Religious Intolerance & Persecution | ***Dave Does the Blog

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.

The Banning of Segregation

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

Brown v. Board of Education—Supreme Court found segregated schools unconstitutional 65 years ago this week: pic.twitter.com/b2Li6CKViM
— Michael Beschloss (@BeschlossDC) May 13, 2019

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).

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

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?

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

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.

“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 Broadcasting, NBC, NY Magazine, The Hill, WaPo.

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

Yes, states can and should protect the civil rights of gay people, and can do so under the Constitution.
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.
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.
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

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+

John Bolton isn’t just a dolt, he’s a danger

At a time when we have no Secretary of State (and the State Dept. has been largely gutted and thrown to the curb anyway), this is the (hand-picked) person who’s advising Trump on diplomacy and the dangers of the world.

From 2013 until last month, Bolton was chairman of the Gatestone Institute, a New York-based advocacy group that warns of a looming “jihadist takeover” of Europe leading to a “Great White Death.”
The group has published numerous stories and headlines on its website with similar themes. “Germany Confiscating Homes to Use for Migrants,” warned one from May 2017, about a single apartment rental property in Hamburg that had gone into temporary trusteeship. Another from February 2015 claimed the immigrants, for instance Somalis, in Sweden were turning that country into the “Rape Capital of the West.”

Of course, it’s perhaps no surprise if all that would be considered a bonus to the President, whose personal national security policy often seems in the same orbit as Gatestone’s rhetoric. It’s certainly made Gatestone a popular retweeting and amplifying target of Russian trolls.

John Bolton presided over anti-Muslim think tank

View on Google+

For dark things cannot stand the light

Regardless of one’s assumptions regarding the various factions involved in the Palestinian protests and Israeli Army live fire response last Friday, the idea that not only is the Israel Army steadfastly refusing (with PM Netanyahu’s support) any sort of investigation of the shootings that left 18 dead, but the US government blocked even a symbolic Security Council resolution calling for an investigation and the right of peaceful protest, is appalling.

For Israel, there’s little political cost to killing Palestinians – The Washington Post
The violence highlighted the desperation of Palestinians and the impunity with which Israel can snuff out their lives.

View on Google+

A Very Breitbart Christmas

Yeah, I ran across that online store while pursuing some other information. I didn’t draw this particular connection, though (emphasis mine):

For years, Breitbart has repeatedly complained about the “war on Christmas” as if the most culturally dominant holiday in America was under attack. Now, it has encouraged its readers to do their Christmas shopping in an online store hawking goods that are starkly at odds with everything for which the holiday is supposed to stand. The website, like the president it loves, has put politics upstream of Christmas.

Something to consider as you hear people bemoaning the #WarOnChristmas — to what extent are the most fervently ostensible counter-warriors doing so in the spirit of what it is they are claiming to defend?

A Very Breitbart Christmas – The Atlantic
Breitbart is peddling holiday goods. But whatever happened to peace on earth and good will?

View on Google+

On the Obamas, the Trumps, and Christmas

Apparently there is a substantial population who believe that the Obamas banned the White House creche / Nativity display while they were in the White House, and that the words “Merry Christmas” were similarly forbidden, and that now the Trump White House has “liberated” both institutions.

They believe this despite the very clear and easily accessible documentation that it is simply untrue.

I Won’t Tolerate A ‘Different Viewpoint’ When It’s Based On Blatant Lies
A viewpoint based on verifiably false claims it is not worth my consideration. Period.

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+

Trump’s disdain for Native Americans isn’t limited to all the “Pocahontas” jabs

And he’s moving to express it with all available speed. After all, there’s Obama Era actions to undo, oil and gas interests to pay back, and environmentalists and minorities to torque off. The man’s on a schedule people!

…[T]the president will visit Salt Lake City, Utah, next Monday to announce that he’s shrinking national monuments of huge importance to Native Americans. Without visiting the monuments he’s targeted, Trump is expected to announce his decision on a review conducted by Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke. He reportedly told Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) that he will shrink the 1.35 million acres Bears Ears and 1.9 million acres Grand Staircase-Escalante monuments to a fraction of their original sizes.

More specifically, Bears Ears will be cut to 100,000 to 300,000 acres; Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument will be shrunk in half, to between 700,000 and 1.2 million acres.

But take the long view, folks. I’m sure that when coal, oil, and gas interests are done, and other business interests have had their go at the territory, everyone will agree that the areas outside the redrawn monuments won’t be worth preserving.

After insulting Native Americans, Trump goes after their sacred land
Ancient rock carvings, burial grounds, and ceremonial sites are all at stake.

View on Google+

When “religious freedom” is “freedom to oppress other religious opinions”

Yes, who is truly surprised that Donald Trump — a man with few truly definable religious opinions — is more than happy to garner political support by nominating a theocratic zany to the federal bench?

“Religious Freedom” Proponent Jeff Mateer Is the Most Dangerous of Trump’s Judicial Nominees
Mateer defends businesses’ right to discriminate against minorities—while opposing laws that protect those minorities’ civil liberties.