Texas Bible Reading List

I discuss Texas putting out a new reading list for schools that includes biblical stories. One theme is that we should think about such things, including the meaning of the Ten Commandments. Also, yes, this has a feel of an illegitimate sectarian establishment of religion. But let's go deeper. It's for 2030. We have time.

Military Chaplain Updates

Military chaplains are a usual example of when we can have government support of religion.* 

Granting that, religion, especially mixed with government, remains a sensitive subject. The streamlining of "faith codes" underlines the point with controversy from various quarters. 

The so-called Department of War [still not a thing] posted on Twitter (blah) the general goal:

In order to clarify the work of chaplains and simplify the work of commanders, the Pentagon has consolidated and simplified the list to roughly thirty codes — using the previously used labels for faiths.

The Pentagon’s job is not to adjudicate theological debates, but instead to ensure sincerely-held faith is respected and encouraged in our ranks.

I'm not sure if its job is to "encourage" faith, sincerely-held or not, either. But, okay, let's go with that.

There was a major hiccup when Mormons were not labeled "Christians." Many Republicans (and Trump supporters) are Mormons. That caused a flare-up.

The new codes did not designate specific Christian denominations as such. Catholics were just "Catholics," not "Catholics (Christian)."

People were still upset that many other religions were left out. We just have a catchall "Other Religions" category.

Also, we have a single "Judaism" category, which includes multiple major groups, and a bunch of separate, relatively small (Church of the Nazarene?) Christian groups. 

Secretary of Defense Hegseth, who wears his specific Christian beliefs on his sleeve and promotes them in his official capacity, also made other changes. 

Hegseth has not earned much respect as someone to trust with such things.

Before the change, a chaplain’s uniform carried their rank insignia along with a symbol denoting their religion.

The policy, he said, “speaks to the difficult balance of the duality of a military chaplain. A chaplain is first and foremost a chaplain and an officer second. This change is a visual representation of that fact.”

Hegseth also said that removing rank allowed chaplains to “be seen among the highest ranks because of their divine calling.”

The person is a military chaplain. Rank is important to the military. They were seen as chaplains before. I'm unsure why this move is necessary. I would like to know how chaplains overall feel about it. 

The directive follows a broader effort by Hegseth to reshape the military’s Chaplain Corps. In a December message, he said he wanted to restore chaplains’ focus on ministry and argued that the role had shifted toward counseling and support functions in recent years.

What "ministry" entails depends on the person. For many, it would include "counseling and support functions." This seems like an idiosyncratic view of what the appropriate role of a chaplain is. Did he think the old way was too "woke"?

The good faith of this Administration, with its Christian Nationalism overtones, on this issue is already questionable. Hegseth has also shown to be racist and sexist, including regarding firings. 

We can move on from that. The general issue is sensitive. It is a good thing that it is getting some attention. Perhaps, more kinks will be worked out. 

==

Note: Religion is one of those subjects that will sometimes lead people to jump to first principles, including rejecting special rules for religions at all. Some will make some snide references.

So it goes. "Religion" is referenced in the First Amendment and is a general legal category, including in human rights law. It's a thing. 

Indiana and Tennessee Declare June as Nuclear Family Month

I discuss the various problems with this here. I toss in a link to an amusing "drag comedy" that is also a satire of teenage films. 

Ken Paxton Attacks Opponent's Religious Beliefs

I discussed a book that argues that religious beliefs will sometimes be relevant when determining who is fit for public office. Racist religious beliefs do not get a pass. It is touchy.

The dig is an anti-trans epithet. MAGA selectively cares about religious liberty. Anti-trans rhetoric is here insulting the beliefs of millions of Christians. Among other things, yes, that is disqualifying. 

“Rededicate 250"

The “Rededicate 250: A National Jubilee of Prayer, Praise & Thanksgiving” event in D.C. today had a Christian Nationalism feel. 

The Washington Post article's title:

Trump-backed prayer festival on National Mall draws thousands: ‘We welcome Jesus!’

It was not merely a private event:

A crowd of thousands transformed a block of the National Mall into an evangelical-style worship service Sunday at an event backed by President Donald Trump and funded with millions of taxpayer dollars.

Trump didn't show up. They played a video of his reading a Christian Nationalism-friendly biblical quote from a different event. A few signs of religious diversity (including the usual Judeo-Christian touches with Judaism as a the clearly junior party) aside, the dominating force was apparent:

People described a variety of reasons for coming — to bring awareness to what they see as harassment of or disfavor toward conservative Christians, to pray for the country to repent for its sins, or to fortify what they call the Christian roots of the country — in particular against Islam or other faiths outside Christianity or Judaism. 

Pete Hegseth referencing the mythical story of General Washington kneeling to pray story is the flavor of "history" we will see here. An honest accounting of our nation's religious story would be helpful. 

This bunch, with Trump as their false god, won't give it to you.  It is more likely to be blasphemous, including to many Christian believers. And, to our overall values.  

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. 

Bible Reading Marathon

Trump Will Participate in a Marathon Bible Reading

He will read a passage from the Old Testament that his Christian supporters cite as a call to national repentance and divine blessing.

I have long had an interest in the Bible. I listen to Bart Ehrman's weekly podcast. I took a New Testament course a long time ago. I have read a lot about the subject. I once read the whole Bible. 

I am reading this book by Rachel Held Evans' sister. It works both as a general discussion of grief and grief rituals as well as a Christian discussion. She comes from that tradition. She's a good writer. 

People will have a cynical reaction to this effort. Trump surely doesn't seem like an honest broker here. The verse he read is somewhat ironic if read honestly:

If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

Certain evangelicals read some biblical quotes in a Christian Nationalist way. The original context was the Jewish people in ancient times. The current meaning should not be inferred to be a statement of Trump triumphalism. 

