#why does ''Religious Liberty'' always mean ''My right to treat people like Less Because God Says So'' | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

shinobicyrus · 2 months

Text

This week, Supreme Court Justice Samuel "goes on expensive fishing trips with republican megadonors" Alito decided to use an official Supreme Court order to once again rail against same-sex marriage and the entire concept of safeguarding queer rights.

It was all in response to a case the Supreme Court declined to hear involving the dismissal of 3 potential jurors who claimed that they had been unfairly passed over (yes they're complaining about not being selected for jury duty) due to their religious beliefs. The case involved a woman who was suing her employer for sexual discrimination and retaliation after she started dating the ex-girlfriend of a male coworker. The 3 potential jurors that had not been selected had stated a belief to the court that homosexuality is a sin.

Rather than commenting on the obvious bias three potential jurors had against a party in the case, Alito instead spent five pages ranting about the sheer injustice that had been done to them. The case, he said, fully exemplified the "danger" that he'd predicted back in 2015, when the Supreme Court had legalized same sex marriage nationwide (in a slim 5-4 vote, I will remind):

"Namely, that Americans who do not hide their adherence to traditional religious beliefs about homo-sexual conduct will be labeled as bigots and treated as such by the government."

Again this was a case in which a court ultimately decided that maybe people who believed that homosexuals were sinful shouldn't sit on a case in which one of the parties was one such "sinner." That sounds pretty fair to me; they didn't call them bigots, or evil, or throw them in jail. The court just decided that maybe they weren't a good fit for that particular case. For that particular plaintiff.

But no, a Supreme Court Justice, someone who is supposed to be a scholar of law, turned it in his mind into a government assault against "people of good will."

Never forget how narrow that marriage equality decision had been. Never forget Alito and Thomas are still salty about it 9 years later and have stated in public multiple times they want to revisit this decision. Just like Roe, just like Miranda Rights, just like the Voting Rights Act - they will gut civil rights and established precedent on the altar of their Originalism and make us beholden to the tenets of their personal Gods.

And they're doing it in public too, so they can signal to everyone who thinks like them to keep trying, you have friends here. You have a sure chance of victory.

At the very least, the lesbian with mad game won her case.

#Samuel Alito is still an Originalist Piece of Shit #Supreme Court #US Supreme Court #Homophobia #Religious Liberty #is just just draping your beliefs with a cloak of righteousness #where are court cases against cities that make it illegal to feed the hungry and homeless?#where are the court cases against Texas or Florida about the dignity of refugees?#why does ''Religious Liberty'' always mean ''My right to treat people like Less Because God Says So''#and nothing about values Jesus actually talked about?#all they want the law to do is protect themselves and THEIR interests - and bind everyone else #Christian Nationalism #Originalism

218 notes · View notes

curtolson · 4 years

Text

Why I am a former Republican

The Christianity Today editorial by Mark Galli has stirred up folks amid Big Evangelicalism--the Christian leaders often connected to the President. No matter if it is Franklin Graham, Tony Perkins, Richard Land, JFJr., Robert Jeffress, Eric Metaxas, or others, each makes the mistake of contending we have just two choices--the standard R or D--in any election for POTUS.

None of them, that I have seen, have responded to John Piper, who said the following the Sunday before election 2016:

“The right to vote in America is not a binding duty (without regard to other factors) for Christians in every election.

“’The children are free.’ ” We are free from human institutions. As citizens of heaven, we are not bound in every situation to participate in the processes of human government. This is not our homeland. We vote — if we vote — because the Lord of our homeland commissions us to vote. And he does not absolutize this act above all other considerations of Christian witness.

“In this election, with the flagrant wickedness of both party candidates, the logic that moves from “Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution” (1 Peter 2:13) to the necessity — the binding duty — of voting, has lost sight of three things:

--the radical meaning of the words, “for the Lord’s sake,” and how it relativizes all human authority and how it brings to bear many other considerations;

--the radical freedom of the children of God from the inherent authority of human institutions like government; and

--the aim of every citizen of heaven in all human engagements to display our allegiance to the values of another world.

