#I disagree with a lot of what protestants say but I cannot stand when catholic / orthodox christians moralize wealth

[jellyfishhhhhhhhhhh]

I highly dislike those memes where they show off catholic and orthodox churches and the lavishness of them while making fun of protestant churches for being in strip malls. I can smell the classism through the screen

[ferret-not-microwave]

Les Amis Modern AU: What They Wish Others Believed About Them (Part 5)

[I kind of wrote this in response to some general trends in characterising the Amis. There are some stereotypes which I'm not quite comfortable with.]

[Hey, y'all! I'm so sorry for not posting this series for a long time, I was flattened for the past 12 days by COVID-19. We have Cosette and Marius today, and I'm so glad that I am feeling better enough to write about them. Cheerio!]

Cosette:

• Is fed up of being considered dainty, fragile, weak and excessively nice, a bit of a pushover. She is anything but. Living with crappy foster parents don't really let you do that. She can stand up against bullshit with biting sarcasm if necessary. It's just that Cosette doesn't rise to the bait very easily, because she has trained herself to ignore battles which don't need her attention. But that doesn't mean that she needs to be protected all the time.

• Is sick of having to relate her childhood traumas in order to not be judged as being a privileged airhead. Cosette likes buying nice things. She likes fashion, and she has some habits from Catholic school, still. She spends a lot of money on her friends and loved ones. She is sunshiney and injects bougie humour and fun into meetings. That doesn't mean that she knows nothing about the shitty world, and that she doesn't actively try to make ethical choices in her consumer behaviour and social commitments. She really dislikes the "Ohhhhh" moment coming from someone judging her for her privilege when someone tells her story to them. Why presume that people are shitty for no reason, damnit?

• Is sick of being mistaken as straight. On one memorable Pride, she was called "straight passing". She dislikes the term immensely. She thinks that people do not have the liberty to immediately assume that she is heterosexual because Marius is her partner. Similarly, people do not get to assume her sexuality because she presents stereotypically femme.

• She feels insecure and uncomfortable when people fix too much attention on her in relation to someone else, as if to scrutinize her. It happened twice amongst the Amis, once when Marius introduced her as his crush for the first time, and once when they came to know that she and Eponine knew each other since childhood, and that Eponine's parents were her abusive foster parents. She likes it better if she were befriended for being herself.

• She feels a little frustrated that people didn't get her conflicting feelings towards Eponine. People immediately assumed that she forgave and forgot everything Eponine had done or said when they were children, in her "characteristically sweet way". Actually, the first time she saw Eponine, her fear reared its ugly head again and she almost ran out of the Musain. There was much dancing around Eponine (who seemed worn out and super uncomfortable as well) and it is only with Marius and Courfeyrac's help that Cosette could start a conversion with Eponine. She did it not be particularly forgiving (though she eventually forgave her anyway), but because she needed to leave her emotional baggage behind and move on.

• A large part of Cosette's forgiveness towards Eponine was fuelled by the knowledge of Eponine's own abuse at her parents' hands. As someone who had faced quite a bit of the same abuse, she needed to put her foot down. Cosette was extremely angry about it, and her anger made sure that Eponine could separate from her parents faster, and eventually get custody of her siblings.

• She hates, hates, hates it when people remind her that she's lucky to get an adoptive father like Valjean particularly after she has a row with him. Just because her foster parents were shitty doesn't mean that she cannot speak against some of Valjeans imperfections! And children often disagree with their parents. She doesn't need to be dampened with the idea that she should basically think Valjean to be perfect because of her past. She is fiercely loyal to Valjean, and doesn't need anyone to test that.

• Cosette is protective of Marius. No one gets to mow Marius over with judgements and snide comments. In fact, Marius found himself being not so much the butt of jokes anymore after Cosette teaches him to stand up for himself. At the same time, Cosette does not helicopter parent Marius. She does tease him within limits, and does not usually interfere when he has disagreements with the Amis. It is a fine balance which does exhaust her sometimes.

• Cosette can be mischievous, even impish. She can land punches (whether they hurt or not doesn't matter), ace paintball/mudslinging matches, play the best pranks on April Fool's Day and curse like a sailor if needed. She is especially proud of the wide-eyed look she still gets from some of the Amis at her antics. She can also get people out of trouble faster than you can say "bail".

Marius:

• Marius feels scared of being judged. It is really, really difficult to understand your own privilege when you come from a super rich, super bigoted family (read grandfather). He has taken lots of embarrassing knocks and call-outs every day till now, but he is learning, and learning fast. The Amis know, and for them he isn't some peripheral person anymore, but an integral part. But sometimes he wakes up with nightmares of being kicked out as a wokeboi and a fraud by the whole group. He often stumbles over his words because he panics that maybe what he is trying to say is problematic. It takes him months to take any initiative in the Amis because he suffers from imposter syndrome all the time.

• Marius hid all information about his favourites (he loves strawberry rosé macarons and silver needle tea, for instance) because he thought that he would be judged as a rich brat. Funnily, it was Ferre who had figured these out and was the first Amis to give him a small tea chest and a box of macarons as a birthday gift (followed closely by Courf and Jehan with a huge birthday party). It took time for Marius to understand that just because he got a bit panned for his political opinions the first time, it doesn't mean that the Amis hate him.

• Quite unlike popular belief, Marius and Ferre do get along very well. They share a lot of niche interests (poring over etymology dictionaries and having a love of museums and trivia nights). They did discuss that first "to be free" moment, and Marius had placed his request to be given more chances to undo his problematic stances. (There was also another "to be free" moment that had left Ferre stunned, but it's a them thing). It hurts Marius when people immediately think that he's probably annoying Ferre when they hang out.

• Marius is not stupid. Please. The whole idea people have that he is stupid because of his awkwardness and shyness is plain mean at times. No, he doesn't need to be talked to slowly, like talking to a child. Whenever he has the courage, he brings up a lot of valid points in Musain meetings. He is extremely resourceful in handling money and talks with boring rich people, and fundraisers have never been better without him. He is juggling a double Masters degree with internships and volunteer services, and picks up languages at the drop of a hat (including Elvish).

