Monday Miscellany, 1/22/24

Last updated on: January 19, 2024 at 1:27 pm By Gene Veith

October 8 Jews, Christian Civilizationism, and Finnish persecutors appeal to the Supreme Court.

October 8 Jews

American Jews for the most part (but not all) have been liberal Democrats. Because of their own experience of discrimination and oppression, they were strong supporters of the Civil Rights movement, which gave equal rights to black Americans, and they continued to support other “rights” movements for women, gays, and other minorities.

Now, though, they are feeling betrayed. After the October 7 attack on Israel by Hamas, in which 1400 Israeli men, women, and children were murdered and 240 taken hostage, the left has turned against not only Israel trying to defend itself but all Jews, to the point of attacking Jewish students and vandalizing Jewish-owned shops.

By the canons of woke progressivism, Jews are not included among the oppressed groups that are supposed to ally with each other. Rather, they are classified with the oppressors, those with “white privilege” who are “colonizers” and “occupiers,” whether they are Israelis or not.

Bret Stephens has coined the term “October 8 Jews,” for those who identified with the left on October 6, had a rude awakening on October 7, then recognized their betrayal on October 8.

Adam Milstein has written a plaintive article on the subject published in the Jerusalem Post entitled As Liberal Jews Feel abandoned by the Left: What’s next?

He surveys the Jewish alliance with the left and describes how traditional liberalism was hijacked by woke progressivism. He suggests that Jews take a different political approach:

First, no more blind voting for Democrats or Republican for the sake of historical precedent. All Jews, including liberal Jews, must adopt a litmus test for candidates and support only those determined to fight antisemitism and support the U.S.-Israel alliance.

Second, pull support from organizations and academic institutions that promote the erasure of Jewish suffering and tacitly endorse Jew-hatred.

And finally, unite and support American organizations that protect and promote equality and inclusion rather than division and an ideology that aims to destroy Jewish life and American values.

See also this searing essay by John Podhoretz, who also refutes the false narratives taken up by Hamas and its woke allies (such as the Palestinians being the “indigenous” people of Judea).

Christian Civilizationism

You have heard of “Christian nationalism.” Andrew Beck says that what is really needed–and what most Christian nationalists actually yearn for–is “Christian Civilizationism.”

His article for the American Mind has the explanatory deck “Prioritize the civilization that has always been over the nation that never was.” America, Beck says, was never the kind of nation that could be “Christian,” as such, unlike perhaps European nations with a national church. The United States never constituted a “nation-state” like Europe had, with a unified culture that made nationalism possible. Christianity, though, has always influenced civilizations–and therefore nations–for the better. This is what we have lost and need to recover, including he says by political means. But, he says,

If harmonious Christian civilization is the destination, the wagon should not simply crash headlong into American political advocacy, capturing seats of power to codify Christian ethics, or using the power of government to evangelize. Rather, those who want Christian civilization should prioritize re-Christianizing America, not re-nationalizing Christianity.

Beck favors the American tradition of federalism, with a “loose union of localized states” that would allow Christians and other groups to live as they wish. The overall political goals would be modest: “The freedom of association, limited government, and natural law are enough to bring about safety, prosperity, and growth for those who are capable of self-government.”

Beck believes that Christianity would then flourish and become culturally influential again:

We must prove the truth of our words by our own lives; by the way we care for the bit of civilization we have been entrusted with—our homes and land, our children and spouses, our churches and cities, our enterprises and institutions.

I want a civilization Christianized not by mere laws or cultural artifacts, but by the genuine faith of the people who live there.

I see his point, but I wonder if we should prioritize civilization at all, much less turn it into an -ism. I’ve been thinking about C. S. Lewis’s point: “You have never talked to a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts, civilizations – these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat.” The Kingdom of Heaven is eternal, making it far more important than any kingdom of this world, all of which will pass away, though God reigns over them as well in a hidden way. But I suspect Christians who think in those terms will be, indirectly and ironically, the most, influential to nations, cultures, arts, and civilizations.