“I am not saying we are bound not to vote. I am saying that the children of God are free to hear the voice of their Master about how to best witness to his supremacy. . . .”

I turned 18 in the latter part of the Reagan Administration: 1986. My first Presidential election was 1988. I had voted for the Republican nominee each time. And yes, there were times I believed I had to settle for "the lesser of two evils" because, after all, isn't that how Christians are conditioned to accept political reality? A seat at the table. Get whatever influence you can. Always engage in the left-wing-right-wing banter. Any fighting is winning. I subscribed to all of it.

Sometime after election 2012, I began critically examining what the GOP had been feeding me for nearly 30 years as a voter. The GOP tells Christians they are the party of a strong national defense, lower taxes, expanding liberty, strong families, and the party that would bring the federal leviathan under control, not to mention judicial appointments that will stand for the rule of law.. And this is where they also promote themselves as being pro-life.

"You can trust us," we are repeatedly told.

Unfortunately, their rhetoric and actions are too often polar opposites. "Talk is cheap," as the saying goes. We see several things happening over time, but they accelerated after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

Prior to 9-11-01, we had former President George HW Bush get crushed politically by his failure to follow through on a tax cut. Remember, "Read my lips. No new taxes"? We also had Reagan high court appointees Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy relish in their swing-vote roles, frequently acting activist, not defending the Constitution's plain simple language. Kennedy emerged as a nominee after Robert Bork's character assassination by the late U.S. Sen. Ted Kennedy.

When the GOP emerged with the Contract for America in 1994, it seemed as if Republicans genuinely cared that their word was their bond. It did not last, however. After the terrorist attacks in NYC and DC, we witnessed genuine assaults on liberty and freedom, and it is accelerating.

The following are just a partial list of the grievances I have with the GOP, which compelled me to become a former Republican (I will never be a Democrat.) within the past 5 years:

During the Bush 43 administration (I voted for him in 2000 and 2004), the GOP passed Medicare Part D, which launched the feds further into healthcare policy. The government doesn't do much very well, let alone thinking it's smart and benevolent enough to regulate medicine and healthcare for seniors. The Bush 43 administration also gave us No Child Left Behind, which was the federal government sticking its nose further and further into education policy. The more the feds mandate, the less power that exists for local school boards and parents. Republicans should know this, but they "had to do something."

The Patriot Act that emerged from the Bush 43 administration following the terrorist attacks has been one of the most significant assaults on liberty and an ability to live without the government intruding on American citizens. It could very well be the most tyrannical piece of legislation passed in American history. It has been tweaked here and there, but nearly two decades later it has survived as the NSA and other federal agencies monitor the phone calls and emails of Americans, complete with the assistance of corporate America. The passage and reauthorization of The Patriot Act (there are some in Congress who consistently vote against its reauthorization) is perhaps the clearest sign the GOP has no problem with tyranny triumphing over liberty and freedom. It is inexcusable. And just because the government hasn't called me in for questioning doesn't make it right or just.

Nation building--The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq compelled us to eventually engage in nation building, which is not the role or function of the US military. We have spent trillions of dollars in both nations. A recent Washington Post investigative piece revealed billions--or perhaps more--of American dollars lost on corruption in Afghanistan and political promises from three administrations--Bush 43, Obama, and Trump (notice that wonderful bipartisanship)--that was just hot air. I was initially in favor of both wars. As time has passed I have come to a hard conclusion: no amount of force can compel folks to prefer freedom and self-government if they have no idea what it will mean to sustain it. I believe freedom and self-government require a knowledge and acceptance of spiritual truth because our founders warned us that to keep the system we had would require people living by biblical principles. We are imposing this on Muslims, who do not believe the Bible. As much as I was moved by women voting in both countries, Islam will not allow freedom and self-government to be sustained. PS. I am not a neocon and do not believe we should be finding places to engage in warfare. Many neocons have their sights set on Iran. That would be a disaster. PSS I do believe the US should be actively engaged in defending persecuted religious minorities and insisting other countries protect those folks. Religious freedom either is a priority or it isn't. This s determined by actions, not rhetoric.

