Politics

[Whiskeyjack]

Its not the violence...... Its the mentality. The same cultural justifications. The same rational. The same logic that supported the codified implementation of Jim Crow and justification of already extant behaviors. I didn't say appropriate, I meant apposite and relevant to the discussion because their very logical existence originates from similar thought process and cultural issues.

A commitment to pluralism is one of the defining features of the American political project-- freedom of speech, religion, association, etc. The Civil War and the CRA were extraordinary events wherein we violated those principles in order to defeat a pervasive social evil. So yes, the violence was very much relevant to why the CRA exists; and in the absence of such widespread social evil, we ought to be very hesitant to employ such extreme legal measures again.

Again the state's rights argument for slavery... all justified for ECONOMIC and CULTURAL and RELIGIOUS reasons. It was a state's right to have slavery for these reasons. Similarly, a state's right to religious freedom is now codified on the basis of ECONOMIC and CULTURAL, and RELIGIOUS reasons.

There are lots of good arguments in favor of federalism that have nothing to do with bigotry. Just as there are lots of good arguments in favor of religious freedom that have nothing to do with animus toward gays.

The grounds on which Indiana's particular language is at one time the same as all other RFRAs but with the additional language, quite different. The reason for the additional language may be limited to the case you speak of but the RFRA laws in general are literally nothing more than the conceptual basis of JIM Crow laws more narrowly applied.

Wide-spread exclusion supported by a campaign of racial terrorism is what defined Jim Crow. Take those away, and you're simply not dealing with apartheid anymore. I'm beginning to think this is more about hunting heretics than preventing harm.

You said earlier that religion is by its nature exclusive and discriminatory. I agree. And in secular communities with secular laws, that is a tough path to tread, which is why in my earlier posts I stated that the concept of bigotry is a relatively new concept for even liberal societies and that religious people don't view their stance on various cultural phenomenon as bigotry where as in secular societies, it quite clearly is. How is this reconciled/ Who should reconcile it?.

First, what you call secular liberalism is just post-Protestant universalism. It's Christendom without Christ. America has always been a Christian nation, and its laws remain indelibly so. But we've never been dominated by a single denomination; thus the commitment to pluralism. So it's sadly ironic that the Left is eager to roll back those minority protections in the name of gay rights.

Second, how is bigotry a relatively new concept? It's as old as our species. In the ancient world, polities were mostly homogeneous in religion and race. Dissent was punished severely, and foreigners were at best regarded with suspicion, if not outright despised. It was the Judeo-Christian exhortations to "show your love for the foreigner, for you were foreigners in the land of Egypt" and to "love your neighbor as yourself" that started to change things.

The only possible happy ending involves recognizing two things: (1) the Christian lineage of liberal values; and (2) for religious liberty to have any substance, much like freedom of speech, it must protect unpopular beliefs. The Left has lost sight of both of those things, which is why they have no problem painting orthodox Christians as modern Klan members.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Commonwealth's Peter Steinfels just published an article titled "Any liberal for religious freedom?":

Are there still liberals willing to speak up for religious freedom? I don’t know whether the religious freedom bill passed and signed in Indiana last week—and now reportedly up for revision—is a good measure. I do know that, however one precisely balances out the pros and cons of the bill, it does involve religious freedom.

That was not the perspective of the front-page story in Saturday’s New York Times, which framed the bill as one more tactic for discriminating against gay couples. Conservatives opposed to same-sex marriage were “invoking ‘religious freedom’ as their last line of defense.”

No doubt some conservatives would invoke anything short of global warning as a last-line defense against same-sex marriage. But is it really beyond imagining that many conservatives and non-conservatives, too, might be genuinely agitated about religious freedom for its own sake? Certainly beyond imagining by Hillary Clinton, who was quick to tweet, “Sad this new Indiana law can happen in America today.” Beyond imagining by all the technology, business, and sports and entertainment eminences now bullying Indiana with boycotts, not that these folks ever cared much (or knew much) about religious freedom in the first place.

The Times news story devoted almost two thirds of its coverage to these critics, far more than to any supporters or to Indiana’s governor. It did spare two paragraphs for a quote from Douglas Laycock, one of the nation’s foremost church-state scholars. “The hysteria over this law is so unjustified,” he said, rejecting the anti-gay sentiments being attributed to it.

I’ve been following and admiring Professor Laycock’s views on religious freedom controversies for years (his mixed evaluation of the Catholic bishops’ venture into these waters can be found in the June 15, 2012 issue of Commonweal); I have no idea whether to classify him as liberal or conservative. Unfortunately, his full explanation of what the Indiana law actually says and is likely to do appears in the conservative Weekly Standard. The Times account could waste only one paragraph on such details.

That story was carefully worded, nonetheless. The opening sentence stated that the Indiana law “could make it easier” to refuse services to gay couples on religious grounds and later explained that the law “opens the door” to such refusals. It cited others warning that the law was an “invitation” to discrimination or “a threat of abetting” it.

Those are all possibilities, it seems to me, although not necessarily likelihoods. They are the kinds of possibilities that we confront in the case of all our rights. Freedom of speech and press “makes it easier” to destroy reputations, debase public discourse, deform democracy, and feed violent psychopaths online. Insistence on search warrants, reading people their rights, and a host of other criminal and court procedures can “open the door” to crimes going undetected or the guilty going unpunished. Social benefits of all sorts, from health and safety regulations to income assistance, are inevitably “invitations” to cheating, gaming the system, or otherwise “abetting” unfair conduct. (That’s what libertarians are forever lamenting.) We do our best to foresee and forestall the possible risks but not by denying the rights in the first place.

The Times followed up its new story with a more informative “news analysis” of the Indiana law under the more-than-modestly editorial headline, “Eroding Freedom In the Name Of Freedom.” Then an actual editorial summed up its argument with the headline, “Religion as a Cover for Bigotry.” (Constitutional scholars who defend the Indiana statute but also support same-sex marriage may be surprised to discover that they are unwitting bigots.) Again, the idea that there might be more at stake than bigotry proved beyond the imagination.