Finnish Persecutors Appeal to Supreme Court

In the continuing saga of the Finnish Lutherans being prosecuted for quoting the Bible on homosexuality, there has been another development.

Though the physician and member of Parliament Päivi Räsänen and the Bishop of the confessional Lutheran church Juhana Pohjola were acquitted of all hate crime charges by both the district court and the appeals court, Prosecutor General Raija Toiviainen is appealing those rulings to Finland’s Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court has not announced if it will take up the case. Paul Coleman of the Alliance Defending Freedom and part of the legal team defending the two thinks it is unlikely. He said in a statement,

“The state’s insistence on continuing this prosecution despite such a clear and unanimous ruling by both the Helsinki District Court and Court of Appeal is alarming. Dragging people through the courts for years, subjecting them to hour-long police interrogations, and wasting taxpayer money in order to police people’s deeply held beliefs has no place in a democratic society. As is so often the case in “hate speech” trials, the process has become the punishment.”

Exactly! “The process has become the punishment.” If found guilty, the accused would be punished by fines and a short jail term. But, as it is, they are being punished by a much more costly legal defense and legal proceedings that have extended for five years! This is surely calculated to have a chilling effect on any other Christian who dares mention publicly what the Bible says and what Christians have always taught about the sinfulness of same-sex intercourse.

And, as I keep saying, this is reason for Americans to be thankful for the 5th Amendment to the Constitution, which states “nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” Forbidding “double jeopardy” means that Americans found guilty of a crime may appeal the court’s decision, but if found innocent, the prosecutors may not appeal that decision. Rather, the acquittal is final. Not all countries have this protection of civil liberties, which prevents prosecutors from just continuing to try a case in different courts until they get a conviction.

Dr. Räsänen and Bishop Pohjola are now facing triple jeopardy. And the prosecutor is reportedly considering the possibility of appealing an unfavorable Supreme Court ruling to the European Court of Human Rights. Which would subject them to quadruple jeopardy!

Premium Content

Monday Miscellany, 11/20/23

Last updated on: November 15, 2023 at 6:19 pm By Gene Veith

0 Comments

Finnish Lutherans acquitted–again; the two most vocal Christians pull out of the presidential race; and the American Medical Association says “no” to euthanasia.

Finnish Lutherans Acquitted–Again

Finnish legislator Dr. Päivi Räsänen and Lutheran Bishop Juhana Pohjola were acquitted for a second time of charges of “hate speech” for citing the Bible’s disapproval of homosexuality.

Prosecutors charged Dr. Räsänen under Finland’s criminal code for “war crimes and crimes against humanity” for tweeting a Bible verse in response to the state church’s sponsorship of a gay pride march, for appearing on a radio debate over the morality of homosexual behavior, and writing a pamphlet on the Biblical teaching about sexuality. Bishop Pohjola of the Evangelical Lutheran Mission Diocese of Finland, with which the LCMS is in fellowship, was prosecuted for publishing that pamphlet.

For more, see our other posts on the subject. A district court ruled unanimously that the two were innocent, but because Finnish citizens have no protection against double jeopardy, the prosecutor appealed that verdict. Now the Court of Appeals has ruled unanimously that the previous acquittal should stand.

According to the Alliance Defending Freedom, which represented the pair,

Throughout the cross-examination, Räsänen was asked multiple times by the prosecutor if she would update or remove what she had said about marriage and sexuality in her 2004 church pamphlet, titled “Male & Female He Created Them”.

“At the heart of the prosecutor’s examination of Räsänen was this: would she recant her beliefs? The answer was no – she would not deny the teachings of her faith. The cross-examination bore all the resemblance of a “heresy” trial of the middle ages; it was implied that Räsänen had “blasphemed” against the dominant orthodoxies of the day,” said Paul Coleman, Executive Director of ADF International, serving on Räsänen’s legal team.

She would not recant. Sound familiar?

