Church of the Churchless

Germany surviving Hitler doesn't reassure me about Trump

I don't believe that evil exists.

At least, not in the way that word typically is used, as someone or something with wholly negative qualities that border, if not actually inhabit, a dualistic metaphysical realm where Good is inherently opposed to Evil as opposite cosmic forces.  

I do believe that sometimes people do really bad things. Not because they are evil. Because they are people with both the capability and the intention to do those bad things. 

Murder. Rape. Torture. Whether those who carry out horrendous acts like these do so of their free will, or via deterministic causes, doesn't affect the pain and suffering they inflict on their fellow humans.

Hitler frequently is cited as the epitome of evil, or as I prefer, of acting really badly.

Yesterday the Salon discussion group my wife and I have belonged to for many years held our monthly meeting at the home of one of our members. Politically we all lean in the leftward direction, so Donald Trump featured prominently in our conversing. 

Not in a positive way, of course, though I did say that I hoped Trump would find a way to save TikTok, something I wrote about on my Salem Political Snark blog last night. And several of us noted that it made sense to deport undocumented migrants to the United States who have committed serious crimes.

After we'd talked quite a bit about the danger Trump poses to our country and the world during his second term as president (which begins tomorrow), a woman who was a young child in Germany during World War II said:

A German friend who I keep in touch with told me, "If Germany survived Hitler, the United States will survive Trump."

Well, while I appreciated the attempt to assuage my concerns about Trump, that statement didn't do much to reassure me. I replied with, "But millions of Germans died in World War II along with six million Jews; though Germany survived Hitler, those people didn't."

Some Googling just revealed that Germany had 5,553,000 military deaths in World War II and 6,600,000-8,800,000 combined civilian and military deaths -- which I assume doesn't include the 6,000,000 Jews killed in concentration camps. 

Yes, Germany now is a prosperous democracy. That's great.

However, the blunt fact remains that an autocratic ruler, Hitler, did tremendous damage to Germany and the entire world. I understand the desire to look upon history as being on a long-term positive course, but a more realistic view is that history can take a dark turn lasting hundreds of years in which human progress toward prosperity, democracy, and equality first stalls, then reverses.

History, it often is said, is written by the winners.

Though I'm no expert in the history of World War II, my understanding is that absent some blunders made by Hitler (such as invading Russia, and an inability to construct an atomic bomb), the Axis could have won the war -- obviously with far-reaching negative consequences. Our history books now would look upon Hitler with admiration, not criticism.

On a personal level, we humans seem to have a bias toward negativity, since evolution primed us to see danger lurking even where it wasn't, given that a single failure to recognize a mortal threat would leave a prehistoric human dead, while reacting to unreal threats just ended up being a waste of time.

However, when it comes to long-term historic trends, I sense that nowadays most people (including me, usually) have a bias toward seeing things steadily improving, albeit with inescapable temporary downturns along the Way of Progress.

I hope that outlook is correct. But I suspect that it isn't. The Dark Ages lasted a long time in medieval Europe. The Renaissance eventually occurred, thankfully. Now we live in times that are much more fast-moving, volatile, and unpredictable. 

Hopefully the United States will survive the next four years of another Trump presidency. There's a chance, albeit slim in my decidedly personal opinion, that my country will not only survive, but thrive. 

And yet... some paragraphs from the Wikipedia page, "Adolf Hitler's rise to power," concern me, because they show how an autocrat or dictator can come to power through a democratic process, then undermine democracy in a highly scary fashion. 

Hitler ran for the presidency in 1932 but was defeated by the incumbent Paul von Hindenburg; nonetheless, he achieved a strong showing of second place in both rounds. Following this, in July 1932 the Nazis became the largest party in the Reichstag, albeit short of an absolute majority. 1933 was a pivotal year for Hitler and the Nazi Party. Traditionally, the leader of the party who held the most seats in the Reichstag was appointed Chancellor.

However, President von Hindenburg was hesitant to appoint Hitler as chancellor. Following several backroom negotiations – which included industrialists, Hindenburg's son Oskar, the former chancellor Franz von Papen, and Hitler – Hindenburg acquiesced and on 30 January 1933, he formally appointed Adolf Hitler as Germany's new chancellor. Although he was chancellor, Hitler was not yet an absolute dictator.

The groundwork for the Nazi dictatorship was laid when the Reichstag was set on fire in February 1933. Asserting that the communists were behind the arson, Hitler convinced von Hindenburg to pass the Reichstag Fire Decree, which severely curtailed the liberties and rights of German citizens. Using the decree, Hitler began eliminating his political opponents.

Following its passage, Hitler began arguing for more drastic means to curtail political opposition and proposed the Enabling Act of 1933. Once enacted this law gave the German government the power to override individual rights prescribed by the constitution, and vested the Chancellor (Hitler) with emergency powers to pass and enforce laws without parliamentary oversight.

The law came into force in March and by April, Hitler held de facto dictatorial powers and used them to order the construction of the first Nazi concentration camp at Dachau for communists and other political opponents. Hitler's rise to power was completed in August 1934 when, following the death of President von Hindenburg, Hitler merged the chancellery with the presidency and became Führer, the sole leader of Germany.

In retrospect, Hitler's rise to power was aided in part by his willingness to use violence in advancing his political objectives and to recruit party members willing to do the same. The party engaged in electoral battles in which Hitler participated as a speaker and organizer. Street battles and violence also erupted between the Communists' Rotfrontkämpferbund and the Nazis' Sturmabteilung(SA).

Once the Nazi dictatorship was firmly established, the Nazis themselves created a mythology surrounding their rise to power. German propaganda described this time period as either the Kampfzeit (the time of struggle) or the Kampfjahre (years of struggle).

My cosmic conclusions from the 2024 presidential election

For some reason it's usually easier to draw Gigantic Cosmic Conclusions from big events rather than small ones. It doesn't have to be that way, though "gigantic" and "big" do have an affinity with each other. 

Why does death or a disaster move us to ponder the meaning of it all more readily than loading the dishwasher does? If there are grand principles underlying our human experience of reality, why can't we recognize them in the smallest of events as well as the biggest of events?

Don't know.

Maybe because rare big events grab our attention while everyday small events are so familiar, we pass them by. Regardless, my attention certainly was grabbed by the presidential race between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump that culminated in Trump's victory last Tuesday.

So here's some Gigantic Cosmic Conclusions that I've drawn from the election. They're rather obvious, which argues for their veracity.

Determinism rules, while unpredictability takes center stage. Prior to the election, people had all kinds of ideas about what would happen. Now there's only one defensible idea: Trump won. There are reasons why this occurred. No one really knows what they are, though theories abound. 

Looking forward, nobody was able to predict in any detail the outcome of the election. Looking backward, after the results were known, lots of people are (retrospective) experts in why Harris lost to Trump. 

So life is uncertain until it isn't. The movement of inanimate entities, like planets orbiting the Sun, can be predicted with great accuracy. How American voters will cast their ballots can be predicted, but not with any sort of guaranteed accuracy.

Thus don't believe anyone who claims to know for sure what will happen next in American politics. The only certainty is that nothing is absolutely certain. When I started loading the dishwasher a little while ago I expected that I'd be able to finish that task.

However, I could have been distracted by a phone call, then forgot to resume what I was doing. Or I could have suffered a heart attack prior to the last glass being placed on the top rack. Life is more predictable than a roulette wheel, but less predictable than an eclipse. 

Ups and downs, actions and reactions, are a basic feature of reality. Constancy isn't part of the cosmic equation. Nothing remains precisely the same for very long. Whether it be the tiniest subatomic phenomenon, the hugest happening in the universe, or everything in between, including presidential elections, change is ubiquitous. 

Consider the results of presidential elections in my lifetime.

In 1948 a Democrat, Truman, was elected. In 1952 and 1956 a Republican, Eisenhower, was elected. In 1960 a Democrat, Kennedy, was elected. In 1964 a Democrat, Johnson, was elected. In 1968 and 1972 a Republican, Nixon, was elected. In 1976 a Democrat, Carter, was elected. In 1980 and 1984 a Republican, Reagan, was elected. In 1988, a Republican, George H.W. Bush, was elected. In 1992 and 1996, a Democrat, Clinton, was elected. In 2ooo and 2004, a Republican, George W. Bush, was elected. In 2008 and 2012 a Democrat, Obama, was elected. In 2016 a Republican, Trump, was elected. In 2020 a Democrat, Biden, was elected. In 2024 a Republican, Trump, was elected. 

American voters bounce back and forth between choosing a Democrat or Republican for president. In the past 76 years, the longest stretch of single party rule was 12 years, 1980-92, when Reagan and the first Bush held the White House as Republicans. And in those 76 years, a Democrat was in the White House for 36 years and a Republican for 40 years. 

Yin and yang. Cause and effect. Action and reaction. Whatever you want to call it, transformations from one state of affairs to another are the normal condition in not only politics, but everything. So if someone isn't happy with how things are now, just wait. They'll change. Eventually. Patience may be required.

(This is the basis of a post I wrote for one of my other blogs, "Fellow Trump opponents, here's what gives me hope.")

We humans don't see reality as it is, but how it appears to us. While I'm a big fan of "objective reality," those words deserve the quotation marks because they're an aspiration, not how things actually are.

This truth is on plain display on a presidential election night, when a split screen will show members of one political party cheering wildly as results favorable to their candidate are announced, while at the same time members of the other political party are dejected at the news that their candidate isn't faring well.

Same numbers. Same results. Very different reactions. This is the mystery, and the glory, of human subjectivity. Even if a group of people are privy to the same information, their personal desires, experiences, wishes, and all that will typically cause them to disagree about what the information means.

I watched Kamala Harris's speeches with admiration, agreeing with almost everything she said. I watched Donald Trump's speeches with disgust, disagreeing with almost everything he said. Others had the opposite reaction, loving Trump and hating Harris.

Each of us is locked into our own way of perceiving reality. Science is a wonderful way that humanity uses to try to break out of that subjective prison, using a variety of methods to arrive at statements about reality that can be agreed upon by most scientists in a particular field.

But even in science, disagreements arise about the same phenomena, the same results, the same observations. Raw sensory data always is interpreted by the human brain. We never see things as they are in themselves, only as our brains lead us to see them.