I think, quite honestly, our nation should humble itself and seek forgiveness for its wicked ways. It has supported Trump and committed much damage beyond that. It needs to accept what it did. It has to work toward healing.

Susie Wiles, the White House chief of staff, will read Proverbs 31, which includes a wide-ranging list of qualities of “a wife of noble character” that has become a touchstone for many Christian women.

This is another somewhat ironic choice. How would the original author feel about her position? How noble is it to be Trump's chief of staff?

Rachel Held Evans spoke repeatedly about that chapter, about "women of valor." Rachel did not just read the Bible. She studied it in depth. That is the best way. Also, it's a good thing to discuss. 

I suppose when the whole "Bible" is read, it will be the Protestant Bible. I was taught using the Catholic Bible, which has additional material. 

Congress, some time back, read the whole Constitution. Well, not really. They edited it somewhat, skipping over amended parts. That allowed them to skip over the slavery stuff. Did they read the whole thing when they did it again more recently? They should read the whole thing.

The Bible can get tedious, especially all those genealogies and rules and regulations. A few of the prophets go on for quite a long time. But it's okay if they want to read the whole thing. Should be done humbly and not as a partisan thing.

We see the world through a glass, darkly. 

ETA: I liked the book on grief. The chapters sometimes went too long. 

It is significantly a personal narrative, since she had multiple miscarriages and her sister died. (Her grandmother also died, but that is fairly typical for someone her age.) She is a bit privileged.

She has a husband, family, friends, and a rewarding career. Lots of people don't have all of that to fall back on. Toss in faith, no matter how she noted she sometimes struggled with it.

I respect her overall, helped by an overall liberal outlook. Still, that got to be a bit much after a while, especially with all the talk of rituals involving the community. Not everyone has "a community."

I also am not a Christian. Christianity can be fine. Stephen Colbert is a Christian and all that. 

This addendum is not about my disagreement with the basics of Christian doctrine. Still, the whole died for sins business. Such a great sacrifice!!!!!

That has long annoyed me. Many people suffer and die for a whole lot less. They often don't even know if their death will mean much. They might sacrifice for one person. Imagine dying to save humanity?

(I'll grant the premise! Still dubious!) 

And, sorry to bring this up, why did they need to be saved in the first place? Oh well.

Religious Liberty Commission Follies

At a Monday (April 13) hearing at the Museum of the Bible in Washington, D.C., Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, a Republican and the chair of the commission, asked, “Would it not be a good recommendation that every school, every university, every business, has to have that one sheet on the bulletin board about protecting people’s religious liberty, and that the separation of church and state is the biggest lie that’s been told in America since our founding?”

The Trump Religious Liberty Commission meeting at the Museum of the Bible (book) is fitting. The museum is an evangelical enterprise significantly funded by Hobby Lobby. 

The chair argued that "the anti-God left has used ["separation of church and state"] to suppress people of religion in our country." This is the "biggest lie" told in America since our founding. "Slavery is a positive good" is third or fourth, perhaps. 

Religious liberty is extremely important. It is also highly debated. But the commission is not set up for an honest discussion. The discussion might offer references to Baptists, Madison, and Jefferson strongly supporting state/church separation. 

This caricature of right-wing beliefs leads some to disdain any talk about religion. We will get references to fantasy people in the sky or some such thing. 

A pending case reflects one single-minded view. A Catholic organization wants an exception to an LGBTQ equality provision. Another lawsuit involves a hospice that claims a religious exemption from a trans equality provision. 

I find such litigation selfish. Not all Catholics believe in this anti-LGBTQ doctrine. Regardless, if you want to take part in public affairs, including public welfare services, it is not outrageous that basic equality has to be followed. 

Is this what you want to worry about when providing hospice care to people? Not allowing them rooms in their self-designated genders? Will you only provide them care if they pray to Jesus Christ, too? How shallow a Christian you are. 

(Catholic nuns don't use birth control.* That is b.s., too. The concern has to be the employees. 

Some janitors at a school can't have birth control, even if it is their own employment-based health care. Some sisters realize that it is moronic.)

Last month, Meenu Batra, 53, who has lived in the South Texas border colonia of Laguna Heights since 2002, was on her way to Milwaukee, Wisconsin, to work another case. She’s been a court interpreter for over 20 years, the only one licensed in Texas for Hindi, Punjabi, or Urdu. Her language skills are requested nationwide, where she’s contracted to help people making their way through the immigration court system, just as she did for herself 35 years ago when she immigrated from India to New Jersey before settling in Texas.

I think this is probably a more troublesome threat to religious liberty. Such a translator is likely used by Hindus and other minority faiths partially to obtain religious services. 

Respect for immigrants is generally a religious obligation in many faiths. Some people do oppose anti-immigration policies, especially those of a Trumpian nature, on religious grounds.

Is the presence of "woke" religions a "big lie," too? 

==

Note: Maybe some Catholic nuns do use birth control. Some gay priests are sexually active. 

The "birth control" also sometimes has other health uses. I'm not sure how much that comes up with Catholic nuns. I assume they are not deemed "sluts" if they use it for non-contraceptive reasons. 

Braving the Truth

 

Rachel Held Evans died in 2019. Multiple additional books, including this collection of essays (with additional commentary by others), followed. I talk about it here and here. With additional Trump b.s. 

Rubio's European Address

Secretary of State Marco Rubio and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz shake hands at the Munich Security Conference earlier this month. 

Rubio's speech received some attention. The link (The Guardian) acknowledges he was reasonable as compared to Vice President James David Vance's speech last year. OTOH, they have different purposes.

Rubio provides the patina of reasonableness. Vance is full-fledged MAGA. This is a matter of degree.

Rubio’s speech was more subtle and coherent, but he in essence sang from the same hymn sheet: the message from Washington remains that Europe and the US should be defined by ethno-political values of culture, tradition and religion. 

The fact that such history has also bred nationalism, racism, fascism and colonialism is apparently nothing to be ashamed of.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation focuses on the so-called common religion tradition angle. 

