tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post4258666333819396425..comments2023-11-02T07:25:45.884-05:00Comments on Mormanity - a blog for those interested in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Worship, and Freedom of Religious Belief: The Differences MatterJeff Lindsayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comBlogger31125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-28264647025289913392015-10-19T09:34:52.446-05:002015-10-19T09:34:52.446-05:00Actually, Anon 10:54, the "cumulative effect ...Actually, Anon 10:54, the "cumulative effect of small changes" is not <i>necessarily</i> "equivalent to a large change" -- only when the small changes cumulatively trend in the same direction.<br /><br />In most cases, the small changes move us sometimes in one direction, sometimes in the other, and the net effect is to cancel each other out.<br /><br />As a moment's thought will confirm, the <i>pattern</i> (or lack of one) is what counts. And what far too many people do is to think they see a pattern where in fact there isn't one. Out of the noise of a multitude of everyday events they believe they have picked out some alarming signal of impending doom -- e.g., in the normal run of earthquakes and such they think they see the signs of the apocalypse. This happens for a variety of reasons, such as confirmation bias and the tendency of the media to focus disproportionately on the kind of controversy that drives clicks and sells ads. It also happens because many people rely on too few sources of information.<br /><br />Sure, many important changes <i>do</i> happen incrementally. But that hardly means that every purported trend actually is a trend. As we've seen in the case of global warming, sometimes picking out a trend requires a great deal of care and expertise.<br /><br />In any case, welcome to cultural politics. Personally, I'm glad that over the past several years so many people <i>have</i> been buying what I and my compatriots have been selling. First Obamacare, then gay marriage -- we've been on a roll lately. And far from <i>submitting</i> to these things, polls consistently show that majority <i>supports</i> them. Please remember that after the passage of Obamacare the American people rejected Mitt Romney and chose decisively re-elect Barack Obama. How this constitutes tyranny is beyond me. To describe this state of affairs as "the American people submitting to something they don't really want" is just silly.<br /><br />You're using "incrementalism" here to describe the perfectly honorable practice of open and sincere political persuasion. Just because you've recently suffered a couple of big losses in the marketplace of ideas doesn't mean you should put such a negative spin on such a good thing. Instead of spitting on the practice of open and sincere politial persuasion, you should work to become more persuasive yourself.<br /><br />As for your use of the term <i>revile</i>, I'll just say that we each have our own way of honoring the American Revolution.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04668073406352787818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-49954251929370480062015-10-18T22:54:24.058-05:002015-10-18T22:54:24.058-05:00The cumulative effect of small changes is equivale...The cumulative effect of small changes is equivalent to a large change. Since the American people would never submit to such drastic changes as are desired by those who revile the American Revolution, incrementalism is the order of the day. Thanks for playing, Mr. Orbiting, but I'm not buying what you're selling.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-33460344494107492522015-10-16T10:12:13.526-05:002015-10-16T10:12:13.526-05:00Well, Jeff, about all I can do at this point is co...Well, Jeff, about all I can do at this point is conclude that you're yet another victim -- and practitioner -- of the paranoid style in American politics. Would that you were the only one.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04668073406352787818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-80080177293101885062015-10-16T09:44:22.815-05:002015-10-16T09:44:22.815-05:00Orbiting, that clarification helps, but I still fi...Orbiting, that clarification helps, but I still find it implausible. Extremists can be found everywhere, so why not list Democrats, Hollywood stars, and university professors among the mix? The list of radicals and terrorists happens to include some Christian groups that SPLC has already come out and called extremists. So you think the slides they allegedly provided for this session list those Christian groups along with other extremists because they were just going to point to a couple of outliers among a perfectly acceptable, normal group? A stretch. Your explanation would make more sense if the Muslim radicals it listed were all just under the label "Muslims." A slide showing, say, Protestants, Catholics, Mormons, Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Buddhists, etc. would fit your theory. But I don't think the details of the slide, the reported content of the presentation, the military's response, and the track record of the SPLC favor your interpretation. Still not a nothing burger, IMHO. <br /><br />I do tend to share your views