objection in the SCOTUS ruling in the Masterpiece Bakery. I wish them luck, because it’s difficult for me to hear these kind of arguments without feeling sort of hostile about it myself.

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

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…

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

A look at Mike Pence and “Exiled” American Evangelicals

A fascinating article in Harpers about the focus by many in the US Evangelical Christian community on the Babylonian Exile of the Jews as a metaphor for what they see as their own marginalization by American secular / multi-cultural society. This is important in how that focus drives the Vice President, and how it provides cover for Donald Trump, who’s seen as Cyrus the Persian Emperor by folk in this camp: Sure, he’s a brutal pagan whose ways are ungodly, but he’s God’s selected tyrant, destined under the guidance of our Daniel [i.e., Pence] to free us and restore God’s own kingdom of Chosen People.

It’s a very Old Testament mental framework, and helps explain why so many Evangelicals seem to be so gung-ho over a guy who strikes me as about as un-Christ-like as one can get. It’s because they’re focused on the highly-supported white-haired Daniel beside him as their last, best, and clearly anointed hope.

(Alternately, if you are looking for a more old-school conservative view of Pence, you might want to check out George Will’s latest column, which concludes: “Trump is what he is, a floundering, inarticulate jumble of gnawing insecurities and not-at-all compensating vanities, which is pathetic. Pence is what he has chosen to be, which is horrifying.”)




[Essay] | Exiled, by Meghan O’Gieblyn | Harper’s Magazine
Mike Pence and the evangelical fantasy of persecution

View on Google+

In the words of Martin Luther King

On the 50th anniversary of his assassination. Via WIST:

I must confess, my friends, the road ahead will not always be smooth. There will be still rocky places of frustration and meandering points of bewilderment. There will be inevitable setbacks here and there. There will be those moments when the buoyancy of hope will be transformed into the fatigue of despair. Our dreams will sometimes be shattered and our ethereal hopes blasted. We may again with tear-drenched eyes have to stand before the bier of some courageous civil rights worker whose life will be snuffed out by the dastardly acts of bloodthirsty mobs. Difficult and painful as it is, we must walk on in the days ahead with an audacious faith in the future.
— “Where Do We Go From Here?” Southern Christian Leadership Conference (1967)

A nation that continues year after year to spend more on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual doom.
— “Beyond Vietnam,” speech, Clergy and Laity Concerned, Riverside Church, New York City (4 Apr 1967)

“Which of them shall be accounted greatest?” Let the churches stop trying to outstrip each other in the number of their adherents, the size of its sanctuary, the abundance of wealth. If we must compete let us compete to see which can move toward the greatest attainment of truth, the greatest service of the poor, and the greatest salvation of the soul and bodies of men. If the Church entered this kind of competition we can imagine what a better world this would be.
— “Cooperative Competition / Noble Competition,” sermon outline

We must meet hate with love. We must meet physical force with soul force. There is still a voice crying out through the vista of time, saying: “Love your enemies , bless them that curse you, pray for them that despitefully use you.” Then, and only then, can you matriculate into the university of eternal life. That same voice cries out in terms lifted to cosmic proportions: “He who lives by the sword will perish by the sword.” And history is replete with the bleached bones of nations that failed to follow this command. We must follow nonviolence and love.
— “Give Us the Ballot,” Speech, Prayer Pilgrimage for Freedom, Washington, DC (1957)

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slaveowners will be able to sit together at the table of brotherhood; that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
— “I Have a Dream,” speech, Washington, DC (28 Aug 1963)

Segregation is a cancer in the body politic which must be removed before our democratic health can be realized. The underlying philosophy of segregation is diametrically opposed to the underlying philosophy of democracy and Christianity and all the sophisms of the logicians cannot make them lie down together.
— “Keep Moving from This Mountain,” Spelman College (10 Apr 1960)

We cannot in all good conscience obey your unjust laws, because noncooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good. Throw us in jail, and we shall still love you. Bomb our homes and threaten our children, and we shall still love you. Send your hooded perpetrators of violence into our community at the midnight hour and beat us and leave us half dead, and we shall still love you. But be ye assured that we will wear you down by our capacity to suffer. One day we shall win freedom, but not only for ourselves. We shall so appeal to your heart and conscience that we shall win you in the process, and our victory will be a double victory.
— “Loving Your Enemies,” sermon, Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, Montgomery (17 Nov 1957)