“We are part of one civilization — Western civilization,” he claimed. “We are bound to one another by the deepest bonds that nations could share, forged by centuries of shared history, Christian faith, culture, heritage, language, ancestry and the sacrifices our forefathers made together for the common civilization to which we have fallen heir.”

Christian Nationalism was more blatantly expressed during the National Prayer Breakfast. 

Trump’s religious adviser Paula White-Cain introduced the U.S. president as “the greatest champion of faith that we have ever had in the executive branch,” claiming he has “brought religion back to this nation and beyond.”

Trump then mixed politics and religion, including denouncing Democrats as un-Christian. 

The baggage involved in these events has led many Democrats who otherwise support the concept to be wary about the whole thing. FFRF and others have covered this over the years.

Lawfare, which leans center-right, also has a summary. For instance, there are such passages as "rules-based global order—an overused term."  

See also:

Under President Trump, the United States of America will once again take on the task of renewal and restoration, driven by a vision of a future as proud, as sovereign, and as vital as our civilization’s past. And while we are prepared, if necessary, to do this alone, it is our preference and it is our hope to do this together with you, our friends here in Europe. 

The "renewal and restoration" talk is basic "Make America Great Again" rhetoric. 

Rubio is sending the message that America is supporting authoritarians (darn rules!) like in Hungary that promote that message. And the U.S. (and other nations willing to go along shouldn't feel bound to those rules in doing so either. 

Also, Trump's overall immigration policy is furthered by this passage:

“in a pursuit of a world without borders, we opened our doors to an unprecedented wave of mass migration that threatens the cohesion of our societies, the continuity of our culture, and the future of our people.” 

The Lawfare summary ends with a brief translation of the speech, including the non-Vance tone:

But all of that is rude to say. And it makes us look bad. And it makes you all worry. So let’s collectively indulge the polite fiction that we have more in common than we do. Let’s overstate a shared history. Let’s pretend we agree on shared challenges. And let’s pretend I’m not saying that the basis for our future cooperation is that you submit to our will. The first step in this regard is that I flatter you. The second step is that you applaud for me. And then I will fly home.

Many Democratic senators have had buyer's remorse for going along with the unanimous confirmation of this guy. Rubio was supposedly a reasonable guy, unlike the Secretary of Defense or Health and Human Services. 

Maybe on some sort of curve. Still, how surprising is it that Rubio is going along with Trump's policies without much serious pushback? Nothing in his past suggests the guy has some sort of spine. He would be a loyal soldier. Plus, even in a vacuum, Rubio had issues.

Now, he is the Secretary of State in the Trump Administration. Yes, we can have worse. 

OTOH, with people like Trump's former real estate lawyer and the Boy Wonder (Kushner, who always looks damn creepy in photographs) travelling the world and doing foreign policy, it is unclear how much better things are now.  

And his Munich speech suggests what is what as well.

===

Meanwhile: Mets lost their ST opener 2-1. Some nobody gave up an unearned run for the loss. 

The Religious Test: Why We Must Question the Beliefs of Our Leaders

Damon Linker, who is actively posting on "Twitter," wrote this book fifteen years ago. 

So, it was writing about same sex marriage before it was recognized as a constitutional right. He thought it inevitable. He also discussed the unlikely possibility of Roe v. Wade being overturned. Oh well.

The Constitution bars religious tests. Many people understand that as a general principle in the United States. Let's quote the specific text:

no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

The Fourteenth Amendment effectively "incorporated" this principle so that it applies to state and local offices. The presence of "Catholic" or "Jewish" seats on the Supreme Court underlines it was not applied to mean that any religious criteria are barred.  

Some might argue that such things are not a good idea. Still. Are we to take the clause literally in its broadest sense? If a person is selected to defend civil rights, are we to ignore their racist religious beliefs, while being able to be concerned if they belonged to the Nazi Party (political)?  Many would not think so.

Linker does not directly talk about the implications, for instance, when the Senate considers judicial nominations. For instance, John Kennedy (not that one) questioned a judicial nominee about his sermons. Is that a problem in the way he did so there? 

The book has a more general concern about the religious beliefs of people who might clash with liberal values. Not "liberal" as in "Democrat." No, a wider usage that recognizes the values of a free society, including a sense of moderation and openness. 

Many religious groups are illiberal in that sense. Some have political influence. And, this was pre-Trump. He includes radical atheists like Christopher Hitchens, who are not willing to "play nice" with religious beliefs. I can imagine his views on Trump. 

Linker also argues that a liberal society requires an individual rights view of gay and abortion matters. He cautions that we should tread carefully, for instance, recognizing the rights of those against same sex marriage. He draws the line at the marketplace. Again, I wonder how he felt about Hobby Lobby.

He lays this a bit thick sometimes. For instance, he wants public schools to carefully avoid driving more conservative-leaning parents away regarding social issues. Linker is adamant that it would not include avoiding teaching evolution. 

OTOH, he appears to not be too gung-ho on LGBTQ friendly curriculum plans. At some point, you won't win. Some parents will be upset if you even bring up Stonewall. 

His whole discussion on "traditional" marriage skips over much of the sexist aspects of the institution, including coverture. Linker also somewhat exaggerates how prevalent traditional morality was. See, e.g., Lawrence v. Texas on how the state largely avoided enforcing anti-sodomy laws unless the behavior took place in the open or involved minors. 

The debate over the details should not erase that the general message is valid. We should care about liberal values, and religion can interfere. It is not prejudicial to take this into consideration, especially if we also accept the right of free exercise. We allow speech we hate without merely listening to it without comment. 

The constitutional religious test rule bars, at the very least, formal qualifications by force of law based on religious doctrine. The No Religious Test Clause has a broader principle of separation of church and state. 