The Federalist‘s Joy Pullman quotes Bishop Pohjola on their five-year ordeal:

“This is not only a cultural or legal battle but also a spiritual battle,” Pohjola said, noting their prosecution raises the “question of [whether] pastor and church can teach publicly what we understand to be the word of God and the created order and the natural law. There have been difficult moments, but I understand this is my calling as a Christian and a pastor to guard the faith and teach it publicly and carry the cross.”

That cross, he said, is not a physical cross like the one he wears around his neck, “It’s to pay the price in this age to be a witness for Christ.”

But the ordeal may not be over yet. Pullman reported that the prosecutor plans to appeal the ruling again, taking it to Finland’s Supreme Court, putting the accused in triple jeopardy!

The Two Most Vocal Christians Pull Out of Presidential Race

The two presidential candidates who were the most open and vocal about their Christian faith have dropped out of the race.

Sen. Tim Scott (R-South Carolina) said, in announcing that he was suspending his campaign, said, “I think the voters, who have been the most remarkable people on the planet, have been really clear. They’re telling me ‘not now, Tim.'”

Last month, former Vice-President Mike Pence made a similar announcement, saying, “It’s become clear to me: This is not my time. . . .So after much prayer and deliberation, I have decided to suspend my campaign for president effective today.”

This isn’t to say the other candidates aren’t religious too, but Scott and Pence were very up front about their evangelical faith and how they were motivated by it in their governmental service and in their policies.

There was a time when a candidate’s open profession of faith might have helped their appeal. It didn’t seem to do much this time, and it may have hurt them, even among conservative Republicans who might have been sympathetic.

Does this mark the end of Christian political clout?

American Medical Association Says “No” to Euthanasia

The American Medical Association has pretty much caved to the abortionists and the transgender advocates. But it has taken a strong stand on another life issue, reaffirming its opposition to euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide.

Wesley J. Smith for National Review reports that the AMA had been asked once again to change its policy against doctors killing their patients and has voted for the fourth time to continue its opposition. He quotes the policy that has been reaffirmed:

Euthanasia is fundamentally incompatible with the physician’s role as healer, would be difficult or impossible to control, and would pose serious societal risks.

Euthanasia could readily be extended to incompetent patients and other vulnerable populations.

The involvement of physicians in euthanasia heightens the significance of its ethical prohibition. The physician who performs euthanasia assumes unique responsibility for the act of ending the patient’s life.

Instead of engaging in euthanasia, physicians must aggressively respond to the needs of patients at the
end of life. Physicians:

(a) Should not abandon a patient once it is determined that a cure is impossible.
(b) Must respect patient autonomy.
(c) Must provide good communication and emotional support.
(d) Must provide appropriate comfort care and adequate pain control

Premium Content

The Trial of the Century

Last updated on: October 8, 2023 at 2:30 pm By Gene Veith

0 Comments

We have been following the case of the Finnish member of parliament Päivi Räsänen and Lutheran Bishop Juhana Pohjola (whose church is in fellowship with the LCMS) who were indicted for the crime of hate speech for articulating what the Bible teaches about homosexuality. (See this list of posts.)

The good news is that the two were found “not guilty” at their trial. The bad news is that prosecutors have subjected them to double jeopardy–that is, trying them again despite their having been acquitted, an act of judicial tyranny not allowed by the U.S. Constitution)–by appealing their acquittal!

That second trial is over, and we await the verdict.

In her article for Real Clear Religion, entitled How a Bible Tweet Led to a Battle for Free Speech, Sofia Hörder recounts how it all began with a tweet from Dr. Räsänen that was critical of the state church of Finland for being a co-sponsor of the Gay Pride Parade, accompanied by Bible verses. Prosecutors then combed through other things that she had written and said in the past, including material from before same-sex marriage was legalized and before the hate crime with which she was charged went into effect. A key bit of evidence was a pamphlet she had written, for which not only was she prosecuted but so was Bishop Pohjola for publishing it.

