Establishment Clause, Johnson Amendment, War?

So who knew the Establishment Clause could be so complicated? Trump recently signed an executive order (really? he does that? who knew?) that, with a deep dive, is more than a little wrong headed. My reason for saying that is no pulpit should be a soap box for blatant political speech when all of us who pay taxes help fund them because they are tax exempt. I am all for those same religious organizations campaigning for and doing social good; the black churches in the South in the 1960s were both sanctuaries and essential parts of the civil rights movement.

But there are several looming (and perhaps extant) problems. First, the Citizens United SCOTUS decision giving people-hood to corporations.Will corporations be able to claim some religious freedoms thought to be exclusively for actual citizens?

If the proposed tax decrease were to become law, the corporate tax rate would fall to 15% and include mom and pop and other small business entities. If you are a high net worth individual, your personal tax rate at the top would fall from 39% to 35%, but it would fall another 20% if you became a small business. And it would fall another 15%, to 0%, if you became a church.

If religious organizations are able to proactively be political, campaign and promote political ideas and candidates and policies, why have PACs at all? PACs do have some restrictions that would go poof! if they became the First Church of Holy Moley. Engage in any form of political activity, no worries about disclosing donors, no tax consequences, no accountability to anyone.

I’m afraid that sounds a bit like a foreign government to me. How would we ever know?

So who knew, right? Well time to educate yourself. Even if you are the most pious, most devout, most enthusiastic believer, you should be worried that those who might want to cloak themselves in your beliefs in fact are anything but what you would expect.

So start by reading some history and background on the Johnson Amendment which was signed into law by President Dwight Eisenhower in 1954. Yes, way back then. Also start with the idea, if you can, that this is not about a war on religion or Christmas or your religious liberty. I would be the first to champion for you to practice and observer your faith privately and publicly, and that allowing me and others to believe and do so differently is fundamentally the same thing. I offer this as a starting point.

And then there is this:  Mike Pence addressed the World Summit in Defense of Persecuted Christians in Washington D.C. on Thursday, May 11, saying among other things, that “The freedom to worship God according to the dictates of our conscience is at the very heart of who we are as Americans,” he said. “In a very real sense, America was founded by people who had the courage to cross the Atlantic, motivated in so many cases to come here so that they might have that freedom of religion.”  True enough, but the result was an inconsistent tolerance.  Some colonies permitted wide berth for what people believed and how they worshiped, while others had no tolerance whatsoever from a veer from the message of the pulpit.  Recall that Hester Prynne’s scarlet letter was afixed in Boston, and the Salem witch trials were nearby, both religiously inspired.  Recall also that Christmas celebrations were not allowed: no joyful times to go with the business of keeping the faithful pure.

Pence went on.  “The practitioners of terror harbor a special hatred for the followers of Christ, and none more so than the barbarians known as ISIS.  That brutal regime shows a savagery, frankly, unseen in the Middle East since the Middle Ages.  And I believe ISIS is guilty of nothing short of genocide against people of the Christian faith, and it is time the world called it by name.”  To be fair, there is a sense that many terrorists are Muslim, but he overwhelming majority of Muslims decry these as extremists who contort the beliefs of Islam to their own purposes.

I have never first identified Trump or Pence as curious students of history, but to even the most uninterested students of it, the Crusades is passingly familiar, as is the Inquisition.  We don’t have to dive through that many centuries though to reflect on Uganda’s treatment of homosexuals by the government and religious groups there.  So, Pence, saying repeatedly he was speaking for Trump, conveniently overlooks lots of nasty stuff Christians have done in the name of religion.

The lesson from history is not that being a devout follower is wrong but that religion is intolerant and has asserted time and time again that one version is not just right but must dominate the others. Couple that with governments or rulers who knew that religion might undermine their authority and did all they could to ban and abolish it altogether.

The lessons of Christianity I grew up with somehow avoided all the punishment and retribution teachings that I later discovered were bedrocks of what others were taught.  As a Catholic, I still marvel that I just got the warm, fuzzy, loving stuff and none of the fear.  So my view of Jesus and Christianity is a loving, inclusive and generous one. I am aware that the New Testament often takes the stand of with me or against me, but it is filled with stories of non-believers who do good works.  And believers who do not.

What trouble me about Pence’s speech and the executive order is that this is all a dog whistle to the electorate saying “they are coming after you, vote for me!”  It is a dog whistle that anyone who is not evangelical is against them, Christian or not.  That those of other faiths are those from whom they can take the country back and make America great again.  It got T and P over 80% of the evangelical vote in 2016.  Was this stand on religion what the authors of the Constitution had in mind?  Think about that answer in layered nuanced concepts.

You can watch Pence giving this speech




Is There a Name for This?

Patty Hearst may be a familiar name to you, but what about Yvonne Ridley?  What about Kreditbanken?  And why are they in adjacent sentences?  Stockholm syndrome.

Kreditbanken was a bank in Stockholm where, in 1973, four hostages – three women and a man – were held for six days days and were tortured during that time.  After being released, they not only refused to testify against their captors but raised money for their defense.  Yvonne Ridley, a British journalist,  was captured and held by the Taliban for eleven days; after her release she became a passionate Muslim  and disavowed Western ways.  Patty Hearst, the granddaughter of publisher William Randolph Hearst, was taken and held hostage by the Symbionese Liberation Army (SLA) in 1974, but joined in subsequent bank robberies and captured the next year.