The clause does not, realistically cannot, mean we do not care about the beliefs (religious or otherwise) of governmental officials. The average official can do their job even when it somehow clashes with their beliefs. A pacifist can collect taxes that might be used for warfare. 

Still, the religious beliefs are relevant. And, many officials these days are not willing to uphold the separation of church and state. They by word and deed make this very clear. 

Linker provides a helpful summary of why religious beliefs are relevant. It is a conversation we should continue to have.

SCOTUS Watch: Order List

The big news is the first oral argument this term involving executive removal power. It didn't go too well for text, history, sane public policy, and restraint of executive overreach (e.g., Trump).

First, there was an Order List. Among the usual housekeeping, there were a few notable things.

Mark Joseph Stern noted on Bluesky:

The Supreme Court just set aside a 2nd Circuit decision upholding New York's requirement that all school students, public and private, obtain certain vaccinations, without any religious exemptions. It orders the 2nd Circuit to reconsider the ruling in light of SCOTUS' LGBTQ school books decision.

The case involves New York changing its vaccine exemption rules after a measles outbreak. Note that the "LGBTQ" decision was not "only" about gays, lesbians, and trans people. It provided open-ended religious opt-outs. 

Someone else summarized a brief per curiam:

Doe v. Dynamic Physical Therapy, case 25-180. This time, a summary reversal. Doe claimed discrimination in medical care because he was HIV positive. Louisiana courts ruled that the state-declared COVID emergency barred his claims. Medical providers have broad immunity during a health emergency. The Supreme Court said the state can't overrule federal law like that and remanded to allow the petitioner to lose under federal law instead of state law.

(A person commenting at Volokh Conspiracy.)

This was a second brief, unsigned opinion that, in part, baldly cited the Supremacy Clause as if the lower court didn't understand that it existed. In both cases, I doubt that it is true. They didn't think it blocked their analysis. 

I think SCOTUS might have benefited from providing a bit more analysis on why the lower court was incorrect. 

Anyway, meanwhile, Sotomayor dropped a statement agreeing with a denial (briefly noting why) while pointing out something about the beyond a reasonable doubt rules.  

Kagan and Alito recused in two cases. Kagan explained why she did so. Kagan also explained what is wrong with the current removal law in her Seila Law dissent. New dissent pending. 

Trump DOGE and Foreign Policy Follies

Paul Krugman's discussion on the privacy invasion involved with DOGE (remain that?) reminds me of a 1970s Supreme Court opinion that upheld a regulation of prescription drugs. 

The opinion has helpful dicta spelling out the contours of the right to privacy. It noted:

A final word about issues we have not decided. We are not unaware of the threat to privacy implicit in the accumulation of vast amounts of personal information in computerized data banks or other massive government files. [Footnote 34] 

The collection of taxes, the distribution of welfare and social security benefits, the supervision of public health, the direction of our Armed Forces, and the enforcement of the criminal laws all require the orderly preservation of great quantities of information, much of which is personal in character and potentially embarrassing or harmful if disclosed. 

The right to collect and use such data for public purposes is typically accompanied by a concomitant statutory or regulatory duty to avoid unwarranted disclosures. 

Recognizing that, in some circumstances, that duty arguably has its roots in the Constitution, nevertheless New York's statutory scheme, and its implementing administrative procedures, evidence a proper concern with, and protection of, the individual's interest in privacy. 

We therefore need not, and do not, decide any question which might be presented by the unwarranted disclosure.

[Paragraph breaks added.]

DOGE had other problems, including the horrible effects of the stripping of foreign aid, which led to a "legacy of death." More State Department news:

State Department Human Rights Reports Will Have Changed Focus

One article cited provides a taste:

The Trump administration is overhauling the State Department’s annual reports on global human rights, emphasizing entitlements “given to us by God, our creator” and issuing new guidance for U.S. diplomats to scrutinize the prevalence of abortion and gender-transition surgery among children.

We are told that the Trumpies provided an "unapologetically U.S.-centric and religiously tinged view of human rights." "U.S.-centric" here is akin to "value voters" in 2004 or often "Christian" today -- it means "a certain breed of conservative." 

For instance, the inability to obtain trans care and abortion services is not likely to get similar scrutiny. On some level, different administrations are likely to have different values here. Still, it's useful to not use supposedly neutral terms that are applied selectively. 

The general idea that this administration can be trusted with human rights has a feel of entrusting foxes with the rights of chickens. Happy Early Thanksgiving. 

I Wish You All the Best

I Wish You All The Best, directed by a trans person, has received good reviews. A Bronx connection: she went to Fordham University. This is her directorial debut. She was an actor in 13 Reasons Why, another case where I only read the book. 

I noticed Cole Sprouse had a supporting role as the protagonist's brother-in-law. I remember him as Ben, the son of Ross and Carol (a lesbian), on Friends. Now, he is in his 30s. Time flies. 

“Non-binary” is an umbrella term that includes those whose identity falls outside of or between male and female identities; as a person who can experience both male and female, at different times, or someone who does not experience or want to have a gender identity at all.

The film concerns another Ben, who is kicked out after they come out as nonbinary to their parents. They moved in with their sister, who had left the family years earlier. Ben has a path of self-discovery, including a cute romance. The book is overall well-written. 

Lena Dunham has a role in the film as an understanding art teacher. The character is Asian-American in the book. The film also, for some reason, also has the sister having a newborn. I don't see a Muslim nonbinary character listed, who plays an important role in the book as Ben's mentor.

Mild spoilers. In the book, things overall work out well for Ben. Their sister provides a safe haven. She and her husband have the resources to help them. It's convenient, for instance, that the brother-in-law is a teacher and helps Ben transfer to a new school. 

They and their parents do not reconcile. They overall do not come out well at all, hints of backward religious beliefs. The mother comes off better. She feels sorry about the pain she is causing her children. But, ultimately, she is loyal to the father. 