While diversity of opinions can be annoying when we want other people to agree with us, this is an unavoidable feature of human cognition. And really, who would want it to be any other way? If everybody was just like us, life would be unbelievably boring, a hall of mirrors where our own reflection is the only thing we perceive. 

How am I coping with Trump's victory over Harris? By embracing reality.

Reality is a terrible thing to waste. It's one of our most precious possessions. For when we depart from reality, truth obviously suffers. So does our ability to deal with problems, which to handle appropriately, almost always requires a healthy dose of reality.

Problem is, and I struggle with this often, as almost everybody does, evolution didn't confer upon us the advantage of knowing the world as it is. Rather, evolution through natural selection promotes reproduction of our genes by living long enough to mate and have offspring. 

Sure, that necessitates an ability to know how the world is, since our distant ancestors needed to distinguish the sign of a dangerous animal hiding in brush from a breeze rustling branches. However, the human brain isn't optimized to know how things truly are, but to know how things seem to be as viewed through the lens of our needs and desires.

Ever since Trump announced he was running for president again in the 2024 election, I've been hoping that the Democratic candidate would defeat him. So after Harris became that candidate following Biden's withdrawal from the race, I've looked for reasons to be optimistic about her chances.

I realized that my desire to have her win was affecting my ability to see the presidential contest objectively. One attempt to counter that bias was following election models that use polls and other data to come up with predictions of who will come out on top on November 5, Trump or Harris. In the end, the models basically predicted a 50-50 tossup, so they weren't very helpful.

Yesterday was election day. It turned out badly for Harris. Well before midnight west coast time, it was clear that Trump almost certainly was going to be victorious. That saddened me, as I wrote in a post for my Salem Political Snark blog last night, "Win or (probably) lose, I'm grateful for how Kamala Harris campaigned." 

I started the post out this way:

It's turning out to be a sad night. I started watching the election returns on MSNBC around 5 pm with a lot of optimism. After all, a couple of days ago I wrote a blog post called "Why I expect Harris will beat Trump fairly easily."

For sure, that's not going to happen. I was wrong.

At the moment the New York Times Live Presidential Forecast gives Trump more than a 95% chance of victory. Harris' only option is to win Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Currently Trump is leading by 3 points in Pennsylvania, 6 points in Michigan, and 4 points in Wisconsin.

The Blue Wall is crumbling. When I wake up tomorrow, likely it will have fallen, and Trump will have been declared the victor.

Which is so depressing, I had trouble writing that last sentence. My daughter is depressed. Friends are depressed. My wife is watching something on TV that isn't the election results. I read an update from a New York Times reporter that said:

The Harris campaign just shut off the sound on the TVs at her watch party and replaced it with music after a guest on CNN said tonight felt "more like 2016 than 2020."

I feel the same way. Once again, a competent, highly qualified woman is poised to be defeated by one of the worst presidents our country has ever suffered under. And Trump has vowed to make his next term in office even nastier. 

When I woke up this morning to a clear Trump win, I was tempted to take a break from political news. I felt a bit like someone who had gotten a fatal cancer diagnosis and wanted to blunt that awareness by doing something, anything, that would distract from the disturbing knowledge. 

Yet there I was in mid-morning, doing my usual stretching exercises in front of the television, switching between MSNBC and CNN, which not surprisingly were focused on yesterday's election. I simply feel better when I'm being exposed to news, even if the news isn't to my liking. 

I'm not sure why. I suspect part of the reason is that my mind is capable of imagining larger problems than are actually occurring. Dread is an emotion that can be paralyzing, since it is about what might happen. I've found that usually it is easier for me to deal with what actually is happening, reality. 

New Scientist and Scientific American are magazines that I keep in the bathroom I use before heading off to bed at night. Yesterday I was pleased to come across an article in the October issue of Scientific American that helped my mood somewhat, "We Can't Turn Away from Reality." I liked the title, which differs in the online version.
Download We’ve Hit Peak Denial. Here’s Why We Can’t Turn Away From Reality | Scientific American

It isn't always easy to embrace reality, which includes both the objective reality that most people agree on, and the subjective reality of how we feel about things. Yet I'm convinced that this is a laudable aspiration -- to know how things truly are, not just how we desire them to be. 

This is how the article ends:

Truth tellers are the Achilles heel of collective denial because they call attention to what’s being ignored. Thus, another playbook tactic is to hush them up, often by painting them as subversives or deviants. And so those who wear masks are ridiculed, scientists reporting on COVID risks are cast as fearmongers, and those with long COVID are dismissed as having anxiety disorders.

Time and again society pressures people not to see, hear or speak about the elephant in the room. To maintain our own peace of mind, we tune out, malign and shoot the messengers because they remind us of what we would rather disregard. Just look at physician Ignaz Semmelweis, environmentalist Rachel Carson, and NFL player and social justice advocate Colin Kaepernick. Indeed, people are regularly punished for being right.

So what do we do about our “ignore more, care less, everything is fine!” era? We need to stop enabling it. We can start by being more attuned to the everyday ways in which we ignore or otherwise fail to engage with troubling events—like that pinch we feel when we know we should click on a concerning headline but instead scroll past it.

We need to work harder to catch ourselves in the act of staying silent or avoiding uncomfortable information and do more real-time course correcting. We need to guard against lowering our standards for normalcy.

When we mentally and emotionally recalibrate to the new normal, we also disassociate from our own humanity. We need to demand that our leaders give the full truth and hold them to account. We must stand up for the silenced and stand with the silence breakers. To counter the new normal’s assault on normalcy, we must double down on our duty to know, to speak up and to remember.

With the election tomorrow, I'm trying to empathize with Trump supporters

Empathy. It's a fine-sounding word. I aspire to it. But it can be damn hard to do when people act like selfish jerks and I'm supposed to look upon their twisted view of reality with empathy. 

That's how I feel about Trump supporters. They cheer on their chosen candidate, a twice-impeached former president, convicted felon, habitual liar, and instigator of a violent attempt to subvert the result of the 2020 presidential election that was conducted freely and fairly, which Trump lost.

Of course, that only scratches the surface of Trump's negative qualities and wrongdoing. Yet polls show that almost half of American voters will cast their ballot for him. How they can do this mystifies me. 

Trump has openly said that if he wins, he plans to govern as a "dictator on Day 1." His chief of staff says he is a fascist. His reverence for authoritarians indicates that this is his dream job. Yet I find it difficult to believe that so many of my fellow citizens truly want to elect a Hitler-wanna' be.

I'm definitely not a poster child for empathy. However, on the whole me and my fellow Democrats possess much more empathy than the typical Trump supporter. I say this because Trump exhibits essentially zero concern for anybody other than himself. 

His speeches are full of insults, fear mongering, and demonization of anybody who isn't white, heterosexual, and conservative. Trump makes no attempt to reach out to moderate voters who can't buy in to his Make American Great Again bullshit.

But the audiences at his rallies cheer Trump on when he denigrates anyone and everyone who doesn't fit into his Trumpcentric perspective on the world. Which makes me wonder: are Trump supporters actually so uncaring, or are they the victims of forces beyond their control?

Since I don't believe in free will, I consider that both things are true. They are uncaring, and they're victims.

An article in the October 2024 issue of Scientific American, "The Empathy Incentive," gives some clues as to how this comes about. The online title is: "Being Empathetic is Easier When Everyone's Doing It." I'll share a PDF file of the article if the excerpt below makes you want to read the whole thing.
Download Being Empathetic Is Easier when Everyone’s Doing It | Scientific American

“If you’re surrounded by empathic individuals, it really has an influence. It increases how your brain responds to the pain of another person,” Hein says. “The bad news is, it also works the other way around.” In other words, if you’re surrounded by people who are indifferent or hostile, you’re apt to mirror their social example as well. One 2023 study shows that people who identify as politically liberal have stronger empathetic brain activation than conservatives, raising questions about whether social norms within each political group might drive empathy differences between them.

Makes sense.

The speeches of Kamala Harris are filled with talk about how our country has to do more to help struggling people. She wants more affordable housing, better child care, help for families both raising children and caring for aging relatives, and expanded health benefits, to name a few policy goals.

When us liberals hear her speak this way, we're inspired to do more ourselves to aid those less fortunate than we are. Meanwhile, Trump supporters are being fed a steady diet of fear, anger, lies, and revenge from their own presidential candidate.

So it's no wonder that the lack of empathy conservatives manifest naturally, perhaps because of their individualistic worldview, is exacerbated by being surrounded by members of their chosen "tribe" who are spurred toward even less empathy by Trump's communications with them about how it's fine to be uncaring toward anyone who disagrees with you.

Harris says that she wants to listen to those who have views different from hers. Trump says that he wants to lock up his political opponents. 

Since I see Trump as being a clear and present danger to American democracy, I have a lot of difficulty being charitable toward his supporters, given that they're enabling his destructive authoritarianism. My hope is that if Harris wins the election, Trump will fade away and his influence markedly diminish.

Yesterday I wrote a post for my Salem Political Snark blog that predicted a Harris victory. To learn why I feel this way, check out "Why I expect Harris will beat Trump fairly easily." Of course, I recognized I could be wrong, saying:

So here's some other factors that lead me to believe that not only will Harris defeat Trump, she'll do so by winning more than the 270 electoral votes she'd get by holding on to the usually safe blue states, beating Trump in the Blue Wall of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, and gaining the single electoral vote in Nebraska's 2nd District.

(I'm expecting that Harris will win all of the above, plus North Carolina and Nevada. If I'm horribly wrong, gleeful Trump supporters can tell me how stupid I was in post-election comments on this post.)

Sam Harris is backing his (unrelated) namesake. He's made his substack post available to everyone. "Literally and Seriously: Why I Support Kamala Harris for President" is a good read.

Gurus are like Trump: promising protection in return for absolute fealty

My wife found a Slate article by Steven Reisner on Apple News that she thought I'd be interested in, "The Deep Psychological Reason We're Stuck in This Feedback Loop With Donald Trump."

Reisner starts off by saying:

This is the third time Donald Trump has run for president as a major-party candidate, and yet, this cycle, the American electorate and the American press seem unable to fully comprehend the choice we are facing. It is not, as we’ve been trained to think, a contest between an extreme Republican and a middle-of-the-road Democrat.

There is still no language that conveys what the stakes really are. This election is not about politics; it’s much more basic—it’s about how the American determines what is real. Will the future of the country be based on evidence and law, or will government be twisted to reflect whatever Donald Trump tells us is true?

