Trump is a Threat to Religious Freedom

For the record, I am no fan of Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., who I believe will prove harmful to the Democrat Party.  That said, recent attacks on her by Der  Trumpenführer further underscore the religious based bigotry that permeates Trump's view of Muslims and Islam.  Every religion seemingly has its dangerous extremists who hold animus towards those of other faiths (and sexual orientation), and Christianity is no exception.   Look no farther than the racists evangelicals who continue to support the morally reprehensible Trump. But Trump's attacks on Omar and Islam threaten a core value of the Founding Fathers who knew well the dangers of an established church and sought to protect religious freedom for all religious faiths. A column by former Republican Michael Gerson looks at why Trump's attacks on Islam are so dangerous and ultimately threaten the religious freedom on all Americans.  Here are highlights:

SO ANOTHER norm of public decency falls, like a historical building demolished to make way for one of Donald Trump's tasteless towers.

When the president of the United States goes after an American Muslim — in this case Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., who came to the U.S. as a Somali refugee — using images of the 9/11 attacks, it is cruel, frightening and dangerous in new ways.

It is cruel because Trump essentially delivered his political rant while standing on desecrated graves. The images he employed not only included burning buildings but burning human beings, drafted into a sad and sordid political ploy. Is nothing sacred to Trump? When said aloud, the question sounds like an absurdity. Trump has never given the slightest indication of propriety, respect or reverence. His narcissism leaves no room to honor other people or to honor other gods.

Now, the victims of violence are treated as villains in Trump's fictional version of global threats. On the strength of such calumnies, Trump has essentially destroyed America's asylum system.

This has led to a frightening state of affairs. By all the evidence, Trump is an anti-Muslim bigot. At one campaign event in 2015, a member of the audience stated, "We have a problem in this country; it's called Muslims." And he went on to ask, "When can we get rid of them?" Trump responded: "We're going to be looking at that and plenty of other things." Imagine a normal politician on the left or right being asked about the possibility of getting rid of all the Christians, or getting rid of all the Jews. They would likely use such a moment to clarify that they aren't, in fact, insanely prejudiced monsters. Trump used such a moment to affirm the instinct of mass deportation and to promise a range of other anti-Muslim actions.

Could this have been a slip of the tongue? No, it wasn't. Trump has a long history of animus — raw animus — against one of the Abrahamic faiths. He has said, "We're having problems with the Muslims." And: "There is a Muslim problem in the world." And: "Islam hates us."

He has claimed: "You have people coming out of mosques with hatred and death in their eyes." He once called for a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States." He has variously and publicly considered the closing of mosques, warrantless searches, and the creation of a national database to track Muslims. 

[Trump] The president claims to have seen "thousands and thousands" of American Muslims cheering on 9/11 when the towers fell — a lie and a libel. He attacked a Muslim Gold Star mother, claiming that she "wasn't allowed" to speak at the Democratic convention because of her faith — a lie and a libel. He has praised Gen. John Pershing for executing Muslim insurgents in the Philippines with bullets dipped in pig's blood — a historical myth, but a revealing fantasy of anti-Muslim war crimes.

This is not only rank religious bigotry; it is the attitude most likely to alienate some Muslims from American ideals and turn a dangerous few toward radicalism and violence.

None of this requires us to believe that Omar is a wise or thoughtful public figure. She isn't. She traffics in the worst anti-Semitic tropes. But Trump's perception of religious liberty as freedom only for the faiths he prefers is a potential threat to every religious group.

Religious freedom is either rigorously equal, or it becomes an instrument of those in power to favor or disfavor religions of their choice. And those believers who are currently in favor may someday discover what disfavor is like.

Christians Claiming “Religious Persecution” Are Actually Just “Selfish”

A column in the Dallas Morning News calls out Christofascist claiming that they are being persecuted and demanding "religious freedom" laws that would exempt them from public accommodation laws and non-discrimination laws and ordinance.  Surprisingly, the author is a Baptist pastor - it goes without saying that his church is NOT part of the Southern Baptist Convention.  And his message to Christofascists?  That they are selfish and guilty of behavior that is the antithesis of the Christian conduct.    From my experience, the author is 100% on target.  No one is more selfish and self-centered than the fundamentalist/evangelical Christian crowd.  If you want to see true Christian charity and behavior, the last place to look for it is in the churches of such modern day Pharisees.  Kudos to Wilshire Baptist Church in Dallas for rejecting the selfishness that now defines "conservative Christians."  Here are op-ed highlights:

Imagine this scenario: An evangelical Christian couple is planning their wedding and wants a cake for their reception from the best bakery in town. So they visit the Jewish baker to make arrangements but are greeted with bad news: "Sorry, we don't bake cakes for Christian weddings." Can you imagine the outcry in the Christian community?