The whole point of freedom of religion is that it protects an extraordinary gamut of differing, frequently conflicting cosmologies, spiritual disciplines, and moral codes. They may include refusing to fight in defense of the nation, rejecting certain foodstuffs or medical treatments, discouraging young people from secondary or higher education, honoring celibacy or condemning a variety of sexual practices, sacrificing animals, drinking alcohol, or ingesting hallucinogens for ritual purposes, prescribing certain head coverings or hairstyles despite school or occupational rules, insisting on distinct roles for men and women, withdrawing from friends and family for lives of silence and seclusion, marching in prayer through neighborhoods on holy days, preaching on street corners or otherwise trying to convert others to these persuasions.

A great many of these beliefs and practices I disagree with. Some I deplore. Religious freedom means I live with the fundamentalists who describe the pope as anti-Christ and my kind as hell-bound—and with the black nationalist sects who consider me a white devil. Religious freedom means that I don’t have to send my children to the state schools if I choose not to nor does my Darwin-phobic neighbor. It also means state schools or state events or state laws should not force people to participate in religious rituals or practices contrary to their consciences.

Religious freedom means that I may very well want to question, critique, refute, moderate or otherwise alter religious beliefs and practices that I find irrational or unhealthy or dehumanizing or, yes, bigoted; but knowing how deeply rooted and sincerely held these convictions are, and how much about the universe remains in fact mysterious, and how much about my own perceptions of reality could in fact be mistaken, and how much religions do in fact evolve over time, I accommodate myself in the meantime to peaceful coexistence and thoughtful engagement. In particular I refuse to coerce religiously sincere people into personal actions that violate their conscience. And I refuse to dismiss their resistance to such coercion as nothing but bigotry.

Do I have to point out that there are limits to what can be tolerated on religious grounds? Protection of minors. Freedom from harassment or discrimination. Public health, safety, and order. All these and more come into play. It is one of the glories of the American legal system that so much thought and energy has been expended on drawing careful lines here, even if the results are never beyond revision. One expression of that effort was the principle that when a generally applicable law was claimed to create a substantial burden on someone’s religion, the government had to show that it had a compelling interest in doing so and was using the least burdensome means. That may sound forbidding, but in reality courts have almost always found upholding anti-discrimination laws—to take the front-burner issue at hand—to be a compelling government interest.

The Indiana law is one instantiation of that principle. So are the Religious Freedom Restoration Acts passed overwhelmingly by the federal government and nineteen other states. The Indiana RFRA may be a flawed version. Perhaps it should be revised, as state officials have said. I strongly favor dropping its inclusion of companies and corporations. Perhaps there are better means to the same end. That end is evidently broader than the current controversy over same-sex marriage. But insofar as that is the current triggering issue, Indiana’s RFRA could be complemented with a statewide statute barring discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation or gender.

Still, if the issue is whether rights of same-sex couples seeking to marry comes into conflict with the rights of people who claim that their religious freedom is being “substantially burdened” by personal involvement in same-sex marriage, then let the question be debated and the legislation framed with as much sensitivity to acknowledging, harmonizing, and balancing the rights on both sides rather than dismissing one set of concerns out of hand.

All my life liberals took the lead in defending and enlarging freedom of religion. Now they seem to have shrunk into silence, indifference, or, worse, disparagement. Contrary examples anyone?

The Atlantic's Conor Friedersdorf just published an article titled "The Misdirected Zeal of Same Sex Marriage Converts":

The biggest affront to gay equality in America today is the fact that same-sex couples in 13 states are still prevented from marrying. The laws of Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Texas, Ohio, and Tennessee are discriminatory, callous in their effects, and may violate the Constitution. Overturning those laws is the most urgent gay-rights cause. Once they fall, whether through a Supreme Court decision or legislation, the benefits that marriage confers on couples and society will increase.

And they will fall. More just marriage laws lay ahead!

But they haven't fallen yet. So it is strange to see Indiana, where same-sex couples can and do wed, emerge as the focus of national controversy on gay rights.

The cause is Governor Mike Pence's decision to sign legislation called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Critics of the law say that it is a thinly veiled response to anti-discrimination cases like one in Oregon, where state authorities want a bakery to pay a $150,000 fine for refusing to make a cake for a lesbian couple's wedding, or a similar case in New Mexico, where a photography studio lost a lawsuit filed when its proprietors refused to shoot the wedding of a same-sex couple. Supporters of the law, like religious liberty expert Douglas Laycock (a vocal gay-marriage supporter), argue that its actual affect will almost certainly be to afford greater protection to many religious minorities. And he thinks it is unlikely to stymie gay rights.

Critics of the law have seized the upper hand in the battle for public opinion. "The list of businesses, governments, and famous people boycotting the state of Indiana over Gov. Mike Pence's decision to sign the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is still growing," Robby Soave writes. "Now even Nick Offerman—the comedian and actor who played libertarian hero Ron Swanson on NBC's Parks and Recreation—has cancelled his upcoming Indiana comedy tour dates. Ashton Kutcher, Larry King, Charles Barkley, and a host of other celebrities have made similar declarations, as have several companies, cities, and Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy—even though Connecticut has had RFRA in place for the last 20 years."

This puzzles me.

When 13 states prohibit gay-marriage outright, what sense does it make for gay-rights supporters to boycott a different state where gay marriage is legal?

Being barred from marriage puts a significant burden on gay couples—a burden many orders of magnitude greater than the relatively small possibility of being refused by an atypically religious photographer or baker in the course of planning a same-sex wedding (the outcome the law's opponents assert to be its true purpose). And there is no reason to think this law would allow a hotel or a restaurant to exclude gay customers, or that any hotels or restaurants are interested in doing so.

So why is Indiana public enemy number one?

The talented band Wilco has cancelled its May 7 show in Indianapolis, commenting that the law "feels like a thinly disguised legal discrimination." But Wilco is playing two April shows in Texas, a state that doesn't yet issue marriage licenses to gays. That is, Texas engages in not-at-all-disguised discrimination. Wilco also has upcoming shows in Missouri, Ohio, and Kentucky, other states that don't grant marriage licenses to gays at all despite court rulings (which are presently stayed) declaring that its existing policy constitutes unconstitutional discrimination. Indianapolis, by contrast, actually has a municipal statute that bans anti-gay discrimination!