on the prevalence of incompetence in government, but having seen too much of how things get done in the world, I find it very hard to ignore the reality of intent, the influence of ideology, and the tendency for people with an agenda or goal to pursue agendas and goals, often in the dark when what they are really doing and why is not aligned with what they are publicly supposed to be doing. I don't think the erosion of liberty and the steady expansion of intrusive government is the result of silly dumb mistakes over and over. The history of the world is filled with tragedies from greedy, power hungry people using government for their own ends. I don't think we can ever become blind to that. But even if it is all incompetence, giving the incompetent more power to regulate our lives and decide whose beliefs are bad and need stamping out does not sit well with me. Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-10673781329201011062015-10-16T01:38:43.107-05:002015-10-16T01:38:43.107-05:00Indeed. No military chaplains of any faith are all...Indeed. No military chaplains of any faith are allowed to proselytize. Chaplains exist for the military purpose of maintaining morale, by ministering to the spiritual needs of servicepeople who come to them voluntarily. No preaching to anyone who didn't walk into the church tent looking for preaching all by themselves. The last thing any military wants is wars of religion within its own ranks.<br /><br />As commissioned non-combatant morale officers embedded with front-line troops, chaplains also provide a fast track for serious personal problems. If your girlfriend or boyfriend is in a car accident, for example, any chaplain can call up the commanding officer and get you a weekend of compassionate leave, maybe within minutes — and any chaplain will do that, regardless of your faith or theirs.<br /><br />James Anglinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18266855639647700167noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-55641663907072335302015-10-15T18:35:42.043-05:002015-10-15T18:35:42.043-05:00Anon 5:42, it would be nice if you were to be a li...Anon 5:42, it would be nice if you were to be a little more specific. Are you referring to the Wes Modder case? It's tough for us to know what you mean by "evidence of persecution" if you don't tell us what that evidence is.<br /><br />Also, if you think a military chaplain's job is "preaching Christianity," you are dead wrong.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04668073406352787818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-21560220158295013682015-10-15T17:24:25.684-05:002015-10-15T17:24:25.684-05:00If this was an isolated incident, maybe you'd ...If this was an isolated incident, maybe you'd be right, Orbiting. Problem is, we also know that the Army is making rules forbidding chaplains from preaching Christianity. You know, their job? You can be court-martialed as a Chaplain if someone complains you are preaching the gospel of Christ to a soldier. I think Islamic chaplains are exempt. <br /><br />But sure, there's no evidence of persecution.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-82204453666281569422015-10-15T10:24:47.057-05:002015-10-15T10:24:47.057-05:00When I'm trying to account for some puzzling p...When I'm trying to account for some puzzling phenomenon, and the basic choice is between incompetence and conspiracy, I go with incompetence every time.<br /><br /><i>Especially</i> when the government is involved.<br /><br />Jeff seems a little too eager to go with conspiracy.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04668073406352787818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-59082922961373523162015-10-15T02:54:25.305-05:002015-10-15T02:54:25.305-05:00Who exactly made this powerpoint slide? The only a...Who exactly made this powerpoint slide? The only attribution I see is 'used by the US Army Reserve'. I don't know what that really means, because I don't know just what the US Army Reserve is really like. From what I know of reserve forces in other countries, though, at this point I can easily imagine a scenario in which one reservist sergeant gets tasked with making a lecture for some annual reservist refresher course, and he whips up a slide in his spare time one night at home before going off to his training weekend. Maybe he has an ideological axe to grind, or maybe he just filled in a template carelessly after a long day at his civilian job, or maybe it's like OrbitingKolob's picture and he just put up some bullet points that would be cues for him in speaking.<br /><br />In the end it's still dumb for any branch of the armed services of the United States to be presenting such a slide in any training. At some point somebody wearing the army uniform stood beside those words on a screen, while other people in the same uniform sat in chairs and looked up at them. Depending on just where this slide was used, though, it seems to me that this may very likely represent something very much less disturbing than an official classification of Christianity as extremist by the US Department of Defense.James Anglinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18266855639647700167noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-19381925566301034032015-10-13T10:53:57.381-05:002015-10-13T10:53:57.381-05:00If the slide was just a way of listing different r...