Reality. Truth. Ah, now we're getting into some really interesting philosophical territory, which I find just as interesting, if not more so, than the political side of Reisner's article. Of course, the two are related.

I'm perplexed by how almost half of American voters are willing to worship at what Reisner calls The Church of Trump. I can understand the appeal of ordinary religions. They promise salvation in exchange for faith in things unseen and unproven. 

But how is it that Trump commands such loyalty from his devotees? He lies, cheats, and steals. He cares only about himself, not the needs of others. He is frequently incoherent. He is always hateful and insulting. 

Reisner has a theory about the source of that loyalty. I tend to agree with it, though I never like it when an author appeals to Freud to make some point. Freud's ideas are outmoded in this era of modern psychology and neuroscience. 

However, I still think that the conclusions reached by Reisner make sense. People do seem to be willing to be loyal to a leader if that person promises to protect them. This applies to a guru who promises to protect his disciples from the ravages of death, and to a politician who promises to protect his followers from dangers while they're alive.

We are now at the eleventh hour. The Republicans, under the brilliant tutelage of Donald Trump, have become the Party of Sociopaths, and their aim is to relegate the Democrats to a Party of Hapless Neurotics. The fateful question is, will the Democrats and the mainstream press continue to waste their energy being shocked, or will they change their strategy?

It all boils down to this: How will the American voter assess what is true?

For Republicans (and Fox News), truth no longer has anything to do with facts, or even reality. Truth has returned to its pre-enlightenment meaning; or, as Merriam-Webster puts it, its archaic meaning: “Fidelity, constancy.” To be true, in the medieval Trumpian world, is to be loyal and steadfast. It’s no longer about reason or even belief: It’s about faith. Freud had a word for this kind of primitive faith; he called it illusion.

People crave a godlike father figure, Freud explained, especially when they feel threatened with the eruption of two dangers: “the crushingly superior force of nature … and the shortcomings of society which have made themselves painfully felt.”

In the 21st century, facing severe social inequities just when nature seems most out of control, America is in exactly that vulnerable state. And so it shouldn’t actually surprise us that nearly half the country’s voters have rallied around a sociopathic strongman who promises protection in return for absolute fealty.

Note that truth falls by the wayside in this bargain. Neither a guru nor a politician is able to show exactly how they will be able to protect their devotees from reality's vicissitudes. To their true believers, it really doesn't matter if there's no evidence that the leader's promises can be kept. 

The bargain is what's important. In exchange for unquestioning devotion, the believer is promised protection. This works for politicians like Donald Trump, and it works for gurus like the head of Radha Soami Satsang Beas, Gurinder Singh Dhillon.

A model isn't reality, whether we're talking politics or God

Since my mind is so focused on the presidential race here in the United States -- we're a week away from November 5, election day -- I figured I might as well go with the mental flow and write a post about a subject that is germane to both politics and God: modeling. 

Not the sort of modeling where women or men put on designer clothes and strut down a walkway in front of an audience. The sort where a human understanding of some complex aspect of reality is fashioned into a model that attempts to reflect its nature.

This is a subject that first interested me back in the 1970s, when I spent two years working on a Ph.D. in Systems Science. (I finished the coursework, but then became a Ph.D. dropout.) I took several courses in modeling and simulation, a nascent field given the limited computer capabilities at that time.

One theme of that coursework was that a model shows us how the model-maker(s) view the world, thereby making critiques of that viewpoint easier, since the model's assumptions are more clearly visible than the often vague beliefs of we humans are.

But there are other motivations for model-making, whether of the mathematical, conceptual, or any other variety. Yesterday The Atlantic had an article by Brian Klaas, "The Truth About Polling: We Don't Know What We Think We Know About How Americans Will Vote." (Klaas is the author of Fluke, a book I wrote several posts about, including this one.)

Here's how the article starts out. 

Well, it’s that time again: Millions of Americans are stress-eating while clicking “Refresh” on 538’s presidential forecast, hoping beyond hope that the little red or blue line will have made a tiny tick upward. Some may be clutching themselves in the fetal position, chanting under their breath: “There’s a good new poll out of Pennsylvania.”

The stakes of this election are sky-high, and its outcome is not knowable in advance—a combination that most of us find deeply discomfiting. People crave certainty, and there’s just one place to look for it: in the data. Earlier humans might have turned to oracles or soothsayers; we have Nate Silver. But the truth is that polling—and the models that rely primarily on polling to forecast the election result—cannot confidently predict what will happen on November 5.

It's true that we crave certainty, though in my case I'd term this a craving for a high probability of a certain outcome. Sure, I'd be even happier with 100% certainty, but I realize this rarely is possible beyond very simple and short-term phenomena, and really not even then.

I mean, whenever I decide to type certain words on my keyboard, I'm able to do that. However, there's a small probability that I could suffer a stroke or heart attack at any moment that would make it impossible for me to type the words that just entered my mind. 

Given how important the presidential race between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump is, and how much I want Harris to win, I do indeed look at three election prediction models every day. In fact, with the election so close, several times a day, since the models are being updated more frequently. And my mood does indeed rise and fall when I see that a model has either increased or decreased the probability of Harris winning.

(The three I follow are Nate Silver's Silver Bulletin (you can't see the actual forecast without subscribing to Silver, which I do), FiveThirtyEight, and the Economist. 

What Klaas does in his article is ably discuss all the ways that political polls and models make assumptions that are better than pure guesswork, yet are a long way from reflecting the messy, complex, chaotic reality of how voters decide who to cast a ballot for. 

And this is concerning an aspect of reality that is indisputably real. People truly do make decisions about whether to vote in a presidential election, and if they decide to do this, who to vote for. These people can be contacted through a variety of means, though this is difficult for pollsters to do, a source of error. 

Polls also are necessarily a reflection of the past. Yesterday a speaker at a major Trump campaign event insulted Puerto Rico, calling it a floating island of garbage. This caused many Puerto Rico immigrants, who number in the millions, to get angry. How this will affect their vote for Trump or Harris remains to be seen, but some effect is certain.

If it is so difficult to model a fairly well-defined physical phenomenon, who Americans will choose to become president, modeling God and the supernatural is both hugely more difficult and hugely easier.

More difficult, because our conceptual models of God and the supernatural lack demonstrable evidence. Hugely easier, because that lack of evidence means that anyone can come up with their own model of God and the supernatural. 

And while the election prediction models will be tested for their accuracy once the results of the presidential race are known, this isn't the case for models of God and the supernatural, which are the foundation of the world's many religions. They never are tested for accuracy, because there is no demonstrable evidence that what they purport to explain even exists.

We shouldn't take election prediction models very seriously, but they are much more accurate reflections of reality than conceptual models of God and the supernatural.

Trump is a proven authoritarian fascist. Reminds me of some religious leaders.

Yesterday I wrote a post for my Salem Political Snark blog, "Trump is a fascist, says his chief of staff, John Kelly." Here's part of a quotation from a New York Times story that I included in the post.

In response to a question about whether he thought Mr. Trump was a fascist, Mr. Kelly first read aloud a definition of fascism that he had found online.

“Well, looking at the definition of fascism: It’s a far-right authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy,” he said.

Mr. Kelly said that definition accurately described Mr. Trump.

“So certainly, in my experience, those are the kinds of things that he thinks would work better in terms of running America,” Mr. Kelly said.

He added: “Certainly the former president is in the far-right area, he’s certainly an authoritarian, admires people who are dictators — he has said that. So he certainly falls into the general definition of fascist, for sure.”

This got me to thinking about the extent to which religions are led by people (almost always, men) who may not fit all the characteristics of a fascist, yet nonetheless are similar in some regards. For example, this is the first paragraph of my fascist blog post. 

What bothers me the most about today's Republican Party isn't the conservatism -- my mother was a lifelong Republican with deeply held conservative values -- but the Party's dangerous submission to Donald Trump, thereby elevating a single man's personality over Republican principles.

The religious organization I belonged to for 35 years, Radha Soami Satsang Beas (RSSB), is led by a guru, Gurinder Singh. If I substitute certain words in the paragraph above, the result is a statement that's a pretty good summary of how I currently feel about RSSB.

What bothers me the most about today's RSSB isn't the spiritual teachings, but RSSB's dangerous submission to Gurinder Singh, thereby elevating a single man's personality over RSSB principles.

Now, it is true that submission to a guru always has been a hallmark of the RSSB teachings. The guru supposedly is God in Human Form, so submission to the guru is viewed as submission to God. Since God is hidden, and the guru is a visible person, it's argued that submission to the guru is even more important than submission to God.

What's different now, though, is similar to the difference Trump has brought to the presidency of the United States. It used to be assumed that every president respected the Constitution and our rule of law. Violations were few and far between. All that changed when Trump became president in 2016.

Trump refused to adhere to longstanding moral and ethical practices that, by and large, previous presidents accepted. This has led to several criminal indictments being filed against Trump. Similarly, Gurinder Singh is the first RSSB guru to be criminally accused of financial fraud that enriched the guru and his family by hundreds of millions of dollars.

So just as Trump made the presidency into a means of fulfilling his personal desires for power, wealth, and praise, Gurinder Singh has done the same thing as the RSSB guru. He is less a spiritual leader who dabbles in business, than a businessman who dabbles in spirituality. Which wouldn't be so bad if his business practices were aboveboard, but they weren't, though so far this hasn't been legally proven.

Most religions are marked by authoritarianism. They aren't committed to democracy.

While voters decide who leads democratic nations, religious leaders typically are chosen by a few people at the top of a religious hierarchy. In the case of RSSB, the previous guru appoints the successor guru. Thus a single person decides who leads the millions of people who belong to RSSB.

Given the nature of religions, this authoritarian top-down rule is taken for granted, being viewed as a reflection of God's dominion over humankind. Nobody tells God what to do, and nobody tells the RSSB guru or the Pope what to do.

In the United States, our Constitution and supporting laws are supposed to constrain the power of the President. But that only works when the person occupying that office respects the rule of law. Likewise, Gurinder Singh has gone against both longstanding RSSB traditions and teachings. 

I wouldn't call him a fascist. But I'd definitely call him an authoritarian guru who cares more about what's good for him personally, than what's good for RSSB. Rather than being a servant of the RSSB organization, as previous gurus aspired to, Gurinder Singh mainly serves his own self-interest.

