October 31, 2021

How extremist Christian theology is driving the right-wing assault on democracy (and repro rights)

I just posed this link in a comment, and it dawned me that it really deserves its own OP.

How extremist Christian theology is driving the right-wing assault on democracy
The Texas abortion law is one step toward the true goal of Christian dominionism: Destroying democratic government

Progressive policies and positions are supposed to be rooted in reality and hard evidence. But that's not always the case when it comes to the culture wars that have such an enormous impact on our politics — especially not since the unexpected evangelical embrace of Donald Trump in 2016, culminating in the "pro-life" death cult of anti-vaccine, COVID-denying religious leaders. If this development perplexed many on the left, it was less surprising to a small group of researchers who have been studying the hardcore anti-democratic theology known as dominionism that lies behind the contemporary Christian right, and its far-reaching influence over the last several decades.

One leading figure within that small group, Rachel Tabachnick, was featured in a recent webinar hosted by the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (see video, below) archived on YouTube as part of its Religion and Repro Learning Series program (https://rcrc.org/learning-center/ ), overseen by the Rev. Dr. Cari Jackson. Tabachnick's writing on dominionism can be found at Talk2Action and Political Research Associates, and she's been interviewed by Terry Gross on Fresh Air.

Her presentation sheds important light on at least three things: First of all, the vigilante element of the Texas anti-abortion law SB 8. Second, the larger pattern of disrupting or undermining governance, including the "constitutional sheriffs" movement, the installation of overtly partisan election officials and the red-state revolt against national COVID public health policies. While Donald Trump has exploited that pattern ruthlessly, he did not create it. And third, the seemingly baffling fact that an anti-democratic minority feels entitled to accuse its opponents — including democratically elected officials — of "tyranny."

Some dominionist ideas — such as the biblical penalty of death by stoning — are so extreme they can easily be dismissed as fringe, others have been foundational to the modern religious right, and still more have become increasingly influential in recent years. Those latter two categories are what we need to understand most, say both Tabachnick and Jackson.

Lots more, including links, here: https://www.salon.com/2021/10/31/how-extremist-christian-theology-is-driving-the-right-wing-on-democracy/

October 31, 2021

How extremist Christian theology is driving the right-wing assault on democracy

I just posed this link in a comment, and it dawned me that it really deserves its own OP.

How extremist Christian theology is driving the right-wing assault on democracy
The Texas abortion law is one step toward the true goal of Christian dominionism: Destroying democratic government

Progressive policies and positions are supposed to be rooted in reality and hard evidence. But that's not always the case when it comes to the culture wars that have such an enormous impact on our politics — especially not since the unexpected evangelical embrace of Donald Trump in 2016, culminating in the "pro-life" death cult of anti-vaccine, COVID-denying religious leaders. If this development perplexed many on the left, it was less surprising to a small group of researchers who have been studying the hardcore anti-democratic theology known as dominionism that lies behind the contemporary Christian right, and its far-reaching influence over the last several decades.

One leading figure within that small group, Rachel Tabachnick, was featured in a recent webinar hosted by the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (see video, below) archived on YouTube as part of its Religion and Repro Learning Series program (https://rcrc.org/learning-center/ ), overseen by the Rev. Dr. Cari Jackson. Tabachnick's writing on dominionism can be found at Talk2Action and Political Research Associates, and she's been interviewed by Terry Gross on Fresh Air.

Her presentation sheds important light on at least three things: First of all, the vigilante element of the Texas anti-abortion law SB 8. Second, the larger pattern of disrupting or undermining governance, including the "constitutional sheriffs" movement, the installation of overtly partisan election officials and the red-state revolt against national COVID public health policies. While Donald Trump has exploited that pattern ruthlessly, he did not create it. And third, the seemingly baffling fact that an anti-democratic minority feels entitled to accuse its opponents — including democratically elected officials — of "tyranny."

Some dominionist ideas — such as the biblical penalty of death by stoning — are so extreme they can easily be dismissed as fringe, others have been foundational to the modern religious right, and still more have become increasingly influential in recent years. Those latter two categories are what we need to understand most, say both Tabachnick and Jackson.