• Marius has also had that dangerous phase when, in a bid to be as radical as possible, he fell into trouble way too many times. Even the most even-tempered of them all (read Jehan) has outright cried in exasperation on finding Marius glaring at a policeman in a protest, promising to burn the place down with a flare if they didn't back off from hitting protestors. Marius has similarly taken punches and hits, and there was a time when Joly would hover around him to administer first aid as quickly as possible. It took Enj and R a whole day to explain to him the merits of self-preservation and that revolution today does not necessarily involve a militant loss of life.

• Marius has also that phase when he drove a college sophomore to tears with his radical speech. Aka attacking the heck out of the kid's problematic Facebook post. Cosette had to give him a talk. Marius is learning about how to be a zealous but kind activist every day.

[serpentstole]

Luciferian Challenge: Day 12+13 (And 22)

A few of these prompts ended up being very similar in theme, so I’ve combined them into a bit of a long reply.

Dogma is something we throw about…that we reject it. Where do you think we may fall short as Luciferians/Satanists when it comes to dogma? Do you think dogma has a certain value?

I don’t think dogma has any value really, no, as I don’t like the idea of rules or ideas that cannot be questioned on principle. Even as a child, I took issue with blind obedience. My mother once called me downstairs, and I asked why, and my father got angry and said that I shouldn’t bother to ask why and just do it, and that even if one of them told me to jump out of a window they probably had a good reason for it.

That memory is seared into my brain and still irks me.

I do think rules themselves can be important, but when we speak of rejecting dogma it’s typically in the sense of it being some authoritative status quo that cannot be discussed or challenged. I think my example above is a good example of that, as petty as it may seem: that parents should be obeyed without question and with the assumption they have our best interests at heart.

I do not believe there’s room for that sort of attitude in an empathetic and respectful society, even towards children. Respecting their natural curiosity and teaching them about bodily autonomy is something I think can only be a net good. The only thing growing up in a strict household taught me, where there was little room for negotiation or challenging of the way things were, was how to be a decent liar.

It harmed me in far more ways than it helped instill any positive values, and while I would not want to belittle the experiences of anyone in a similar boat, I consider myself one of the lucky ones. There are some families where a dogmatic stance, whether based in politics or religion, can lead to the alienation or outright abandonment of LGBT youth, of young women who wish control over their own bodies, of those with views that differ from their parents’, or any other black sheep.

I feel like this question and my thoughts on it really go hand in hand with the next one, so I’m going to actually combine them into one post and make up the difference later.

Do you think it’s dogma or silly to say what Luciferianism/Satanism is not?

I do not think it’s dogmatic to say what Luciferianism or Satanism is or isn’t. The reason I’ve kept both labels in these two prompts, when I’ve removed them in every other post, is because I spent a lot of time in a mixed Luciferian and Satanist community during the beginning of my religious journey. Despite our differences, especially in the case of Atheist Satanism versus Theistic Luciferianism, I saw a great deal of overlap in a lot of the values/ideals, inspirations, and talking points. 

I think outlining those ideals and values is important to just… having a label. Words mean things. Religious affiliations and ideas mean things. Even saying you belong to or adhere to a school of thought typically has some manner of definition or parameters. While Luciferianism and Satanism can be incredibly diverse when it comes to the details of one’s ethics and morals, practices, views of the divinity or lack there of, and other suck points, there’s a good deal that does unite us that’s reflected in the archetypal figures our religions are named after. I also believe that certain aspects of what is seen as the Standard Luciferian should be weighed more or less heavily. For example, I don’t see my irritation with hostility towards Christianity as something that makes me less of a Luciferian.

However, I want to combine these two prompts with one more to round out my view of this topic. 

What do you disagree with Luciferians/Satanists most?

In the goddamn dogma they cling to and perpetuate while claiming to be adversarial to or enlightened above such ideas. It’s become almost a meaningless buzzword. It barely still looks like a real word to me anymore. This is honestly where my post goes completely off the rails into a mini essay, so it’s under the cut.

The idea that all “Abrahamic” religions should be treated as inherently harmful and oppressive is a bad take. 

That Christianity, Judaism, and Islam should even be lumped together when discussing such issues betrays a shallow understanding of these religions that’s been regurgitated from one person to another, typically through a culturally Christian lens.

The idea that “only LaVeyan Satanism should be called Satanism because nothing else that calls itself Satanism is actually Satanism” is exhausting, and I will fist fight Anton myself in hell.

The principles of Might Makes Right and Social Darwanism that some Satanists perpetuate is dumb and bad and wrong, sorry, that’s the only rebuttal I’m dignifying that school of thought with. Once again, I will be fist fighting Anton in hell.

And that’s to say nothing of the Satanists and Luciferians out there that regurgitate the same racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, and other assorted bigotries that they’ll condemn religions like Christanity for while perpetuating it with a coat of black paint. Because I have absolutely seen this first hand, both as an observer and as the target of it.

Like... I can’t speak on Islam at all, because I have very very limited experience with it from both a research and real life experience point of view, and thus I’m not comfortable making any claims. On the other hand, I do know that to list all the ways that Judaism is not a dogmatic religion would deserve its own post written by someone far more knowledgeable than me, and it somehow still gets lumped into the Problematic n’ Dogmatic category of AbRaHaMiC ReLiGiOnS. For that reason, in the case of Islam, I can’t help but wonder if the assumption that it’s also dogmatic comes from the harmful assumption that it’s a religion that’s strict to the point of harshness that a lot of people have.

Even in the case of Christianity, which I would argue (as someone who I’d say was raised within the church) is hands down the most seemingly dogmatic of the three (particularly in North America), this is just not universally true. If it was, there probably wouldn’t be so many branches and denominations, many of which cannot stand each other and think the rest are misguided at best and heretical at worst. This is something that’s even brought up in the Satanic Bible; I’ve read the miserable thing. Have you ever seen someone say “Christians and Catholics��? That’s a pretty loaded example of how much disagreement exists within the religion when an entire core branch of it is considered tangentially related.

