#right-wing christians

[contemplatingoutlander]

As The New Republic reports, “Alito is complaining that people who oppose homosexuality were being unfairly branded as bigots, despite that being a dictionary definition of bigotry.” On Tuesday, agreeing the Court should not take a case, Alito wrote he is “concerned” that a lower court’s reasoning “may spread.” He notes that the lower court “reasoned that a person who still holds traditional religious views on questions of sexual morality is presumptively unfit to serve on a jury in a case involving a party who is a lesbian.” In that case, several jurors who acknowledged they held anti-LGBTQ views were released from serving on the trial. “That holding exemplifies the danger that I anticipated in 'Obergefell v. Hodges' … namely, that Americans who do not hide their adherence to traditional religious beliefs about homosexual conduct will be ‘labeled as bigots and treated as such’ by the government.'” Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern writes, “Alito suggests that a trial court violates the free exercise and equal protection clauses when it allows an attorney who represents a gay client to strike potential jurors because they express overt bigotry against gay people.” [...] Attorney Max Kennerly posits, “If we followed Alito’s reasoning that religious beliefs can never serve as a basis to strike a juror, we’d instantly run into a collision with jurors who believe, on religious grounds, the death penalty is wrong. Any guesses how Alito would rule on that? Yeah, exactly.”

Why the condemnation of homosexual behavior by some (NOT all) religious conservatives might legitimately raise questions of bigotry

It seems to me that Alito is acting as if "traditional religious views" about homosexuality are uniform.

Alito doesn't seem to acknowledge (or perhaps is not fully aware) that there are some interpretations of scripture that do not support the condemnation of homosexual behavior or even of same-sex unions. In fact there are some mainstream Christian denominations that allow for blessings of same-sex couples (including recently the very "traditional" Roman Catholic Church). Furthermore, Reconstructionist, Reform and Conservative Jewish sects also allow the blessing of same-sex unions.

Given all of the above, one might reasonably wonder why some (not all) conservative Christians or Jews seem to prefer to accept anti-LGBTQ+ translations/ interpretations of scripture, when other translations/ interpretations that are more sympathetic to homosexual behavior are available.

Of course the primary group of religious people in the U.S. that condemns homosexual behavior consists of some (not all) right-wing "Christians" from various denominations. But one also might wonder why these same right-wing "Christians" DON'T seem to want to pass laws banning divorce, adultery, usury, lying, etc., but they DO want to pass anti-LGBTQ+ legislation? After all, behaviors like divorce, adultery, usury, and lying are clearly condemned in various parts of the Bible.

One might also ask, why do some of these same right-wing "Christians" who think it is okay to condemn the LGBTQ+ community, not also condemn a prominent politician like Trump, who has been divorced multiple times, committed adultery multiple times, and who lies almost every time he opens his mouth?

It is the picking and choosing of what to condemn, and the hyperfocus on using the law to allow those with certain "religious views" to deny the rights of the LGBTQ+ community (while not choosing to deny the rights of other kinds of so-called "sinners"--NOT that I support that either) that suggests it might be legitimate to question whether some on the religious right use religion as an excuse to hold bigoted beliefs about and/or to discriminate against the LGBTQ+ community.

[edited]

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Mike Luckovich, Atlanta Journal Constitution

* * * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

July 30, 2024

Heather Cox Richardson

Jul 31, 2024

On Friday, speaking to Christians at the Turning Point Action Believers’ Summit in West Palm Beach, Florida, Trump begged the members of the audience to “vote. Just this time. You won’t have to do it anymore. Four more years, you know what: it’ll be fixed, it’ll be fine…. In four years, you don’t have to vote again, we’ll have it fixed so good you’re not going to have to vote.”

The comment drew a lot of attention, and on Monday, Fox News Channel personality Laura Ingraham gave him a chance to walk the statement back. Instead, he said: “I said, vote for me, you’re not going to have to do it ever again. It’s true.” “Don’t worry about the future. You have to vote on November 5. After that, you don’t have to worry about voting anymore. I don’t care, because we’re going to fix it. The country will be fixed and we won’t even need your vote anymore, because frankly we will have such love, if you don’t want to vote anymore, that’s OK.”