Then there's this:

NASCAR said in a statement Tuesday that it was "disappointed" by the legislation, and the NCAA, which has had its headquarters in Indianapolis since 1999, says it is concerned about the law's effect on future Indiana events.

NASCAR hosts events at tracks in the following states where gay marriage is illegal: Kentucky, Michigan, and Texas. Are future events in those states in doubt?

The reaction from politicians who oppose the law is confounding in its own way.

Most notable is Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Democratic frontrunner. She published this short statement on Twitter: "Sad this new Indiana law can happen in America today. We shouldn't discriminate against ppl bc of who they love #LGBT." I wholeheartedly agree that no one should discriminate against anyone for being gay. But it isn't lost on me that I started championing that position more than a decade before the Democratic frontrunner, who opposed allowing gay couples to marry one another as recently as 2013! Now that she's changed public positions—a shift that perfectly tracked broader public sentiment —she declares Indiana out of step with the times for making gay weddings legal, because refusing to bake cakes for them may be legal, too. In other words, Indiana's "sad" position today is far more progressive than Clinton's own stance was just a few years ago.

"I know that many in our country still struggle to reconcile the teachings of their religion, the pull of their conscience, the personal experiences they have in their families and communities,” Clinton said in 2013 when she came out in favor of gay marriage. “And people of good will and good faith will continue to view this issue differently. So I hope as we discuss and debate, whether it’s around a kitchen table or in the public square, we do so in a spirit of respect and understanding.”

Two years ago, she thought people who wanted to deny gays the right to marry had "good will" and "good faith." She encouraged us to offer them understanding. Now, people who merely oppose state sanctions against a rare, far less burdensome form of discrimination make her "sad" about the state of America. At least her latest rhetoric is preferable to the stance she took as a Senate candidate, when she avowed that she would've supported the Defense of Marriage Act (just as her husband had) and declared that "marriage has got historic, religious, and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time and I think a marriage is as marriage has always been, between a man and a woman."

She would later explain her evolution:

Like so many others, my personal views have been shaped over time by people I have known and loved, by my experience representing our nation on the world stage, my devotion to law and human rights and the guiding principles of my faith.

Clinton's 2013 explanation may help many Democrats support her bid for the presidency enthusiastically, even as they presume that people who haven't yet evolved on the issue—many of whom haven't benefited from personally knowing as many gay people, been constantly surrounded by cosmopolitans, represented our nation on a world stage, seen the connection to global human rights, or been guided by the same progressive spiritual leaders—to be despicable bigots. The speed at which resisting change transitions from understandable to unthinkable just happens to track the speed at which the most prominent Democrats do it.

As best I can remember, I have never opposed gay marriage. It's a policy that never even occurred to me until I came across an Andrew Sullivan piece on the subject. His eloquence sold me from the start. I began arguing in favor of gay marriage with my grandparents at dinner. I've kept arguing in favor of it for the entirety of my career as a professional journalist, even early on when I had editors and bosses who vehemently opposed it. Over the years, I've watched a lot of people shift from opposing to supporting gay marriage, as have we all. Look at the trends:

Were all those converts to gay-marriage bigots before their conversions? Did they deserve to be punished? Consider that Bill Clinton signed, and Hillary Clinton supported, federal laws that blatantly discriminated against gays. As noted, Hillary didn't announce her support for gay marriage until March 18, 2013. She has, of course, paid no penalty for her influential acts against gay equality. (Far from boycotting her, Governor Malloy of Connecticut endorsed her for president in 2008.)

That's how it works for elites. As a point of contrast, that small-time Oregon baker refused to bake that cake for a gay wedding on January 13, 2013—weeks before Hillary would endorse a gay couple's right to even have a wedding. The penalty Oregon recommends for that baker: $150,000. I think Christian bakers should happily bake for gay weddings (I've written that Christian photographers should happily photograph them). I don't think doing so is prohibited by their faith. It's arguably in keeping with it. I nevertheless see something unjust in that juxtaposition.

In the thick of the fight, when speaking out on behalf of gay marriage could've make a significant difference in advancing equality, celebrities weren't willing to boycott populations on the wrong side of the issue, putting them crosswise of a majority of their fans and their wallets. Corporations weren't yet exercising their free speech rights as corporate persons to support gay equality while being cheered by progressives who showed no discomfort with such entities engaging in political speech.

Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Kerry, John Edwards, and many other Democratic political elites echoed majority opposition to equal recognition for same-sex relationships (though their Republican opponents were generally much worse).

Now that public opinion has thankfully shifted, marriage traditionalists have thankfully been routed, gay marriage in all 50 states is thankfully inevitable, and its opponents are a waning minority incapable of imposing any cost on political opponents, elites who support gay marriage are suddenly very self-righteous and assertive. Now that those who would discriminate against gays are a powerless cultural minority that focuses its objectionable behavior in a tiny niche of the economy, elites have suddenly decided that using state power to punish them is a moral imperative. The timing suggests that this has as much to do with opportunism, tribalism, humanity's love of bandwagons, and political positioning as it does with advancing gay rights, which have advanced thanks to persuasion, not coercion.

Going forward, non-bigoted Americans are inevitably going to reach different conclusions regarding the tensions among non-discrimination law, freedom of association, freedom of expression, and freedom of conscience—thorny issues all (unless one just ignores the fact that there are multiple core rights at stake). So long as gay equality is the goal, a better focus for fury than religious-liberty exceptions are unjust marriage laws in Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Michigan, Missouri, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Texas, and Tennessee.

 

[IrishinSyria]

The only possible happy ending involves recognizing two things: (1) the Christian lineage of liberal values; and (2) for religious liberty to have any substance, much like freedom of speech, it must protect unpopular beliefs. The Left has lost sight of both of those things, which is why they have no problem painting orthodox Christians as modern Klan members.

You've made point 1 in several forms multiple times now, and I want to push back on it. Even conceding that our current laws and mores are informed by Christian values, that doesn't necessarily mean that Christian values must inform modern political discourse. The structure of the Roman Empire clearly shaped the Catholic Church, but that doesn't mean that modern Canonical law should be tied in any way to Roman jurisprudence.