Hörder comments,

“If state prosecutors, with all the resources of the state available to them, were to comb through every statement and piece of writing that any of us have ever publicized for something that could be construed as offensive by someone, any of us could find ourselves in Räsänen’s shoes.”

She also points to an article published in European Conservative by Rod Dreher who calls this “the trial of the century.” He gives some details from the appeal trial:

In her opening statement on Thursday, the Finnish prosecutor said, of a 2004 pamphlet authored by Dr. Räsänen, “The point isn’t whether it is true or not, but that this is insulting.”

Think about that: The point is not whether these words true or not, but that someone’s feelings were hurt by them.

This is the essence of totalitarianism: the demand to control reality. The Finnish state attempts to outlaw not simply expression it does not like, but facts it finds offensive. This little statement by grim-faced prosecutor Anu Mantila is what makes this two-day legal proceeding the Trial of the Century.

It’s like this: If, in a liberal democracy, the state has the power to declare truth subordinate to ideology, then you live under totalitarianism. It might be a soft totalitarianism—fines for thought criminals like Päivi Räsänen, instead of the gulag—but it is totalitarianism nonetheless.

It is telling that Mantila initially asked the appeals court not to let Dr. Räsänen and her co-defendant, Lutheran bishop Juhana Pohjola, even testify. It was as if she only wanted her allegations heard, with no defense from the accused. The court denied the prosecution’s request, but that it was even made tells you the kind of tyrannical mindset we’re dealing with.

Dreher explains why this is the most important trial of the century:

Again, it might seem overblown to call a two-day appeals hearing the Trial of the Century. It’s not. The ability of people in every society of the West to speak freely about what they believe is true is on trial, either legally or culturally. As old-fashioned liberalism dies, its successor ideology is a militantly illiberal leftism that sees all social relations as nothing but power struggles. It also regards truth as whatever serves to advance the interests of its favored factions. . . .

It must be possible to face and understand that so small (and, in world politics, so unimportant) a phenomenon as the fate of a Finnish pamphleteer and a cleric, on trial for affirming what the Bible says about homosexuality, could become the catalytic agent for far worse persecutions in this century, at the hands of a soft-totalitarian ideology that seemingly overnight has already captured all the institutional and cultural heights in Western democracies.

Photo by Mohamed Hassan form PxHere

Premium Content

Monday Miscellany 8/21/23

Last updated on: August 18, 2023 at 12:22 pm By Gene Veith

0 Comments

Trump’s 91 felony charges, hybrid genders, and 22 states outlaw sex change surgeries for children.

Trump’s 91 Felony Charges

First, Donald Trump was indicted in New York on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to cover up hush money to a porn star. Then he was indicted in Florida on 40 felony counts of mishandling classified documents. Then he was indicted in Washington, D.C., on 4 felony counts of trying to overturn the election with the January 6 riots. Now he has been indicted in Georgia on 13 felony counts for trying to overturn that state’s election results. So the former president has been charged with a total of 91 felonies.

From what I have read, many of these charges are bogus and others are a stretch. But some could stick. For example, I don’t think anyone denies that Trump called the speaker of the Georgia House in an attempt to persuade him to call a special session to appoint a new slate of pro-Trump electors. Well, that pretty clearly is “soliciting” a public officer to violate his oath of office to abide by the laws of his state. And that’s against the law. It’s a felony that carries a mandatory one year prison sentence.

If that’s the only charge that sticks and he is acquitted of the other 90, he would go to jail. But some of the others might stick also.

Yes, his opponents are out to get him. Yes, the decision to file such discretionary charges was politically motivated. Yes, prosecuting political opponents in the middle of a campaign, no less, is a tactic of banana republic dictators.

The fact remains, though, that now that the charges have been filed and will go to trial, Trump is in genuine legal jeopardy. And if he is found guilty of even a few of these charges, and if he is elected, he may have to govern the country from a prison cell.

And Now, Hybrid Genders

The transgender movement is not just about males identifying as females and females identifying as males. It’s not just about a male or female identifying as being “non-binary,” as having no gender.