<i>If the slide was just a way of listing different religions and discussing which ones were and which ones were not extremists, with kind respect being paid to Catholics and Evangelicals...</i><br /><br />I apologize if I have failed to make myself clear, but your paraphrase above is not at all what I meant.<br /><br />Look at it this way.<br /><br />Suppose I was preparing a PowerPoint slide to accompany a lecture on religion and film. I might wind up with a slide very much like the one in question. What would I mean by it, and how would I use it? I would use the "Evangelical Christianity" bullet point to anchor my remarks on <i>Left Behind</i> and <i>The Lion King,</i> and the "Catholicism" bullet point to remind me when it's time to discuss <i>Jesus of Montreal</i> and <i>Passion of the Christ,</i> and so on.<br /><br />Once we understand this, is there any reason to think my slide would be suggesting that all Evangelical Christians are filmmakers, or that Evangelical Christianity itself is intrinsically cinematic, or that Evangelical Christians make good films while Muslims do not, or anything of that sort?<br /><br />Of course not. The assumption underlying the lecture is the obvious and completely uncontroversial fact that there are some films that are Evangelical Christian, some films that are Catholic, and so on. To look at the presence of an "Evangelical Christianity" bullet point on a slide titled "Religious Films" and read it any other way would be perverse.<br /><br />Ditto for the "Religious Extremism" slide. The "Evangelical Christianity" bullet point is simply there to anchor the presenter's discussion of extremists who are evangelical Christian (Eric Rudolph, maybe?), before moving on to discuss extremists who belong to the Muslim Brotherhood, etc. If you're reading more into it than this, I humbly suggest there's a bit of persecution complex involved -- either that or a desire for the cultural <i>cachet</i> that nowadays comes from being a victim.<br /><br />As for why the question of why the military would distance itself from the presentation, etc., that's simple. It's as simple as the phrase "public relations." As we all know, the PR objective in cases like this is not to defend the Truth but to make the controversy go away. What's the most effective way to do that? --<br /><br />(1) To calm the roiling waters of internet outrage with a wordy, reasoned explanation of the ways in which PP slides are actually used, and how easy it is to misread things when someone is already predisposed to misread it? I can easily imagine someone in some PR Department meeting rolling her eyes and saying, "Yeah, like <i>that</i> would work."<br /><br />(2) Throwing the presenter under the bus and saying, "Rogue presenter. We gave the fellow a good talking to, and it won't happen again."<br /><br />(1) is true, but (2) is better calculated to make the problem go away. That's why we got (2).Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04668073406352787818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-51718409982416844472015-10-12T19:05:09.731-05:002015-10-12T19:05:09.731-05:00Orbiting, let's imagine that you friendly pars...Orbiting, let's imagine that you friendly parsing of the presentation is completely correct. If the slide was just a way of listing different religions and discussing which ones were and which ones were not extremists, with kind respect being paid to Catholics and Evangelicals, and not a bigoted word against them being said, then how would you respond if you were the Army presenter or the spokesman for the Army, fully aware of the facts? Don't you think it would cross your mind to deny that Evangelicals and Catholics had been labeled extremists, along with all other extremist groups under the header "Religious Extremism"? Don't you think you, in defending your presentation or your organization, would offer an explanation as to why this was NOT an act of bigotry? Why on earth would you just distance yourself from the presentation and say it was an isolated event not in harmony with the high standards of the Army? If no bigotry toward Christians or Jews was involved, why not say so? Why add the distance and the excuses? Would you have responded that way if the facts fit your fanciful scenario? <br /><br />If that was just a poorly worded header that should have been something like "Sampling of religious extremists and some very nice non-extremists, too, let's discuss the differences", why not explain that? If an apology was needed for political reasons, why not apologize for the misunderstanding caused by using an abbreviated header that left off the nuances, and apologize for not making the slide more clear, and apologize for any misunderstanding, etc.? Why admit that something was awry by saying that the event was isolated and not consistent with Army standards? <br /><br />This should be a pretty clear and obvious point, IMHO. Especially when we know that the organization that has been helping out on these issues and was apparently the source of the slides has already got a track record of calling Evangelicals and Catholics extremists. That is not irrelevant data. Again, this