This simply means that there is some good in the worst of us and some evil in the best of us. When we discover this, we are less prone to hate our enemies. When we look beneath the surface, beneath the impulsive evil deed, we see within our enemy-neighbor a measure of goodness and know that the viciousness and evilness of his acts are not quite representative of all that he is. We see him in a new light. We recognize that his hate grows out of fear, pride, ignorance, prejudice, and misunderstanding, but in spite of this, we know God’s image is ineffably etched in being. Then we love our enemies by realizing that they are not totally bad and that they are not beyond the reach of God’s redemptive love.
— “Loving Your Enemies,” Sermon, Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, Montgomery (25 Dec 1957)

As long as there is poverty in the world I can never be rich, even if I possess a billion dollars. As long as millions of people are inflicted with debilitating diseases and cannot expect to live more than thirty-five years, I can never be totally healthy even if I receive a perfect bill of health from Mayo Clinic. Strangely enough, I can never be what I ought to be until you are what you ought to be.
— “Remaining Awake through a Great Revolution,” Commencement Speech, Morehouse College, Atlanta (2 Jun 1959)

It may well be that we will have to repent in this generation. Not merely for the vitriolic words and the violent actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence and indifference of the good people who sit around and say, “Wait on time.”
— “Remaining Awake Through a Great Revolution,” sermon, National Cathedral, Washington, DC (31 Mar 1968)

It may well be that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition is not the glaring noisiness of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. It may be that our generation will have repent not only for the diabolical actions and vitriolic words of the children of darkness, but also for the crippling fears and tragic apathy of the children of light.
— “The Christian Way of Life in Human Relations,” speech, General Assembly of the National Council of Churches, St Louis (4 Dec 1957)

Any church that violates the “whosoever will, let him come” doctrine is a dead, cold church, and nothing but a little social club with a thin veneer of religiosity.
— “The Drum Major Instinct,” sermon, Ebenezer Baptist Church, Atlanta (4 Feb 1968)

And so Jesus gave us a new norm of greatness. If you want to be important — wonderful. If you want to be recognized — wonderful. If you want to be great — wonderful. But recognize that he who is greatest among you shall be your servant. That’s a new definition of greatness. And this morning, the thing that I like about it: by giving that definition of greatness, it means that everybody can be great, because everybody can serve. You don’t have to have a college degree to serve. You don’t have to make your subject and your verb agree to serve. You don’t have to know about Plato and Aristotle to serve. You don’t have to know Einstein’s theory of relativity to serve. You don’t have to know the second theory of thermodynamics in physics to serve. You only need a heart full of grace, a soul generated by love. And you can be that servant.
— “The Drum Major Instinct,” sermon, Ebenezer Baptist Church, Atlanta (4 Feb 1968)

The time is always right to do what’s right.
— “The Future of Integration” Finney Chapel, Oberlin College (22 Oct 1964)

It may be true that morality cannot be legislated, but behavior can be regulated. It may be true that the law cannot change the heart but it can restrain the heartless. It may be true that the law can’t make a man love me, but it can restrain him from lynching me, and I think that’s pretty important also.
— “The Other America,” speech, Stanford U. (1967)

A riot is the language of the unheard.
— “The Other America,” speech, Stanford U. (1967)

In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.
— “The Trumpet of Conscience,” Steeler Lecture (Nov 1967)

We must honestly admit that capitalism has often left a gulf between superfluous wealth and abject poverty, has created conditions permitting necessities to be taken from the many to give luxuries to the few, and has encouraged smallhearted men to become cold and conscienceless so that, like Dives before Lazarus, they are unmoved by suffering, poverty-stricken humanity. The profit motive, when it is the sole basis of an economic system, encourages cutthroat competiotion and selfish ambition that inspire men to be more I-centered than thou-centered.
— “Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community?” ch. 3 (1967)

The gospel at its best deals with the whole man, not only his soul but his body, not only his spiritual well-being, but his material well being. Any religion that professes to be concerned about the souls of men and is not concerned about the slums that damn them, the economic conditions that strangle them and the social conditions that cripple them is a spiritually moribund religion awaiting burial.
Pilgrimage to Non-Violence (1960)