As for your second point, I agree. But just like the First Amendment doesn't protect all speech, freedom of religion shouldn't protect all beliefs. There has to be a line drawn when one person's beliefs start infringing on another person's rights. Texas's RFRA is (surprisingly) a good example of one that walks that line well. Indiana's and Arkansas seem to leave the door open to belief as a shield for discrimination.

 

[IrishinSyria]

Texas's RFRA is nearly identical to Indiana's in substance, except that it contains this provision:

Sec. 110.011. CIVIL RIGHTS. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), this chapter does not establish or eliminate a defense to a civil action or criminal prosecution under a federal or state civil rights law.
(b) This chapter is fully applicable to claims regarding the employment, education, or volunteering of those who perform duties, such as spreading or teaching faith, performing devotional services, or internal governance, for a religious organization. For the purposes of this subsection, an organization is a religious organization if:
(1) the organization's primary purpose and function are religious, it is a religious school organized primarily for religious and educational purposes, or it is a religious charity organized primarily for religious and charitable purposes; and
(2) it does not engage in activities that would disqualify it from tax exempt status under Section 501(c)(3), Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as it existed on August 30, 1999.

If Indiana were to amend its RFRA to include such language, most of the controversy would die down.

 

[IrishLax]

Texas's RFRA is nearly identical to Indiana's in substance, except that it contains this provision:



If Indiana were to amend its RFRA to include such language, most of the controversy would die down.

Agreed.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

You've made point 1 in several forms multiple times now, and I want to push back on it. Even conceding that our current laws and mores are informed by Christian values, that doesn't necessarily mean that Christian values must inform modern political discourse. The structure of the Roman Empire clearly shaped the Catholic Church, but that doesn't mean that modern Canonical law should be tied in any way to Roman jurisprudence.

My point is that secular liberals need to acknowledge that their worldview is in no way neutral or objectively superior to more explicitly religious ones. As a Catholic, I obviously believe that the Roman Church is the one true church founded by Christ, and that its doctrines better equip individuals to lead a moral life of human flourishing than any other faith. But I recognize Judaism as the theological foundation for Catholicism, Islam as a fellow (though more distant) dialect of Judaism, and other Christian sects as spiritual siblings of the same glorious lineage. In other words, an appreciation for the historical contingency of my worldview leads me to a humble appreciation of it and how it relates to others.

I don't see that from the Left, which is partly why there's so much self-righteous indignation toward Christians.

As for your second point, I agree. But just like the First Amendment doesn't protect all speech, freedom of religion shouldn't protect all beliefs. There has to be a line drawn when one person's beliefs start infringing on another person's rights. Texas's RFRA is (surprisingly) a good example of one that walks that line well. Indiana's and Arkansas seem to leave the door open to belief as a shield for discrimination.

That last sentence is mighty speculative, and the RFRA jurisprudence of the last couple decades certainly doesn't support it. But we can't afford to let bigots of any stripe get even a small toe-hold in modern America. We won't truly be free until we've strangled the last Mormon florist with the entrails of the last evangelical wedding photographer. #VivaLaLaicite

If Indiana were to amend its RFRA to include such language, most of the controversy would die down.

Great. Let's advocate for this easy and simple legislative fix then, instead of declaring secular jihad against Christians.

 

[Cackalacky]

A commitment to pluralism is one of the defining features of the American political project-- freedom of speech, religion, association, etc. The Civil War and the CRA were extraordinary events wherein we violated those principles in order to defeat a pervasive social evil. So yes, the violence was very much relevant to why the CRA exists; and in the absence of such widespread social evil, we ought to be very hesitant to employ such extreme legal measures again.

Agree and no one is saying there needs to be a war. I agree this could be first step to marginalizing the LGBT community so it definitely needs great care to not overreach any further.

There are lots of good arguments in favor of federalism that have nothing to do with bigotry. Just as there are lots of good arguments in favor of religious freedom that have nothing to do with animus toward gays.

You are right. There are plenty of good arguments for many philosophies. My point is the philosophy leading to Jim Crow and the philosophy leading to RFRA legislation is very specific and essentially exactly the same and they have the same origin and basis.

Wide-spread exclusion supported by a campaign of racial terrorism is what defined Jim Crow. Take those away, and you're simply not dealing with apartheid anymore. I'm beginning to think this is more about hunting heretics than preventing harm.

This is an unfair characterization. The Jim Crow laws were instituted to keep black people in their place and preserve the order of the south post civil war. And erase all the gains blacks had made since the Civil War. It basically ended all the gains they had accumulated. The social behaviors were already extant before the laws were enacted. The laws preserved them and gave state sanctioning to the racist behaviors. The majority of the violence occurred much later, like 50 years later, by Christian hate groups not just the KKK. And the KKK's ire was not limited to blacks only. Further there are numerous gay people that have experienced the lynching and mob mentality ranging into the thousands so this is extremely unfair. The reason conservatives get the wrong end of the stick is because their party absorbed the most racist of southern democrats on the basis of maintaining the Jim Crow Laws so I have LITTLE sympathy for the poor misunderstood Christian right. It's not a heretic hunt but I can see why that would be more appealing to believe than to see that the roosters came home to roost a long time ago.

First, what you call secular liberalism is just post-Protestant universalism. It's Christendom without Christ. America has always been a Christian nation, and its laws remain indelibly so. But we've never been dominated by a single denomination; thus the commitment to pluralism. So it's sadly ironic that the Left is eager to roll back those minority protections in the name of gay rights.

Whatever you want to call it, it is pluralism and secular and most western societies are trending that way. I don't agree that it is Christian universalism as at some point Protestants are no longer Catholics and Catholics are no longer polytheists (arguable as well) and the transition from natural dieties to a single diety will progress to no dieties. I don't see that changing. The fact that all religions have transitioned from polytheism to monotheism to what will soon be atheism is relevant and not so easily dismissable and I think it's inappropriate to dismiss the impact of the separation of church and state has been to western society as a left wing power play. Just as monotheism arose from polytheistic societies, Christianity arose from precursors but at some point it was deemed to have diverged so secular thought should be granted the same accord. I mean ...Christendom might as well thank pagans for all their contributions to western society but I don't ever hear that at all because.... Christianity is the real deal and the end all. The secular, pluralist, liberal, progressive left is and has not rolled back on just GAY rights but HUMAN rights.