In both politics and religion, reports aren't the same as verified evidence

Building on my post of four days ago, "Harris-Trump debate shows how political lies are like religious lies," now I want to talk about how in both politics and religion reports aren't the same as verified evidence.

I got to thinking about this after watching a clip on X, formerly known as Twitter, from an interview Meet the Press host Kristen Welker did today with Republican Vice-President candidate J.D. Vance.

Leaving aside the fact that I can't stand Vance and his running mate, Donald Trump, I found the arguments Vance brought forward in favor of his belief that migrants from Haiti living in Springfield, Ohio are eating pet cats and dogs, along with geese in city ponds, to be both factually wrong and philosophically nonsensical. 

In case you aren't familiar with this unfounded conspiracy theory, I said in my previous post that Donald Trump brought it up in his presidential debate with Kamala Harris last Tuesday. Click on that link and you can see a video of the debate moderator pointing out to Trump that there's no evidence of Haitians in Springfield killing pet dogs and cats for food.

Didn't matter to Trump. He simply said that he's seen mentions of this on television, implying that it must be true for that ridiculous reason. (Trump mainly watches right-wing TV like Fox News, which lies as often as Trump does -- all the time.)

As you can see in the video below of Welker's interview with Vance (I've made the video start when they begin to discuss the pet cats and dogs thing), Vance acts a lot like Trump in saying that even though the City Manager and Police Chief of Springfield have denied that any pets or geese have been harmed by Haitian migrants, who are in this country legally, by the way, he's gotten reports from people in Ohio, his constituents, saying that this has happened.

To show the difference between reports and verified evidence, here's some examples of reports that lack solid evidence to back them up -- a mixture from politics, culture, and religion. It's been reported that...

Barack Obama was born in Kenya, not Hawaii, so he was ineligible to be president.
Alien spaceships have abducted people and conducted experiments on them.
Some Indian gurus have supernatural powers, such as an ability to remotely save their disciples from harm.
The 9/11 attacks in 2001 were orchestrated by the Bush administration, an "inside job."
Jesus returned to life after being killed by crucifixion and before that walked on water. 
The earrings Kamala Harris wore in her debate with Trump actually were earpieces her staff used to help her answer questions.
The moon landings were faked.
The current Dalai Lama is the reincarnation of a previous Dalai Lama. 
God can be realized by meditating in a certain way.
Other countries are sending their criminals to the United States through our southern border.
In 2020 the election was rigged in favor of Joe Biden, so Trump actually won. 
Allah wants Muslims to kill those who don't believe in fundamentalist Islam. 
There's a monster in the Scottish body of water called Loch Ness.

There's a slight -- extremely slight -- possibility that one or more of these reports is true. That's because it is extremely difficult to prove that something is false with 100% certainty. The best we can do is say "there's no verified evidence of this," which is good enough for science, and also for me. 

However, this allows people like Trump and Vance to make absurd statements, then say, "But there's reports of _______." Well, yeah. People report all kinds of stuff that isn't true, either because they've deluded themselves into believing it, or have a vested interest in spouting a lie. 

The problem, as others have noted in astute comments on this blog, is that it's extremely easy to make a false statement, but much more difficult to show that the statement is wrong. 

Last Tuesday it just took Trump a few seconds to say that Haitians are eating pets in Springfield, Ohio. Journalists had to engage in considerable time and effort to contact city officials and determine that regardless of that claim, there is no verified evidence that any cats or dogs have been killed by migrants living in Springfield.

These adages from the Quote Investigator come to mind:

(1) A lie travels around the globe while the truth is putting on its shoes.
(2) A lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on.

Sad, but true. The Quote Investigator says that it is unclear who came up with those adages. Apparently they evolved over time and got erroneously attributed to Mark Twain and Winston Churchill, among others.

Harris-Trump debate shows how political lies are like religious lies

In both politics and religion, lies are commonplace. I'm defining "lie" as a person saying something that isn't true, because there isn't any persuasive evidence supporting the statement.

God loves you is a lie, since there's no persuasive evidence that God exists, so there's no entity to love or do anything else. You'll go to heaven after you die is another lie given the lack of evidence for life after death.

People believe in religious lies for a variety of reasons. For example, it feels good to embrace warm supernatural fantasies that are more appealing than the cold truth of reality. Accepting lies also is a requirement for belonging to most religions, where people enjoy fellowship with other lie-believers.

But there's also great satisfaction in embracing truth, of being part of a reality-based community.

That's how I felt watching the 90 minute debate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump last night, the first (and maybe also the last) debate they'll have after Joe Biden withdrew from the presidential race following his horrible debate performance against Trump last June. 

Along with a couple of instant reputable polls, I felt that Harris won the debate. Not by a little, by a lot. I wrote about this in a post for one of my other blogs, "Harris beat Trump so badly in the debate, I almost feel sorry for him." 

CNN fact-checked both candidates, finding that in the debate Trump had more than 30 false claims, lies, while Harris had just one. In my post I wrote about one of the strangest lies Trump spewed. 

A memorable moment in the debate, which I'm pretty sure made the heads of Trump's advisors explode, because it was exactly what they'd advised Trump not to do, was when he brought up the absurd MAGA lie about immigrants from Haiti eating pet cats and dogs in Springfield, Ohio. Obviously that's completely false. 

When Trump blathered on about this lie, I stopped our recording of the debate to take a photo of the split screen reaction from Harris. Her look, along with Trump's angry expression, summed up the entire debate. Harris relaxed and pleasant, Trump tense and angry. 

Here's a video of Trump lying about the pet killings by Haitian migrants. He also lies about Harris paying people to attend her rallies.

The scary thing is that about 46% of American voters, roughly, continue to support Trump even though it is obvious that he's a habitual liar. I'm confident that most of them espouse truthfulness in their personal lives.

So how is it that Trump can command such loyalty even though he shamelessly spouts all kinds of lies every time he opens his mouth? Well, for the same reason that religious leaders are supported and worshipped even though they shamelessly spout all kinds of lies every time they open their mouths. 

Cult leaders attract followers because many people enjoy belonging to a community of like-minded believers even though those beliefs lack evidence to support them, being lies. Standing up for truth is much more difficult than lying down and letting lies wash over you.

However, the truth is more satisfying than lies. Yes, it takes more work to separate fact from fiction, truth from lies, reality from fantasy. But that's why I'm a Democrat rather than a Republican, and an atheist rather than a religious believer.

I don't want to follow a cult leader, whether that individual is a politician like Trump or a religious personage like gurus who behave badly. Since 2004 I've preached the gospel of spiritual independence on this blog. 

Truth means more to me than belonging to a group that demands the acceptance of lies as the price of admission. The Democratic Party isn't perfect, nor are the atheists that I know. By and large, though, I enjoy the company of people who value truth and abhor lies much more than those who make falsehoods their daily companion.

That's why I enjoyed last night's debate so much.

Kamala Harris has her flaws, but she will be a hugely better president than Trump in part because truth comes easily to her, a testimony to her upbringing by an Indian mother and to a considerably lesser extent, by her Jamaican father who didn't have much contact with her after her parents divorced.

Negative emotions are just fine. I'll be angry if you don't agree.

Proving (sort of) that the cosmos agrees with the theme of this blog post, about an hour ago I finished episode 8 of the fourth season of The Handmaid's Tale on Hulu, which I belatedly started watching after seeing Elisabeth Moss in another streaming series and wanting to see more of her acting.

The Handmaid's Tale, of course, is an adaptation of the dystopian book by the same name written by Margaret Atwood. Women are treated extremely badly in the nation of Gilead, which used to be the United States until religious zealots managed to take over the country, motivated by a precipitous decline in birthrates for a reason I'm unsure about.

Hopefully fertile Handmaids are raped by male Commanders while their wives assist, jusifying this horrendous act on a twisted interpretation of Biblical scripture that says, basically, that if a woman can't conceive a child, it's fine to bring in another woman for that purpose.

By episode 8 in the fourth season, some Handmaids have escaped Gilead and made it to Canada, a country that hasn't been infected with the same virus of religious fundamentalism. Some of these women are having a group therapy session headed up by Moira. June is a well-known Handmaid, the main character played by Moss, who has endured lots of atrocities in Gilead prior to reaching Canada.

Here's a bit of dialog after several women in the group talk about how much they hate the men who raped them, describing how they'd like to get back at them and their wives by, for example, cutting off the Commander's penis and sexually abusing his wife with a broomstick.

Moira: We've talked about this. Anger is a valid emotion. It's necessary, important even, to heal. But we can't live there.

June: Why not? Why does healing have to be the only goal? Why can't we be as furious as we feel? Don't we have that right?

This interchange struck me as being in line, pretty much, with an article I read this morning in the June 8, 2024 issue of New Scientist, titled in the print edition: "The happiness trap: The idea that we should always look on the bright side has gone too far and may now be damaging our well-being." I'll share a PDF file of the article. Here's some excerpts.
Download The happiness trap

Our tendency to eschew the darker aspects of human experience isn’t new, especially in Western societies. Longstanding rules about how we display our emotions have led people to develop strategies to avoid negative ones, says Susan David at Harvard Medical School, who calls this the “tyranny of positivity”.

...Social media and the positively curated images of ourselves we create online add to this pressure to be happy, says Brock Bastian at the University of Melbourne in Australia, who was part of the research team. “When we are not willing to accept negative emotions as a part of life, this can mean that we may see negative emotions as a sign there is something wrong with us,” he says. In other words, with an overemphasis on positivity, we are more likely to perceive normal emotions, such as sadness and anxiety, as signs of a mental health condition needing treatment.

Research by Maya Tamir at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem highlights another reason why excess positivity may be toxic. She and her colleagues studied more than 2300 people from eight countries to explore whether the secret of happiness lies in experiencing more pleasant emotions or, as Aristotle argued, in experiencing the emotions we want to experience.

They found that, regardless of culture, greater mental well-being is linked with feeling emotions that we believe are appropriate to our situation, rather than just having positive emotions regardless of context – “feeling right” as opposed to “feeling good”, is how they put it.

We should be concerned if we don’t feel angry when we witness someone being exploited, for example. Such emotional episodes, while experientially unpleasant, indicate that we are ready to behave in accordance with our values. For Tamir, emotions can be thought of as a toolbox that helps us attain those goals that are important to us.

