⢠Randall Balmer periodically creates a stir by defending his thesis that the religious right began in defense of segregation rather than, as its mythology claims, in opposition to abortion. Balmerâs claim has upset many people over the years, but none of them has ever gotten so upset that theyâve been able to disprove it. The religious right, Balmer says, didnât care about abortion in 1973, when Roe v. Wade was decided. It didnât come into being until white evangelicals reacted in horror to another Supreme Court decision â Bob Jones University v. United States.
Hereâs another data-point in support of Balmer: The white Christian right is still trying to overturn Bob Jones.
⢠To me, at least, this is still funny. The moose seems to agree:
⢠Matthew Pulver looks at John Hageeâs âblood moonsâ and the eclipse of reason, for Salon. Pulver gives too much credence to Hageeâs claim that his goofy predictions based on lunar eclipses are in any way derived from biblical texts (theyâre really, really not), but heâs clear-eyed about the fact that folks like Hagee and his boosters at the Family Research Council cannot be dismissed as an inconsequential fringe:
The FRC is not some ramshackle backwoods chapel filled with snake handlers; the well-heeled D.C. lobbying groupâs âValues Voter Summitâ in late summer will be a whoâs who of conservatism, with Rush Limbaugh, Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Sean Hannity and a host of others expected to speak at the conference.
Of course, that Values Voter Summit is focused on the 2016 election, in which both FRC and John Hagee say real, true Christians have a sacred duty to support the Republican nominee. That election will occur 14 months after their âblood moonâ prophecy says the world will end, but consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.
⢠Naum at AZspot shares Greg Boydâs fine presentation of the Anabaptist-ish case against Christians participating in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. I would clarify there that I mean the American pledge of allegiance to the American flag, but thatâs pretty much a given since America is one of only two nations that practice this ghastly ritual.
I mostly agree with Boyd, and Iâd add a big dollop of New Testament Empire criticism to his argument (âWho is like the beast, and who can fight against it?â). But there are also plenty of non-sectarian reasons to dislike this ceremonial idolatry. Like, for example, the way it twists expressions of patriotism into substance-less, performative gestures that therefore ultimately become competitive â promoting division more than national unity.
Or, again, the fact that a country requiring its citizens â particularly its children â to participate in reciting a mandatory loyalty oath is just about the skin-crawlingly creepiest thing imaginable. âLiberty and justice for allâ is a beautiful thing. Social coercion requiring us to pledge allegiance to a symbol representing such ideals is several steps backwards from those ideals themselves. And itâs creepy, creepy, creepy.
⢠Itâs possible this is just a relatively mundane story about cyber-criminals stealing credit-card information for purely financial reasons. Itâs also possible that some prominent politicians and/or members of the clergy have a new reason to be anxious.
⢠Late last week in this BBC4 Channel 4* report leading up to Irelandâs referendum, the interviewer asked Panti Bliss â the fabulous performer who became a formidable, compelling spokesperson for the Yes vote â âPersonally, do you needâ the affirmation of humanity and dignity and equal rights that the Yes vote would signify. Pantiâs response was heartbreaking, lovely and inspiring:
Well, clearly I donât need it. Iâm sitting here in front of you looking fabulous, so clearly I donât need it. But I want it, and I want it for other people. I want it for people who are younger than me. I am a tough nut. But I am 46 years old and I have grown to be a tough nut. And I would like if young lesbian and gay people, you know, have the choice not to turn into the tough nut that I am. That they could just, you know, that they could just be.
Thereâs something about that, I think, that applies to every struggle for greater justice and a better world. Itâs not enough just to become a tough nut that The Powers That Be cannot manage to crush. The point is to change things for those who come after us, so that they are free not to have to be tough nuts, but just to be.
* (Corrected. Thanks, Daniel. Basically, if I see a TVÂ interviewer ask meaningful follow-up questions, I just assume itâs the BBC. Unless they donât have an accent, then I assume itâs The Daily Show.)