Trump’s refusal to disavow the idea that putting him back into power will mean the end of a need for elections is chilling and must be viewed against the backdrop of the Supreme Court’s July 1, 2024, decision in Donald J. Trump v. United States. In that decision, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court’s right-wing majority said that presidents cannot be prosecuted for crimes committed as part of a president’s “official duties” and that presidents should have a presumption of immunity for other presidential actions. 

John Roberts defends the idea of a strong executive and has fought against the expansion of voting rights made possible by the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The idea that it is dangerous to permit minorities and women to vote suggests that there are certain people who should run the country. That tracks with a recently unearthed video in which Republican vice presidential candidate J.D. Vance calls childless people “psychotic” and “deranged,” and refers unselfconsciously to “America’s leadership class.” 

The idea that democracy must be overturned in order to enable a small group of leaders to restore virtue to a nation is at the center of the “illiberal democracy” or “Christian democracy” championed by Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán. Orbán’s imposition of an authoritarian Christian nationalism on a former democracy, in turn, has inspired the far-right figures that are currently in charge of the Republican Party. As Heritage Foundation president Kevin Roberts put it: “Modern Hungary is not just a model for conservative statecraft but the model.”

Kevin Roberts has called for “institutionalizing Trumpism” and pulled together dozens of right-wing institutions behind the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 to create a blueprint for a second Trump term. Those who created Project 2025 are closely connected to the Trump team, and Trump praised its creators and its ideas. 

Today, The New Republic published the foreword Vance wrote for Kevin Roberts’s forthcoming book. Vance makes it clear he sees Kevin Roberts and himself as working together to create “a fundamentally Christian view of culture and economics.” Like others on the Christian right, Vance argues that “the Left” has captured the country’s institutions and that those institutions must be uprooted and those in them replaced with right-wing Christians in order to restore what they see—inaccurately—as traditional America.  

That determination to disrupt American institutions fits neatly with the technology entrepreneurs who seem to believe that they are the ones who should control the nation’s future. Vance is backed by Silicon Valley libertarian Peter Thiel, who put more than $10 million behind Vance’s election to the Senate. In 2009, Thiel wrote “I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible.” 

“The 1920s were the last decade in American history during which one could be genuinely optimistic about politics,” he wrote. “Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women—two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians—have rendered the notion of ‘capitalist democracy’ into an oxymoron.” 

Thiel set Vance up to invest in companies that made him wealthy and touted Vance for the vice presidential slot, and in turn, the Silicon Valley set are expecting Vance to help get rid of the regulation imposed by the Biden administration and to push cryptocurrency. Trump appears to be getting on board with comments about how the tech donors are “geniuses,” praising investor Elon Musk and saying, “We have to make life good for our smart people.” In a piece that came out Sunday, Washington Post reporters Elizabeth Dwoskin, Cat Zakrzewski, Nitasha Tiku, and Josh Dawsey credited the influence of Thiel and other tech leaders for turning Vance from a Never-Trumper to a MAGA Republican. 

Judd Legum of Popular Information reported today that the cryptocurrency industry is investing heavily in the 2024 election, with its main super PAC raising $202 million in this cycle. Three large cryptocurrency companies are investing about $150 million in pro-crypto congressional candidates. 

On Saturday, Trump said he would make the U.S. “the crypto capital of the planet and the Bitcoin superpower of the world.” He promised to end regulations on cryptocurrency, which, because it is not overseen by governments, is prone to use by criminals and rogue states. That regulation is “a part of a much larger pattern that’s being carried out by the same left-wing fascists to weaponize government against any threat to their power,” Trump said. “They’ve done it to me.”

But the problem that those trying to get rid of the modern administrative state continue to run up against is that voters actually like a government that regulates business, provides a basic social safety net, promotes infrastructure, and protects civil rights. In recent days, Minnesota governor Tim Walz has been articulating how popular that government is as he makes the television rounds.

On Sunday, CNN’s Jake Tapper listed some of Walz’s policies—he passed background checks for guns, expanded LGBTQ protections, instituted free breakfast and lunch for school kids—and asked if they made Walz vulnerable to Trump calling him a “big government liberal.” Walz joked that he was, indeed, a “monster.” 