For about three weeks, ever since President Biden had a horrible performance in his debate with Donald Trump, I've been obsessively anxious about Biden being able to defeat Trump in the November election. I'd pour over the latest polls. I'd pay attention to news about the pressure being put on Biden to withdraw from the race. It was just about all I could write about on my other two blogs. 

I was feeling a bunch of negative emotions: worry, anxiety, fear, plus others difficult to name.

The prospect of Trump getting another four years to wreak havoc on our democracy was hard, if not impossible, for me to deal with. Talking yesterday with friends who are members of the monthly discussion group my wife and I belong to made me feel a bit better, because all eleven of us agreed that Biden should withdraw, as I wrote about in a HinesSight blog post. 

Then the news broke this morning that Biden had withdrawn from the presidential race, shortly before endorsing his vice-president, Kamala Harris to replace him at the top of the ticket. I was so happy! Not totally, because I realized that Harris still faces an uphill battle to overcome the lead Trump has both in national polls and those of battleground states.

But I sure felt much better.

I'd done what I could to put pressure on Biden -- sending messages to the White House asking him to withdraw, contacting my congressional delegation (Oregon's two senators and our representative) asking them to tell Biden to do this, writing blog posts about the urgent need for Biden to withdraw and sharing them as widely as possible.

If I hadn't felt so anxious and fearful about Biden's chance of beating Trump, my motivation to do those things would have been much less. So, yes, negative emotions often have an important role to play. They alert us of wrongs that need righting, of problems that need fixing, of injustices that need overturning. 

God didn't save Trump from being killed. But Trump's devotees think so.

On Saturday a 20 year old man, Thomas Matthew Crooks, a registered Republican, tried to assassinate Donald Trump with an AR-15 rifle for a reason that likely never will be known, since Crooks was killed by Secret Service counter-snipers and left no indication why he fired numerous shots from a rooftop near the rally where Trump was speaking.

As I said in a post on my Salem Political Snark blog yesterday, "It's good Trump wasn't killed. Now let's defeat the S.O.B." 

There's no one in recent American politics who has been more toxic than Trump.

Trump never tires of attacking people who fail to kiss his ass with sufficient enthusiasm. In his first term he caused hundreds of thousands of needless Covid deaths by failing to endorse public health measures that would have saved those lives. His legal problems stem from him doing illegal things. He had sex with a porn star a few months after his wife gave birth to their son Barron, then tried to cover that up shortly before the 2016 election in a fashion that earned him 34 felony convictions. He encouraged the January 6 insurrection at the nation's capitol and did nothing to stop it.

This just scratches the surface of all the crap Trump has dumped upon our country in his boundless enthusiasm for destroying all that is admirable about our democracy. Republican politicians don't like it when us Democrats call Trump an existential threat to democracy.

But that's the truth, and it needs to be spoken even more loudly after the assassination attempt, because this likely will garner Trump some sympathy points in upcoming polls.

That's my political attitude. I've also got some theological issues to discuss with the Christian fundamentalists who comprise a large share of Trump's base of support. Also with Trump himself.

A bullet passed through the upper part of one of Trump's ears, leaving him bloodied but otherwise unhurt. 

This close call has led Christian faithful, along with Trump (who hasn't shown any sign of being genuinely religious), to claim that God saved Trump's life. A CNN story says:

“It was God alone who prevented the unthinkable from happening,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post in the immediate aftermath of the shooting. “We will FEAR NOT, but instead remain resilient in our Faith and Defiant in the face of Wickedness.”

That sentiment is one Trump has truly internalized, according to some of those who have spoken to him in recent days, and one Trump, who is not an especially religious or spiritual man, has reiterated during the aftermath of Saturday’s traumatic event.

“I’m not supposed to be here, I’m supposed to be dead,” Trump said during an interview with the New York Post Sunday. “By luck or by God, many people are saying it’s by God, I’m still here.”

It’s a conviction that will certainly reinforce the messianic imagery of Trump long promoted by his most ardent supporters and the evangelical communities that have stood by him for years. Indeed, outside the venue Saturday, as rallygoers were evacuated, they passed a truck emblazoned with images of Trump seated in front of Jesus, whose hands rested on the former president’s shoulders.

Obviously I don't think God saved Trump, since I don't believe God even exists. But let's assume for the sake of theological argument that there is a God who intervenes in human affairs, and that this is the God of the Ten Commandments. 

Trump has broken many of the commandments. He lies incessantly. He's committed adultery. He cheats  people. He puts himself first in almost every situation.

All in all, Trump is a despicable human being. There's very little good that can be said about him. Those closest to him know this, which is why so many of those he appointed to high positions during his presidency now refuse to endorse his bid for another term.

So why would God stop a bullet from seriously injuring Trump, while allowing a bullet to kill a valiant firefighter, Corey Comperatore, in the audience who died trying to protect his family? An AP story says:

The former fire chief who was killed at a Pennsylvania rally for Donald Trump spent his final moments diving down in front of his family, protecting them from the gunfire that rang out Saturday during an assassination attempt against the former president.

Corey Comperatore’s quick decision to use his body as a shield against the bullets flying toward his wife and daughter rang true to the close friends and neighbors who loved and respected the proud 50-year-old Trump supporter, noting that the Butler County resident was a “man of conviction.”

“He’s a literal hero. He shoved his family out of the way, and he got killed for them,” said Mike Morehouse, who lived next to Comperatore for the last eight years. “He’s a hero that I was happy to have as a neighbor.”

I haven't heard any Christian Republicans speak about the bravery of Comperatore. They're fixated on the bullet that passed through Trump's ear, not the bullet that killed Comperatore. Partly, I'm sure, this is because it is so difficult for a religious believer to explain why God would allow a horrible person to survive, while allowing a good person to die.

If God is that stupid, I'm proud to be an atheist. Well, I'm proud to be an atheist regardless, but idiotic displays of religiosity make me especially pleased that I no longer believe in supernatural nonsense. 

Oh, by the way, Trump hasn't called the family of Comperatore, though Biden tried to talk with them. This shows what an uncaring egotistical jerk he is. It's always all about him, not other people. Trump has the empathy of a rock. 

Jewish religious nationalism is behind Israel's horrible treatment of Palestinians

Anyone who wrongly believes that religiosity is a private affair of personal faith needs to educate themselves about the danger religious nationalism poses in many places around the world, including Israel.

I wrote a post about this yesterday for my Salem Political Snark blog, "Two well-researched stories show how badly Israel is treating Palestinians." 

One of those stories was a lengthy piece in the New York Times Magazine, with the title shown above. Since I'm a subscriber to the online New York Times and gifted that link, you should be able to click on it and read this disturbing investigative journalism.

Below I've shared some excerpts from the story that focus on how Jewish religious nationalism has been a major force in Israel's oppression of Palestinians in the West Bank territory occupied by Israel. I've boldfaced passages that pertain most directly to religious extremism. 

What deeply irks me is how conservatives in the United States, and also some Democrats, sadly, keep talking about how the students engaged in campus protests against the inhumane way Israel is conducing its war against Hamas in Gaza need to educate themselves about the history of Israel.

Well, I suspect that most of the students are well aware of how badly Israel has treated Palestinians since the founding of Israel in 1948, I believe it was. In part the reasons why this has happened are rooted in ordinary nationalism. But the Jewish faith has played an even greater role, as you can read below.

Politics is always messy. However, when religion becomes intertwined with a political cause, typically positions become hardened and more extreme, since God's will is imagined to be the basis for religious nationalism. Which is what is happening in Israel at the moment.

Here's the excerpts with my boldfacing. 

-----------------------------------------

Some of these people now run Israel. In 2022, just 18 months after losing the prime ministership, Benjamin Netanyahu regained power by forming an alliance with ultraright leaders of both the Religious Zionism Party and the Jewish Power party. It was an act of political desperation on Netanyahu’s part, and it ushered into power some truly radical figures, people — like Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir — who had spent decades pledging to wrest the West Bank and Gaza from Arab hands. Just two months earlier, according to news reports at the time, Netanyahu refused to share a stage with Ben-Gvir, who had been convicted multiple times for supporting terrorist organizations and, in front of television cameras in 1995, vaguely threatened the life of Rabin, who was murdered weeks later by an Israeli student named Yigal Amir.

Now Ben-Gvir was Israel’s national security minister and Smotrich was Israel’s finance minister, charged additionally with overseeing much of the Israeli government’s activities in the West Bank. In December 2022, a day before the new government was sworn in, Netanyahu issued a list of goals and priorities for his new cabinet, including a clear statement that the nationalistic ideology of his new allies was now the government’s guiding star. “The Jewish people,” it said, “have an exclusive and inalienable right to all parts of the land of Israel.”

...With its overwhelming victory in the Arab-​Israeli War of 1967, Israel more than doubled the amount of land it controlled, seizing new territory in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, the Sinai Peninsula, the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem. Now it faced a choice: Would the new land become part of Israel or be bargained away as part of a future Palestinian state? To a cadre of young Israelis imbued with messianic zeal, the answer was obvious. The acquisition of the territories animated a religious political movement — Gush Emunim, or “Bloc of the Faithful” — that was determined to settle the newly conquered lands.

Gush Emunim followers believed that the coming of the messiah would be hastened if, rather than studying holy books from morning to night, Jews settled the newly occupied territories. This was the land of “Greater Israel,” they believed, and there was a pioneer spirit among the early settlers. They saw themselves as direct descendants of the earliest Zionists, who built farms and kibbutzim near Palestinian villages during the first part of the 20th century, when the land was under British control. But while the Zionism of the earlier period was largely secular and socialist, the new settlers believed they were advancing God’s agenda.

...The Jewish Department found itself continually behind in its efforts to address the onslaught. In April 1984, it had a major breakthrough: Its agents foiled a Jewish Underground plan to blow up five buses full of Palestinians, and they arrested around two dozen Jewish Underground members who had also played roles in the Islamic College attack and the bombings of the Palestinian mayors in 1980. But only after weeks of interrogating the suspects did Shin Bet learn that the Jewish Underground had been developing a scheme to blow up the Dome of the Rock mosque. The planning involved dozens of intelligence-gathering trips to the Temple Mount and an assessment of the exact amount of explosives that would be needed and where to place them. The goal was nothing less than to drag the entire Middle East into a war, which the Jewish Underground saw as a precondition for the coming of the messiah.