Not to mention, I was raised Lutheran. That came about because a German Catholic got incredibly steamed at his own religion so he made a more boring different version of it. While the existence of dogma has led to these schisms, historically speaking, the end result has been a religion so varied that it’s hard to say what is and isn’t treated as inarguable law. If you don’t believe me, try talking to a Protestant pastor about the Seven Deadly Sins and see how far you get. I tried during confirmation class and got shut down immediately... but on the flip side, my church was pretty accepting of LGBT folks, which I think some people would claim Christianity is dogmatically against by default.

Is there dogmatic thinking within specific churches or branches or communities? Absolutely, I wouldn’t argue that. I think it can arise in any community, religious or not, but that some religious communities seem to be particularly vulnerable to it. But the harm those specific cases could do should be where our focus goes, not the condemnation of these religions or the concept of religion as a whole, which I touched on in a previous prompt. 

I’m not some glorious enlightened mind. I would not want to give the impression that I think I hold in my hands the One True Way to do Luciferianism, or that I think the majority of this religious community are uncritical edgelords. This is, after all, my answer to the thing I take issue with the most, not my thoughts on Luciferianism or Satanism as a whole. I just don’t think it should be a particularly hot take that Religious Discrimination Is Bad Actually, or that maybe you can be rebellious and adversarial and hedonistic and enlightened while still genuinely giving a shit about people. Because otherwise what’s the point?

If we are hostile and rebellious with no actual end goal, no greater cause or purpose, we are simply being contrarian for the sake of it. If we blame the idea of organized religion instead of those who manipulate and abuse faith and scripture for selfish and malicious ends, we’ve missed the point, as I said in the aforementioned previous post. Not all of us have the ability to become an activist, obviously, and I would not ask you to. But I think as those who would claim to reject dogmatic thinking and strive to embody either the ideals of enlightenment or the adversary would do well to be ever questioning their preconceptions of the world around them, of other religions, and of less obvious unjust structures of power.

I don’t know why a community that believes in illumination and free thinking sees the world in such black and white ways.

While I will always strive for a greater understanding of the world, and I hold the concept of enlightenment very dear to my heart, I think it’s something that one spends a lifetime working towards. Alongside my favourite quotes from Paradise Lost, I hold the Socratic Paradox of “I know that I know nothing” as a personal motto, and I wish more people who I share this label with would do the same.

[a-queer-seminarian]

free will, predestination

So i’m reading through my Presbyterian Heritage and Polity notes in preparation for my ordination exams next week and figured I’d throw all the theology that confuses me most into one text post.

Providence and Free Will

According to Calvin, God is a micro-manager:

There is no moment in your life when God is not with you, actively loving you in that moment

At its best, providence means that God is active in all parts of the world

And then this is where it gets bizarre and confusing and i just gotta be like Calvin. honey. no.

Because Calvin’s idea of free will is the compatibilist idea – free will is compatible with divine determinism

Shannon’s example: Today I put on a green shirt; God determined that I would put that green shirt on. I had the agency, I had to go through the process of choosing the shirt and putting it on, but it would not have happened if God had not determined it.

So like, I did use free will to pick my shirt – but God also made it happen. Somehow…both…are true

Everything has two layers: human agency & intention, and divine agency & intention.

Meanwhile, other theologians have another take on free will – the incompatibilist idea (Gustavo Guierrez is on this team and so am i)

God limits Hir power, gives us room to do things that are against the will of God

SO YEAH, Calvin alludes to Amos being like, “There is no evil in the city but God has done it” – like, if something bad happened it’s because God determined it will.

I just. Nope. Sorry guess it’s just the Catholic in me jumpin out but No Evil Thing Comes From God thank you very much

Shannon spent so much time and energy trying to make this make sense for us and trying to explain how the heck Calvin could believe this stuff, I love you Shannon you work so hard. has the seminary given you a raise lately? they should

Calvin’s context is key to understanding why he thinks what he does about free will

he was writing in a time of communal danger -- his community had been kicked out of the Church and exiled from their country, and feared violence from several sides

what he was saying is that no matter how messed up everything seems, we are actually safe as kittens in the hands of God 

There is no part of what is happening that is beyond God’s control and loving care

see like. I agree with that wholeheartedly. God deeply cares about what’s going on – but I can only imagine Xe has limited Hir control over what’s going on or bad shit wouldn’t happen

But yeah Shannon was like “when it’s communal endangerment like what Calvin’s little community of excommunicated refugees were going through, this theology is comforting. When it’s individual pain like a rape or abuse, it’s less comforting. When it’s suffering viewed on a global scale, that’s also less comforting”

Shannon admits she doesn’t believe that even Calvin himself would believe this stuff today – his view of suffering was so local; we now see suffering across the centuries and across the world and how race and gender and all play into that

“I don’t think it really works to say let’s take this theology and apply it to individual cases where it would be harmful, or this massive case of race across the last six hundred years”

Which is basically her way of saying we shouldn’t go with his view of free will these days i’m pretty sure. Whew. Thank you, Shannon

Okay, you know, I do kinda get it…like. If you are in a community like Calvin’s (or like ancient Judah when people wouldn’t stop conquering them and their sister nation just got frickin. wiped out.) and you are Completely Powerless, your survival depending on the Whims of rulers who don’t give a damn about you….it makes sense that thinking that everything, even the Bad, is being pre-ordained by God.

Like, “my life is not just determined by the shitty choices made by people in the past or present, but also by a God who intends good for me.”

…But then Calvin loses me again because when it comes to wondering why God decided to make the world like this – why God not only allows but apparently determines suffering –

Calvin is like, “uh that curiosity is a sin.” Calvin says you’re not supposed to ask those questions – that asking questions is good but there’s a limit

Uh, dude, ya ever read Habakkuk?? we’re allowed to ask God why

Anyway, as if that weren’t all baffling enough it’s time for the really hard part --

Predestination!!