Or how about this: You are involved in a horrific automobile accident near a small town and rushed by ambulance to the nearest hospital. You are taken to an emergency room to be treated by a doctor who first takes down vital demographic information, only to conclude: "I'm sorry. I'm a Muslim and my faith will not allow me to do the procedure you need to live. You'll have to wait until we can transport you to a larger hospital with other doctors." Again, can you imagine the outcry in the Christian community?

Or one more: Your best friend at work recommends a manicurist she loves, so you make an appointment. Upon arrival, you are made to feel unwelcome because everyone else there is lesbian, but you're not. The clear but unspoken message is that straight Christian women who don't condone same-sex relationships are not welcome here. How would you talk about that at your weekly Bible study group?

All these things happen in America today, but usually with the roles reversed or with different categories of people involved. Hearing these tales with a twist shines a light on how wrong they are. Things look different when you're the minority instead of the majority. Or at least, things should look different.

In most every contemporary instance of calls for additional legislation or presidential executive orders or city ordinances to address religious liberty concerns, Christians — and particularly the evangelical Christians from whence I have come — are presented as the aggrieved parties who desire additional protections to freely express their religious convictions. Seldom, however, does anyone stop to consider how it would feel for the shoe to be on the other foot. How might evangelical Christians see ourselves on the other side of the story, not as the persecuted but as potential persecutors? Would that make a difference in what we demand for ourselves?

One idea is to think about how the First Amendment in particular is a double-edged sword: What we expect of others, we must be willing to do ourselves.

And that, in case you've forgotten, is a decidedly Jewish and Christian idea. It was Jesus who said, quoting the Torah: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Of course, Jesus isn't the only one to have taught the Golden Rule; this idea of reciprocity permeates many cultures and teachings. But Christians, of all people, should understand the concept.

Contemporary calls for religious freedom legislation or presidential executive orders or city ordinances mostly run afoul of the First Amendment because they forget the Golden Rule. Most often, these are attempts to prevent me from having to do something for you that I don't want to do while still demanding that you be required to do that same thing for me. There's another simple word for this: Selfishness.

There has arisen among us a line of reasoning that elevates the free exercise clause of the First Amendment above the establishment clause. The establishment clause says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Which means the government may not prefer one religion over another. Adherents of all religions must be treated equally. And the free exercise clause adds that government may not make any law "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion. Not just the free exercise of my religion, but the free exercise of all religions.

My "sincerely held religious belief" should not allow me to discriminate against others on the basis of things they cannot change. No workaround to the First Amendment and existing law is needed to solve this "problem," because it should not be a problem if we follow the Golden Rule.

To make exceptions to our cherished religious liberty based on one person's "sincerely held religious beliefs" is the equivalent of making exceptions to the Golden Rule based on the idea that the rule should only benefit me.

Religious liberty as expressed in the First Amendment is a golden rule that works just fine and has for 225 years. No further clarification is needed. What is needed is greater living out of the Golden Rule.

Is Utah's LGBT Rights Bill A Trojan Horse For Religious Right?

There has been much hoopla in certain circles over Utah's passage of a LGBT non-discrimination bill that was backed by the Mormon Church - not exactly the most gay friendly of organizations.  The law is being called a "model" for other red states and, while it contains positive measures, many fear that it is a Trojan Horse for the Christofascists due to the religious exemptions in the bill.  Yes, gays have increased rights, except when "religious belief" trumps the law.  While perhaps the exemption was needed to secure passage, the reality is that non-discrimination protections for other protected classes contain no such exemptions.  Gays in the end remain in a second class status.  A piece in The New Civil Rights Movement looks at the valid concerns.  Here are highlights:

While there is much to be happy with in the legislation, and the protections it offers to some of the most vulnerable citizens in the Beehive State, the law also contains a tiny Trojan Horse individual religious exemptions clause. 

The Utah bill is being called a “model” to be used in states around the nation, but we must be forewarned. The individual religious exemption in the law, as small and seemingly noninvasive as it is, could put the civil liberties of everyone at stake for decades to come.