Diane Ehrensaft, the director of mental health and chief psychologist at the University of California San Francisco Benioff Children’s Hospital gender development center and a professor at the UCSF medical school, opens new horizones. She says that people–specifically, children–can have “hybrid genders.”

She gives this list:

Gender Prius: Half girl and half boy
Gender Minotaur: One gender on top and a different one on the bottom
Gender by Season: One gender during the school year and another over the summer
Gender by Location: At home, one gender, elsewhere another

In a Prius, like other hybrid vehicles, sometimes the gasoline engine is engaged and sometimes the electric engine is engaged. So Gender Prius must mean that sometimes the child acts like a girl and sometimes acts like a boy.

A minotaur is the creature from Greek mythology that has a bull’s head and a man’s trunk. So Gender Minotaur would mean someone whose mind is one gender, but whose sexual physiology is the other.

Gender by Season and Gender Location would mean that gender identification changes from time to time and place to place. (Which is a good reason–as are all of these–NOT to subject children with gender dysphoria to mutilative surgery, as practiced at the Benioff Children’s Hospital.)

(Also, read this commentary.)

Twenty-Two States Outlaw Trans Mutilations for Children

Speaking of which, now that North Carolina legislators have over-ridden their governor’s veto, there are now 22 states that have passed laws banning castrations, masectomies, and sterilizing chemicals and hormones for the purpose of gender-reassignment for minors.

That’s progress and in line with the medical rethinking of transgenderism that has taken place in England, France, Finland, and Sweden.

But what will really change the medical profession will be a series of successful malpractice suits on behalf of permanently harmed children who have been manipulated into life-changing surgeries but then changed their minds.

Premium Content

A Lutheran Case for Limited Government and Religious Liberty

Last updated on: August 10, 2023 at 7:36 pm By Gene Veith

0 Comments

As I was trying to think through the doctrine of the Two Kingdoms and the competing schools of conservatism, Anthony Sacramone alerted me to an interview he did with Rev. Dr. Gregory Seltz. The former Lutheran Hour speaker is the current head of the Lutheran Center for Religious Liberty. the voice of the LCMS in Washington, D.C.

The interview is from back in 2021 and was published at Religion & Liberty Online, with the perhaps surprising title Lutherans are on the front lines of the battle for religious liberty. Read it all, but here are a couple of responses from Dr. Seitz:

What are the biggest religious liberty issues facing churches today?

With the federalization of virtually every aspect of healthcare, the government is intricately woven into issues from the beginning of life to its end. The temptation of the government to stand against clear moral teachings that are fundamental to many Christians and religious people of the country is one thing, but the coercive capability of such an expansive intrusion into areas of conscience is another. We’ve seen that in the Obamacare mandates and more recently in the COVID-19 restrictions on the Church, virtually reclassifying it as a secondary institution. Such a reclassification stands in stark contrast to the constitutional protections of religious liberty enshrined in the First Amendment.

While those issues are troubling, the most pressing issue is the reclassification of gender identity as a protected class like race, sex (male/female), ethnicity, or religion. Differences of opinion are one thing, but the notion that the Church must change its teaching regarding marriage and the healthy, biblical directives for sexual expression within the marriage bond now stands not merely as a different understanding of sex, sexual practice, and intimacy—it may become “hate speech,” defining one side of the equation as constitutional and the other as not. We are seeing this already in Europe with the prosecution of Bishop Juhana Pohjola and Paivi Rasanen in Finland merely for publicly teaching that marriage is defined as the lifelong union of a man and woman and sex is part of the marriage bond. . . .

Lutherans have a reputation for political quietism, standing on the sidelines during the great social churnings, focusing strictly on gospel proclamation. Is that reputation deserved? If so, do you see yourself as trying to alter that image, opening up a space for Lutherans as Lutherans to enter the political arena?