So. One of the core beliefs of Reformed theology is that no part of us is not tainted by sin -- if we were pools of water and sin were ink, we’d see that the ink has permeated the whole pool, not just parts of it.

Therefore, as Shannon says, “it would be really bad news if our salvation were based on getting it right” -- our wills are so bound up by sin, we would not be able to save ourselves.

“Help, we’ve fallen and we can’t get up”

Luckily, no part of our salvation is up to us -- it’s all up to God

“it would be logical, Calvin says (i personally disagree bc dude wtf), for God to just throw us all away – but God decides to save all of us. What this means is that our eternal state, whether we are in heaven or hell, has no causal relation with our works on the planet. How we behave does not determine whether we go to heaven or hell. It’s God decision, made before we are born, not based on how we’re gonna be – God just decides.”

That being said...

“If God decides we are among the elect, we get some goodies – and that can help us screw up a little less in the world. But God’s grace comes first; we still cannot save ourselves on our own”

The “goodies” Shannon’s talking about are like, virtues or something; a desire to do good -- so like, we can have a pretty good idea of who is “elect” based on their actions (i’m not a fan of this and Shannon admits it’s been used to judge and stuff)

“So God saves us, and we respond to that with gratitude.”

Why this idea was a big deal back in the day, whether you agree or not:

Calvin’s idea of predestination was the ultimate stripping of power from the Roman Catholic Church – God decides, not the pope or bishops or priests; it’s not based on how good I am or how much money I have for indulgences

Some context:

Calvin is teaching all this to people who are studying to be pastors. They’re going to be going back to places where they can be killed for these beliefs – they are scared they will be murdered, and most of all they are scared they will recant under torture.

Calvin tells them: God has already saved you. You would not be in this room if God had not. If you recant, it does not undo that fact. – incredibly comforting for them

So don’t be scared – instead, you can respond to God’s grace

The idea of being “elect” should not cause one to be proud but act with humility

It is radically against Calvin’s predestination to imagine you are superior for your elect status; you have nothing to do with it

You should never be proud and judging other people for not being “good Christians.” You were not saved because you were a good Christian. You are learning how to be a good Christian because God saved you while you were a screw-up.

There is no illusion of meritocracy in Calvin’s grace theology – grace is free. No one earns it.

Okay. So. there are actually two “kinds” of predestination you can believe in:

Double Predestination:

God picked some people for heaven and picked some for hell

“I think that the number of PCUSA Presbyterians who believe in double predestination can be counted on two hands”

Single Predestination:

everyone is originally headed to hell, but God picks some for heaven (God didn’t elect anyone to hell as in double predestination; i.e. God does not actively damn anyone, God just doesn’t actively save them)

And another option based on that:

You can argue that grace is free for absolutely everybody -- everyone has been elected, predestined for heaven

Barth is one who says that every human being is predestined to heaven

What about atheists and/or non-Christians?

faith is a requirement but also a gift

broaden the idea of what the response to being elected is

did Calvin assume everyone elect was in the church? yes. But his theology does not actually require it.

maybe a faithful response can mean more than blatant assent to Christ

___

The monster under the bed of all this predestination stuff is the Protestant Work Ethic that developed from it after Calvin’s death

everyone trying to demonstrate that they are among the elect by being better

that’s the exact opposite of Calvin’s point!

this attempt to prove we’re elect evinces our sinful nature:

oh, we don’t work to earn our salvation? okay, we’ll work to prove it instead

and a pit of guilt:

some of us feel like we have to work nonstop for the betterment of the world as we live out our salvation

the theological definition of pride is the attempt to justify your own life

“I know that my life is worthwhile because I have these friends, I’ve accomplished these things, I help these people” 

Calvinist theology says No, your life has already been justified and you didn’t have anything to do with it. And now you live that out in gratitude and grace of others.

To sum all this up,

There’s a lot of Calvin’s thoughts here that I don’t think I agree with. I absolutely do not believe that evil things are determined or willed in any way by God -- but I do understand a little better the context that led Calvin to believing that.

I also only like a Predestination that argues that all humanity has been elected -- because “God shows no partiality” -- how or why would God only have chosen some of us sinners and not others? Is God arbitrary?

Still, I like how this theology of Predestination was part of Calvin’s attempts to do away with meritocracy. That’s something so many of us, especially people like me who are white and act like we are successful because of our own merit (we “pulled ourselves up by our own bootstraps” without regard for all the unearned privileges that support our economic well-being) could stand to learn. We don’t earn salvation -- it’s a gift. If we truly grasped that, we would be liberated from our sense of guilt and shame and from our pride.

But even though I get it a little better, I really hope that predestination does not show up on the exams next week.

[stopkingobama]

Bernie Sanders Shows the Left’s Refusal to Coexist With Traditional Believers

Photo Credit: Pixabay, PublicDomainPictures, CC0 Public Domain, https://pixabay.com/en/anger-angry-bad-burn-dangerous-18658/

Religious tests for holding public office are banned in the Constitution and go against the very core of the American tradition.

But you wouldn’t have learned that listening Wednesday to Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., as he questioned Russ Vought, the nominee for deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget.

His questioning of Vought was nothing less than theological interrogation, and in the end, excoriation.

Here’s what unfolded when Sanders took the mic.

In a disjointed line of questioning that had nothing to do with budgetary issues, Sanders veered into the theology of salvation, singling out an article Vought had written for a conservative publication in 2015 that outlined basic Christian doctrine about God in contrast to the Islamic view.

Here’s the heart of the exchange (transcript courtesy David French of National Review):

Sanders: You wrote, “Muslims do not simply have a deficient theology. They do not know God because they have rejected Jesus Christ, His Son, and they stand condemned.” Do you believe that that statement is Islamophobic?

Vought: Absolutely not, senator. I’m a Christian, and I believe in a Christian set of principles based on my faith. That post, as I stated in the questionnaire to this committee, was to defend my alma mater, Wheaton College, a Christian school that has a statement of faith that includes the centrality of Jesus Christ for salvation, and—

Sanders: I apologize. Forgive me, we just don’t have a lot of time. Do you believe people in the Muslim religion stand condemned? Is that your view?