The church must be reminded that it is not the master or the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state. It must be the guide and the critic of the state, and never its tool. If the church does not recapture its prophetic zeal, it will become an irrelevant social club without moral or spiritual authority.
Strength to Love (1963)

The saving of our world from pending doom will come, not through the complacent adjustment of the conforming majority, but through the creative maladjustment of a nonconforming minority.
Strength to Love, 2.3 (1963)

Men often hate each other because they fear each other; they fear each other because they don’t know each other; they don’t know each other because they can not communicate; they can not communicate because they are separated.
Stride Toward Freedom: The Montgomery Story (1958)

True peace is not merely the absence of tension; It is the presence of justice.
Stride Toward Freedom: The Montgomery Story, ch. 2 (1958)

To accept passively an unjust system is to cooperate with that system; thereby the oppressed become as evil as the oppressor. Non-cooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good. The oppressed must never allow the conscience of the oppressor to slumber. Religion reminds every man that he is his brother’s keeper. To accept injustice or segregation passively is to say to the oppressor that his actions are morally right. It is a way of allowing his conscience to fall asleep. At this moment the oppressed fails to be his brother’s keeper. So acquiescence — while often the easier way — is not the moral way. It is the way of the coward.
Stride Toward Freedom, ch. 11 “Three Ways of Meeting Oppression” (1958)

Now the judgment of God is upon us, and we must either learn to live together as brothers, or perish together as fools.
The Trumpet of Conscience (1967)

The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate. So it goes. Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.
Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community? (1967)

We are called to play the good Samaritan on life’s roadside; but that will be only an initial act. One day the whole Jericho road must be transformed so that men and women will not be beaten and robbed as they make their journey through life. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar; it understands that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring.
Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community? ch. 3 (1967)

To ignore evil is to become an accomplice to it.
Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community? 3.2 (1967)

If our nation had done nothing more in its whole history than to create just two documents, its contribution to civilization would be imperishable. The first of these documents is the Declaration of Independence and the other is that which we are here to honor tonight, the Emancipation Proclamation. All tyrants, past, present and future, are powerless to bury the truths in these declarations, no matter how extensive their legions, how vast their power and how malignant their evil.
— Emancipation Proclamation Centennial Address, New York City (12 Sep 1962)

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.
— Letter from Birmingham Jail (16 Apr 1963)

In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.
— Letter from Birmingham Jail (16 Apr 1963)

We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words and actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence of the good people. We must come to see that human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability. It comes through the tireless efforts and persistent work of men willing to be co-workers with God, and without this hard work time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation. We must use time creatively, and forever realize that the time is always ripe to do right.
— Letter from Birmingham Jail (16 Apr 1963)

I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will.
— Letter from Birmingham Jail (16 Apr 1963)

We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was “well timed” in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word “Wait!” It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This “Wait” has almost always meant “Never.” We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that “justice too long delayed is justice denied.”
— Letter from Birmingham Jail (16 Apr 1963)

We are challenged on every hand to work untiringly to achieve excellence in our lifework. Not all men are called to specialized or professional jobs; even fewer rise to the heights of genius in the arts and sciences; many are called to be laborers in factories, fields and streets. But no work is insignificant. All labor that uplifts should be undertaken with painstaking excellence. If a man is called to be a street sweeper he should sweep streets even as Michelangelo painted, or Beethoven composed music, or Shakespeare wrote poetry. He should sweep streets so well that all the hosts of heaven and earth will pause to say “Here lived a great street sweeper who did his job well.”
— Sermon, New Covenant Baptist Church, Chicago (9 Apr 1967)

It is all right to tell a man to lift himself up by his own bootstraps, but it is a cruel jest to say to a bootless man that he ought to lift himself up by his own bootstraps.
— Sermon, Passion Sunday, National Cathedral (31 Mar 1968)

With Selma and the voting rights bill one era of our struggle came to a close and a new era came into being. Now our struggle is for genuine equality, which means economic equality. For we know that it isn’t enough to integrate lunch counters. What does it profit a man to be able to eat at an integrated lunch counter if he doesn’t earn enough money to buy a hamburger and a coup of coffee?
— Speech to Striking Sanitation Workers, Memphis, Tennessee (18 Mar 1968)

Less than a century ago, the laborer had no rights, little or no respect, and led a life which was socially submerged and barren. He was hired and fired by economic despots whose power over him decreed his life or death. […] American industry organized misery into sweatshops and proclaimed the right of capital to act without restraints and without conscience. […] The inspiring answer to this intolerable and dehumanizing existence was economic organization through trade unions. The worker became determined not to wait for charitable impulses to grow in his employer. He constructed the means by which fairer sharing of the fruits of his toil had to be given to him or the wheels of industry, which he alone turned, would halt and wealth for no one would be available.