(I began using male pronouns for Ben when writing this piece. Even the hosts of Gay USA sometimes trip up with using preferred pronouns. It can be tricky.)

The book shows the value of therapy, the usage of anti-anxiety medication, and dealing with social anxiety. It also shows the essential nature of finding good support. Ben finds a support network that they did not have before, including in school. 

Before, they didn't hang out with people. Finding someone who here helped Ben find two more close friends was oh so important. This is a general principle and not limited to people on the LGBTQ+ spectrum. 

Attacking trans people is deemed acceptable by many governments, up to and including the Trump Administration. Transphobia is both understandable (as far as bigotry can be) and ridiculous.

Transphobia arises from different things. The Trump Administration being so anti-trans might confuse someone. It seems logical (if wrong) for them to target Democrats in illegitimate ways or monetize the government or demand utter loyalty to Dear Leader.  

Why the anti-trans stuff? It does have a right-wing religious angle. It is fitting that the Religion Clause Blog often has news on trans-related lawsuits. Sex and gender flexibility clash with right-wing religious beliefs. Not "Christian" beliefs. To be clear. 

Such beliefs do not only have a religious angle. People can be religious and support nonbinary and trans people. Religious positions often have more to them.

Gender fluidity endangers traditional masculine-dominant beliefs and practices. Fascism and authoritarian governments regularly promote such beliefs. It is fitting that one book about them is entitled Strongmen. Anti-trans policies fit in here.

A book (written by a non-binary person) and a film (directed by a trans person) respecting the self-actualization of a binary person are quite important. We need to be good people and provide support for those in need. We need to not focus on false issues.

A final word about young adult non-fiction. It is often not only for young adults. After all, people enjoy television shows and films about teenagers without being teenagers themselves. YA fiction can be similar.

The Halloween Cycle of Holidays

Religion Clause Blog flagged an entry from a pagan-related website entitled "Christian Activists Disrupt Salem Witches Market Amid Renewed Calls to Oppose Halloween." 

Some people see Halloween (and various other things, including fantasy books) as a threat to Christianity and/or as overall a bad thing. This is somewhat ironic.

The very name comes from it being the eve of All Hallows' Day, better known as All Saints' Day (11/1). That holiday is a holy day of obligation in the Roman Catholic Church, which could include going to mass on a day other than Sunday. 

November 2nd is All Souls' Day, which includes remembering the souls in purgatory. Relatedly, around this time (including 10/31-11/2), are Days of the Dead, an often colorfully and a tad morbidly celebrated holiday to honor deceased loved ones.  

These holidays suggest various Halloween traditions, along with it being around harvest time. That can explain all the pumpkins. Trick or treat might be connected to the traditional requests for alms, which could have a certain threatening side.

Saints and souls can involve costumes, scary stories, and all the rest. Imagination can help us examine, sometimes on a subconscious level, our fears and other scary things. Children use play for such things too, including overall to prepare for adulthood.

We can understand how some people might think witches and goblins would glorify bad things. I think they tend to have a limited view. Partially, this is because, like a vaccine (yeah, I know), a little bit of "evil" can help keep the true evil away. 

Halloween and other fall-related events also honor our connection to the earth, seasons, and all that. Pagans are often particularly concerned about such things. They are "nature religions" and all that.  

And then Election Day comes around, and we start to think about other things, though hopefully, some of the candidates care about the earth and all that.  

Yes, Thanksgiving comes later, but from the stuff at the discount store, it seems Christmas is here.  

Let's Take a Look at the Head of the Trump Religious Liberty Commission

A blog post responding to an anti-Islam troll led me to this dude. He was also cited by the Freedom From Religion Foundation radio program. 

We are talking about Lt. Governor Dan Patrick (TX). Not the sports guy. He was mad when someone did not stand during a Christian invocation. It is not totally clear whether the legislator was doing so purposely or was just talking to a staff member for some reason. 

"For those of you who didn't stand, next time you come to the gallery, you stand for the invocation," Patrick said on Aug. 15. "It's respecting the Senate. If you don't stand for the invocation, I'll have you removed. We asked you to stand. I've never seen a gallery ever have any members in my 17 years of people who refused to stand for the invocation. It will not be tolerated."

The head of the religious liberty commission is not aware (or he doesn't believe) that there is a right not to stand for religious speakers. He was not as respectful when someone was saying a Muslim player. He walked out of the chamber. 

Patrick has continued to win state and national support for his religio-political efforts. He was tapped to steer the Trump administration's Religious Liberty Commission and finally shepherded Republicans to pass his long-desired Ten Commandments law. 

(A federal judge in San Antonio blocked Senate Bill 10 from taking effect Sept. 1. Texas will challenge the judge's ruling in the appeals court.)

Patrick states on his website that “I placed ‘In God We Trust’ in the State Senate. I placed ‘Under God’ in our State Pledge.” Christian God, I suppose. 

The legislator who did not stand leans toward Buddhism these days and has a religiously diverse family. One sister identifies as Episcopalian; another follows the mystical Islamic form of Sufism; other siblings are atheists; and one nephew is Muslim.

If you are going to push back on Christian nationalism in Texas, you will often use Christian beliefs to do so. Jesus spoke of keeping religion private. The Bible provides people with free will. People willingly make religious choices.

"Religion is being used. It's being prostituted," Eckhardt said. "It is sickening to watch faith being perverted or exploited to push policies that are incredibly cruel, incredibly selfish, and are really about power and have nothing to do with religion."

Some people, largely the left side of the political spectrum, just go after religion. I don't think that is necessary. I listen to and read FFRF materials. I am, however, more of a freethinker than someone who wants to be free of religion.

The problem is the misuse of religion. Religion is a basic aspect of human existence. Let's just focus on the usual definition. I put aside past concerns. 

It is still going to exist in a major way. It is the perversion of religion that is a core problem. 