Vought: Again, senator, I’m a Christian, and I wrote that piece in accordance with the statement of faith at Wheaton College.

Sanders: I understand that. I don’t know how many Muslims there are in America. Maybe a couple million. Are you suggesting that all those people stand condemned? What about Jews? Do they stand condemned too?

Vought: Senator, I’m a Christian—

Sanders (shouting): I understand you are a Christian, but this country are made of people who are not just—I understand that Christianity is the majority religion, but there are other people of different religions in this country and around the world. In your judgment, do you think that people who are not Christians are going to be condemned?

Vought: Thank you for probing on that question. As a Christian, I believe that all individuals are made in the image of God and are worthy of dignity and respect regardless of their religious beliefs. I believe that as a Christian that’s how I should treat all individuals—

Sanders: You think your statement that you put into that publication, they do not know God because they rejected Jesus Christ, His Son, and they stand condemned, do you think that’s respectful of other religions?

Vought: Senator, I wrote a post based on being a Christian and attending a Christian school that has a statement of faith that speaks clearly in regard to the centrality of Jesus Christ in salvation.

Sanders: I would simply say, Mr. Chairman, that this nominee is really not someone who this country is supposed to be about.

This exchange spotlights comprehensive ignorance on the part of Sanders—ignorance of the American tradition, of religious toleration, and even of what religion is.

It’s unlikely that Sanders doesn’t realize religious tests for public office are banned in the Constitution. I suspect he would applaud that ban as much as the next person, at least in the abstract.

Yet his line of questioning seems to show an ignorance of Article VI of the Constitution, which states that “No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

Traditional Believers Need Not Apply

The implications of Sanders’ questioning are far-reaching.

If taken to its logical conclusion, Sanders’ view would exclude all orthodox followers of an Abrahamic faith from holding public office.

Every Abrahamic religion—Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, in their historic forms—believes that some people either will, or may be, condemned in eternity. This is Abrahamic Religion 101.

But for Sanders, such mainstream beliefs demonstrate bigotry and racism. Just read the statement his office released after his exchange with Vought:

In a democratic society, founded on the principle of religious freedom, we can all disagree over issues, but racism and bigotry—condemning an entire group of people because of their faith—cannot be part of any public policy.

This statement crystalizes the problem. Sanders wants public officials to have religious freedom, except when their religious views contain something he might consider bigoted, such as a view of hell or condemnation.

What Sanders is really pushing for, whether he knows it or not, is a “Universalists Only” policy for those who would serve in public office. You can believe what you want, as long as your theology doesn’t teach that others might one day be judged.

And with that brush stroke, Sanders excludes historic Christianity, Judaism, and Islam from the public square. Ironically, his view of religion makes little room for some of the most devout followers of religion.

What’s at stake here is meaningful diversity in the public square. As Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., noted in a statement:

We have diverse political perspectives, we can also have diverse faith perspectives. Many faith traditions have complex and exclusive theological beliefs, and whether we agree with them or not, those diverse beliefs are protected by the Constitution.

Such beliefs have always been part of the fabric of American public life.

But that doesn’t deter Sanders. Religion that is pure and undefiled in the eyes of Bernie Sanders is progressive, nonjudgmental—in a word, unorthodox.

Instead of a government that is truly of and by the people, Sanders’ logic would give us government of and by the unorthodox—a kind of theocracy of the heretical.

Have an Imagination, Bernie

But what is perhaps most tragic here is Sanders’ complete lack of imagination for how people with deep differences in worldview can coexist with each other.

In Sanders’ view, if you think others will be condemned in eternity, you cannot possibly love or respect them, let alone live in peace with them. Your belief that they might be condemned is proof enough that you hate them.

But how is that logical? That’s as absurd as saying Joe sees a man in the street who is going to get hit by a bus, and therefore, Joe hates him.

Perhaps Sanders has only encountered hateful examples of religion in his 75 years of life. Perhaps the reason he can’t fathom true religious coexistence in the midst of deep disagreement is that he’s never seen it happen.

Yet it does happen, all the time.

To see a beautiful picture of this, Sanders need look no further than the conservative movement.

Conservatives are a diverse smattering of evangelicals, Roman Catholics, Mormons, Jews, and secular Americans. We believe all kinds of things about each other’s eternal fate that Sanders would probably find abhorrent—yet here we are, arm in arm, working for a common political cause.

Sanders’ total lack of imagination here is tragic at a time when America’s ideological center is splintering. We’ve reached a critical time of polarization in which coexistence in the midst of profound disagreement is becoming more necessary than ever.

Yet it seems that only conservatives are prepared to deliver that kind of tolerance. The American left pays lip service to diversity, yet in practice routinely shuns the most important kind of diversity: diversity of viewpoint.

The left is very good at respecting diversity at the level of externals: skin color, religious tradition, ethnicity, etc. But when it comes to actual viewpoints, the left is a seamless monolith and wishes to stay that way.

Sanders is proof of this. He seemingly couldn’t care less whether Vought identified as Protestant, Catholic, Muslim, or Hindu. Those are just externals.

What he really cares about is the substance of Vought’s views. That’s the deep level of disagreement that the American left has not learned to coexist with.

Learning to Practice Actual Tolerance

Sanders’ line of questioning shows an alarming disregard for the Constitution’s ban on religious tests, but it also highlights the deeper problem of our cultural moment.

Chiefly, it shows that the left needs to develop a greater imagination for how people with stark differences in worldview—including about other people’s eternal fate—might actually respect one another and live in harmony.

Until the secular left soaks this in, its lip service to diversity and tolerance will remain hollow and vacuous, constantly undermined by its own actions. Commentary by Daniel Davis. Originally published at The Daily Signal.

[americanlibertypac]

Bernie Sanders Shows the Left’s Refusal to Coexist With Traditional Believers

Photo Credit: Pixabay, PublicDomainPictures, CC0 Public Domain, https://pixabay.com/en/anger-angry-bad-burn-dangerous-18658/

Religious tests for holding public office are banned in the Constitution and go against the very core of the American tradition.