...That evening marked the beginning of Purim, the festive commemoration of the victory of the Jews over Haman the Agagite, a court official in the Persian Empire and the nemesis of the Jews in the Old Testament’s Book of Esther. Right-wing Israelis have often drawn parallels between Haman and Arabs — enemies who seek the annihilation of Jews. Goldstein woke early the next day and put on his I.D.F. uniform, and at 5:20 a.m. he entered the Cave of the Patriarchs, an ancient complex in Hebron that serves as a place of worship for both Jews and Muslims. Goldstein carried with him his I.D.F.-issued Galil rifle. It was also the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, and on that morning hundreds of Muslims crowded the hall in prayer. Goldstein faced the worshipers and began shooting, firing 108 rounds before he was dragged down and beaten to death. The massacre killed 29 Muslim worshipers and injured more than 100.

...The killings shocked Israel, and the government responded with a crackdown on extremism. Kach and Kahane Chai, the two political organizations most closely affiliated with the Kahanist movement, were outlawed and labeled terrorist groups, as was any other party that called for “the establishment of a theocracy in the biblical Land of Israel and the violent expulsion of Arabs from that land.” Rabin, in an address to the Knesset, spoke directly to the followers of Goldstein and Kahane, who he said were the product of a malicious foreign influence on Israel. “You are not part of the community of Israel,” he said. “You are not partners in the Zionist enterprise. You are a foreign implant. You are an errant weed. Sensible Judaism spits you out. You placed yourself outside the wall of Jewish law.”

...The I.D.F. refused to allow Goldstein to be buried in the Jewish cemetery in Hebron. He was buried instead in the Kiryat Arba settlement, in a park named for Meir Kahane, and his gravesite has become an enduring place of pilgrimage for Jews who wanted to celebrate, as his epitaph reads, the “saint” who died for Israel with “clean hands and a pure heart.”

...The warnings noted that rabbis in West Bank settlements, along with some politicians on the right, were now openly advocating violence against Israeli public officials, especially Rabin. Extremist rabbis issued rulings of Jewish law against Rabin — imposing a curse of death, a Pulsa Dinura, and providing justification for killing him, a din rodef.

...The ascent of a far-right prime minister did little to prevent the virulent, anti-government strain inside the settler movement from spreading. A new generation of Kahanists was taking an even more radical turn, not only against Israeli politicians who might oppose or insufficiently abet them but against the very notion of a democratic Israeli state. A group calling itself Hilltop Youth advocated for the total destruction of the Zionist state. Meir Ettinger, named for his grandfather Meir Kahane, was one of the Hilltop Youth leaders, and he made his grandfather’s views seem moderate.

Their objective was to tear down Israel’s institutions and to establish “Jewish rule”: anointing a king, building a temple in place of the Jerusalem mosques sacred to Muslims worldwide, imposing a religious regime on all Jews. Ehud Olmert, who served as Israeli prime minister from 2006 to 2009, said in an interview that Hilltop Youth “genuinely, deeply, emotionally believe that this is the right thing to do for Israel. This is a salvation. This is the guarantee for Israel’s future.”

No, you religious fool, a total eclipse isn't a sign to repent

Yesterday there was a total eclipse in part of the United States. This follows on a total eclipse in 2017 whose path went right through where I live, Salem, Oregon. It was a cool experience. But certainly not a religious one.

After all, eclipses are 100% predictable by modern astronomers. Even not-so-modern astronomers had learned how to predict them.

I'm no expert on how this is done, but obviously it entails calculating the positions of the sun, moon, and earth -- since a total eclipse is when the moon, which amazingly is just the right size in the sky to do this, passes in front of the sun and obscures all of its light for a few minutes. 

But religious crazies don't let a little thing like facts stop them from making absurd statements about the Deeper Cosmic Meaning of a total eclipse.

Combine religious craziness with right-wing political craziness, and you get this post on X from Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene-- which spurred Bill Kristol, a rational Republican, unlike Greene, to respond with a Spinoza quote.

Wow. Greene apparently didn't think (thinking is one of her least favorite activities) before she wrote her post. First, Greene doesn't say what the United States is supposed to repent for. If she'd said, "Electing Donald Trump as president in 2016," even though I'm an atheist, I could understand why God would be pissed off at Americans for being so stupid. 

Leaving aside the question of what deserves repentance, even if God were to exist, how could there be any divine meaning to a total eclipse that happens completely in accord with the laws of nature and is totally predictable?

Spinoza lived in the Netherlands in the 1600s. Science was much less advanced then. So there were more natural phenomena lacking discernible causes in that time. Miracles were much more common when scientific instruments, video cameras, and such weren't available to undermine their supposedly miraculous nature.

If some guy claimed he was able to walk on water today, he'd need to prove that this truly was possible and wasn't just a trick or illusion. But since the Bible was composed by people in a prescientific time, the miracle stories weren't examined with a critical eye, which made it possible for Christianity to claim that Jesus had divine powers.

Regarding earthquakes, Greene was referring to a 4.8 magnitude earthquake that hit New York City recently. Earthquakes are fairly rare in New York City, but 5.2 magnitude earthquakes hit in 1737 and 1884. So I guess God was demanding some serious repenting back then also.

Worldwide, there are about 20,000 earthquakes a year. Sorry, Representative Greene. God sure isn't sending a strong sign to America to repent if that same sign is being sent 20,000 times a year to places all over the globe. 

Thanks, though, for sharing such a ridiculous X post. It makes my day when I can make fun of someone who is both religiously and politically crazy -- as most Republican politicians these days are.

Beware of ideologies, even though most of us embrace them

I enjoyed this recent comment on a churchless blog post from "sant64." There's valuable wisdom here. The first paragraph comes from what I said in the post.

"This makes sense in many situations. However, when it comes to solid facts, such as the reality of human-caused global warming, 'trying out different perspectives' isn't the right thing to do. In these sorts of cases, reality almost certainly is a certain way."

The proper perspective that jibes with "reality" is what? Believing that we're in the end-times because there's little hope we can reverse GW, or believing that GW is manageable and not the extinction-level event it's often characterized as? "Science" and "reality" aren't synonyms.

Unfortunately, we live in an age where many believe that scientific opinion is absolute truth. And perhaps just as many believe that scientific opinion is another term for propaganda. The best practice of mindfulness is like the best practice of science. Not looking for reasons why the party line in or outside one's head is right, but constantly observing how it is wrong.

What's being gotten at here, the way I read the comment, is that none of us, I'm pretty sure, is capable of achieving what I recall the detective on Dragnet, a TV show from my childhood (so a long time ago) was fond of saying: "Just the facts, ma'am."

Facts always are part of a certain worldview. They don't stand alone, though certainly some facts are more objectively true than others. As sant64 said, we have a party line that represents our political, religious, scientific, or other sort of leaning -- which could be called an ideology.

We like facts that support our favored ideology. We don't like facts that undermine our favored ideology. Usually. For it is possible, though rather difficult, to enjoy different perspectives, including as sant64 noted, observing how our party line or ideology is wrong.

Today I read a section in David Chapman's book about artificial intelligence, Better Without AI, that addressed the perils of ideologies. Here's some excerpts.

Ultimately, the problem is ideology as such. All ideologies are mistaken about many things, so each has to use underhanded tricks to blind you to realities that conflict with its narrative. However, with experience we've figured out how to keep the traditional ones mostly in check.

Most of the world has driven the nastier ones (absolutist religions and twentieth century totalitarianisms) to extinction. We've learned to live with the relatively benign ones, in part by stalemating them against each other. 

Almost all countries now employ mixtures of the better features of socialism and capitalism. That works reasonably well, confining conflict to comparatively minor aspects. 

...Everyone can examine their own relationship with ideology. Do you have an ideology? Or does an ideology have you. Do you "belong to" a political party or religious group? Maybe, if so, you are a slave, as the term implies. 

Ideology's trick is to convince you that it is True and Good, in absolute senses. Therefore, any evidence that contradicts the narrative can and must be ignored or explained away. Also, therefore, you are Good to the extent that you propagate the ideology (and Bad to the extent that you question it).

Mostly, nobody wants to get free from the ideology that owns them, because it constantly assures you that you are Good, so long you keep retweeting its messages. Everyone wants that cheap method for feeling morally adequate, and wants to avoid the painful shame of violating the sacred dictates.

That doesn't sound like you, of course. Your political opinions are just common sense, well thought out, and obviously true. You are entirely rational about specific issues. Not at all like the Bad Tribe, who are mysteriously possessed by an evil brain-eating quasi-religious fanaticism. If you sometimes make strong statements online, it's because their stuff must be stopped at all costs. 

I have mostly avoided naming examples of the new ideologies, because I expect a substantial fraction of readers are possessed by one or another of them. I've used QAnon as the example because I'm guessing few readers of this book are owned by it.

I suggest taking seriously the possibility that whatever ideology you are subject to appears similarly irrational and dangerous to anyone who isn't. I suggest considering what that may imply about that ideology, and about you -- not about its opponents.

The cultural assumption that everyone must "have" an ideology gives them much of their power. If you have any doubts about your ideology, you can reassure yourself that the alternatives are all vastly worse so switching is out of the question. Or, if your faith deteriorates sufficiently, you may switch after all -- and become a slave to Tweedledum rathe than Tweedledee.

You can free yourself entirely, if you realize you want to. I explain how, step by step, in "Vaster than ideology." You can turn the tables, and own ideologies instead. Many are useful for particular purposes in particular circumstances. You can recognize whatever actually is true and good in any of them.

Standing outside and above all ideologies, you can even see why so many adopt QAnon and sympathize. The current American ruling elites, both left and right, are pervasively mendacious, corrupt, self-serving, incompetent, and entrenched. They do need replacement. 

...The longer-run solution is broad cultural understanding that being a slave to any ideology is bad for you and everyone else. This observation is startlingly rare; nearly everyone assumes that you must belong to one. 

However, it's obvious once pointed out. Most people are also tired of ideological conflict, and understand that it's destructive; yet persist because the alternative seems to be surrendering to the Bad Tribe. I am optimistic that anti-ideological understanding could spread rapidly once it gets going.

Israel-Hamas war is bringing out worst on both sides

I was planning to share more in today's blog post from Robert Sapolsky's book, Determined, which argues persuasively that free will is an illusion. But with disturbing news of the Israel-Hamas war ricocheting around in my mind, I find myself unable to focus on my original intent.