Lots more, including links, here: https://www.salon.com/2021/10/31/how-extremist-christian-theology-is-driving-the-right-wing-on-democracy/

October 29, 2021

The weirdest thing just happened to me.

I got a call from the social worker at the care facility where my sister lives saying that THEY had received a call notifying them that I had passed away! (Thank God they hadn't told my sister without verifying it first.) Of course, I assured them that no such thing had happened.

AND I also got a text from one of my cousins saying that another cousin's wife got a call from someone claiming to be law enforcement, notifying her of my demise. Aside from the fact that I am absolutely very much alive, there's NO reason why any of my cousins or their spouses would receive a call like that, as none of them are listed anywhere as an emergency contact for me. My emergency contacts are my husband and my daughter, period, full stop.

Needless to say, I am a bit weirded out by all this, wondering who on earth would do such a thing and what their motivation could possibly be. I can't think of a single thing anyone could gain by calling random people to tell them I'm dead. I also can't figure out why they picked those two particular numbers to call. I literally never talk to the cousin's wife who was called. We're not even Facebook friends. We have some mutual friends on FB, but no connection beyond that. I don't even have her phone number myself, and she's certainly not on any list of contacts that I have on file anywhere, nor is the care facility.

Same thing with the care facility. If something happened to me, my husband or my daughter would notify thm, but there's NO WAY anyone else would know to do that,

Have any of you ever heard of anything like this? I don't know what to make of it. I don't know who would be trying to fake my demise, or what they could hope to gain from it. It seems completely nonsensical, and it's freaking me out.

If you've read this far, thanks for sticking around. I really appreciate it.

October 25, 2021

I think he meant that in a figurative sense.

This article is a summation of a blog post, which is linked in the article (but is really easy to miss): https://thegrio.com/2021/10/22/condoleezza-rice-foot-solider-for-white-supremacy/

Here's the first paragraph of the blog post:

He is criticizing her for putting the feelings of white people above all other aspects of this issue, saying, "Look at this Black woman who is more concerned about hurting white people's feelings than about teaching American history in an honest way! That's appalling!" The language he uses is very strong, harsh even, but as a white person, I'm not going to criticize the language that this Black man is using to express how he feels about issues that affect him personally in a way they will never affect me.

I don't think that he meant she belongs to white supremacist organizations, supports them with donations, or anything as literal as that. What he meant was that comments like the ones she made on The View have the effect of supporting white supremacy, whether that's what she meant to do or not.

In my opinion, she did not intend to do that, but she did it anyway, without knowing it, due to her own internalized racism. And i think it's really a damned shame that this highly educated and accomplished woman is so unaware of the impact of her own actions.

October 23, 2021

No, DON'T screw due process!

I hope you're joking, because that way lies madness and chaos.

Among other things, not following due process is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. We can't protect the Constitution from the attacks of RWNJs by violating its provisions ourselves.

October 23, 2021

This caught my eye.

From Sotomayor's dissent:

It's quite clear to me that Thomas, Coney Barrett, and the other conservajustices are not the least bit concerned about women suffering personal harm from the denial of their constitutional rights. Like other forced birthers, they regard the rights, needs, and suffering of real live women as purely secondary to the aim of safeguarding the (nonexistent) rights of embryos and fetuses. To them, women who seek abortions are evil jezebels who deserve to be punished, and causing such women to suffer is a feature, not a bug, of refusing to stay the Texas law.

I hope to hell the conservatives don't end up inventing some excuse to overturn Roe v. Wade, but if they do, I am sure the reaction will shock them. The outrage that will result is a kraken they will greatly regret releasing.

October 17, 2021

Absolutely true.

Based on what some mental health experts have said/written about him, I believe TFG is about as extreme an example of malignant narcissism as most have ever seen. That's saying something, because "malignant" narcissism is already at the extreme end of the narcissism spectrum!

I'm convinced he's absolutely incapable of caring about anyone other than himself. Since morals and ethics mean nothing to him (he's also a sociopath, according to many of those same experts), that means his lizard brain is basically in charge and calling all the shots, because that's literally all he has.

I'd love to see some scans of his brain, the kind that show which parts are functioning and which aren't. I think it would reveal a lot.