Conservative religions are not necessarily the problem here if there is an appropriate separation of church and state. Yes, there will be problems there too, if only in the private sphere. We cannot just handwave.

The government still has a special amount of power. The misuse of governmental power to promote religion is a major problem. 

Federal Employee Religious Speech Memo

Yesterday, the federal Office of Personnel Management issued a memo (full text) to heads of federal departments and agencies on Protecting Religious Expression in the Federal Workplace.

I saw this matter flagged earlier this week. It did not seem at first blush to be too problematic. The ability to express religious beliefs at the workplace is a given. This would include something like a sign on your desk or a religious portrait on your office wall. 

The memo also said one or more employees should be allowed to engage in individual or communal religious expressions and that employees can engage in conversations on religious topics “including attempting to persuade others of the correctness of their own religious views, provided that such efforts are not harassing in nature.”

The thing that gave me pause was the specific emphasis on the ability to proselytize at the workplace. I figured that employees would have a right to talk about religious matters. 

There is that "harassing" limit. Still, emphasizing it seemed to me to be akin to the government encouraging it. And, enforcing the harassment rule can be difficult, especially if a person is hesitant to complain.  

The new policy notes:

“During a break, an employee may engage another in polite discussion of why his faith is correct and why the non-adherent should re-think his religious beliefs. However, if the nonadherent requests such attempts to stop, the employee should honor the request,” the memo added. “An employee may invite another to worship at her church despite being belonging to a different faith.”

I do not know how you necessarily prevent that sort of thing. Do you tell employees, who can talk about their beliefs about various matters (religious and non-religious), not to talk about religion? 

I still am wary about so much emphasis that proselytizing would seem to be normal at work. The workplace is not a great place for that sort of thing. 

Stephen Colbert covered this in his monologue (clearly finding the whole thing a problem) and flagged that promoting religion over history has caused difficulties. I appreciate him covering something that many people are not aware of. 

He also argued that the memo had a Christian bias, though it cited something that referenced a Jewish object (mezuzahs). As noted by The Hill, "The memo, first reported on by Fox News Digital, follows Trump’s executive order on anti-Christian bias, which aims to protect Christians from religious discrimination."

The Freedom From Religion Foundation strongly opposes the new policy. For instance, they flagged that there will be inherent pressure when a superior communicates with an underling, including (to cite an example provided by the government) inviting them to religious services. 

An explanatory appendix specifically cited as an example that a supervisor may post a handwritten note inviting each of his employees to attend an Easter service at his church. Purely voluntary!  

There is also this sort of thing:

Examples of how religious expression may be directed at members of the public include: “A park ranger leading a tour through a national park may join her tour group in prayer. A doctor at a Veterans Affairs (VA) hospital may pray over his patient for her recovery. A receptionist in a doctor’s office at a VA Medical Center may pray with a co-worker in the patients’ waiting area.”

The ranger example sounds like the "praying coach" case, where a public employee engaging in prayer with students was framed as a matter of private speech. The phrasing is opaque. It would be more blatant if the park ranger led the group in prayer. 

People do have the right to pray at work, including Muslims who have personal obligations to do so multiple times a day. The waiting area example, however, potentially interferes with unwilling listeners. Listeners who are unlikely to complain. 

A doctor praying over a patient seems acceptable, though some patients might not want to be prayed over. This emphasizes my concern that this policy encourages as much as it neutrally states what is allowed. Anyway, is there really much of a problem now if a doctor decides to pray for a patient, unless (maybe) they do so in an excessively showy way?  

FFRF worried that atheists would not be protected because a policy to protect "religion" and not all beliefs and communication might not cover atheism. We should be wary about certain beliefs being disrespected. 

Still, I think the law recognizes that atheism is protected as a matter of religious freedom. The freedom of religion includes arguments that religion itself is wrong. People who do not believe in any sort of god also belong to various religions, including Unitarian-Universalists. Some Jews practice Jewish rituals and follow kosher rules while being atheists. 

Atheism has in the past been generally protected under the "religion" rubric. Nontheistic ethical societies have been treated as religions for tax breaks and other purposes. If people could not talk about atheism, try to convert, welcome people to meetings, and distribute atheistic materials, it would be discriminatory. Be sure that some will make sure that it is known.

My immediate reaction was that this memo had a gratuitous character. It was a way for the Trump Administration to show they were religious (likely interpreted by many supporters as "Christian") friendly. I still think that in some ways.

The coverage, however, makes me concerned about certain aspects of the memorandum. It has an evangelical Christian bias, especially as it is likely to be applied by this Administration. 

Religion is a touchy subject. It should be carefully handled. Those currently in power are not the sort of people I trust with doing so wisely.  

SCOTUS Watch: Final Opinions

Amy Howe provides a helpful summary of the final ten cases that were left to be decided this week. 

Thursday Opinions (4) 

They had two boxes (four cases) on Thursday. Previously, the assumption was that they might be able to handle the cases in two days. 

There were two boxes led some people to assume more than two days. But the Court did announce that Friday was going to be the last day for opinions.

Thursday was somewhat less painful than some liberals thought. Jackson, logically given her experience on the U.S. Sentencing Commission, had the First Step Act case. Roberts and Gorsuch went along with the liberals except when Jackson spoke about "context and enactment history."

Sotomayor handled the death penalty case. Barrett briefly noted disagreement on something. Thomas and Alito (with Thomas and Gorsuch) spent more time explaining why Sotomayor was (way) off base. Conservatives will now and then help form a majority in capital cases, but they don't make a habit of it.  

Alito handled a deportation case. Sotomayor for the liberals (and mostly Gorsuch) was annoyed ("heartland of illogic and absurdity") and mostly dissented. Alito still uses "aliens," while the dissent uses "noncitizens." The noncitizen here worried about his safety. Gorsuch, this time, was concerned about that. He was less concerned earlier in the week.  