The location of the bank in Sweden  become the name for the behavior of hostage victims who developed if not a strong fondness then empathy for their captors.  Nils Bejerot, a Swedish criminologist and psychiatrist coined the term “Stockholm Syndrome to explain it. Victims develop positive feelings toward their captors and sympathies towards their causes, feelings that often stay with the victims when they return to their normal lives.

One explanation of the syndrome is that the victims have a strong sense of survival and use it as a coping mechanism.  By not just co-operating but co-opting the captors and their principals, the victims see a much greater chance of surviving the ordeal.  That the feelings linger after the ordeal is over is a result of how strong the fear or sense of survival was when they coped by co-opting.

Victims of emotional, physical and sexual abuse often, it is claimed, become abusers themselves.  Children who grow up in environments where their father (figure, perhaps) is abusive towards their mother may come to believe that being abuse is how they are supposed to behave in a relationship.  I have always wondered if the effects of abuse on children, and even adults, is related to the Stockholm Syndrome. Perhaps driven by the same will to survive, victims of abuse somehow believe they are to blame or that they must give in to preserve their lives and life style.

Recently, it occurred to me that a hybrid of these victim behaviors might be part of our political landscape.  There is a portion of the electorate who has been identified as being angry: at being ignored, left behind, and disenfranchised.  These people are not racial or ethnic minorities who have been the targets of direct or indirect discrimination but white, often rural people who feel marginalized in society.  They tend to be more conservative and deeply religious – Christian.  As a group they are less educated, have fewer transportable job skills, and consider their way of life – their world view – as under attack.  They want it and themselves to survive.

To many, it was and probably still is a puzzle why they saw Trump as their champion.  He is a billionaire businessman who does not live in or share their lifestyles and values.  He has put an administration together that is top heavy with other billionaires and his disdain during the campaign for Wall Street has vanished with a long list of other promises to his malcontent, change-demanding base.  But before all that, he has long demonstrated a character that falls short of what that base has long considered a measuring standard: family values, sexual decency, charity and caring.

Is this a form of the Stockholm Syndrome? It is that voters who feel abused and ignored become the abusers?  How can so many conservative – and evangelical Christians in particular – switch from decrying lack of decency and family values at every liberal Democrat to intractably supporting someone who is devoid of faith, decency and family values?

Polls now indicate that many voters claim NOT to have voted for Trump but voted AGAINST Clinton.  Fair enough, but that begs the question “why?”  The answer to that is vastly more complex that any one simple explanation, but I would toss “punishment” into the mix.  Punishment for perceived and real transgressions as First Lady and for her husband’s presidency.  Punishment of “liberal elites” who look down on the voters, whose intellectual snobbery was far worse than Trump’s actual lifestyle snobbery.  It is a pass afforded to the very wealthy, celebrities and lotto winners provided they don’t act uppity in their snobbery.

This is by no means a criticism of the voters and supporters who said NO to Clinton.  And it is not an absolution to Trump supporters who were blatantly racist, misogynist,  or xenophobic.  Clinton ran a crappy campaign and couldn’t define herself or her base. Trump ran a highly targeted and effective campaign.  And he won.

But we need to take a look at our national character: are we victims or are we going to stand up for our principles?  I may disagree with your policies and you mine, but we should all respect true character.  Or fail to see the lack of it.

The (not so) Young Pope

I don’t have much writing to do on this post, save a hopefully brief introduction to an article that does a much better job than I might have.

I have rarely seen eye to eye with my evangelical Christian friends and acquaintances, but for so many of them, I have had great affection as being people of integrity and character.  I did not agree with a lot of their beliefs (positions) that stemmed from Biblical interpretation, and I quibbled with how they could be fluid when they moved between Old Testament texts and ignored contradictory ones in the New Testament. Being Christians, I thought, the latter was, well, more pertinent.

My strongest push back to their positions were in response to  their political activism that would impose their beliefs on all  people regardless of their own beliefs.  I argued that what they wanted to do was not really any different than the theocratic movements in the Middle East, and elsewhere, whose aim was to trample any deviation from what those forces felt was the one, true and righteous way to live.  While their beliefs and perhaps methods of enforcement differed from other extremists, the results seemed too familiar to me.

Whenever my friends would stand on Old Testament principles, or sometimes things that weren’t in the Bible at all but seemed to have become commonly accepted doctrine, I assumed that  Jesus, as their savior who brought a new light to the world as they proclaimed, should trump all else. Last year, I fully expected the faithful and believers to take firm stands in the name of Christ against the eventual nominee and now President when he pushed aside just about every moral red line and religious belief I had been taught myself, growing up, and what I heard as critical from my devout friends.  As it has turned out, Jesus was indeed trumped.

If you are wondering where the title of this post came from, tune into the series on HBO.  A fascinating character study, what I imagine to be a candid look inside the Vatican politics (and what is not real is certainly entertaining), The Young Pope makes you cringe while at the same time you can’t stop watching.  Jude Law and Diane Keaton play characters who  are unlikely pious nor powerful, but they are.  Any number of people who have watched it seem to compare Papa to Trump.  Unfair to Papa, in my opinion.

Mike Pence said during the campaign he was a Christian, conservative and Republican in that order.  His words, actions and influence are turning that around, and I can’t help but wonder if the first one he said has all but disappeared.  And he is not the only one.

I submit to a higher power who has written on this far better than I might.

Writing about religious beliefs is the only thing that is more inflammatory and volatile than writing about politics.  But when those two become fused, writing about them is imperative.  If you can use, as one of my friends often suggests, adult words to share your opinions whether they are different than mine or not, I welcome your comments.  If you cannot use adult words, please ask yourself what Jesus would say and do.  I mean really say and do.