Second, how is bigotry a relatively new concept? It's as old as our species. In the ancient world, polities were mostly homogeneous in religion and race. Dissent was punished severely, and foreigners were at best regarded with suspicion, if not outright despised. It was the Judeo-Christian exhortations to "show your love for the foreigner, for you were foreigners in the land of Egypt" and to "love your neighbor as yourself" that started to change things.

. Lol. I am missing a key word. "Protection from bigotry" is relatively new concept. Apologies.

The only possible happy ending involves recognizing two things: (1) the Christian lineage of liberal values; and (2) for religious liberty to have any substance, much like freedom of speech, it must protect unpopular beliefs. The Left has lost sight of both of those things, which is why they have no problem painting orthodox Christians as modern Klan members.

. Well this gonna be difficult because secular beliefs are not just influenced by Judeo Christian values. Other religions and belief systems have many valuable traits and philosophies and are well entrenched in our society. I guess we can thank the open society (relatively) for being able to reach that point but lets be honest, how many Christians are sitting in church thanking the pagans for saturnalia or Easter. Again I don't think that the left is responsible for the incorporation of the most racist element of Americas history and incorporating them into the political discussion.

Mentioned earlier.... The opinion that America is and always has been a Christian nation is I think false. The population has been Christian however the idea of America is secular and I believe John Adams wrote in the Treaty of Tripoli that the United States was most certainly not a Christian nation. There are others but that is the most well known quote.

 

[phgreek]

Agree and no one is saying there needs to be a war. I agree this could be first step to marginalizing the LGBT community so it definitely needs great care to not overreach any further.
You are right. There are plenty of good arguments for many philosophies. My point is the philosophy leading to Jim Crow and the philosophy leading to RFRA legislation is very specific and essentially exactly the same and they have the same origin and basis.


This is an unfair characterization. The Jim Crow laws were instituted to keep black people in their place and preserve the order of the south post civil war. And erase all the gains blacks had made since the Civil War. It basically ended all the gains they had accumulated. The social behaviors were already extant before the laws were enacted. The laws preserved them and gave state sanctioning to the racist behaviors. The majority of the violence occurred much later, like 50 years later, by Christian hate groups not just the KKK. And the KKK's ire was not limited to blacks only. Further there are numerous gay people that have experienced the lynching and mob mentality ranging into the thousands so this is extremely unfair. The reason conservatives get the wrong end of the stick is because their party absorbed the most racist of southern democrats on the basis of maintaining the Jim Crow Laws so I have LITTLE sympathy for the poor misunderstood Christian right. It's not a heretic hunt but I can see why that would be more appealing to believe than to see that the roosters came home to roost a long time ago.



Whatever you want to call it, it is pluralism and secular and most western societies are trending that way. I don't agree that it is Christian universalism as at some point Protestants are no longer Catholics and Catholics are no longer polytheists (arguable as well) and the transition from natural dieties to a single diety will progress to no dieties. I don't see that changing. The fact that all religions have transitioned from polytheism to monotheism to what will soon be atheism is relevant and not so easily dismissable and I think it's inappropriate to dismiss the impact of the separation of church and state has been to western society as a left wing power play. Just as monotheism arose from polytheistic societies, Christianity arose from precursors but at some point it was deemed to have diverged so secular thought should be granted the same accord. I mean ...Christendom might as well thank pagans for all their contributions to western society but I don't ever hear that at all because.... Christianity is the real deal and the end all. The secular, pluralist, liberal, progressive left is and has not rolled back on just GAY rights but HUMAN rights.


. Lol. I am missing a key word. "Protection from bigotry" is relatively new concept. Apologies.

. Well this gonna be difficult because secular beliefs are not just influenced by Judeo Christian values. Other religions and belief systems have many valuable traits and philosophies and are well entrenched in our society. I guess we can thank the open society (relatively) for being able to reach that point but lets be honest, how many Christians are sitting in church thanking the pagans for saturnalia or Easter. Again I don't think that the left is responsible for the incorporation of the most racist element of Americas history and incorporating them into the political discussion.

Mentioned earlier.... The opinion that America is and always has been a Christian nation is I think false. The population has been Christian however the idea of America is secular and I believe John Adams wrote in the Treaty of Tripoli that the United States was most certainly not a Christian nation. There are others but that is the most well known quote.

Adams' entire statement...

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims]; and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

Has always sounded to me like Adams was assuring Muslims not to worry about state sponsored hate on the basis of their faith. Thats a far cry from decoupling the role of Christian values from our governance. Allowing no state sponsored religion does not equal no christian values, or the intent of those values to be abolished or ignored. I do not believe the Idea of America was at all secular...its governance was intentionally decoupled from any specific church...not the same as faithless or Godless.

 

[Cackalacky]

Adams' entire statement...

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims]; and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

Has always sounded to me like Adams was assuring Muslims not to worry about state sponsored hate on the basis of their faith. Thats a far cry from decoupling the role of Christian values from our governance. Allowing no state sponsored religion does not equal no christian values, or the intent of those values to be abolished or ignored. I do not believe the Idea of America was at all secular...its governance was intentionally decoupled from any specific church...not the same as faithless or Godless.

Right ... So the intent is dare I say secular.....

 

[phgreek]

Right ... So the intent is dare I say secular.....

You dare say whatever you want...

If your understanding of "Secular" is simply the acknowledgement of separation of church and state....ie there is no national church and no church would be used in governance...then sure.

But that is a far cry from claiming America was not, at least at its onset, a Christian nation, and thus the constitution and laws derived from a Christian value system. I don't see "Secular" there.

 

[Cackalacky]

You dare say whatever you want...

If your understanding of "Secular" is simply the acknowledgement of separation of church and state....ie there is no national church and no church would be used in governance...then sure.

But that is a far cry from claiming America was not, at least at its onset, a Christian nation, and thus the constitution and laws derived from a Christian value system. I don't see "Secular" there.