“Kids are eating and having full bellies so they can go learn, and women are making their own health care decisions, and we’re a top five business state, and we also rank in the top three of happiness…. The fact of the matter is,” where Democratic policies are implemented, “quality of life is higher, the economies are better…educational attainment is better. So yeah, my kids are going to eat here, and you’re going to have a chance to go to college, and you’re going to have an opportunity to live where we're working on reducing carbon emissions. Oh, and by the way, you’re going to have personal incomes that are higher, and you’re going to have health insurance. So if that’s where they want to label me, I’m more than happy to take the label.” 

The extremes of Project 2025 have made it clear that the Republicans intend to destroy the kind of government Walz is defending and replace it with an authoritarian president imposing Christian nationalism. And when Americans hear what’s in Project 2025, they overwhelmingly oppose it. Trump has tried without success to distance himself from the document. 

He and his team have also hammered on the Heritage Foundation for their public revelations of their plans, and today the director of Project 2025, Paul Dans, stepped down. The Trump campaign issued a statement reiterating—in the face of a mountain of evidence to the contrary—that Trump had nothing to do with Project 2025 and adding: “Reports of Project 2025’s demise would be greatly welcomed and should service as notice to anyone or any group trying to misrepresent their influence with President Trump and his campaign—it will not end well for you.” 

The Harris campaign responded to the news by saying that “Project 2025 is on the ballot because Donald Trump is on the ballot. This is his agenda, written by his allies, for Donald Trump to inflict on our country. Hiding the 920-page blueprint from the American people doesn’t make it less real—in fact, it should make voters more concerned about what else Trump and his allies are hiding.” 

The reasoning behind the idea of a strong executive, or a “leadership class” that does not have to answer to voters, is that an extremist minority needs to take control of the American government away from the American people because the majority doesn’t like the policies the extremists want. 

When Trump begs right-wing Christians to turn out for just one more election, he is promising that if only we will put him into the White House once and for all, we will never again have to worry about having a say in our government. As Trump put it: “The country will be fixed and we won’t even need your vote anymore.”

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[casuallyodd]

If you want to understand Project 2025, the Republican plan to rewrite the DNA of America, you should start with Kevin Roberts.

Roberts is president of the conservative Heritage Foundation and one of the creators of Project 2025. He’s written a book, Dawn’s Early Light: Taking Back Washington to Save America (with a foreword by J.D. Vance) in which he describes the world that would result from Project 2025’s policies.

Alas, you can’t read it yet. Roberts’ book was originally set for publication in September, but for some inexplicable reason, its release was delayed until just after the 2024 election.

However, some reviewers got their hands on it early, like Colin Dickey at the New Republic. His review is worth reading in full to get a sense of how radical and regressive the modern right has become.

According to the review, Roberts and Project 2025 want to destroy, basically, all of modern society. They want to scrap all institutions of higher education, the entire federal government, the public school system, unions, corporations, and most nonprofit foundations.

[nonbinary-vents]

I know this is such a doomer kind of attitude but I genuinely cannot stand it when people go around talking about the ‘silent majority’ when it comes to Jew hatred. There’s two main problems I have with this statement

— Sure, these people might support Jews now, but it’s probably safe to say the majority of people in the world have deeply ingrained biases against Jews. Those biases are easily exploited, easily brought out, and easily radicalised into rabid hatred. See: large swaths of leftist spaces, who honestly seemed like sleeper agents with how fast they openly admitted raping Jews is a moral thing. There’s also the issue of a lot of these silent majority people not supporting Hamas or believing in the Aryan race or thinking that Jews have no culture and we’re just stealing it from everyone else, but still tolerating those ideas being held in other people— it shows that these people neither understand nor care about the gravity of these views, which then makes those precious biases much, much easier to show

and

— The entire point of the silent majority is that they are silent. Sure, they might chat with their Jewish friends about how bad things are, they might express sympathy in private, things like that. But when push comes to shove, when Jews are being actively murdered wide scale, they don’t show up. They leave us in the dirt. They watch quietly as the Gestappo drags their neighbours away. They look away politely as their Dhimmi shopkeeper is beaten in the street for walking on the wrong side of the pavement. They close their blinds when their friend is tied to the stake and burned alive