is not a bizarre, paranoid concoction. It's the most direct and logical way to interpret what happened--otherwise, again, why wouldn't the Army explain the innocence of the sadly misunderstood slides. <br /><br />Having given many Powerpoint presentations and having seen many, if someone has a header with a big label like "Religious Extremists" and then lists some organizations under that label, they intend to show those organizations belong under the label. If some are and some aren't, they would use a question mark after the header or after the bullet points, or some other clue. <br /><br />Normal PowerPoiont usage, normal parsing of English, the behavior and apology of the Army, and the known track record of the SPLC all point to the scenario at odds with your wishful thinking. But you're free to feel whatever way you want--for now, anyway. Once we root out all the unacceptable beliefs and feelings that are the root of extremism, that may change. :) (Insert eerie, chilling music here. Key of F-minor, transitioning to D-flat-minor.)Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-37621231096550858342015-10-12T06:15:10.795-05:002015-10-12T06:15:10.795-05:00The Little Sisters of the Poor may have to pay sli...The Little Sisters of the Poor may have to pay slightly higher insurance premiums for policies which cover abortion than they would for policies which did not. On the other hand, if the chance that any claims would ever be made for abortions is really low, then competently competitive insurance agencies would surely make the premium step very small. Making it flat zero, in fact, would probably be a good marketing move on the part of the insurer.<br /><br />This may just be my own bias, but I don't find the subtle distinctions OrbitingKobol raises to be all that subtle. I can't help wondering whether people who are upset about anti-religious tyranny in these cases may just have applied far less thought to these cases than they would apply to, say, an apologetic argument in support of their own beliefs. Is there a certain shoot-first-and-ask-questions-later attitude to anything that smells even a bit like state encroachment on religious freedom?<br /><br />Sometimes states really do constrain religious freedom, of course. In some countries you can wave placards on street corners with your religious views, and in some countries you can't. If you're in a pretty free country, then on the one hand you should maybe use your freedom to defend your freedom, and protest threatened encroachments before they really get serious. On the other hand, though, raising alarm about a familiar bogeyman is also a convenient way to rally the faithful.James Anglinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18266855639647700167noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-25640379069949946582015-10-11T23:35:33.812-05:002015-10-11T23:35:33.812-05:00Here's another thing I thought worth mentionin...Here's another thing I thought worth mentioning in response to a post, which, as Jeff suggests right up front, is about the importance of making careful distinctions. Consider this statement from Sarah Torre about Obamacare and religious freedom:<br /><br />The federal government continued its fight to force the Little Sisters of the Poor, a Catholic charity dedicated to caring for the elderly poor, to cover abortion-inducing drugs and contraception in violation of their faith.<br /><br />I'm sure you can spot the problem with this statement: The feds are <i>not</i> forcing the Little Sisters "to cover abortion-inducing drugs and contraception."<br /><br />It's the <i>insurance policy</i> that covers the abortion-inducing drugs.<br /><br />And it's the <i>individual policyholder</i> who decides whether or not to use those drugs.<br /><br />And then it's the <i>insurance company</i> that pays for the drugs.<br /><br />As Jeff might ask, Aren't these all the same thing? And as I would answer, No. There are important differences between--<br /><br />(1) Having an abortion. This is clearly a sin for Catholic.<br /><br />(2) Purchasing a health insurance policy that covers abortion (but, obviously, doesn't compel anyone to actually have an abortion).<br /><br />(3) Contracting with a health insurance company, in compliance with a secular law, for a policy that covers abortion (but, again, doesn't compel Catholic policyholders to ever have one). Is this a sin for a Catholic organization? I doubt it, but in any case it's certainly not as clear as it is in (1).<br /><br />I think all of us would wholeheartedly agree with someone who says, "My Catholic religion forbids me from using birth control, and therefore, if the feds require me to use birth control they are violating my religious freedom."<br /><br />But that's not what is happening here.<br /><br />How many of us would agree with the person who says this? -- "My Catholic religion forbids me to use birth control, and therefore it violates my religious freedom to require me to facilitate some other person getting an insurance policy that will cover the cost of birth control if that other person chooses to use it."<br /><br />Before answering, consider this one:<br /><br />"My Quaker religion forbids me to kill anyone. Therefore it violates my religious freedom to require me to pay taxes that will cover the cost of the bullets that some other person will use to kill Viet Cong guerrillas."