I dare say I will. My understanding of secularism is a bit more nuanced than that but I dare say it matters little. I could talk about the inevitability of a secular state was set in motion by the founding fathers but that typically falls inadequately to the way side and dismissed because of the population demographics. I could talk about the disestablishment of the established churches during the National period that were undone by Revivalism and the open hostility towards Catholics by Protestants in the South. I could talk about the marriage of the religious with the economical, the religious with racists (a most amoral process). But the inevitability of a secular state is really a result destined to occur not only by liberal thinking but the very actions of Religions openly acting against other religions in a vacuum of religious tolerance. Much of the blame is laid at the feet of secularism when much of it is attributable to open hostility of Protestantism to Catholics and Mormons and then the marriage of conservative values to the economy. But it matters little.

 

[Irish#1]

Texas's RFRA is nearly identical to Indiana's in substance, except that it contains this provision:



If Indiana were to amend its RFRA to include such language, most of the controversy would die down.

Which it probably will. They are already meeting on the amendment.

 

[IrishLax]

Exclusive: 'Religious freedom' deal sets new protections

 

[kmoose]

The question is if they are all sins, why is the one sinner being picked out for discrimination? .... Why are the gays being treated differently then the other sinners who are still helped?

I don't know the answer to this, but I will say this:

I think gays get treated differently because people feel like the gay community is trying to force them to not only tolerate, not only accept, but to CELEBRATE their lifestyle. If you tell a guy who got divorced and remarried that he is a sinner, he probably shrugs his shoulders and moves on. Tell a gay couple that they are sinners? The next thing you know your face, name, and business(or employer) are plastered all over social media, and you are being talked about as if you were some combination of Lucifer, Hitler, and Stalin; all wrapped up in one body. The attitude of the gay community, in the last 10 years or so, seems to have shifted from one of fighting bigotry within the Christian community to fighting Christianity itself.

 

[phgreek]

I dare say I will. My understanding of secularism is a bit more nuanced than that but I dare say it matters little. I could talk about the inevitability of a secular state was set in motion by the founding fathers but that typically falls inadequately to the way side and dismissed because of the population demographics. I could talk about the disestablishment of the established churches during the National period that were undone by Revivalism and the open hostility towards Catholics by Protestants in the South. I could talk about the marriage of the religious with the economical, the religious with racists (a most amoral process). But the inevitability of a secular state is really a result destined to occur not only by liberal thinking but the very actions of Religions openly acting against other religions in a vacuum of religious tolerance. Much of the blame is laid at the feet of secularism when much of it is attributable to open hostility of Protestantism to Catholics and Mormons and then the marriage of conservative values to the economy. But it matters little.

I think we pretty much disagree on Founders' intent...I think the Constitution would be alot longer if they counted on "secular" man at the helm...vs a man conscious of, and restraining his religion in pursuit of leading the country.

 

[Cackalacky]

I think we pretty much disagree on Founders' intent...I think the Constitution would be alot longer if they counted on "secular" man at the helm...vs a man conscious of, and restraining his religion in pursuit of leading the country.

Wow....so a secular person is not a man of conscious? Uhhmmm yeah.....

 

[pkt77242]

I don't know the answer to this, but I will say this:

I think gays get treated differently because people feel like the gay community is trying to force them to not only tolerate, not only accept, but to CELEBRATE their lifestyle. If you tell a guy who got divorced and remarried that he is a sinner, he probably shrugs his shoulders and moves on. Tell a gay couple that they are sinners? The next thing you know your face, name, and business(or employer) are plastered all over social media, and you are being talked about as if you were some combination of Lucifer, Hitler, and Stalin; all wrapped up in one body. The attitude of the gay community, in the last 10 years or so, seems to have shifted from one of fighting bigotry within the Christian community to fighting Christianity itself.

I don't know how to respond to this except to be brutality honest. What did you expect the LGBT community to do? Religious Conservatives started the fight by passing things such as DOMA (though this was supported by many moderates as well), passing state amendments banning gay marriage, and many states refuse to give basic rights to the LGBT community such as protecting them from being fired, being discriminated against for housing, etc (29 states still don't have any protections for the LGBT community at the state level, yes a few cities within those states have passed ordinances).

Religious Conservatives (not all but many) attacked the gay people first, and yet seem to be utterly surprised when the LGBT community started fighting back, and demanding to be treated as equals. Then the same Religious Conservatives makes statements such as the LGBT community is fighting Christianity, or is waging a war on Christianity. What was the LGBT community supposed to do? Sit there and accept being discriminated against? I feel like many people are blaming the LGBT community for fighting back when they were the ones who were punched first.

I myself wouldn't call it a war against Christianity, it is a fight to gain equal rights, it just happens that it is mostly Christians who are opposing them so it feels that way.

Edit: I would also add that there have been many horrible things said about homosexuality and those who practice it by Christians that doesn't exactly help.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Whatever you want to call it, it is pluralism and secular and most western societies are trending that way. I don't agree that it is Christian universalism as at some point Protestants are no longer Catholics and Catholics are no longer polytheists (arguable as well) and the transition from natural dieties to a single diety will progress to no dieties. I don't see that changing. The fact that all religions have transitioned from polytheism to monotheism to what will soon be atheism is relevant and not so easily dismissable and I think it's inappropriate to dismiss the impact of the separation of church and state has been to western society as a left wing power play. Just as monotheism arose from polytheistic societies, Christianity arose from precursors but at some point it was deemed to have diverged so secular thought should be granted the same accord. I mean ...Christendom might as well thank pagans for all their contributions to western society but I don't ever hear that at all because.... Christianity is the real deal and the end all.

Cacky, you know I have a great deal of respect for you opinions, but I'm fairly well read on this subject, and this scientistic bullsh!t is beneath you. The only people advancing facile arguments like this are evangelical atheists attempting to ground liberal values in socio-cultural "evolution", because there's otherwise an obvious disconnect between their hostility towards Christianity and the outlines of their ideal society. I've never read a reputable historian, philosopher or theologian who thinks that there's some sort of natural progression from polytheism, to monotheism, to atheism. Monotheism, as its usually understood, is limited to Judaism and its dialects; which, from a theological standpoint, have basically conquered the world. And secularization does look inevitable in the Protestant west, but the trend doesn't hold elsewhere. I'd argue that it's just the logical outworking of the Reformation (with its radical individualism) rather than some Whiggish march toward enlightenment.

The secular, pluralist, liberal, progressive left is and has not rolled back on just GAY rights but HUMAN rights.