This revolution within industry was fought bitterly by those who blindly believed their right to uncontrolled profits was a law of the universe, and that without the maintenance of the old order, catastrophe faced the nation. But history is a great teacher. Now everyone knows that the labor movement did not diminish the strength of the nation but enlarged it by raising the living standards of millions. Labor miraculously created a market for industry, and lifted the whole nation to undreamed-of levels of production. Those who today attack labor forget these simple truths, but history remembers them.
— Speech, AFL-CIO Convention, Miami (11 Dec 1961)

If a man hasn’t discovered something that he would die for, he isn’t fit to live.
Speech, Detroit (23 Jun 1963)

On some positions cowardice asks the question, “Is it safe?” Expediency asks the question, “Is it is politic?” Vanity asks the question, “Is it is popular?” But conscience asks the question, “Is it right?” There comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular but he must do it because conscience tells him it is right.
— Speech, Santa Rita, Calif., (14 Jan 1968)

Yes, if you want to say that I was a drum major, say that I was a drum major for justice. Say that I was a drum major for peace. I was a drum major for righteousness. And all of the other shallow things will not matter. I won’t have any money to leave behind. I won’t have the fine and luxurious things of life to leave behind. But I just want to leave a committed life behind.
— Sermon, Ebenezer Baptist Church (4 Feb 1968)

 

View on Google+

Trump drives through his military trans ban (again)

Because of course he is, regardless of evidence, or readiness, or military impact.

Because why not? He’s not the one who will be affected (or have to pay for any law suits). That will fall to the taxpayers.

And, of course, there’s the Friday night timing for the ban. It’s usually the time chosen to avoid interfering with or distracting from the week’s activities, or else to fly under the news radar. But this week was a hot mess for the Administration’s news cycle, and this particular announcement isn’t going to vanish over the weekend.

Nor do I expect it to stand, in the long run. But in the meantime, lives will be disrupted, the base gets some red meat, culture wars can be rekindled, dogs can feel appropriately whistled, and the Administration can remind the electorate what they and the GOP stand for.




White House declares ban on transgender people serving in military | US news | The Guardian

View on Google+

The tragedy of the persecution of American Christians

The tragedy is that it doesn’t exist, but some Christians in the US are convinced it does.

Speaking as both an American and a Christian, here’s what I see.

Christians do still hold tremendous power in this country. They hold positions of influence. They have tremendous privilege. The national holidays, the public symbols, the social structure is all built around Christian traditions and Christian values and Christians beliefs.

But …

Some of that is changing. Christians are being told there are other people who want to sit at the table. Not just the Jews (who were, sometimes, tolerated), but Muslims. Hindus. Buddhists. And, heck, people who don’t believe at all.

And Christians aren’t automatically deferred to, or respected, or treated as not just the norm but the core of what it means to be American. People make jokes about Christians. People want other holidays off. People question whether churches should be tax exempt. People question Christian teachings on things like divorce, or abortion, or sex, or the role of women, or homosexuality, or the origin of the universe, or the existence of God.

Sure, there are a lot of Christians who have little to no problem with those things But the Christians who are most certain that they are the True Christians, the Real Christians, the Ones Christ Would Feel Were Truly His Followers …

They’re not always the undisputed top dogs. They’re not the center of respect. They can’t simply assert their opinion (God’s opinion!) as to what is Right and what is Wrong and expect it to be followed.

And that fall from complete, utter, and total social hegemony is perceived as … persecution.

“I don’t get to shun and fire and refuse to serve immoral people any more.”

“I don’t get to put monuments to my religion in the public square any more.”

“I don’t get to have my prayers read in classrooms any more.”

“I don’t get to forbid stuff, and shame or imprison the folk who do forbidden things, any more.”