Religious freedom is important, and as a principle has existed since before the writing of the U.S. Constitution. The 13 original colonies were a fractured bunch of near-theocracies, with various Christian sects dominating different colonies—to the detriment of anyone not a member of the particular sect in power locally. Thanks to the wisdom of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, the principle of religious freedom in the Constitution set in motion of the disestablishment of the state churches, and the advantages they held in the public sphere. Jefferson's famous Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, which predated the Constitution and was the first such law to be enacted in the world, said one's beliefs or non-beliefs cannot “enhance, diminish, or impact” one's “civil capacity.”

But the Religious Right has launched a campaign to redefine the meaning of religious liberty, stripping away those protections and once again giving religions the power to circumscribe the rights of individual conscience. 

This coalition, led by right-wing groups such as Alliance Defending Freedom (formerly known as Alliance Defense Fund), the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, and Liberty Counsel, is systematically working the courts and state legislatures to enact religious exemptions—essentially a right of religious institutions and individuals to decide which laws they will or will not follow.

In practical terms, this could play out as a business owner invoking faith to deny service to a LGBTQ couple, or refusing to hire Jewish employees. Or a man refusing to promote women to managerial positions because he doesn't believe men should be subservient to women. We cannot allow such freedom of conscience to become a legal sanction for these and other forms of discrimination.

The bill does indeed ban workplace and housing discrimination against LGBTQ people in Utah. But buried underneath those important protections, is a small clause guaranteeing the right of individuals to express faith-based anti-LGBTQ views at work.

It’s a small exemption. Seemingly inconsequential in comparison to the benefits the new law could bring. Viewed purely as a standalone piece of legislation, SB296 does a lot more good than bad and it’s unsurprising to see so many social justice-minded people supporting it.

But the equality movement cannot survive if we view legislation through a short-term and narrow lens. To do so is to ignore the context of the long-term consequences of the Religious Right’s national agenda—which only needs to get a foot in the door to get the ball rolling.

[T]he Religious Right's goal of codifying their redefined version of religious freedom into law has taken a giant step forward. Once Pandora’s Box is opened, there’s no shutting it.

Freedom of religion was envisioned by the Founding Fathers as meaning (i) no one had to pay taxes to support an established church, (ii) no one could be forced to hold a particular set of beliefs, and (iii) individuals were free to attend the house of worship of their choice.  It was never intended to grant the right to ignore civil laws because of one's religious belief.  This is a very, very dangerous precedent.

Thomas Jefferson and Religious Freedom

If one listens to the Christofascists - especially quack historian David Barton - America was founded as a "Christian nation."  The truth, of course, is very different and, as typically is the case, the Christofascists are engaging in lies and revisionist history at best.  The reality is that the Founding Fathers viewed the intertwining of religion and government with deep suspicion having seen the horrors of religious wars in Europe from a much closer perspective than those of living 239 years later.  Christofascists who try to twist Jefferson's beliefs always conveniently ignore his "Jefferson Bible" which deleted the Old Testament entirely and excluded of all miracles by Jesus and most mentions of the supernatural, including sections of the four gospels which contain the Resurrection and most other miracles, and passages indicating Jesus was divine.  A piece in The Economist looks at Jefferson's role in setting America on the path to religious freedom that is diametrically opposite to the goals of the Christofascists.   Here are excerpts:

IF THERE is one individual who first gave expression to the American ideal of freedom, and religious freedom in particular, it was Thomas Jefferson. Indeed, the third president himself had very clear ideas on his role in history. He laid down that his tombstone should record three achievements: his authorship of the Declaration of Independence; the statute of religious freedom in his home state of Virginia; and the establishment of the University of Virginia.

Nobody questions Jefferson’s decisive part in establishing liberty of belief. But almost everything else about the statesman’s complex attitude to metaphysical matters has been argued over furiously, and the arguers have plenty of raw material. In the course of American history, “freedom of religion” has itself become a kind of religion, and Jefferson’s words, including the 18,000 letters he wrote during his 83 years of life, serve as a kind of holy writ. To this day, many of the bitterest ideological battles raging across America (over prayer in schools, creationism, religious entitlements at work, and so on) are conducted in the name of different visions of religious liberty.

[S]ecularists and religious sceptics point with relish to Jefferson’s utter contempt for “priestcraft” and religious power structures of all kinds. Religious believers can retort by stressing his reverence for Jesus as a moral teacher and reformer, and his clear belief in a supreme or providential power. 