Which is how minds work. I'm going to talk about no-free-will anyway, just not in the way that I had intended.

Every experience changes us. We are nothing but our experiences, understanding that "experience" includes much more than that word implies. It encompasses the genetic experience of our bodies; the historical experience of the culture we're a part of; the evolutionary experience of all life on earth; the personal experience of our life from the womb until death; and other forms of experience. 

It's a fantasy to believe that human thoughts, emotions, and behavior are somehow orchestrated by a Me or Self that can float above all these varieties of experience and engage in acts of free will that are uncaused by all the influences bearing down upon us.

The Israel-Hamas war provides plenty of evidence for this.

Yesterday I wrote a post for my HinesSight blog, Our job is to empathize with both Israelis and Palestinians, that mostly consisted of the last part of an essay in the November 6 issue of TIME by Israeli historian and philosopher Yuval Noah Harari, "The world's job during the war."

Here's a quote from Harari.

Most Israelis are psychologically incapable at this moment of empathizing with the Palestinians. The mind is filled to the brim with our own pain, and no space is left to even acknowledge the pain of others.

Many of the people who tried to hold such a space -- like the Kutz family -- are dead or deeply traumatized. Most Palestinians are in an analogous situation -- their minds too are filled with pain, they cannot see our pain.

But outsiders who are not themselves immersed in pain should make an effort to empathize with all suffering humans, rather than lazily seeing only part of the terrible reality. It is the job of outsiders to help maintain a space for peace.

I hope this is possible.

However, it's difficult to be optimistic when this horrific war is viewed through the lens of what Sapolsky tells us is the neuroscientific truth. Trauma changes us. The Jews who control Israel feel in their bones, in their heart, in their mind, the trauma of longstanding Jewish persecution at the hands of others, notably Nazi Germany in the Holocaust.

This affects their current attitude toward their Palestinian neighbors who also have experienced trauma of a more recent variety: how they've been ill treated by Israel over about 75 years of forcible relocation and occupation. This has caused deep resentments that are one of the causes of the terror inflicted on people in Israel by Hamas's October 7 attacks.

As Harari said in his essay, this prevents both Israelis and Palestinians from seeing the suffering of the other side as deserving of empathy. Not everybody, of course, but certainly the leaders who are directing the course of the Israel-Hamas war. 

So the 1,400 deaths Hamas caused in Israel turns into an estimated 9,000 deaths Israel has caused in the Gaza Strip. And the killing continues, with many more deaths to come. I see no evidence of free will in any of this, because it is clear that the leaders of both sides are being propelled by deep reserves of anger, resentment, and hatred that have nothing to do with calm, considered, wise decision-making.

Yesterday I heard a man interviewed on CNN, I think it was, who used to be an Israeli ambassador to the United States. He was asked about the thousands of civilian deaths in Gaza from Israel's bombing, at least half of whom are women and children. His logic, if you can call it that, went like this:

Civilians in Gaza are being killed because Hamas terrorists hide among them, and Israel is justified in killing Hamas. Residents in the north of Gaza have been told to leave that area and move to the southern part of Gaza. When told by the interviewer that Israel is also attacking civilian targets in the south of Gaza, the Israeli said this was justified because Hamas terrorists hide among them there also.

So the previous ambassador believes that women, children, the elderly, and other noncombatants can be killed by Israel anywhere in Gaza, since Israel is entitled to do so just because. That's how a three year old acts: I can do it just because I want to.

Today Israel attacked an ambulance in Gaza. Again, this isn't an act of free will. This is an act of leaders of a nation who are consumed by so much rage, so much anger, so much feeling of entitlement, that they can kill innocent people for no good reason just because they have the ability to do so.

A Washington Post story tells the sickening tale of Israeli destruction in "Israel launches deadly strike on ambulance outside hospital in Gaza." Excerpts:

An Israeli strike on an ambulance outside Gaza City’s largest hospital on Friday killed at least 15 people and injured another 60, the Gaza Health Ministry said.Photos and videos of the aftermath, which were geolocated by The Washington Post, showed scenes of carnage and destruction, with bodies crumpled on the pavement and bystanders rushing to carry the wounded into the hospital grounds.

The strike was one of several attacks on schools and health infrastructure on Friday in Gaza, where Israeli forces have waged a large-scale offensive to destroy Hamas, the Palestinian group that rules the territory. More than 9,000 people have been killed in Gaza since the war started on Oct. 7. Israel launched its campaign in response to a brutal Hamas assault on Israeli communities near the border, killing at least 1,400 people.

...The dead and wounded visible in the videos reviewed by The Post included women and children and no weapons or individuals wearing military clothing could be seen. One graphic video, filmed by Gazan content creator Ahmed Hijazee, showed the inside of the ambulance targeted in the strike, including a single female patient lying on a stretcher.

So as noted before, Israel retaliates for a terrorist attack on its territory that killed over a thousand innocent people by killing thousands of innocent Palestinians. This is madness, not free will. The leaders of both Israel and Hamas are engaged in a contest to see who can act most horribly. If either side was willing freely, sanity would be more evident.

I wish "evil" could be banished from political discourse

Here in the United States, our politicians love to spout venomous talk about evildoers, the necessity to combat evil, and how some conflict is a battle between good and evil.

Prime Minister Netanyahu and his allies have been doing the same thing in Israel after Hamas terrorists attacked that country on October 7. A Daily Mail story says:

Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu vowed to 'completely eliminate' Hamas on Saturday night as he revealed IDF forces have been fighting within the Gaza Strip to get rid of 'evil' and 'bring back' hostages.

He told Israeli citizens that the ongoing ground operation is the second phase of the war against Hamas, which he said would see Israeli 'good' triumph over 'evil'.

I don't like that word, evil. When combined with good, it wrongly portrays people, and reality, as being divided into two mutually incompatible camps. That sort of dualism is not only inaccurate, it is dangerous.

Calling people evil dehumanizes them. It reduces complex human beings to a single abstraction, since as soon as we try to come to grips with what "evil" really means, that attempt is doomed to result in failure.

There's no need for the word. Let's use Hamas as an example. 

Hamas terrorists committed horrible atrocities. They killed innocent men, women, and children. That's an accurate way of describing Hamas, though naturally additional details could be given about what they did.

So what's the point in calling Hamas evil? Well, the point is to draw a sharp dividing line between Evil Hamas and Good Israel, just as politicians in the United States did after 9/11 with talk of Evil Al Qaeda and Good America. 

That way atrocities committed by the good guys can be excused as being a necessary side effect of the war against evil. Today Manjit, a commenter on this blog, shared a talk by the UNICEF Executive Director on the humanitarian situation in Gaza. An excerpt:

After little more than three weeks, the devastating tally is quickly adding up, with rampant grave violations being committed against children. According to the Palestinian Ministry of Health, more than 8,300 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza, including over 3,400 children, with over 6,300 children injured. This means that more than 420 children are being killed or injured in Gaza every day – a number which should shake each of us to our core. 

Of course, the violence being perpetrated against children extends beyond the Gaza Strip. In the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, at least 37 children have reportedly been killed. And of course more than 30 Israeli children have reportedly been killed, while at least 20 remain hostage in the Gaza Strip – their fates unknown. 

Thousands of Palestinian children have been killed by Israel in retaliation for the killing and hostage taking of about  50 Israeli children. So tell me: where is the firm line between good and evil here? Isn't it true that atrocities are being committed by both sides in the Hamas-Israel conflict?

Sure, we can debate endlessly over who is more good and who more evil. But I think a better approach is to cease using terms like "good" and "evil" and simply talk about the specifics of any given situation.

If it's wrong for Hamas to kill Israeli children, then it's wrong for Israel to kill Palestinian children. Each side can justify the wrongness by saying that the killing was necessary to achieve a desirable end, but that doesn't make killing children the right thing to do.

An Israeli historian, Gil Troy, had an opinion piece published in the Jerusalem Post back in August 2023. Here's an excerpt from "Israeli, American politics are theological good-versus-evil battles."

Clearly, epidemics of horrific leadership and atrocious behavior haunt two of the world’s greatest democracies. This rampage of recklessness left and right reflects three big, broad, bad trends.

First, all-enveloping partisanship made even a confusing, scientific dispute about mask-wearing during COVID, a partisan issue in America – and an identity-signifier. That zealousness reflects the spreading partisan blindness which has MAGA voters ignoring Trump’s alleged crimes and responsible Democrats ignoring Biden’s decline. 

Second, the all-or-nothingness surrounding most controversies has made politics theological, turning debates into good-versus-evil, rather than the better-of-two-evils whereby choices made are properly considered and balanced.

Such fanaticism riles Israelis daily with Channel 14’s pro-Bibi propagandizing as he destroys his legacy piece-by-piece, paralleled by a supposedly pro-democracy movement setting horrific precedents in unpatriotic protests that their opponents will mimic next time.

Finally, the pervasive, invasive, nature of social media freezes, weaponizes, and catastrophizes once-manageable differences of opinion into do-or-die fights between Team Good and Team Evil. 

Israel on verge of becoming a Jewish authoritarian nation

Fairly frequently religious people say that atheists like me overstate the danger of fundamentalism. The argument goes, "What's the harm in religion? Everybody should be free to believe in whatever they want to, whether it be God or whatever."

Well, what's happening in Israel right now is a great example of why fundamentalism is so dangerous. Since Israel was founded after the horror of the Holocaust, there's no problem with the country being largely Jewish.

But right-wing Jewish fundamentalists are determined to go much farther than that.

They want to put the judicial system in Israel under the control of Parliament, which means that there would be no checks on the power of the Prime Minister, which currently is Benjamin Netanyahu -- who is under investigation for several criminal offenses.

A New York Times story, "Netanyahu Scores Another Victory, but at What Price?", describes the role religious fundamentalism is playing in the political turmoil Israel is experiencing.

Once again, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel has pushed the limits, defying a nationwide protest movement to win new curbs on the Israeli judiciary’s power to pose a check to his far-right coalition government.

But after years of brinkmanship and chaos management by the Israeli leader, this feels different. Such is the rancor and rupture caused by this particular Netanyahu victory that many Israelis wonder whether the damage to society might not be fixable — and whether Mr. Netanyahu will be able to manage the aftermath of a showdown he set in motion.