I’m biased here, of course, but I think that the representation isn’t well deserved. Some would point to the German Lutheran state church and Hitler, but there were plenty of churches speaking out and even acting against the secular takeover of the state church and the state itself. Here in America, many of the foundational Supreme Court cases—Hosanna Tabor, Trinity Lutheran, and others—are the result of Lutheran churches standing up to government encroachment when the time is right. I think the label of “quietism” comes from a misunderstanding of our teaching of “Two Kingdoms.” Richard Niebuhr’s book Christ and Culture is a good example. There the Lutheran position is defined as Christ and culture “in tension” rather than in the proper differentiation of God the Father’s preserving work (through Caesar, through people’s vocations) and God’s unique saving work in Christ for all.

Differentiation does have a limited view of what “good” government can do, and that may be why we are not leading the charge on many of the political issues of the day. Such a view also supports a healthy limitation of what government “should do.” But that doesn’t imply nonaction.

Notice the difference between this and Christian nationalism. Dr. Seitz is indeed taking a strong position on the moral issues of our day, but he isn’t saying that Christians should rule. Rather, he is saying that the government must stay in its lane.

With the federalization of virtually every aspect of healthcare [and, we might add, virtually every other aspect of our lives], the government is intricately woven into issues from the beginning of life to its end.

The temptation of the government to stand against clear moral teachings that are fundamental to many Christians and religious people of the country is one thing, but the coercive capability of such an expansive intrusion into areas of conscience is another.

Differentiation does have a limited view of what “good” government can do, and that may be why we are not leading the charge on many of the political issues of the day. Such a view also supports a healthy limitation of what government “should do.” But that doesn’t imply nonaction.

Many of these problems and the way they impinge on religious liberty are due to the expansion of government into nearly every area of life and its coercive power to force Christians to comply with its moral dictates even when they violate Christian teaching.

To be sure, Christians believe that the government is responsible to follow the moral law, which applies to God’s temporal kingdom. This is why they oppose legalized abortion for everyone, not just Christians, an abdication of the government’s responsibility to protect its citizens, no matter how young. The other big cause of Dr. Seltz’s institute is to lobby on life issues. Christians have the right to persuade and influence by political and legal means, just as all citizens do.

The government should use its coercive power for good, but the church, as such, has no coercive power. It has power–the power of the Holy Spirit working through the Word to change hearts–but not power over the state.

This would seem to accord better with small government conservatism, rather than big government conservatism.

Photo: Rev. Dr. Gregory Seltz (LCMS/Erik M. Lunsford)

Premium Content

Monday Miscellany, 8/7/23

Last updated on: August 4, 2023 at 6:35 pm By Gene Veith

0 Comments

The American Academy of Pediatrics will revisit “gender affirmation care”; Republican candidates hide their church, while Democrats wear it on their sleeve; and Italy is banning the use of surrogate mothers.

American Academy of Pediatrics to Revisit “Gender Affirmation Care”

The board of the American Academy of Pediatrics has agreed to conduct an external review of their recommendations that children with gender dysphoria should be given hormone treatments and mutilative surgery. Until the studies are completed happens, the AAP’s current standards for “gender affirmation care” will stand.

When similar reviews were carried out in European countries–including very progressive countries like the UK, France, Sweden, Norway, and Finland–physicians drastically restricted those radical treatments.

The studies demonstrating the inadequacy of the available data have already been done. The U.K. reviewed the evidence and found that not only is gender dysphoria often “transitory,” but the data in favor of material benefits from gender-affirming care is wanting, while the risks are abundantly clear. . . .

Not only that, but a detailed study of the available studies on the question found that the data does not support GAC in children. Then, there is the de-transition phenomenon.

Some 10%-30% of those who “transition” to a different sex, are now “detransitioning” a few years after the procedures, back to the sex of their birth. But they can’t do anything about their pediatricians having subjecting them to masectomies, castrations, and sterilization.

Another point of interest is to see the headlines about this story in different media outlets.