(The case is serious, but Steve Vladeck on Bluesky suggested it addresses a narrow number of cases. So, I am not sure HOW bad it is. OTOH, liberals don't want Alito to have this sort of case.)  

South Carolina defunded Medicaid payments to Planned Parenthood because it also performed abortions. The big bad case on Thursday (via Gorsuch for the conservatives) denied these people the right to sue. Thomas wanted to do more.

Jackson has a strong dissent. As a matter of principle, this shows the hypocrisy when conservatives talk about the right to choose your own doctor, including according to your own moral and religious beliefs. 

Friday Opinions (5) 

The Supreme Court had big opinions today that took over an hour to announce (with multiple dissents from the bench). It was wrong to shove so much in one day. Hundreds of pages of opinions today.  

It was also wrong not to live-stream the announcements. If they think they are important, the general public should be able to hear them now. 

(Oyez.com releases them sometime after the term.)

The morning started with a half hour spent dealing with the birthright citizenship opinion. I guess there was no punt! They did punt in one case. 

A Voting Rights Act case (among the much smaller than historically the case mandatory docket) will be reargued next term. Thomas dissents. 

Kagan has a 6-3 (Gorsuch, Thomas, Alito) delegation case. She handled the dissent in the online porn case (Thomas wrote for the conservatives) which allows a lower level of scrutiny in upholding an identification requirement. 

Kavanaugh has an appointment clause case (Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch) case but it's a limited win for liberals. Robert Kennedy Jr. can simply remove the  Preventive Services Task Force members or block its decisions. Still, a limited act of sanity. 

A government burdens the religious exercise of parents when it requires them to submit their children to instruction that poses "a very real threat of undermining" the religious beliefs and practices that the parents wish to instill. 

Two big problems today (the porn case is sort of a smaller problem). Sotomayor dissented from the bench in both. Again, we should be able to hear this. 

We also should be able to hear Alito broadly summarize why parents should be able to opt out (like a Chinese menu) from exposing their children to certain stuff taught in their public school. The net result will often be that certain stuff simply won't be taught. 

Sotomayor correctly replies:

Today’s ruling threatens the very essence of public education. The Court, in effect, constitutionalizes a parental veto power over curricular choices long left to the democratic process and local administrators.  That decision guts our free exercise precedent and strikes at the core premise of public schools: that children may come together to learn not the teachings of a particular faith, but a range of concepts and views that reflect our entire society.  Exposure to new ideas has always been a vital part of that project, until now. 

She is upset:

The reverberations of the Court’s error will be felt, I fear, for generations. Unable to condone that grave misjudgment, I dissent. 

(Alito provides some photos from a book while Sotomayor posts the whole thing.) 

The other case, which experts are already parsing in various ways, deals with universal injunctions. This is a controversial tool that has been abused, including by conservative judges. 

Nonethless, conveniently, it is addressed during the Trump Administration. And, via a case heard in May regarding something that is one of the least apt vehicles to attack it. The opinion did not address the merits of challenges to Trump's birthright citizenship order. 

Barrett deals with the particulars, with multiple conservatives providing concurrence. There are ways to provide wide relief without universal injunctions (class actions are cited by some replies). It is unclear how satisfactory this will be. Also, the opinion ultimately has a somewhat unclear reach. 

The liberals (Sotomayor and Jackson have strong dissents) are quite angry with the result. The "cumbersome" class action alternative is not an adequate alternative. 

Barrett takes a potshot at Jackson:

"We observe only this: JUSTICE JACKSON decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary."

The justices who joined Trump v. U.S. can STFU about that. 

Sotomayor is partially angry because the Trump Administration is gaming the system and notes it is a "leap of faith" for the majority to assume the Administration will (eventually) accept a ruling on the merits. Why would they want to risk SCOTUS taking a case for review? 

Because I will not be complicit in so grave an attack on our system of law, I dissent."

Jackson speaks of an "existential threat to the rule of law" via a "smokescreen." And, after this opinion was handed down, they had four more to go!

Coming Up

Roberts moves on to thanking court employees, the Supreme Court bar, and the mentioned retirees, before he turns to Marshal Gail Curley, who announces that court is “adjourned until Monday, Oct. 6, at 10 o’clock” before banging her gavel and the justices disappear behind their red velvet curtain.

Again, in a sensible world, we would be able to see this by live stream. If the proceedings of the first branch are aired on C-SPAN, so can the proceedings of the third branch. Open government, please.

There will be two order days next week: Monday (ordinary Order List) and Thursday (clean-up Order List with justices providing some statements and dissents regarding various cases and some other actions by the Court regarding pending cases).  

National Day of Prayer

I briefly referenced the National Day of Prayer in my Conclave review post. This year it was on May 1st.

One Biden proclamation:

NOW, THEREFORE, I, JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR., President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim May 4, 2023, as a National Day of Prayer. I call upon the citizens of our Nation to give thanks, in accordance with their own faith and conscience, for our many freedoms and blessings, and I invite all people of faith to join me in asking for God’s continued guidance, mercy, and protection.

I'm not gung-ho about the final statement about "asking for God's" guidance, but that's a reflection of the law itself. The 1952 law, amended in 1988 to make it the first Thursday of May, declares that the president:

"shall set aside and proclaim a suitable day each year, other than a Sunday, as a National Day of Prayer, on which the people of the United States may turn to God in prayer and meditation."

Note the mediation option. 

Okay. Let's see how Trump does it this time. 

We start with this:

From the earliest days of our Nation’s journey, America has been guided by the grace of Almighty God.

The proclamation is in the name of the president of the United States. It is not just a personal statement. It is an official statement carrying out congressional legislation. 

And, it begins with a religious statement not shared by millions of Americans. There is a summary of American history, including the Washington prayer at Valley Forge myth. The selective focus continues:

our greatest leaders have always recognized the necessity of faith, prayer, and devotion to God. As President Washington famously stated in his seminal Farewell Address, “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.