But where do those rights come from? You won't find a ground for them in any other faith tradition. Such rights are only coherent within the Judeo-Christian framework. As I've said before, principled unbelief has long been a respectable intellectual position within Christendom. But what's not respectable, or even remotely coherent, is to blithely argue that liberal values are sustainable long-term outside of a Christian framework. There's simply no historical evidence that it's true, and plenty of indicia that it's not.

Allow me to channel Chesterton for a moment with an allegorical explanation:

Christianity is like an old king, who (partly due to his own faults) is in poor health. Thus, his son Secular Liberalism has succeeded him to the Throne of the West. During the old king's reign, his realm grew into the greatest kingdom in human history. His scholars discovered the scientific method, and founded the first universities and hospitals; while his Lords discovered the concept of universal human rights, and developed pluralism to protect vulnerable minorities from mob rule.

But Secular Liberalism, like many young noblemen, is arrogant and self-centered, and he hates being reminded of his patrimony. He believes that everything his father accomplished was bound to happen anyway (an inherently racist idea, since the kingdom is overwhelmingly Caucasian!), despite the fact that no other kingdom on earth ever managed to build such wonders. And the king, pious old man that he is, still wants to be heard and respected, even though he no longer rules. But the arrogant princeling is losing patience with him daily, and will likely just have him violently killed soon so he can reinvent the kingdom in his own image without having to nod to tradition.

 

[connor_in]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en data-scribe-reduced-action-queue="><p>BREAKING: Outline of Iran nuclear deal reached:

1. Collect President's underpants.
2. ???
3. Nuclear weapon.</p>— Cuffy (@CuffyMeh) <a href="https://twitter.com/CuffyMeh/status/583663899855167488">April 2, 2015</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[connor_in]

I'll just put this here...


A call for sanity in the matter of Memories Pizza vs. the Internet - The Washington Post

 

[phgreek]

I think we pretty much disagree on Founders' intent...I think the Constitution would be alot longer if they counted on "secular" man at the helm...vs a man conscious of, and restraining his religion in pursuit of leading the country.

...oh brother...think in terms of preparation for the unknown vs something thats based on a standard you know well. be less victimy...sheesh.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

I'll just put this here...


A call for sanity in the matter of Memories Pizza vs. the Internet - The Washington Post

I don't like this story. People should be willing to take backlash for their beliefs, but this is out of hand. Be nicer.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I don't like this story. People should be willing to take backlash for their beliefs, but this is out of hand. Be nicer.

Why? That South Bend reporter tricked her into outing herself as a heretic. Don't such Christian bigots deserve what's coming to them? She deserves to have her business destroyed! Just like Elane Photography and Sweet Cakes by Melissa.

Here's an article in Reason by Matt Welch titled "Burn Her! She Would Act Like a Witch in a Situation That Will Never Come Up!":

Someone please tell me if my progression here is inaccurate in any way:

1) Family owners of small-town Indiana pizzeria spend zero time or energy commenting on gay issues.

2) TV reporter from South Bend walks inside the pizzeria to ask the owners what they think of the controversial Religious Restoration Freedom Act. Owner Crystal O'Connor responds, "If a gay couple came in and wanted us to provide pizzas for their wedding, we would have to say no….We are a Christian establishment." O'Connor also says—actually promises is the characterization here—that the establishment will continue to serve any gay or non-Christian person that walks through their door.

3) The Internet explodes with insults directed at the O'Connor family and its business, including a high school girls golf coach in Indiana who tweets "Who's going to Walkerton, IN to burn down #memoriespizza w me?" Many of the enraged critics assert, inaccurately, that Memories Pizza discriminates against gay customers.

4) In the face of the backlash, the O'Connors close the pizzeria temporarily, and say they may never reopen, and in fact might leave the state. "I don't know if we will reopen, or if we can, if it's safe to reopen," Crystal O'Connor tells The Blaze. "I'm just a little guy who had a little business that I probably don't have anymore," Kevin O'Connor tells the L.A. Times.

Rod Dreher titles his useful post on this grotesque affair "Into the Christian Closet," and it's apt considering the progression above. If only these non-activist restaurateurs had simply kept their views to themselves when asked by a reporter, April Fool's would have been like any other day for them.

But as it stands, they're now being trashed not just by social-justice mobs from afar, but by powerful politicians where they live and work. Democratic State Sen. Jim Arnold represents the O'Connors’s district. This is what he said about his constituents:

"The vast majority of people in this country are not going to stand by and watch that kind of activity unfold," he said. "If that's their stand I hope they enjoy eating their pizza because I don't think anyone else is going to."

Sen. Arnold says he's upset by the news because of the negative attention it's bringing to a town he says is a great community.

He said this kind of thinking has no place in this town. And the Religious Freedom Restoration Law is not an excuse for them to discriminate.

"This is America and if people say they're not going to serve them and they feel this is some kind of defense, which by the way doesn't take effect until July 1, but if they feel it's some kind of defense, I think they're sadly mistaken[.]"

Almost every word out of Sen. Arnold’s mouth was wrong, horrifying, or both.

1) The O'Connors did not say "they're not going to serve them," they in fact stressed the opposite.

2) The "kind of activity" that Arnold contends "the vast majority of people in this country are not going to stand by and watch" is expressing a disfavored opinion to a reporter. The pizzeria discriminated against nobody; merely said that it would choose not to serve a gay wedding if asked. Which it never, ever would be, because who asks a small-town pizzeria to cater a heterosexual wedding, let alone a gay one?

3) This kind of thinking has no place in this town is—what's the word?—totalitarian. Sen. Arnold is explicitly ganging up with "the vast majority" against someone guilty of thoughtcrime. This is a true statement regardless of your opinion of the underlying thought.

There is no to-be-sure paragraph about what happened yesterday. A virtual mob, acting at least partly on bogus information, gleefully trashed a business that hasn't (to my knowledge) discriminated against a flea. After which a local pol stood up and yelled "Encore!" The good news is that a crowdfunding effort has raised/pledged nearly $50,000 to the O'Connors.

The bad news, for those of us on the suddenly victorious side of the gay marriage debate, is that too many people are acting like sore winners, not merely content with the revolutionary step of removing state discrimination against same-sex couples in the legal recognition of marriage, but seeking to use state power to punish anyone who refuses to lend their business services to wedding ceremonies they find objectionable. That's not persuasion, that's force, and force tends to be the anti-persuasion among those who are on the receiving end of it.