Progressive Sources:

The [London] Guardian: Top US doctors’ group backs gender-affirming care amid rightwing attacks

Associated Press: Pediatricians’ group reaffirms support for gender-affirming care amid growing restrictions in GOP states

The Advocate: America’s Pediatricians Restate Support for Gender-Affirming Care

Conservative Sources:

Public Discourse: The Transgender Movement’s House of Cards Is Falling

Wall Street Journal: Doctors Group to Examine Guidelines for Treatment of Transgender Youths

Fox News: Potential ‘game-changer’: American Academy of Pediatrics reviewing support of youth gender treatments

The left-leaning media emphasized how the AAP reaffirmed their support for child “transitioning.” If you read closely, you may see a reference to studying new research or such like. Sometimes there is not even a mention of the outside review!

In the conservative-leaning media, on the other hand, the emphasis is all on the reviews, with the expectation that change is imminent. To me, that seemed to be the “news” in the story.

The reality includes both the reaffirmation and the outside study. The board is certainly committed to “gender affirming treatments,” but perhaps it will change its opinion, once the research is marshaled. Then again, the outside experts chosen may hold to transgenderist ideology and ignore the scientific findings from the rest of the world. We’ll have to see what happens.

Republican Candidates Hide Their Church, While Democrats Wear It On Their Sleeve

Mark Silk of the Religious News Service has made a curious observation in his story The Religious Evasiveness of GOP Presidential Candidates: It’s a Long Tradition.

He points out that going way back, Republican presidential candidates have obscured what church they grew up in or belong to. Eisenhower never brought up his Jehovah’s Witness roots. Nixon didn’t like it to be known that he grew up a Quaker. Ronald Reagan kept his membership in the liberal Disciples of Christ quiet, presenting himself as an evangelical. So did the Episcopalian George H. W. Bush and the Methodist George W. Bush. John McCain admitted that he was an Episcopalian but made it known that he attended a Baptist church. Today, Ron DeSantis is a Catholic who presents himself as an evangelical. Donald Trump grew up Presbyterian but now says he is “Nondenominational.”

Democrats, though, despite their current reputation as the less religious party, tend to be quite open about their denominational identity. Jimmy Carter never hid that he was a Baptist, and, indeed, a Baptist Sunday School teacher. Bill Clinton was far from being a moral conservative, either in his policies or his personal life, but he let everybody know that he was a Baptist. Hillary Clinton played up her background as a Methodist social activist. Barack Obama highlighted his involvement with the United Church of Christ, a mainline liberal denomination. And Joe Biden flaunts his Catholicism, carrying his rosary and telling anecdotes about his Irish Catholicism, even as he defies what his church teaches about sexuality and the sacredness of life.

Why is this? Well, obviously evangelicals have become a big part of the Republican base, so it’s understandable that candidates in that party would want to come across like them.

More deeply, and Silk doesn’t get into this, presidential candidates from both parties tend to come from our elite ruling class. Evangelicals may sometimes have political power through the voting booth, but they are not of the ruling class, whose churches tend to be Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Mainline Protestant, and (more recently) Catholic.

Democrats used to have rural, working class roots, so being Baptist resonated with their voters. Now, though, Democrats have become the party of the elite, and their candidates tend to be mainline liberal Protestants or liberal Catholics. That is to say, Christian in that non-threatening, progressive, non-evangelical kind of way.

Italy is Banning the Use of Surrogate Mothers

Italy is in the process of passing a bill that would criminalize the use of surrogate mothers.

Paying a woman to have one’s child–usually by artificial insemination or the implantation of a fertilized embryo–has actually been illegal in Italy for 20 years, but this bill goes further, imposing fines or prison sentences even if the procedure is carried out in a foreign country where it is legal.

Surrogacy, including the exploitation of women from poor countries to use as breeders, has become especially popular in the wake of same-sex marriages.

The new law, pushed by the new socially conservative Prime Minister Giorgia Miloni, has passed the lower house of parliament and is expected to pass the senate.

Breaking the bond between mother and child and reducing it to a commercial transaction involving contracts requiring women to sell their baby–yes, that should be illegal.

Premium Content