In-Lawfully Yours

I referenced this film about six years ago. The video I used is blocked. I summarized:

Up Channel has "new" films on Sunday nights at 7/11 that are actually not new but promoted as new. For a few weeks now, the picks have been overall pretty good. 

This week, we had a city girl, not much into God, come to help her old mother-in-law (as in ex -- the hubby cheated on her) move after the father-in-law died. She falls for the new minister, whose deceased wife was her sister-in-law. 

Thus, the punny title. Various familiar faces, including two people in current shows and two from old shows. It has light touches mixed with a lot of serious content. 

Well-acted, with the story pretty well paced too. Sorta topical.

The film was a Regents University production. The DVD behind-the-scenes extra talks about that, including how film students were involved. 

Its website offers:

Experience the difference of America’s Premier Christian University that offers over 150 areas of study online and on campus in Virginia Beach, Virginia.

"Christian" means a variety of things. The film promotes an open-minded view. After all, the minister might be a widower, but the other love interest is a divorcee. 

At one point, her ex comes back pretending to want to reunite. He claims to be reformed. It is a trick. Some Christians would find that troublesome. Why not make it a redemption story and save her from the evils of divorce?!

She asks a lot of questions about the Bible and religion in the film. The film cheats a bit by not providing too many answers to her questions. 

Yes, how do you know you chose the right religion? Yes, how did Job getting a new family really help him after his old one all died?  

The film does know that a "message" film should first be a good film. The Bible is filled with stories that teach us. They are also enjoyable stories. They were passed down for more than their moral lessons.

I re-watched the film (at least for a third time) and still enjoyed it. The husband's coming back is a bit heavy-handed, but it is an understandable plot device. Got to earn that nice ending. 

Still, I want to get past that and back to the pastor and his sister-in-law building a relationship. They are a good couple. And both are well-rounded, complex characters. 

Mets at the 1/4 Way Point

 

A lot of mediocre teams. A lot of teams are under .500. After 40 games, the Mets are at the bottom of the pack at 15-25. A lot of baseball is left. Still, that's pretty bad.

Umpire John

Judge Sotomayor, before becoming a justice, noted that appellate judges make policy. They set forth rules while district judges largely determine facts.

As Lawrence Hurley reported for NBC News, Roberts continued: “I think they view us as truly political actors, which I don’t think is an accurate understanding of what we do. I would say that’s the main difficulty. “

What is a "political actor?" Let's go the dictionary:

political

adjective

po·​lit·​i·​cal pə-ˈli-ti-kəl 

1a: of or relating to government, a government, or the conduct of government

b: of, relating to, or concerned with the making as distinguished from the administration of governmental policy

2: of, relating to, involving, or involved in politics and especially party politics

3: organized in governmental terms

political units

4: involving or charged or concerned with acts against a government or a political system

political prisoners

The Supreme Court plays a significant role in setting forth policy. It does so in ways with many political implications. Fitting those definitions. 

The term "political" is disfavored by many judges. It sounds like they are "politicians" who are shady sorts. Judges are supposed to be above the fray. They are special.

We accept too much the idea that politicians, who represent us, are allowed to be "dirty." It helps Trump some since "they are all bad, right?" 

But John Roberts is setting forth an artificial dynamic here. The Supreme Court has a political role. His saying after the recent Voting Rights Act opinions is even harder to take. 

Each branch of government has different roles in our system. Courts have a role that is more independent in certain respects. They, however, are not just off on the side, outside of the political system.

Honesty can help us determine how to react, including what sort of reforms of the courts should be sought. 

===

Talking political, I talk about the Virginia Supreme Court (4-3) overturning the redistricting measure here. tl;dr: It was not a scam that they waited to decide, but how they ruled looks pretty sketchy. 

National Day of Prayer

I agree with the Freedom From Religion Foundation, whose lawsuit was successful at the district court level before losing on standing, that this is unconstitutional. (Link to litigation at that linked discussion.) Good luck doing so these days.

The President shall issue each year a proclamation designating the first Thursday in May as a National Day of Prayer on which the people of the United States may turn to God in prayer and meditation at churches, in groups, and as individuals.