But you wouldn’t have learned that listening Wednesday to Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., as he questioned Russ Vought, the nominee for deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget.

His questioning of Vought was nothing less than theological interrogation, and in the end, excoriation.

Here’s what unfolded when Sanders took the mic.

In a disjointed line of questioning that had nothing to do with budgetary issues, Sanders veered into the theology of salvation, singling out an article Vought had written for a conservative publication in 2015 that outlined basic Christian doctrine about God in contrast to the Islamic view.

Here’s the heart of the exchange (transcript courtesy David French of National Review):

Sanders: You wrote, “Muslims do not simply have a deficient theology. They do not know God because they have rejected Jesus Christ, His Son, and they stand condemned.” Do you believe that that statement is Islamophobic?

Vought: Absolutely not, senator. I’m a Christian, and I believe in a Christian set of principles based on my faith. That post, as I stated in the questionnaire to this committee, was to defend my alma mater, Wheaton College, a Christian school that has a statement of faith that includes the centrality of Jesus Christ for salvation, and—

Sanders: I apologize. Forgive me, we just don’t have a lot of time. Do you believe people in the Muslim religion stand condemned? Is that your view?

Vought: Again, senator, I’m a Christian, and I wrote that piece in accordance with the statement of faith at Wheaton College.

Sanders: I understand that. I don’t know how many Muslims there are in America. Maybe a couple million. Are you suggesting that all those people stand condemned? What about Jews? Do they stand condemned too?

Vought: Senator, I’m a Christian—

Sanders (shouting): I understand you are a Christian, but this country are made of people who are not just—I understand that Christianity is the majority religion, but there are other people of different religions in this country and around the world. In your judgment, do you think that people who are not Christians are going to be condemned?

Vought: Thank you for probing on that question. As a Christian, I believe that all individuals are made in the image of God and are worthy of dignity and respect regardless of their religious beliefs. I believe that as a Christian that’s how I should treat all individuals—

Sanders: You think your statement that you put into that publication, they do not know God because they rejected Jesus Christ, His Son, and they stand condemned, do you think that’s respectful of other religions?

Vought: Senator, I wrote a post based on being a Christian and attending a Christian school that has a statement of faith that speaks clearly in regard to the centrality of Jesus Christ in salvation.

Sanders: I would simply say, Mr. Chairman, that this nominee is really not someone who this country is supposed to be about.

This exchange spotlights comprehensive ignorance on the part of Sanders—ignorance of the American tradition, of religious toleration, and even of what religion is.

It’s unlikely that Sanders doesn’t realize religious tests for public office are banned in the Constitution. I suspect he would applaud that ban as much as the next person, at least in the abstract.

Yet his line of questioning seems to show an ignorance of Article VI of the Constitution, which states that “No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

Traditional Believers Need Not Apply

The implications of Sanders’ questioning are far-reaching.

If taken to its logical conclusion, Sanders’ view would exclude all orthodox followers of an Abrahamic faith from holding public office.

Every Abrahamic religion—Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, in their historic forms—believes that some people either will, or may be, condemned in eternity. This is Abrahamic Religion 101.

But for Sanders, such mainstream beliefs demonstrate bigotry and racism. Just read the statement his office released after his exchange with Vought:

In a democratic society, founded on the principle of religious freedom, we can all disagree over issues, but racism and bigotry—condemning an entire group of people because of their faith—cannot be part of any public policy.

This statement crystalizes the problem. Sanders wants public officials to have religious freedom, except when their religious views contain something he might consider bigoted, such as a view of hell or condemnation.

What Sanders is really pushing for, whether he knows it or not, is a “Universalists Only” policy for those who would serve in public office. You can believe what you want, as long as your theology doesn’t teach that others might one day be judged.

And with that brush stroke, Sanders excludes historic Christianity, Judaism, and Islam from the public square. Ironically, his view of religion makes little room for some of the most devout followers of religion.

What’s at stake here is meaningful diversity in the public square. As Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., noted in a statement:

We have diverse political perspectives, we can also have diverse faith perspectives. Many faith traditions have complex and exclusive theological beliefs, and whether we agree with them or not, those diverse beliefs are protected by the Constitution.

Such beliefs have always been part of the fabric of American public life.

But that doesn’t deter Sanders. Religion that is pure and undefiled in the eyes of Bernie Sanders is progressive, nonjudgmental—in a word, unorthodox.

Instead of a government that is truly of and by the people, Sanders’ logic would give us government of and by the unorthodox—a kind of theocracy of the heretical.

Have an Imagination, Bernie

But what is perhaps most tragic here is Sanders’ complete lack of imagination for how people with deep differences in worldview can coexist with each other.

In Sanders’ view, if you think others will be condemned in eternity, you cannot possibly love or respect them, let alone live in peace with them. Your belief that they might be condemned is proof enough that you hate them.

But how is that logical? That’s as absurd as saying Joe sees a man in the street who is going to get hit by a bus, and therefore, Joe hates him.

Perhaps Sanders has only encountered hateful examples of religion in his 75 years of life. Perhaps the reason he can’t fathom true religious coexistence in the midst of deep disagreement is that he’s never seen it happen.

Yet it does happen, all the time.

To see a beautiful picture of this, Sanders need look no further than the conservative movement.

Conservatives are a diverse smattering of evangelicals, Roman Catholics, Mormons, Jews, and secular Americans. We believe all kinds of things about each other’s eternal fate that Sanders would probably find abhorrent—yet here we are, arm in arm, working for a common political cause.

Sanders’ total lack of imagination here is tragic at a time when America’s ideological center is splintering. We’ve reached a critical time of polarization in which coexistence in the midst of profound disagreement is becoming more necessary than ever.

Yet it seems that only conservatives are prepared to deliver that kind of tolerance. The American left pays lip service to diversity, yet in practice routinely shuns the most important kind of diversity: diversity of viewpoint.

The left is very good at respecting diversity at the level of externals: skin color, religious tradition, ethnicity, etc. But when it comes to actual viewpoints, the left is a seamless monolith and wishes to stay that way.