Okay. So those who do not so recognize are not "great leaders"? Also, "religion and morality" can be expressed in multiple ways. Prayer is just one example.

As President, I proudly established Task Forces to eradicate religious bias by combating [sic] anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, and additional forms of anti-religious bias.

I appreciate that he is somewhat inclusive after specifically forming an anti-Christian bias task force. There is now a "religious liberty commission." Conservative religious liberty is selective and misguided. Nonetheless, the more inclusive language found in the second executive order is better than something that just supports one religious tradition.

I will never waver in safeguarding the right to religious liberty and protecting God in our public square.

The National Day of Prayer is now used to "protect God in our public square." People pray in a variety of ways, including some who pray to multiple gods. The second half of the statement disrespects the first. Finally, I think God (if God exists) doesn't need Trump's protection.  

I believe that God spared my life for a reason — to save our country and restore America to greatness.  It serves as a sacred reminder of our Creator’s infinite goodness, guidance, and grace.

YMMV.

This National Day of Prayer, we recognize that the true strength of the American spirit has always been found in churches, chapels, pews, parishes and synagogues, and the hearts and souls of our citizens of faith.  Today and every day, we bow our heads in prayer to thank God for His countless gifts and to ask for His divine protection. 

This is offensive. First, the language used does not cover multiple religions. For instance, there is no reference (shocker) to mosques. Again, people pray in different ways, not just bowing their heads to a single god. Also, the non-religious have "true strength of the American spirit" too. 

Trump's proclamation then quotes the law, which provides a more inclusive statement than his previous comment:

“on which the people of the United States may turn to God in prayer and meditation at churches, in groups, and as individuals.”

Nonetheless, even here, "churches" are singled out. This is discriminatory and "establishes" a special favoritism of certain religions. There are "churches" (Christian) and other also rans like the original Gilligan's Island where Mary Ann and the professor were thrown in as "the rest."  

Finally:

I encourage all Americans to observe this day, reflecting on the blessings our Nation has received and the importance of prayer, with appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities in their houses of worship, communities, and places of work, schools, and homes.

President Jefferson argued that asking him to "encourage" religious beliefs was a violation of the First and Tenth Amendments (pre-14th Amendment, states could establish religions). He was correct. 

A president can, on their own, encourage people to practice religion. I would suggest they do so in an inclusive way (finally, we hear of "houses of worship," not sectarian language). Good policy is a good practice even if it is not constitutionally necessary.  

Also, religion is a private matter, and having the president in general remarks -- outside of a limited forum expressing their beliefs -- favoring certain religious beliefs is problematic too. For instance, the gospels say Jesus cautions us to pray in private, not "at work" or in the "public square."  

I think we can do without public figures, via official proclamations, to provide religious instruction. Some presidents were much more believable than Trump in this effort. Overall, as noted by representatives of the Baptist Joint Committee, the government should not tell us when to pray.

Raffaella Petrini Becomes Governor of Vatican City

Rev. James Martin talked about Pope Francis, a fellow Jesuit, including some efforts to appoint more women in positions of authority. Martin was on the Colbert Report, wrote many books (including one on humor), and actively sought to minister to LGBT people.

He wrote Building a Bridge: How the Catholic Church and the LGBT Community Can Enter into a Relationship of Respect, Compassion, and Sensitivity. One thing noted is that Pope Francis supported decriminalizing homosexuality, which would have a significant effect in various nations.

Gay USA, in its recent episode, graded Pope Francis strictly. They argued he provided some lip service to reform while not making any real substantive changes. The basic doctrine remains. I think tone is important, especially since many Catholics don't follow doctrine (see contraceptives) anyway. All the same, the hosts did have a point.  

People can also cite the limits of how they addressed women's issues. For instance, regarding making women deacons. St. Paul's references to women as deacons and "outstanding among the apostles" or "first among the apostles" seems to clash that. 

Francis did do some positive things regarding appointing women in leadership positions. The overall numbers only went up a small amount. There were some significant moves. 

Francis named the first woman to head a major Holy See office, appointing Sister Simona Brambilla to become prefect of the department responsible for all the Catholic Church’s religious orders. The position "ranks higher than the cardinal who has the number two position of pro-prefect." 

Raffaella Petrini was also recently (while Francis probably knew he was dying) appointed as the first governor of Vatican City. A bit of background:

Sister Rafaella Petrini is a member of the American Institute of the Franciscan Sisters of the Eucharist. 

She was born in Rome on Jan. 15, 1969 and gained a degree in political science at the LUISS university in Rome, and a doctorate from the Dominican run university of St. Thomas Aquinas, popularly known as the Angelicum, where she taught classes on “welfare economics” and “the sociology of economic processes.” 

She gained a masters degree in organizational behavior from the University of Hartford in 2001.

From 2005 to 2001, she worked as an official at the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, where she was known as a highly efficient organizer. 

Then, on Nov. 4, 2021, Pope Francis appointed her as secretary general of the governorate of the Vatican City State, the first woman to hold that important position, making her then the highest-ranking woman in the smallest state in the world.

By giving women the top-ranking position over cardinals, Pope Francis has broken a centuries-old tradition in the Vatican. This is notable stuff.

The Catholic Church still has a long ways to go, including birth control, women priests, and divorce. As long as priests, bishops, cardinals, and popes are all men, the institution will have a sexist flavor. 

Rev. Martin has done many good things with LGBT issues. Nonetheless, he is stuck within an institution that remains blatantly discriminatory over them, up to and including blocking same sex marriage. 

Change, however, can and has occurred in the Church. The worldwide church will not be for me and many others. It still is the church for millions. 

We should hope the next pope continues in the footsteps of Pope Francis. And, if he (yes will be a he) can go further, more power to them. For now, goodluck,  “President of the Pontifical Commission for the Vatican City State, and President of the Governorate of the Vatican City State.”