A new book on Jefferson’s religion, “Doubting Thomas”, steers a middle course. On one hand, it squarely accepts that especially after 1800 (in other words, during his presidency and above all, in retirement) Jefferson explicitly renounced many tenets of traditional Christianity. His enquiring and “enlightened” mind had no time for unfathomable mystery. If the idea of one God in three persons was beyond human understanding, it must be wrong. He was exasperated by elaborate theological systems and their authors, from the early church father Athanasius to the Protestant thinker John Calvin. Jefferson disliked the Calvinist notion of “salvation by faith alone” and was inclined to the opposite view; people should be rewarded for what they do, not what they believe. His classically trained intellect led him to the view that diversity of belief should be welcomed, not condemned or punished.

[Jefferson] took a benign view of all forms of Christianity, as long as they did not oppress others, or aspire to political power. Although the founder's political opponents accused him of being an infidel, Jefferson never ceased to have a rich and warm web of relationships with many clergy, mostly traditional ones. 

He had a deep, visceral loathing for government-backed religion, but he also believed in the free exercise of faith, with the emphasis on free. Holding those two principles in tension wasn’t easy for Jefferson, and it hasn’t been easy for any subsequent generation. Nor will his legacy ever provide any simple answers.

I suspect Jefferson would have little nice to say about Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, and other Christofascists who seek to impose their toxic form of Christianity on all and deprive constitutional protections to non-true believers.  

Christofascists Whine: "Gaystapo" Claims Its Latest 'Victim'

The Christofascists' shrieks of "Christian persecution" continue and now they claim that gays - the "Gaystapo" - have claimed another martyr.   Bob Eschliman, editor of the Iowa Newton Daily News, (in Iowa) used his personal blog to attack gays and compared us to the Gestapo, the dreaded Nazi secret police that left a bloody trail in its wake.  Eschliman's employers were not amused and he was fired.  Now, he claims that his First Amendment rights have been attacked and denied to him.  Like most Christofascists, Eschliman forgets that his rights do not trump all others - such as the right of the newspaper's owners to protect their business' reputation and standing.  The Daily Beast looks at this latest example of feigned "Christian persecution."  Here are excerpts:

In April, the goateed editor of the Jasper County, Iowa Newton Daily News, Bob Eschliman, took to his personal blog to talk about Jesus and compare homosexuals to the Gestapo, as one does. When he was then fired, he felt as though he was under attack for his personal choice to live as he pleases — according to his interpretation of the Bible — and presumably saw no irony in that whatsoever.

His incendiary post was promptly deleted (along with the rest of the blog) after being flagged by journalist Jim Romenesko, but it read, in part: "[Jesus] said there would be deceivers. He said those deceivers would cause Christians who remain true to His teachings to become reviled. He said false prophets would follow to deceive even more, and that lawlessness will abound…If you ask me, it sounds like the Gaystapo is well on its way. We must fight back against the enemy."

Eschliman took this to mean that his First Amendment rights were violated, and teamed up with the Liberty Institute, a right-wing Christian advocacy group, to sue — just like Jesus would have done.

In his complaint, Eschliman charges that he "penned a theologically based article stating my sincerely held religious beliefs" and in firing him, "Shaw Media [the paper's parent company] directly discriminated against me because of my religious beliefs and my identity as an evangelical Christian who believes in Holy Scripture and the Biblical view of marriage."

The Daily Beast reached out to Eschliman to ask about the definition and etymology of the term "Gaystapo." He has not yet responded.

However, according to Urban Dictionary's top result, submitted by user "supafly rabbi," the definition of Gaystapo is, "militant homosexual activists. Instead of thugs they use lawyers to get their way." Supafly Rabbi offers the sample sentence: "massachusetts has been taken over by the gaystapo."

Law Professors Urges Obama to Deny Religious Exemption in ENDA Order

Even as the Christofascists and their political whores in the Republican Party push for special rights to discriminate for religious extremist (.i.e., evangelical and fundamentalist Christians), more people are coming to recognize the danger of writing a license to discriminate and trample on the rights of others both into the law and Barack Obama's promised ENDA executive order.  Joining the opposition to special rights to select religious groups are a group of law professors who have urged Obama to not give in to pressure for a deceptively called "religious exemption" to the order's effectiveness.  If one bothers to do a cursory reading of the First Amendment and the history surrounding it, the Founding Fathers never intended to grant broad rights to discriminate to a the few.  Freedom of religion meant freedom to worship as one chose and to not have to give tax support to an established church.  Here are highlights from a piece in the New York Times:

More than 50 constitutional law professors urged President Obama on Monday not to include a religious exemption in an expected order barring federal contractors from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

Conservative religious leaders want the rule, still being drafted, to exempt religious groups that object to homosexual behavior.