Sanders is proof of this. He seemingly couldn’t care less whether Vought identified as Protestant, Catholic, Muslim, or Hindu. Those are just externals.

What he really cares about is the substance of Vought’s views. That’s the deep level of disagreement that the American left has not learned to coexist with.

Learning to Practice Actual Tolerance

Sanders’ line of questioning shows an alarming disregard for the Constitution’s ban on religious tests, but it also highlights the deeper problem of our cultural moment.

Chiefly, it shows that the left needs to develop a greater imagination for how people with stark differences in worldview—including about other people’s eternal fate—might actually respect one another and live in harmony.

Until the secular left soaks this in, its lip service to diversity and tolerance will remain hollow and vacuous, constantly undermined by its own actions. Commentary by Daniel Davis. Originally published at The Daily Signal.

[magdaleneswift-blog]

RE: Gender roles in the new economy

I had many thoughts on the New York Time Magazine 9/3/12 article on changing gender roles in the new economy.  Here are my two cents from a Roman Catholic female civil engineer from SD who had Edith Bunker from All in the Family as a hero growing up.  Agree or disagree, I think the pastor in the article could get at least a half dozen sermons from this letter.

These role reversals are not as new to the economy as you seem to think.  The beginnings of feminism started in the "wild west" of the gold rush days when women were the legal property of their husbands.  The 'ADD' husbands would pack up families to strike it rich in the west and it was often up to the women to make things work. (RE Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman)  It seems that more than one male pioneer was surprised that manna did not fall from heaven.  Men would travel miles to buy a loaf of bread "baked by a woman" at $5 a loaf.  It was the western states that first gave women the right to vote for these reasons.  (The fact that the Wyoming bill granting women the right to vote was 'lost' between the legislature and the Governor's office is another story altogether.)

On the husband who told his wife to either drop out of college or he would not marry her.  I'm glad that it worked out for them, but I would advise any young woman told the same thing today that she would be much better off dropping the boyfriend.  Partners who try to emotionally blackmail their significant others in that manner are often abusive.

My ex-husband had a Masters degree in education, yet never did get around to getting a teaching position.  I was always the sole source of income for both my children from before they were born.  He was the one who stayed home with the children full time.  As long as he was providing for his children in that manner, I did not mind 'differing' to him.  It was when he stopped to 'open a hobby' store that produced negative income, caused our children to be neglected, and left me with two full time jobs, that I reduced my work load in half and my stress level by 3/4 by moving out and becoming a single parent.  Unable to care for himself, he was dead within three years.

(I found Father's sermon on God drop kicking you out of your complacency and periodically providing 'excitement' in your life non-applicable.  My two year old daughter spent the service trying to scale the holy water fount, while I was worried about my ex going postal or giving me a custody battle and my new job.  I told Father I had more than enough excitement in my life, thank you very much.)

I asked my current husband who he thought was head of our household.  He said that he didn't think that applied to our family.  He thinks we defer to each other based on who has the better skills in the area under question.  That was also often the case when he was aboard ship in the navy. A single person in charge structure is really not as common as thought either in human or animal societies.  It seems more a 'male ego' fairy tale than reality.  Herd societies are more often democratic.  The herd heads to water when the majority of the herd gets thirsty, often leaving the head stallion wondering where everyone went.  I remember driving cattle from one pasture to another while growing up on a farm.  The bulls would stand in the gate, blocking the cows from going from their territory to another bulls.  We had to bring the dog to help drive.  The cows were not about to defer to the bulls when that 'wolf' thing' was barking at them and pushed the bulls aside.  Once past the gate, the cows led the way back to the home pasture.  Primate groups normally have a titular alpha male, as long as he puts the welfare of the group above his own.  A bully is only tolerated for a short time before the rest of the group gangs up on him and beats sense into him.  Another alpha male is then chosen.  

In human society, archeologists have determined that early societies gave equal status to both men and women until men figured out they had a part to play in the reproductive process.  Then they decided they were better than the women.  The leadership classes I have taken show that the big executive top down structure is not the best.  The best is usually someone coming up from the ranks who rely on the expertise of the entire group.  This is often a more 'feminine' group structure. (I found out that my employers were often paying large fees for information that most people could get for free by going to church if they bother to pay attention.)

It is more comforting to have the paternalistic employer in a company town.  Human history is full of the divine king who can magically take care of his people.  It is often frightening to think of the ruler as just another human being and democracy is a great deal more work.  You can find religious parallels with the Protestant Reformation and the declining percentage of people who believe in God.  Many 'believers' miss the point that religion isn't a magic formula to wealth.  I am sorry to say that my faith is more Jeffersonian in that I recognize that religion is often a 'magic feather' that allows those that can fly by themselves the illusion of a safety net.  I also recognize that religious faith often does result in material wealth, as even the Communist Chinese acknowledged, not because that God rewards you for your belief, but that the basic tenant of at least Christianity and most of the other major religions stress that to look to the welfare of your neighbor above that of yourself is holy.  This stability benefits all and allows for wealth to accumulate.  Sin does not hurt me.  All of the Ten Commandments are harm to your neighbor. If I have the time scales right, Buddhism was the first 'religion' (It has no deity and is therefore more a philosophy.) to result in a massive population jump.  I don't think we can count the animal sacrifices leading to the discovery of soap and that subsequent population jump as religious.  Note that both must be properly applied to work.