Congress should not be selectively advising people, especially the president [though this one is quite willing to do so without being pushed], to pray. The district court opinion from the before times referenced Justice Blackmun's opinion in a creche case (Allegheny):

It is worth noting that just because Marsh sustained the validity of legislative prayer, it does not necessarily follow that practices like proclaiming a National Day of Prayer are constitutional. Legislative prayer does not urge citizens to engage in religious practices, and on that basis could well be distinguishable from an exhortation from government to the people that they engage in religious conduct. But, as this practice is not before us, we express no judgment about its constitutionality.

The dissent acknowledged that the legislation “is a straightforward endorsement of the concept of turning to God in prayer." [cleaned up] These days, that sort of thing is more and more allowed. It still is bad under the First Amendment.

The word "may" aside, the legislation has the purpose and effect of promoting prayer. It is a "National Day of Prayer." Baptists who respect the separation of church and state see the problem while realizing there are worse breaches.

(There is a reference to meditation, but it remains a day of prayer. And not everyone does that either.) 

I again note that -- though prayer is something many religions do -- the language favors Christianity. There is a reference to "churches," not places of worship. 

Religious liberty warrants a separation of church and state. It also warrants avoiding favoritism, including selectively instructing the president to proclaim about certain religious activities. 

What We Stand For

Joanne Freeman, the historian, argued on BlueSky: 

• Empathy 
• Diversity 
• Equity 
• Humanity (& the humanities) 
• A broad idea of “WE THE PEOPLE” 
• Concern for ANY kind of “we” Truth 
• (Real) history 

The current regime opposes these things. 

Needs to be stated plainly.

SCOTUS Monday (Not a Fun Day)

It started blandly with a four page Order List. Then, Alito provided an expected administrative (temporary) stay to the wrongminded abortion pill ruling. Then, it granted a request to immediately put the Voting Rights Act ruling into effect. Jackson dissented. Alito (with Thomas/Gorsuch) whined about it. Hit too close to home, Sam?

ETA: A request to recall the judgment was denied.

Trump Supports Anti-Christian Bias

Religion Clause Blog reports: 

Yesterday, the President's Task Force to Eradicate anti-Christian Bias issued a report (full text) titled Eradicating Anti-Christian Bias within the Federal Government. The 197-page Report (with an additional 368 pages of Exhibits) focuses on policies of the Biden Administration.

The report has the usual Trump anti-Biden bullshit. Biden, whose expression of religious beliefs was much more honest than Trump's, supposedly is "anti-Christian." 

Biden regularly wore his religion on his sleeve and did so a lot more credibly than the current occupant. His Administration also respected equality, including the diversity of Christian beliefs. 

Trump's Administration selectively weaponizes Christian beliefs, promoting Christian nationalism, while disrespecting many Christians. This includes changing long in place policy regarding ICE enforcement at places of worship.

Where is this so-called anti-Christian bias? For instance, people who blocked clinics, motivated partially by religious beliefs, were not allowed merely to continue to do so. Laws protecting clinics were enforced. So, people could freely obtain health care, pursuant to their (often Christian) moral beliefs.

Vaccine mandates were also enforced. First, the average Christian doesn't find vaccines problematic. Second, requiring workers, including health care workers, to vaccinate or use alternative methods to protect others, is not "anti-Christian bias."  

There are rules in place respecting non-profits with tax breaks. Religions and religious organizations, whatever the religion, don't deserve a special exemption from the rules here. 

And so, it goes on and on. The Trump Administration promotes a selective form of Christian nationalism. The Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty has flagged the problems of Christian Nationalism. But then, they aren't the "Christians" the Administration is concerned about.

Religious liberty is a fundamental aspect of freedom, not just in the promotion of some favored ones. It is too precious to let such special pleading go on without comment. See also, Justice Thomas and his confused and biased take on how "they" ignore the true meaning of the Declaration of Independence. 

"Christianity" is not just a conservative form of it. "The left" are alleged to be anti-Christian and anti-religious. This is a vicious slander.