“I don’t automatically garner respect and deference for being the epitome of morality and righteousness any more.”

“I don’t get to assume everyone is a Christian, and that they are Baptized, and that they have Read the Bible, and that they Celebrate the Same Holidays as me, and that they Believe The Same Stuff I do any more.”

“I’m being persecuted.”

The word “privilege” gets tossed around a lot, and it makes a lot of people uncomfortable, but that’s exactly what this is: *Christian Privilege. And it’s being challenged. And some Christians simply cannot stand that.

Some Christians see any threat to their being Number One as being persecution. Some Christians see any challenge to their being the undisputed bosses of America as being persecution. Some Christians see criticism, jokes, disrespect, as being persecution.

Again, speaking as both an American and a Christian: suck it up, Buttercup.

Jesus didn’t promise any of his followers that they would be in charge of things here on Earth. He didn’t say that they would get a country that would follow all their religious dictates. He didn’t say that everyone would respect Christians, or treat them as the top dogs in society.

In fact, he pretty much said the opposite. And he said that was okay, at least according to the Bible.

Now, I’m not recommending that Christians should want to be persecuted. Or that any religious (or irreligious) group should be persecuted.

Heck, I’m not even saying that I don’t get peeved when people post stuff that says that Christians / Theists of Any Sort are deluded idiots who are responsible for all the ills of this world.

But that’s not persecution. That is, at best, a debate between worldviews, and, at worst, people being asshats. Being a Christian doesn’t threaten my job, doesn’t threaten my owning my home, threaten my kid being able to go to school, threaten my ability to go to church, doesn’t threaten my ability to vote or buy stuff or participate in society or eat in restaurants or stay out of jail. There are countries where that’s the case; this isn’t one of them.

Christians aren’t being persecuted in this country. They’re simply not the undisputed lords and masters. And, frankly, that bit of humility and need to actually sell the message of Christianity, vs. imposing it by rule of law and social diktat, is actually a good thing for Christians. Because, again, looking at the Bible, being the people in undisputed charge of things is not what Jesus recommended to his followers.




No, Christians do not face looming persecution in America – The Washington Post
The media should challenge conservative Christians on their politics of paranoia.

View on Google+

I guess being a theocrat is easier when you don’t understand the Constitution

The video here from an interview with Roy Moore spokesperson Ted Crockett is … both hysterical and deeply depressing. When asked why a Muslim shouldn’t be allowed to serve in Congress (as Moore has argued), Crockett notes that a good Muslim could not swear on the Bible, as someone is required to do to get into office.

And when Jake Tapper notes that, no, the Constitution does not require swearing in on a Bible, just taking an oath or affirmation however one can solemnly do so, Crockett sits there for several seconds, silent, until he argues that both he (as a previous elected official) and Donald Trump swore on a Bible, so clearly that’s the requirement.

It’s funny, but it’s also illustrative. It’s ignorance in action. It’s “well, everyone I know is that way, so that’s not only the normal way, it’s the only way.” It’s the sort of thing I would expect from a Moore supporter … and, sadly, too many other people.

For the record, here is the oath of office for the US Senate:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God. [1]

While the US Constitution gives the text for the President’s oath, it only says that other federal officials “shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this constitution.”  The original US Congress set as the oath “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States,” but in the Civil War era the rules were changed to expand the oath text to weed out Southern sympathizers. The current wording is defined in the US legal code.

None of this says anything about the Christian Bible, or being a Christian, or anything about the belief system of the person so swearing. Indeed, no holy book is required, as an office holder may simply “affirm” their vow (some Christians, for example, believe that swearing an oath is actually sinful). And it’s worth noting that Theodore Roosevelt did not use a Bible in 1901 when taking the oath, and both John Quincy Adams and Franklin Pierce swore on a book of law (as they were swearing on the Constitution).[23]

But apparently some people who seem to fetishize the US Constitution to use as a tool against others have no idea what it actually says.


[1] When given as an affirmation, rather than an oath, the phrase “so help me God” can be omitted, e.g., court officials.




Moore Spox Falls Silent When Told Bible Isn’t Required For Oaths Of Office
A spokesman for Alabama Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore’s campaign on Tuesday appeared dumbfounded when asked whether he knew that…

View on Google+