Department of Homeland Security--A new federal agency behemoth--DHS--surfaced as an expansion of the federal government after the terrorist attacks. Again, Republicans had no problem expanding government.

National Debt--The National Debt, which is now $23 trillion and climbing, has been doubling every 10 years since Bush 43. Note that we grew government (DHS) and funded two wars on a credit card. And of course President Obama grew government with ObamaCare. When is Big Evangelicalism (I remember JFJr. said Trump was needed to get the debt under control. Trump is spending like Barack Obama.) going to start treating the national debt like the moral issue that it is? We are stealing from future generations of Americans. Worse, the more both parties kick the can down the road, the options they will have when something is forced upon them will be extremely limited. And this doesn't account for all of the unfunded liabilities, which some estimate to be . . . $122 trillion. This. Is. Not. Sustainable.

Lack of transparency in budgeting and legislation--The leadership of both parties love to use Omnibus spending bills just before the Christmas recess to justify the crafting of bills behind closed doors, with little, if any, ability to amend these bills. Additionally, there's no ability for any member of the House or Senate to read the details of these spending bills that typically arrive in a late afternoon and they have less than 24 hours to read over 2,000 pages. Th Rs and Ds actually expect members of the House and Senate to just line up and vote and not consider the details of which they vote. It's tyrannical. The spending of money this way ensures no accountability. Taxpayers learn about the stupid ideas later. Why can't they have an honest debate and siphon the garbage out of these bills? That makes too much sense.

Planned Parenthood/Abortion--There has been more rhetoric from the Republican party attached to this issue and the premier organization promoting infanticide than any other issue. The dirty little secret is most of the "changes" coming from DC surface as executive orders that a Democrat will change with the stroke of a pen. Kermit Gosnell commits his crimes in PA and there's nothing that surfaces mandating inspections of abortion clinics. PP is caught on film bragging about the harvesting of organs from aborted babies and the GOP does nothing. No prosecution of the guilty. No accountability, Nothing. Yes, PP opted out of Title X funding when the Trump administration changed rule (this was a very good thing). But PP still gets hundreds of millions of dollars off American taxpayers for killing babies. The GOP has threatened de-funding PP multiple times. They never follow through on the threats. They are all bark and no bite.

Former President Obama and others perpetuate the lie that administration was "scandal free." Fast and Furious. The IRS weaponized to go after political opponents of President Obama. The rollout of ObamaCare. Benghazi. All we ever received from Republicans were congressional hearings that allowed members of the House or Senate to play to the cameras of C-SPAN and others This is not accountability. The lack of accountability flourishes all across the three branches of government.

Judges--The Trump administration has now put its stamp on the lower federal courts. This is a good thing. But I would remind everyone who utters the phrases, "But Gorsuch." or "But Kavanaugh." that judges are bound to make a lousy decision. When they do what will happen to the high court argument regarding judicial appointments? Additionally, all of this attention on the courts leaves me wondering is this the new fail safe for losing the White House or Congress? "At least we can rely on the courts." Can we?

I do vote for Republicans at the local and state levels.

I have been challenged by Exodus 18:21 where Jethro instructs Moses on the attributes to seek for judges for the growing Israelite population. There are four requirements: able men who fear God, men of truth, and men who hate dishonest gain. The argument is this is a group of people who were not elected and it automatically ignores women. Really? Are you really going to suggest these four attributes don't apply to the 21st century for Americans seeking character traits of elected officials? How myopic and insulting. Yes, even women can possess these traits.

Christians have been aiding and abetting the dumbing down of the American electoral process. We should, can, and must be better. We owe our allegiance to the King not of this world, yet our rhetoric in America reveals something very, very different.

#christianitytoday #franklin graham #jerry falwell jr.#tony perkins #richard land #eric metaxas #robert jeffress #john piper #republicans #gop

0 notes