<br /><br />Or how about this one:<br /><br />"My Jewish religion forbids me to eat pork. Therefore it violates my religious freedom to require me to pay taxes that will cover the cost of agricultural research that will increase the productivity of pig farms that will produce bacon that someone other than me will eat."<br /><br />The point is that in all of these cases there are multiple degrees of separation between the commission of the actual sin and what the complaining citizen is actually being required to do. (Torre's rhetoric misleadingly collapses this separation.)<br /><br />So, how much of this type of separation is enough for us to say it is no longer reasonable to claim a violation of religious freedom?<br /><br />What should we make of arguments like these? --<br /><br /><i>My Baptist faith tells me that the earth is 6,000 years old; the Wisconsin state government requires me to pay taxes that help cover the salaries of college professors who teach that the earth is billions of years old; therefore, my religious freedom is being violated.<br /><br />My snakehandling faith tells me I must rely solely on God to heal me if I ever get bitten by a rattlesnake; the tyrannical federal government requires that my company's insurance company cover the cost of antivenom for other people; ergo....</i>Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04668073406352787818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-29993076778709518182015-10-11T19:23:37.851-05:002015-10-11T19:23:37.851-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04668073406352787818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-25323624645554127032015-10-07T12:52:52.077-05:002015-10-07T12:52:52.077-05:00About emperors claiming godhood:
I don't kno...About emperors claiming godhood: <br /><br />I don't know what the original thinker would have said about that, but I believe that when he himself later got into trouble with his local state over a religious dispute, he declared that God would not be emperor. That's not the same point, but it's somehow related, I guess.<br /><br />For myself, I guess I'd say that giving the emperor what is really his doesn't necessarily mean giving the emperor everything that the emperor claims is his. The state isn't entitled to claim everything. But over goods which the state itself creates, I figure the state gets to make the rules.James Anglinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18266855639647700167noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-8873542081869363872015-10-07T11:28:05.938-05:002015-10-07T11:28:05.938-05:00Okay, Jeff, extremist rather than terrorist. But s...Okay, Jeff, <i>extremist</i> rather than <i>terrorist</i>. But so what? You're just evading the fact that the evidence -- the slide itself -- <i>does not bear out Menzies' statement.</i> The slide does not cite Evangelical Christianity (or Catholicism or any other religion) as an example of religious extremism. It just doesn't. And I have yet to see any evidence whatsoever that the training itself did what you, in harmony with the wingnuttosphere, insist on saying it did. Instead of responding honestly to my central point about PowerPoint slides and how they're actually used, you point me to a bunch of irrelevancies, such as the fact that other organizations have bought into this silliness.<br /><br />As I keep saying, you're smarter than this, Jeff. Mormanity is a better blog than this. You have the education and the intellect to rise above the petty politics of faux-outrage, but for some reason would rather swim in the swamp. I really don't understand it.<br /><br />And really, who can honestly argue that Christians are oppressed in this country? Christianity is a central part of the dominant culture. That's one reason that political candidates make such an effort to highlight their Christianity (even when they have to lie to do so). When was the last time you saw a Christian candidate fibbing about his <i>atheist</i> bona fides in order to win votes? When was the last time you looked up and saw a U.S. Supreme Court that was not dominated by Catholics, Jews, and Protestants? When was the last time you saw a Christian jailed <i>simply for being a Christian</i>? (As opposed to violating some law whose secular purpose ran afoul of someone's religious belief, which of course is a very different thing.)<br /><br />Christian oppression in this country just ain't happening. What IS happening is that we've got a bunch of political spinmeisters stoking paranoia among the gullible.<br /><br />Sensible, educated people know that in actual practice, the need to balance legitimate secular interests against freedom of religious practice is a complex problem that for generations now has been thought through very carefully in the courts. So here's another suggestion: Back away for a spell from some of the hot-button, anger-prompting outrages du jour that are being so wildly misrepresented in the sleaze-o-sphere, and take some time to do what any good, educated, engaged American citizen <i>ought to do</i>, and read up on the actual jurisprudence of religious liberty, paying particular attention to the reasoning behind the various decisions. (Perhaps in your case this will merely be a refresher course.) And then, when you return to the contemporary issues, frame your arguments at the higher level your newfound knowledge will make possible. Do your part to elevate the discussion.