I know it’s comforting to think of this vague concept of the silent majority, but it’s not actually reality. I know it sucks feeling like you need to have your guard up all the time (and you don’t, just be careful), it’s going to suck a whole lot more if you put yourself into a false sense of security. The silent majority are not our friends. The silent majority are not there for us. The silent majority don’t care. We can’t just live in a nebulous idea of people who quietly tut to themselves whenever they see someone saying ‘glory to the resistance’ or ‘Jews are trying to taint the Aryan race’, we need to focus on the tangible reality, and the people who are actually present

I think this is also why I, and so many other Jews, absolutely love non-Jewish allies. There’s something so indescribably amazing to see people in this world that’s been so horrible to us standing up for us, listening to us, helping us. Allies go through a lot of shit from others because they care about us, I’ve seen it so much— they’ll get vicious hate for just associating with Jews. And they still do it. They still stick with us. Because they care, and it’s just so wonderful

Spread the love to non-Jewish allies, you are so amazing. And to the silent majority, I hope you can become the help that we desperately need

[secondbeatsongs]

[thisgingerhasnosoul]

Everyone talking about how “Jews and Muslims are enemies and all want each other dead” is absolutely batshit to me, because pretty much the only people I’ve felt safe around lately, besides other Jews, has been—you guessed it—my Muslim friends/mutuals.

[fromchaostocosmos]

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, the Georgia Republican who has been criticized in the past for her dalliances with antisemitic tropes and influencers, explained her vote against a bill defining antisemitism by saying that the bill it rejects the “gospel” that “the Jews” handed Jesus over to his crucifiers.

But Greene, posting on X, formerly Twitter, laid out a different concern: that the bill threatened Christian expression. “Antisemitism is wrong, but I will not be voting for the Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023 (H.R. 6090) today that could convict Christians of antisemitism for believing the Gospel that says Jesus was handed over to Herod to be crucified by the Jews,” she said. “Read the bill text and contemporary examples of antisemitism like #9.”

In her tweet, Greene posts two photos: One focuses on the portion of the bill that adopts as part of its definition of antisemitism the 11 “contemporary examples of antisemitism” in the definition of antisemitism composed by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. The second photo highlights the ninth example, “using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.”

Her fellow far-right Republican, Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida, explained his no vote in similar terms on the same platform. “The Gospel itself would meet the definition of antisemitism under the terms of this bill!” Gaetz writes, and gores on to quote New Testament scripture that collectively blames Jews for Jesus’s killing

[rejectingrepublicans]

No Christian group protested the opening of the Olympics. This fake outrage was manufactured by Republican campaign strategists and pushed to a wide audience by Don Jr.

There are no grassroots movements among Republicans. They are a top to down hierarchy. Billionaire oligarchs pay political operatives at think tanks to come up with culture war shit and they pass it on to owned Republican politicians, who in turn disseminate it to the media and the masses.

It’s all about the oligarchs who have been using political foundations and the Republican Party to reshape America since the 1960’s.

[wildfeather5002]

I hate it when xtians reduce my religious trauma to "a religious person said something mean to you once so now you're mad at religion".

Like, shut the fuck up. My trauma isn't just someone being a little rude to me once, it was systematic, deliberate manipulation with the threat of possible eternity of suffering in Hell if I didn't obey religious rules and "keep Christ in my heart". It was "Nonbelievers burn in a lake of eternal fire. Tell your friends to convert to our faith or they'll be damned for eternity".

I have suffered from anxiety, ocd and other mental health issues for several fucking years because of this shit. I've suppressed my sexuality and felt terrible guilt just for the 'sin' of having sexual thoughts. I've feared for my loved one's souls, genuinely believing they would go to Hell for simply not being xtians and that I'd never see them again in the afterlife.

These beliefs are sick and twisted. What I went through was sick and twisted.

I seriously don't know what to say to you if you still think telling anyone, let alone a child, that they're going to be damned for eternity if they disobey 'God's word' is totally fine and not abusive.

Know your fucking place and stop speaking over trauma survivors who have been hurt by your shitty religion.

[the-library-alcove]

Antisemitic Violence Expectations

Fellow Jews and allies, I have a series of rather dark and cynical questions on the rising antisemitism we're facing. I'm sorry for asking them, but I do want honest answers on them.