October 13, 2021

I never knew how common this kind of abuse was until I started watching Dr. Phil regularly.

He has done many, many shows on domestic violence, and you wouldn't believe how often this comes up, how many men there are who repeatedly choke their partner until she passes out.

And yes, it's men who usually do this, and it's women who are the typical victims. I'm not saying there aren't cases of this behavior between same sex partners (I'm sure there are), or that there aren't women who abuse men (there are, but very few women are physically capable of overpowering a man in this fashion).

So yes, this is terrifyngly common, and it becomes a habit with certain men, until one day the strangulation goes on just a tiny bit too long and ends up with her dead and him charged with murder.

The article you posted is excellent, and I hope lots of people will read it. Here's another: https://www.strangulationtraininginstitute.com/strangulation-the-red-flag-of-domestic-violence-that-we-never-discuss/

October 11, 2021

Thank you for your comments in this thread, WhiskeyGrinder.

I am one of those for whom deciding to have an abortion was a very clear and straightforward choice, and it annoys me when people opine about how it's "always" some huge, painful, and complicated decision. Because a) no, it's not, and b) it's quite possible to acknowledge that is IS painful and complicated for some people (and empathize with them) without insisting that it ALWAYS is that way, in every single case.

When people talk about deciding to have an abortion as if every single person's experience is always exactly the same as every other's, that negates the experience of everyone whose experience is different. If you claim it's always incredibly hard, you're negating my experience and the experience of every other person who had an abortion without agonizing or feeling guilty about it. If you insist it's a simple, unfraught choice for everyone, that negates the experience of everyone who found it to be fraught and difficult. None of this is fair to people who decide to have abortion. The truth is, we are all individuals, and no two people's decision making experiences are exactly alike.

What's more, the "abortion is always a difficult and complicated choice" trope often carries the connotation that people who are deciding to have an abortion deserve compassion instead of judgment BECAUSE it is of course such an agonizing decision that no one could be making such a choice "lightly" (whatever "lightly" means, and I'm pretty sure it means different things to different people).

This trope tends to be brought up in response to another trope common among those who don't approve of abortion, the "women want to be able to have abortions any time they feel like it because they are irresponsible and want to have all of the sex without any of the consequences" trope. That strikes me (and probably most if not all those reading this) as harsh and unfair. Unfortunately, the rebuttal tends to be along the lines of, "No, that's not true, because abortion is a haaaaaaard choice!"

The motivation for this rebuttal is all well and good, but the fact that abortion is actually NOT a hard choice for every person who is faced with an unwanted pregnancy sometimes gets lost in the desire to refute something that's harsh and unfair. Those of us who support the rights of pregnant people to make their own decisions about their own bodies need to be clear on the fact that that the ease or difficulty of making and acting on such decisions can run the gamut from agonizingly difficult to not terribly difficult at all.

Sorry to run on at such length. Sometimes I don't realize how much I have to say about an issue until after I've already produced a shocking amount of verbiage; at which point I have to figure out how to wrap things up in a coherent fashion. That's where I am with this right now, and it's getting late, so I need to bring this to a close, coherent or otherwise! On that note, I bid you adieu for now, realizing that I probably need to do some more extensive writing on this subject, in a format more befitting its complexity than a messageboard reply.

October 7, 2021

The effort to change the name of "Negro" Creek in Bureau County, IL

Changing the names of places and geographic features with offensive history behind them is a cause that is near and dear to my heart.

BUREAU COUNTY (Heart of Illinois ABC) -- With a history that includes an offensive racial slur dating back to the days of slavery, two people are now working together to change the name of a small creek in Bureau County.

"She said no, it's called n***** creek," said Depue resident, Charlie Klinefelter.

Klinefelter grew up near "Negro Creek." It's an 11-mile long stream, he said is often called another offensive "N" word by the people of Bureau County. He said his mixed-race children have been targeted with those slurs before.

10 years ago, Klinefelter tried to change the name, but did not know how to make it official. Now years later, a woman who grew up in Ladd wanted to be his ally.

*snip*.

The rest of the story, plus video, is here: https://hoiabc.com/2021/08/19/two-people-fighting-to-change-name-of-negro-creek-in-bureau-county/