<br /><br />And don't worry -- I don't charge for my advice. ;-)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04668073406352787818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-70863789940520351842015-10-07T06:13:05.858-05:002015-10-07T06:13:05.858-05:00It's not just Nicole M. and Fox News calling o...It's not just Nicole M. and Fox News calling out the US Army on what happened. <a href="http://www.milarch.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=dwJXKgOUJiIaG&b=8486699&ct=13059903" rel="nofollow">The Archdiocese for Military Services, USA, issued this statement</a>, so I presume they have something more than somebody's "almost certainly false" rumor to motivate this press release:<br /><br /><br /><b>AMS Calls on U.S. Defense Department to Review Army Reserve Training Material for Anti-Religious Content</b><br /> <br /><i>Concern raised by brief citing Catholicism as example of “religious extremism”</i><br /> <br />WASHINGTON, D.C.—The Archdiocese for the Military Services (AMS) issued the following statement today on the mischaracterization of “Catholicism” as an example of “religious extremism” on slide #24 of this U.S. Army Reserve training brief:<br /> <br />Statement<br /> <br />The Archdiocese for the Military Services and Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty recently became aware of a U.S. Army Reserve Equal Opportunity training brief that expressly listed “Catholicism,” “Evangelical Christianity” and other religious groups as examples of “religious extremism” alongside groups such as “Al Qaeda”, “Hamas” and the “KKK.” <br /><br />The Archdiocese is astounded that Catholics were listed alongside groups that are, by their very mission and nature, violent and extremist. <br /> <br />According to an investigation and reply from the Army Chief of Chaplains office, the training in question appears to have been an isolated incident not condoned by the Department of the Army. The Archdiocese and the Chaplain Alliance explained that the Army can and should take steps to prevent such incidents in the future.<br /><br />The Archdiocese calls upon the Department of Defense to review these materials and to ensure that tax-payer funds are never again used to present blatantly anti-religious material to the men and women in uniform.Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-23604901515539786812015-10-07T05:45:39.119-05:002015-10-07T05:45:39.119-05:00James, when the Emperor happens to think he is God...James, when the Emperor happens to think he is God, how do you manage that? Just a hypothetical question, of course. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-13203437548661877562015-10-07T01:59:33.982-05:002015-10-07T01:59:33.982-05:00Orbiting, what is your basis for saying Menzie'...Orbiting, what is your basis for saying Menzie's quote is "almost certainly false"? The US Army spokesman trying to cope with the backlash did not deny that the reported incident happened, but merely said it was an isolated event and not representative of official policy. "Army spokesman George Wright later said it was an isolated incident not condoned by the Dept. of the Army. And the slide, he said, was not produced by the Army nor did it reflect their policy or doctrine." He didn't even say the slide was being unfairly interpreted. <br /><br />The information used apparently came from the Southern Policy Law Center, a group which branded Dr. Benjamin Carson as an "extremist" for his views on traditional marriage (<a href="http://godfatherpolitics.com/20316/extremist-splc-puts-dr-ben-carson-extremist-watch-list/" rel="nofollow">here</a>), though they finally removed him from the extremist list this year after much backlash. They have a track record of labeling pro-family groups as "hate groups" and extremists (e.g., <a href="http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/pro-family-leaders-warn-that-hate-group-label-defines-christianity-as-bigotry/" rel="nofollow">here</a>). They've called many principled supporters of traditional Christian values "extremists" and "hate groups." Some black pastors have expressed outraged at the bigotry and extremism of the SPLC in condemning conservative Christians and pro-family groups as extremists (<a href="https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/black-pastors-join-pro-family-groups-to-condemn-southern-poverty-law-center" rel="nofollow">here</a>). The slides provided for Army training are quite consistent with the track record of this radical organization. It's also consistent with the relationship that SPLC has had with the Obama Administration (see <a href="https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/justice-department-enjoys-close-relationship-with-southern-poverty-law-cent?