[avalovesindie]

I am by no means an expert but it seems to me “your body does not belong to you” is a major theme of right wing authoritarianism and, interestingly, modern USAmerican thinking. This underpins so much from abortion to forcing kids to hug their relatives. Your body belongs to the state, or God, or your husband, or your boss, or your doctor. Everything from trans and gay liberation to forcing autistic people to look in your eyes to making cashiers stand for no reason. Your body does not belong to you, but taking care of your body is your responsibility and your responsibility alone, and if you fail in some way, you deserve the consequences.

[shutinthenutouse]

[my-midlife-crisis]

[athingofvikings]

The guilty verdict for the Jews has already been decided, let the trial begin.

The prosecution will deliver their evidence to the court of public opinion.

The Jews killed Jesus, says the Christian. See, it says here in our holy book, written by people looking to separate themselves from the Jews and grow closer to the Romans. Pilate washes his hands and the Jews take responsibility for killing him.

The Jews are responsible for genociding the White Race, says the White Nationalist. See here, it says so in Mein Kampf and other writings by people who hate the Jews. They plan on wiping us out and replacing White people.

The Jews are responsible for genociding the Palestinians, says the Antizionist. See here, it says so in news published by Hamas, who are innocent freedom fighters who just want to kill all of the Jews everywhere in the world, as is their right. They plan on wiping all of the Palestinians out, which is why they've killed only a tiny fraction in months of intense fighting.

The jury convenes and returns the verdict, which was already decided upon.

The Jews may not speak in their own defense, of course. Who would be interested in hearing the words of the guilty?

[blushcoloreddreams]

3 philosophical arguments against abortion

1. The argument of doubt (In dubio pro vita)

There are situations in which doubt is a type of certainty. For example, if the subject is in doubt whether or not to get married one day before the wedding, this doubt is a strong indication that he should not get married. If the subject is in doubt whether or not he loves a person, it is because, at least at that moment, he does not yet love, since love is a firm decision. There are situations where "I don't know" is a no. The case of abortion must be included here.

There is no scientific consensus on the emergence of human life. If there is no consensus, there is doubt. Since there is doubt whether or not the fetus is human life in the scientific community, there is a 50% chance that it is human life, according to the scientific debate itself. Therefore, no one in their right mind would do something that "may" kill a person.

If they give you a drink and say: "you have a 50% chance of dying if you drink it", would you drink it? This argument is what I call the "skeptical argument" and it is quite strong, as it morally obliges even those who are on the fence to take a stand. When it comes to human life, the wall is not an option.

2 . The argument of personal identity

This argument is superior to the previous one, as it touches on metaphysical issues. Human life is a continuous process that, to be defined as such, does not depend on stages and apexes. The life of a 30-year-old man at the peak of his physical and mental fitness is no more life than the life of a 3-month-old baby. Just as the life of a 3-month-old baby is no more life than the life of a 3-month-old fetus which, in turn, is no more life than the life of a 3-week-old fetus. Living condition does not define life.

There is no stage where human life reaches its peak. There is only a single stage that has its initial burst in conception and its end in death. Personal identity is not acquired with an ID or a birth certificate. Personal identity is acquired the moment a person comes out of nothing and comes into existence.

Whether it is the human existence of the king of England or the existence of a 20-day embryo in the womb of a woman from an underdeveloped country, it is the existence of a human person in the same way. Existence is the only truly democratic thing, as it makes queens and faminshed people participate in the same category.

3. Being is previous to knowing

The most widespread thesis among those who are in favor of abortion is that the fetus should be considered "human life" only when the central nervous system is formed, there around 3 months. The error in this definition lies in the submission of being to knowledge - a basic metaphysical error. For someone to know, they must first exist.

Having knowledge or having brain activity in perfect formation is not enough to define someone as a "human being", if that were the case, people with dementia or with compromised mental activity would be less human than a mentally healthy person.

Today, you should no longer call a "person WITH a disability" a "disabled person", and I completely agree! After all, disability happens IN THE PERSON, but IT IS NOT THE PERSON!

Likewise, the faculty of knowing and mental/brain activities occur in the person's BEING, but they are not essential criteria to define this being. Thus, a 30-day-old embryo has as much being as an astrophysics genius. Let us not exchange the tree of life for the tree of knowledge again!

[lesbianredpanda]

They legit just put a bisexual threesome in the Paris Olympics opening ceremonies huh. Love wins 🏳️‍🌈