Jonathan Rauch had a great piece for Reason two years ago about free speech and gay rights, arguing persuasively that when a minority is hopelessly outnumbered both in public opinion and in law, maximal free expression (and I would add, free association) is their most potent weapon—often, it's all they've got. To fight uphill all these long decades, then get to the top, only to start wielding majoritarianism against the suddenly disfavored minority position? That's ugly stuff.

There is another way: The Mo'Ne Davis/Joey Casselberry way, the Branch Rickey/Bobby Bragan way. Or if you don't like baseball, the Matt Stolhandske/Klein family bakery way.

Don't know that last story? Stolhandske is an evangelical pro-gay marriage activist who is nonetheless raising money for the Portland bakery that was fined $150,000 by the state of Oregon for refusing to work a gay wedding. Explained he: "this is what an olive branch looks like. I am not rewarding their behavior, but rather loving them in spite of it. It is time for these two communities, which both cite genuine love as our motivation, to put aside our prejudices and put down our pitchforks to clear the path for progress."

In other words, discussion, persuasion, strategic forgiveness, tolerance. Tactics worth considering, in a year when the Supreme Court is likely to codify the culture's amazing shift on gay marriage into law.

And here's the Becket Fund's (a civil libertarian think tank) statement on the issue:

The proposed “fix” to Indiana’s RFRA is unnecessary. Our country has had over 20 years of experience with RFRAs and we know what they do: They provide crucial protections to religious minorities. The key disagreement is over what should happen in a very small class of cases where individuals are asked to participate in a same-sex wedding in violation of their religious beliefs. In that situation, there are two possibilities: (1) Our government can drive religious people out of business, fine them, and possibly even imprison them; or (2) our government can say that these religious people deserve a day in court, and that courts should carefully balance religious liberty with other competing values. The original RFRA would give people their day in court; the proposed “fix” would be a green light for driving religious people out of business. Our society should not settle this issue by punishing religious people before they even have their day in court.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Why? That South Bend reporter tricked her into outing herself as a heretic. Don't such Christian bigots deserve what's coming to them? She deserves to have her business destroyed! Just like Elane Photography and Sweet Cakes by Melissa.

I don't know how I feel about the law. I'm really struggling with it. I obviously think the backlash in this case has been cruel.

It's interesting to note that the owner is divorced. He hasn't decided whether he would cater a wedding of a divorced person.

Indiana Pizzeria: No Pies for Gay Weddings - The Daily Beast

 

[Ndaccountant]

I don't like this story. People should be willing to take backlash for their beliefs, but this is out of hand. Be nicer.

Why?

Hateful, loving, discriminating, inclusive......why do people deserve a backlash for what the populous may find unsavory, or an applauding for what others find gratifying?

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Why?

Hateful, loving, discriminating, inclusive......why do people deserve a backlash for what the populous may find unsavory, or an applauding for what others find gratifying?

I didn't say "deserve." I just meant to say that free speech may sometimes have consequences. People don't have to like your speech. They have the right to criticize it. There's a point at which it becomes abusive. Personally, I think this case has crossed that line.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I don't know how I feel about the law. I'm really struggling with it. I obviously think the backlash in this case has been cruel.

I was obviously being facetious, and I'm glad this makes you uncomfortable. But several posters here have argued forcefully that such people are the modern-day equivalent of Klansmen. One cannot denounce his political opponents as bigots, but then plead for civility afterward.

It's interesting to note that the owner is divorced. He hasn't decided whether he would cater a wedding of a divorced person.

My understanding is that the O'Connors are fundamentalist Christians, who are not strictly opposed to divorce like Catholics. So there may not be any hypocrisy there. But even if there is, these people surely don't deserve to have their livelihood destroyed because they don't feel like they could cater a gay wedding in good conscience (which is virtually certain to never happen as a small town pizza parlour anyway).

I didn't say "deserve." I just meant to say that free speech may sometimes have consequences. People don't have to like your speech. They have the right to criticize it. There's a point at which it becomes abusive. Personally, I think this case has crossed that line.

It's important to note that the O'Connors didn't put a "No Gays Allowed" sign in their window, or support Indiana's RFRA via social media, or put out a press release. A South Bend reporter thought it'd be fair to look up a nearby Christian-owned business and to put them on the spot about it. The O'Connors were unfortunately naive enough to give her an honest answer. In other words, they were targeted, just like the Huguenins in New Mexico. It's despicable behavior.

 

[Ndaccountant]

I didn't say "deserve." I just meant to say that free speech may sometimes have consequences. People don't have to like your speech. They have the right to criticize it. There's a point at which it becomes abusive. Personally, I think this case has crossed that line.

thanks for the clarification.

And I agree with you on this going way too far. I just wish people would focus more on helping those who may have been unjstifably harmed (nobody in this instance) instead of trying to bring down those who they have differing viewpoints. Just another feather in the cap for social media warriors.

 

[Grahambo]

Whiskey...empty your trash!

 

[ACamp1900]

I feel like I need to vent some things and am turning to IE, as this thread (what I've read of it) seems to have much cooler heads than just about anywhere I've seen... hopefully this serves as helpful and doesn't add fuel to anything...

This whole thing from just about every angle just saddens and worries me... And it's really troubling how it seems both sides are being represented in the National Media by the militant fringe...

First as a Christian, bake the cake and give them a hand shake and a smile... Then I see signs or read statements here or there discussing gay issues from a 'Christian stance' and it's just disgusting how little connection to actual Christian morality there is being displayed at times...

I'm also saddened at how people who insist they are the tolerate ones in all of this are approaching those who think differently.

Another thing that troubles me is the insistent comparison to African American civil rights... The two are not even close, these establishments are not refusing service across the board, there are no 'no gays allowed' signs, there are no mass un-prosecuted lynchings and fire hoses being turned on gay rights advocates... There's not much to compare.

Anyway, the extremes on both side of this thing seem to have everyone's attention right now, and I don't think that's helping anything... The more I hear about it the more I wish I could just unplug and get a ranch in Montana somewhere and let the world destroy itself from safe distance.