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+LifesitenewscomLatestHeadlines+%28LifeSiteNews.com+Latest+Headlines%29" rel="nofollow">here</a>). According to <a href="http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2014/03/fbi-quietly-cuts-ties-with-anti-christian-hate-group/" rel="nofollow">Judicial Watch in 2014</a>:<br /><br /><i>Last year JW obtained files from the Obama DOJ that reveal SPLC co-founder Morris Dees actually conducted a “Diversity Training Event” for the agency. Later in the year, another shocker was exposed by the conservative coalition working to chip away at the SPLC’s influence in government; the radical group also provides the U.S. military with training supplies and briefings. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), a DOJ entity, also endorsed the SPLC as a source and listed it as a resource on its hate crime web page.</i><br /><br />Fortunately, last year, after public pressure and outrage, there was a touch of progress when the FBI decided to quietly change its hate crimes resources web page where SPLC had been listed as one of their trusted sources of information. Now SPLC's name is absent. But that doesn't make me think the bigoted influence of SPLC has been diminished.<br /><br />For a detailed look at this organization, its history, and its agenda, see <a href="http://capitalresearch.org/2012/10/southern-poverty-law-center-wellspring-of-manufactured-hate/" rel="nofollow">Southern Poverty Law Center: Wellspring of Manufactured Hate</a> at CapitalResearch.org. As we know from FIFA requests, This radical group has close ties to Eric Holder and the Obama Administration, in spite of the FBI deleting their name, and I fear they will continue to influence US government policy. They may need to be more subtle in their ongoing steps, but I don't think we're looking at a "nothingburger."<br /><br />If you can provide some support for the Army training incident being a fabrication by Nicole Menzie or some kind of vast right-wing/Fox News conspiracy, I will certainly consider the evidence. Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-21960095119520655592015-10-07T01:40:28.140-05:002015-10-07T01:40:28.140-05:00Jeff, do you seriously think a U.S. Army official ...<i>Jeff, do you seriously think a U.S. Army official actually equated Evangelical Christianity, qua Evangelical Christianity, with religious terrorism?</i><br /><br />No, that's not what I said at all. I said they are equating Evangelical Christianity with extremism, not terrorism. Remember, the bait-and-switch that I'm talking about is using terrorism as the excuse to go after "extremism" (along with its cousin spooks such as "divisiveness," "fear," hate, etc.). The SPLC has already made it quite clear that they consider outspoken supporters of traditional marriage to be "hate groups" and extremists.<br /><br />I think you need to be more willing to recognize that we may have an ugly problem of extremism growing in some quarters you may be fond of. It's hard to see that, I know, when the extremism goes your way, against those you detest. But the lessons of history (French Revolution, Cultural Revolution, Stalin, Cambodia, Cuba, etc.) show that once governments grow out of control and begin to target enemies relentlessly, former friends and supporters often find themselves on the receiving end of trouble (or the guillotine, as some French revolutionaries experienced). Gay or straight, white or black, big footed or small, it's in all our interest to prevent extremism in government power. Allowing the US government or a global body under the UN to target anyone they label as "extreme" is a threat to liberty of all kinds. And no, I'm not saying that we're suddenly going to become Nazi Germany, but that we may gradually (or suddenly) find erosion of some important liberties.<br /><br />The erosion of liberty in the name of suppressing a feared enemy--undefinable "extremism" of any kind in this case--is a well traveled road in world history that usually leads to an ugly destination and a costly return trip.Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-21622580160144933742015-10-07T01:38:49.106-05:002015-10-07T01:38:49.106-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-20116397502543383992015-10-07T00:27:01.919-05:002015-10-07T00:27:01.919-05:00On the dangers of that new "right to dignity,...On the dangers of that new "right to dignity," a supporter of gay marriage wrote <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/the-dangerous-doctrine-of-dignity/391796/" rel="nofollow">a piece for the Atlantic</a> explaining some of the problems with this vague term: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/the-dangerous-doctrine-of-dignity/391796/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-77602165955043258552015-10-06T21:43:11.352-05:002015-10-06T21:43:11.352-05:00Jeff, the Army training slide about religious extr...Jeff, the Army training slide about religious extremism is a total nothingburger, and the Nicola Menzie quote is almost certainly false. The slide you reproduced is certainly no smoking gun. There's nothing in it that "describes 'Evangelical Christianity' and 'Catholicism' as examples of 'religious extremism.'"