Religious Zanies | ***Dave Does the Blog

Charlie Kirk should be forgotten, not lionized

Killing people is bad. “Nil nisi bonum” is also bad.

Charlie Kirk should not have been killed because killing humans is, as a rule, wrong and evil. There are arguable exceptions for that — self-defense against an immediately dangerous threat being the most accepted — but even then, killing should be taken seriously and not celebrated.

But that doesn’t mean he deserves (more than any other murder victim) a moment of prayer on the US House floor, or to have the US VP escort his body home on Air Force 2, or to be given Presidential Medals. Charlie Kirk was sorry, maliciouis, bellicose excuse for a human, and his message of grievance, contempt, and hatred will not be missed (if only because others will continue to shriek it).

Kirk hated — and would gleefully have seen unequalized, ghettoized, jailed, committed, or killed — racial and ethnic minorities, Jews and other non-Christians, LGBTQ folk, and more. His speech was hate speech, plain and simple, full of wishes for violence and oppression of those he loathed. Ironically, the use of violence to silence his opponents would be right on brand for him (another indicator of why it’s wrong).

Charlie Kirk should not have been killed, but he should, in any rational, civilized, and sane society have been ostracized. He deserves to sink into the silent cess pit of forgotten demagogues.

What $100 Million Ad Campaign Would Jesus Do?

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

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

This week, an alliance of Christian media ministries announced the launch of an extensive $100-million-dollar national ad campaign to share inspirational messages about Jesus Christ with “skeptics and seekers.”
The “He Gets Us” campaign features stark ads with messages such as “Jesus was homeless,” “Jesus suffered anxiety,” and “Jesus was in broken relationships.” They direct people to a website where they’re then connected to national ministries and local congregations.

As an example …

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

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

Starting in April 2021, a representative sample of 5,000 U.S. adults answered an online survey designed by Haven, followed by additional quantitative polling and interview-style qualitative research. […]
Skeptics of Christianity represent one-fourth of the U.S. population, according to the research. Half of them, “especially those with children,” are open to learning about Jesus, if obstacles can be overcome, Haven states. The biggest obstacle: Jesus’ message has been distorted as “hate-filled.”
Based on these insights, Haven’s goals became to “communicate that Jesus is for everyone and is a worthy example to live by”—and that his teachings are “positive for society as a whole.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And They’ll Know We Are Christians by Our Love

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

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

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

Two stories I ran across today. First:

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

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

“Here’s how it should work. It shouldn’t work when we go out and we enforce the laws, because the Bible says the powers that be are ordained of God and God has instilled the power of civil government to send the police in 2019 out to these LGBT freaks and arrest them,” Fritts said in his June 2 sermon.
“Have a trial for them, and if they are convicted then they are to be put to death … do you understand that? It’s a capital crime to be carried out by our government.”

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

The next headline is relatively innocuous in its text …

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

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

There’s Steven Anderson, who celebrated the [Pulse Nightclub] massacre as soon as it happened because there were “50 less pedophiles in this world.” He added that he’s “not gonna sit here and cry about it and say it’s a tragedy, because it’s not.” He’s also said if he could push a button and kill every homosexual, he would “push it until it breaks.”
There’s Roger Jimenez, who said the worst thing about the massacre was that the shooter “didn’t finish the job.” He also longed for the government to round up all the gay people, “put them up against a firing wall, put a firing squad in front of them, and blow their brains out.”
There’s Tommy McMurtry, who wishes we could go back to the time when society put gay people in their place: “six feet under.”
[…] The man hosting the conference is Patrick Boyle of Revival Baptist Church in Orlando, so it’s presumably at his church or somewhere close by. Boyle, by the way, insists he’s just echoing the Bible when he says gay people “are worthy of death.”

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

Three points.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“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

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

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

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

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

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

He also provided letters from doctors.

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

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

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

Apparently the Texas Judicial Commission disagreed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“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.

Because being Muslim apparently means you can’t be Republican

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

GOP Activists Want To Purge Local Official For Being Muslim

Original Post

The Convenience of Considering Correlation to be Causation

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

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

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

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

Original Post

Ideals, pragmatism, and the evolving GOP vote

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Original Post

On the GOP Scriptural Dedication to the Law and Government

Remember when Kim Davis refused to issue gay marriage licenses and Republicans were all like “You can’t do that! The Bible says to obey government law!”
— Jess Dweck (@TheDweck) June 15, 2018

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

❝The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.
An evil soul producing holy witness
Is like a villain with a smiling cheek,
A goodly apple rotten at the heart:
O, what a goodly outside falsehood hath!❞
— William Shakespeare (1564-1616) English dramatist and poet. The Merchant of Venice

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

Original Post

What’s in a name?

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

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

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

But. Dude.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

——

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

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

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

District approves resignation of Brownsburg teacher who refused to call trans students by preferred names
BROWNSBURG, Ind. – The Brownsburg Community School Corporation says the resignation of an orchestra teacher who refused to call transgender students by their preferred name has been approved.
The announcement was made at Monday night’s school board meeting, which teacher John Kluge was in attendance to try and rescind his resignation.

Original Post

If the Socialism fits …

Because clearly Jesus was wildly in favor of offshore tax havens.

If Fox and Varney & Co. Aren’t careful in their tone-deaf, knee-jerk denunciations, people might actually begin to associate “socialism” with positive things, like caring for the poor and powerless.

Fox attacks Pope Francis for making “authoritarian socialism … part of Catholic doctrine”
Stuart Varney: Pope Francis’ denunciation of offshore tax havens suggests “we now believe that authoritarian socialism is part of Catholic doctrine”

View on Google+

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+

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 Saga of the Ashen Weasel

John Oliver takes aim at Mike Pence … and some hopping book sales.

Pence remains the primary (meaning sole) reason for wanting Trump to stay in office.

[h/t +Kay Hill]

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+