But legal experts, organized by Katherine M. Franke of the Columbia University Law School, said in an open letter that church groups are already allowed to favor members of their faith in hiring, and that a new exception would allow employers to discriminate using taxpayer dollars and enshrine a second-class legal status for gay, lesbian and transgender workers.

The letter can be found here.

Utah Nutcase Vows To Starve Self Until Gays Can No Longer Marry

As studies have shown, the loudest homophobes are the ones most aroused by gay porn.  That said, one has to wonder how big of a self-loathing closet case Utah resident Trestin Meacham (pictured at right) is in light of his announced self-starvation over gay marriages taking places in Utah.  Other explanations for Meacham's behavior in my view are (i) he is psychologically disturbed if gays marrying is so frightening to him, or (ii) his claimed religious faith is not very strong if gays marrying is such a terrifying prospect.  It is also noteworthy how Meacham - like most Christofascists and far right Mormons - has no regard for the concept of religious freedom for all.  Like most such selfish, self-centered individuals he wants it for himself, but anyone with differing beliefs can basically go f*ck themselves.    I also find Meacham's claim that he "doesn't hate gays" to be disingenuous.  You do not (a) call people evil or (b) seek to deprive individuals of civil rights if you like them.  The Bilerico Project looks at this latest batshitery from one of the "godly folk":

Trestin Meacham, a 35-year-old unhinged whackjob former Constitution Party candidate for the Utah State Senate, says he is fasting to stop same-sex marriage in Utah.
Meacham, who claims to have begun his fast on the day that U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby ruled Utah's marriage discrimination amendment unconstitutional, says he's lost 25 pounds so far.
His goal is to draw attention to the discredited legal theory of "nullification." This bogus theory holds that states -- not the federal government -- hold supreme authority and have the right to invalidate any federal law they like.
Of course, the Supreme Court has repeatedly dismissed the notion that states have the power to unilaterally overrule federal law, and the country fought a nasty 19th-century skirmish called the Civil War that should have put nullification to bed permanently. However, many southern states cited the concept in the 1950s in their racist effort to prevent public school integration before the Supremes smacked it down again in their 1958 Cooper v. Aaron decision.
But these details don't concern Meacham. "[The state] can end this tomorrow," Meacham told ABC 4 Utah. "They don't have to go through legal court battles and waste our money. They can end it tomorrow with the act of nullification."

Read more at http://www.bilerico.com/2014/01/desperate_utahn_vows_to_starve_self_until_gays_can.php#3w0IgdGxo5v5K48l.99

Trestin Meacham, a 35-year-old unhinged whackjob former Constitution Party candidate for the Utah State Senate, says he is fasting to stop same-sex marriage in Utah.

Meacham, who claims to have begun his fast on the day that U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby ruled Utah's marriage discrimination amendment unconstitutional, says he's lost 25 pounds so far.

His goal is to draw attention to the discredited legal theory of "nullification." This bogus theory holds that states -- not the federal government -- hold supreme authority and have the right to invalidate any federal law they like.

Of course, the Supreme Court has repeatedly dismissed the notion that states have the power to unilaterally overrule federal law, and the country fought a nasty 19th-century skirmish called the Civil War that should have put nullification to bed permanently. However, many southern states cited the concept in the 1950s in their racist effort to prevent public school integration before the Supremes smacked it down again in their 1958 Cooper v. Aaron decision.

But these details don't concern Meacham. "[The state] can end this tomorrow," Meacham told ABC 4 Utah. "They don't have to go through legal court battles and waste our money. They can end it tomorrow with the act of nullification."

 

In a December 21 Facebook posting announcing his fast, Meacham frames his struggle in heroic terms:

I cannot stand by and do nothing while this evil takes root in my home. Some things in life are worth sacrificing one's heath and even life if necessary. I am but a man, and do not have the money and power to make any noticeable influence in our corrupt system. Never the less, I can do something that people in power cannot ignore.

He continued on Facebook, writing: "Let's be clear about something. Just because you disagree with someone's lifestyle [sic] does not mean you hate them. And standing up to evil does not make you unchristian. Do we not remember how He drove the moneychangers from the temple?"

Riiiiight. In Trestin Meacham's world, the fact that he's willing to literally starve himself to protest others' happiness -- that he's that committed to preventing same-sex couples from legally pledging their lives to one another and blocking them from realizing our nation's promise of equal justice under the law -- doesn't make him a hateful, bigoted extremist. It's all about the "Constitution," silly!