<br /><br />Think about how PowerPoint slides are actually used in lectures. They typically do not say all that is going to be said; they serve merely to provide points of reference that are explained and elaborated on by the speaker. Having endured many, many of these slide presentations, I can assure you that what happened at the training was something like this: The speaker put the slide up on the screen, then referred to the "Evangelical Christianity" bullet point, and then gave examples of extremist groups that identify as Evangelical Christian. (Would that include the Army of God? the Hutaree movement? I dunno--I'm not an expert. But the trainer giving the lecture probably knows.)<br /><br />This is obviously a far cry from describing Evangelical Christianity itself as an example of religious extremism.<br /><br />Ditto for Catholicism, ultra-orthodox Judaism, Sunni Islam, etc.<br /><br />Jeff, do you seriously think a U.S. Army official actually <i>equated</i> Evangelical Christianity, <i>qua</i> Evangelical Christianity, with religious terrorism? Before an audience that was probably filled with Catholics and Evangelical Christians? To think so is to put the absolute worst possible spin on the evidence of the slide.<br /><br />(A little Googling reveals that this paranoid and ideologically motivated interpretation of the slide was picked up by FOX news and spread all over the right-wing blogosphere -- but I really think someone as smart as Jeff Lindsay should not have been so quick to fall for it. And as so often happens, a lie goes halfway round the world before the truth can even get its boots on.)<br /><br />As for Kim Davis, Anon. 12:15, she really needs to get a clue. Her signature as county clerk on a marriage certificate issued to a gay couple does not signify her endorsement of gay marriage. It certifies that the couple meets the legal requirements for marriage. That's it. It's a morally neutral statement of what is now a fact. Davis might not like that fact, but acknowledging the fact is not a violation of her religious belief. She’s simply wrong, and instead of being exploited by grifters like Mat Staver and politicians Mike Huckabee, she needs to have someone sit down with her and patiently explain the facts.<br /><br />Note that the exact same thing is true of Davis's signature on a certificate issued to a heterosexual couple that incudes a divorced man. Jesus quite clearly said "that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery" (which is a lot more than the guy ever said about gay people). Adultery is condemned in the Ten Commandments (whereas gay sex is not). I could go on, but you get the point. Divorcee remarriage is a clear violation of Christian doctrine, but its legality is a simple fact.<br /><br />So, how is it that Davis has managed for years to blithely sign off on marriage licenses for straight couples that include a divorced man? Think of the Ten Commandments, woman! The Word of God is clear!<br /><br />Why did this not affront her tender Christian sensibilities and drive her to martyrdom?<br /><br />What is so different about gay people?<br /><br />I think we all know the answer. The most obviously explanation is that the whole thing is not about her <i>religion</i>, it's about her <i>prejudice</i>. (As for Huckabee, it's also about the fact that there's no longer any political benefit to trashing divorced people.)<br /><br />There's much more to say -- especially about abortion coverage in health insurance policies -- but Jeff's Big List would exhaust me. For now I would simply ask that he retract the section about the Army Training Manual.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04668073406352787818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-28741958774022754422015-10-06T17:28:08.499-05:002015-10-06T17:28:08.499-05:00To Anonymous @ 1:36 and Anonymous @ 1:46
From an ...To Anonymous @ 1:36 and Anonymous @ 1:46<br /><br />From an article at <i>Christian Today</i> which appeared at the time of BYU's reaccreditation:<br /><br />"If Mormons, the other name for LSD members, stop believing in church doctrine while at school, they could stand to lose their endorsement and be expelled from the university.<br /><br />This was confirmed by a November 2014 statement from BYU's spokesperson Carri Jenkins.<br /><br />'A former Mormon who decides to leave the church distances themselves from those promises and commitments,' Jenkins had said in the statement. <br /><br />'The result is that they are not eligible to attend BYU,' she added."<br /><br />The full article is available at <br />http://www.christiantoday.com/article/mormons.could.be.expelled.from.brigham.young.university.for.losing.faith/51217.htm<br /><br />Note that the BYU spokesperson does not say they will be charged non-Mormon rates and fees. She says "the result is that they are <i>not eligible to attend</i> BYU." Religious freedom in action!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-16913409318126965972015-10-06T15:09:12.137-05:002015-10-06T15:09:12.137-05:00I seem to recall the conflict between state author...I seem to recall the conflict between state authority and individual conviction coming up way back in ancient times. Some ancient sage had an insightful take on it, I think. He said something like, "Give the Emperor that which is the Emperor's, and give God that which is God's." <br /><br />Now who was that ancient guy? Confucius? His saying does sound more Chinese than American to me.James Anglinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18266855639647700167noreply@blogger.com