The true believers also need to recognize that faith is a gift from God and that agnostics and atheists aren't evil people thumbing their noses at God.  I think most agnostics and atheists would be the first to agree that they would be happier if they could believe in God.  (See last week's New York Times Magazine's Article on the Agnostics.) You will not be effective missionaries if you don't recognize that and scream at them for their 'wrong doing.'  (I find religious debates with Jehovah Witness entertaining, they so seldom think through their beliefs.  My husband entertains himself by harassing telemarketers.  My daughter entertains herself harassing televangelists.  "The Bible says …"  "No, it doesn't."  "You READ the Bible?!"  Yes.  Unfortunately, I am pretty sure she doesn't believe in God. )

I can relate to the English teacher in the article re-reading the Bible with new interpretations.  I cannot understand the Protestant horror of the annotated Catholic Bible.  A lot of the meaning in the politically driven (and most beautiful) King James translation is lost without the translators' notes.  I am frightened by what I see as Biblical interpretations by the functionally illiterate.  Some of the most bizarre are that the Bible says that men have two less ribs than women.  No, it doesn't.  The Bible is not Rudyard Kipling's "Just So Stories."  The Bible says that God removed ONE rib from ONE man ONCE.  For all men to be short two ribs is NOT how the world works or a lot a Jewish and Muslim men would be jumping for joy at not having to be circumcised.  My father would have been pleased not to have to dehorn cattle every year either.

The movie, Master and Commander, the Far Side of the World is another example.  To the sailor's, the book of Jonah is all about bad luck and God punishing Jonah and sinners.  It is not.  Jonah was singing for joy at being safely in the belly of the whale and given a second chance after disobeying a direct order and doing the opposite of what God wanted.  It is also about God's forgiveness.  It is mankind that is unforgiving in the story. The story is funny and my 16 year old daughter loves to have me read it to her and laugh her head off.  The officer in question was a Jonah, not because of his bringing the crew bad luck, but in his sacrificing himself for what he thought was the good of the ship.  The Captain's eulogy at his funeral was straight from the ending of Job.

The husband at the gate mentioned in the article, is NOT goofing off with his friends.  The elders at the gate are the JUDGES and witnesses (notaries), see the book of Ruth.  Note that is a group, not one magic individual dispensing wisdom and justice, though they are probably too old for hard physical work.  I think the book of Judges has women as well as men as judges.  With death in child birth, I think that women were not as statistically likely to live to be old enough to be judges.

This passage is also about men wise enough to be judges being wise enough to pick good wives.  In that regard, it is the wisdom of the wife conferring status on her husband.  Not once is the physical beauty of the wife praised.

It is a big difference in stay at home mothers who stay home for the 'silk pillows' of one the first feminist detractors, so they can goof off, get their hair done and let their husbands do all the work and the farm wives who are equal business partners with their husbands, the PTA presidents, volunteers, artisans, church pastors, and community leaders, etc.

The incidence of domestic violence usually goes up during economic downturns as men try to 'prove they are men' by beating up their wives.  The real men are those who put themselves at risk to protect their wives and children.  I would ask the mother who wants her daughter to find a boyfriend and settle down in order to get protection, who it is that she thinks her daughter needs protection from?  No doubt it would be irresponsible men.  The New York Times recently did an article on the economic and emotional benefits of two parent versus one person households.  A crucial factor was the number of "marriageable" men; i.e. those who would be responsible for their offspring.  I would like to know how many of the young men her daughter knows who are happy to spend their twenties hanging with their friends in the parking lots she considers marriageable.  If Mom is worried about the physical safety of her daughter she would be better off enrolling her daughter in a self defense and/or gun class than trusting to the maturity/mental stability of a random young man.

(The gun class may not even be necessary.  I heard of one study that determined an enraged woman with no firearms training can put 6 shots in a six inch diameter area at 20 paces.  The marines in the South Pacific during WWII trained both men and women to defend their islands from the Japanese.  The men, male dominance mode, broke and ran.  The women, protect my children mode' held, fought, and won.  The alpha gorilla or chimpanzee does not even think of messing with the mothers or using the juveniles as shields in dominance battles.  The females will drive them out of the group.)

Note to all you he men, taking care of a family is not limited to taking up arms or bringing home a paycheck.  Sometimes taking care of a family is Hank from King of the Hill or Tommy Lee Jones in Man of the House going down the dreaded "Aisle 13" in the grocery store to take care of a teen age girl having her first period or shopping for a group of co-eds who can't leave their witness protection house.  Or "Major Dad" learning how to do a mean French Braid or Archie Bunker buying a Star of David for his orphaned Jewish niece.  The feminists could have a field day with two adult males being needed to replace one dead mother in Full House.  It could also be Franc filling in for Steve Martin in "Father of the Bride Part 2" doing prenatal aerobics.  It was the father though who stayed with both during the time of delivery.  (Ladies, if you go by James Herriot of All Creatures fame, it is a smaller percentage of men who can handle this.  You may be better off with a less squeamish substitute, traditionally more often female.)

One study of what women really want showed that; forget the washboard abs, handsome face, huge arms or other physical attributes, showed that women pick the men who are best with children.  The study showed they are right the majority of the time.

How much of the angst the men in the article were going through related to the stress on their families and how much what the other men would think of them if they moved into feminine positions?  Men often seem more concerned with their ranking among their male peers and their social status than their family status. The serial killer in most criminal shows is often the middle aged white male with the sense of wounded entitlement.  The best parable I have seen is the book, "Who Moved My Cheese?" It was enjoyed by both my children and my mother recovering from a broken hip in the nursing home. I have seen more men who are Hems and Haws than women. They more often concentrate on what they are losing rather than looking for new opportunities.  Maybe it is just that they more often have more to lose.  I think I am less likely to look for a position paying less than I make now than my husband is who has always made less than I have in the time that I have known him. I think we should all consider how this relates to the new global economy.

It could be similar to the statement about the women in the town shutting the men out of the last paying positions.  At the last Women in Business luncheon I went to, only one other woman at the table wasn't in a banking position.  So much for women not being good in math.  I can also see the women preferring not to have to deal with the male ego at work.  My college agricultural engineering classes and the last ASABE magazine issue I last read dealt with the need to design around the male ego when working for the Peace Corp.  A fully automated system will be confiscated by the men, leaving the women to starve.  Manually steps must be left in place in order to provide a means of survival for widows and single mothers.

Even in the 50's though, my cousin the nurse, said that male nurses were preferred by the patients on the prostate ward.

Women moving to the cities is a nationwide trend as they look for more opportunity.  It is the rural areas in which single men outnumber the single women.