...The passing of the vote, minutes later, provided a rare moment of certainty, after a seven-month period in which it was often unclear, even until Monday afternoon, whether Mr. Netanyahu would really dare to press ahead with his unpopular proposal.

It also took Israel into the unknown.

At home, it left one half of society wondering whether their country — under the control of Mr. Netanyahu’s alliance of religious conservatives and ultranationalists — would now slide slowly into a religious autocracy.

“These could be the last days of Israeli democracy,” said Yuval Noah Harari, an Israeli author and historian of humanity. “We might witness the rise of a Jewish supremacist dictatorship in Israel, which will not just be a terrible thing for Israeli citizens, but also a terrible thing for the Palestinians, for Jewish traditions, and potentially, for the entire Middle East.”

...But to critics and supporters alike, questions remain about the stability and capacity of Israel’s armed forces, after a surge in protests from thousands of military reservists.

There is also the specter of social and economic turmoil, after major unrest broke out overnight in cities across the country, labor leaders warned of a general strike, a doctors’ union announced a daylong reduction in medical services, and high-tech businesses said they were considering moving to more stable economies, according to a new survey.

Abroad, the vote fostered greater ambiguity about the future of Israel’s alliance with the United States, after expressions of growing alarm from the Biden administration. It heightened the unease among American Jews about the trajectory of the Jewish state.

...For Israel’s secular protest movement, it was another blow, but one that many saw as a call to keep fighting. The movement’s seven-month struggle to delay the overhaul, through weekly marches and rallies, has helped re-energize a privileged sector of society that had at times been seen as apathetic or complacent about Israel’s political direction.

“This is some kind of consolation,” said Mira Lapidot, a museum curator and regular protest participant. “There is a sense of needing to decide what kind of life you want to live.”

But underpinning this rejuvenation is also a sense of fear. Mr. Netanyahu’s coalition includes a finance minister who has described himself as a proud homophobe, a security minister who was convicted of racist incitement, and an ultra-Orthodox party that proposed fining women for reading the Torah at the holiest site in Judaism.

For Israel’s Arab minority, which forms roughly one-fifth of the country’s population of nine million, the law feels like the harbinger of a dangerous new era.

Trump's arraignment reminded me of connection between law and science

Today Donald Trump was arraigned in New York City on 34 felony counts involving the falsification of business records. 

Trump at his arraignment 

I was thrilled.

Trump is a horrible human being. He has lied and cheated his way through a life that, amazingly, until now hadn't included being charged with a crime. That changed today, and almost certainly Trump will be charged with additional crimes since there are other ongoing investigations into his wrongdoing.

Following the news about the indictment against Trump that was unsealed today, I heard lots of legal analysis on MSNBC and CNN. I also read stories about legal issues involving the indictment on the Washington Post and New York Times web sites.

I find the law fascinating. I also find science fascinating. But somehow I hadn't made a connection between the two until now. At least, not consciously.

Here's some of the parallels that come to mind.

Both law and science strive for objectivity. Judges and juries are expected to leave behind their personal biases and preferences in favor of rulings that rely on facts and the law. Scientists are expected to behave similarly, making truth the foundation of their investigations, even if their findings aren't what they hoped.

I said "expected" twice in the previous paragraph because law and science are imperfect disciplines. Mistakes are made. Scandals happen. False conclusions are accepted.

However, I have little patience for religious fundamentalists who criticize science and scientists because of those imperfections. I also have little patience for those who consider our legal system to be worthless because innocent people sometimes are found guilty, and guilty people sometimes are found innocent.

Perfection isn't the goal in law and science. 

The goal is to arrive at conclusions through a method that is better than any other approach. For example, judges and juries are much more likely to reach a fair verdict than a king or queen who sits on their throne and decides the fate of people accused of crimes.

And science is much more likely to discover truths about reality than religion is. Careful observation and experimentation, along with rigorous review of claimed findings in an open process, will beat blind faith and dogma when it comes to knowing things about our world and the universe.

But law and science both are messy. In a good way. Meaning, they are designed to be productively inefficient. 

Today the judge in the Trump case said that the defense has four months to file motions. Then the prosecution has four months to respond to those motions. This means that the next hearing in the case won't be until December 2023, with the trial not scheduled to begin until January 2024 at the earliest.

And it could be even longer. The defense is hoping for spring 2024. The trial will take months, probably. Then a verdict could be appealed. 

Like many other people, I wish our legal system would move faster. But I rarely, if ever, hear expert lawyers say that. They accept that cases move at a speed that is designed to arrive at the fairest outcome, not the fastest outcome.

Same applies to science. Research can take years, if not decades. A seemingly significant finding isn't accepted without question. It has to be reviewed by other scientists. It has to be published so others can critique the validity of the finding.

By contrast, religious experiences tend to be accepted uncritically by both the person who had the experience and people who believe that the experience confirms a certain theology. Preachers aren't accustomed to someone interrupting their sermon with "Excuse me, but I think you've got that wrong."

Lawyers and scientists are very accustomed to hearing this.

Winston Churchill's quote about democracy is appropriate here. Law and science aren't perfect, but they're a heck of a lot better than the alternatives to finding justice and truth.

Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.

Trump indictment fills me with joy

Yesterday I discovered a secret to happiness: learning that Donald Trump has been criminally indicted. Check out my Salem Political Snark blog post, "Joyous day! Trump is indicted."

Religious bigotry behind hatred of transgender people

There are lots of reasons why I reject religion. One big one is that religious people, especially fundamentalists, often are extremely narrow-minded and judgmental when it comes to sexual matters.

Here in the United States, opposition to transgender individuals is a disgusting hallmark of the Republican Party -- which includes evangelicals and other religious zealots who love to hate those who don't conform to their theological beliefs about gender.

It's a plain fact that some people with a male or female body don't view themselves as being the sex they were assigned at birth. A CNN story, "GOP lawmakers escalate fight against gender-affirming care with bills seeking to expand the scope of bans," describes what gender-affirming care is all about.

Gender-affirming care is medically necessary, evidence-based care that uses a multidisciplinary approach to help a person transition from their assigned gender – the one the person was designated at birth – to their affirmed gender – the gender by which one wants to be known.

Though many of the bills introduced so far this year target trans youth and their access to gender-affirming care, at least four states saw bills introduced this session that would restrict such care for individuals over the age of 18, including at least two states where proposed bans covered people under the age of 26.

...Major medical associations agree that gender-affirming care is clinically appropriate for children and adults with gender dysphoria, which, according to the American Psychiatric Association, is psychological distress that may result when a person’s gender identity and sex assigned at birth do not align.

Though the care is highly individualized, some children may decide to use reversible puberty suppression therapy. This part of the process may also include hormone therapy that can lead to gender-affirming physical change. Surgical interventions, however, are not typically done on children and many health care providers do not offer them to minors.

I'm totally supportive of gender-affirming care. I've always identified as male, but I can understand the distress someone would feel if the sex of their body doesn't match the sex they psychologically identify with.

So it's cruel for Republican lawmakers to target transgender youth, along with a broader attack on LGBTQ people in general. Recently one conservative pundit went so far as to say that "transgenderism must be eradicated from public life entirely."

Obviously that isn't as bad as Nazi attitudes toward Jews, but it's highly disturbing nonetheless. How would he like it if there was a movement to eradicate conservatism from public life entirely?

Religion plays a large role in transgender bigotry. The American Bar Association discusses this in "The Role of Religious Objections to Transgender and Nonbinary Inclusion and Equality and/or Gender Identity Protection."

The core basis for many of the faith-based objections to transgender and nonbinary acceptance comes from deeply ingrained theologically grounded worldviews. Certain people see humanity as having been created by a divine being who specifically created humans as male and as female. This serves a reproductive purpose, and, for many, also differentiates the roles that people are expected to play in the world. To them, biological sex is divinely ordained and assigned to each person according to divine will.

It is therefore unsurprising that some people of faith will treat others according to their assigned sex at birth and will consider requiring them to acknowledge another’s gender identity to either be untruthful and/or unfaithful. They will not accept a person’s stated gender identity, and they will not accept the possibility that there are any nonbinary people.

This shows the absurdity of religion. Clearly there are transgender people. Clearly there are nonbinary people who don't identify as either male or female. Clearly there are people who are attracted to the same sex.

Yet because a holy book or holy person says this is wrong, reality is ignored by religious fundamentalists, causing them to deny the rights of LGBTQ people who don't conform to their ignorant theological perspective.

A 2017 survey by the Pew Research Center found that attitudes toward transgender people divide along religious lines. 

The American public is sharply divided along religious lines over whether it is possible for someone to be a gender different from their sex at birth, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis.

Most Christians in the United States (63%) say that whether someone is a man or a woman is determined by their sex at birth. Among religious “nones” – those who identify religiously as atheist, agnostic or “nothing in particular” – about six-in-ten (62%) say they think a person’s gender is not necessarily determined by the sex they are assigned at birth.

Well, I'm proud to be part of the religious "nones" who accept the reality that a person's gender can be different from the sex they were assigned at birth. I just wish religious people who believe otherwise would stop trying to force transgender people to conform to their dogmatism.

India's Modi doesn't want people to see BBC documentary critical of him

Politicians are much the same the world over. They hate criticism. But in countries with robust freedom of speech and a free press, like the United States, politicians find it difficult to shut down criticism of them.

Not so in India, where Prime Minister Modi and his allies are working hard to keep people from seeing a BBC documentary, "India: the Modi Question."

TWITTER AND YOUTUBE censored a report critical of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi in coordination with the government of India, according to a top Indian official. Officials called for the Big Tech companies to take action against a BBC documentary exploring Modi’s role in a genocidal 2002 massacre in the Indian state of Gujarat, which the officials deemed a “propaganda piece.”

In a series of posts, Kanchan Gupta, senior adviser at the Indian government’s Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, denounced the BBC documentary as “hostile propaganda and anti-India garbage.” He said that both Twitter and YouTube had been ordered to block links to the film, before adding that the platforms “have complied with the directions.” Gupta’s statements coincided with posts from Twitter users in India who claimed to have shared links to the documentary but whose posts were later removed and replaced with a legal notice.

...The Gujarat riots, as the violence is sometimes known, occurred in 2002, when Modi was the chief minister of the state. A group of militants aligned with the Hindu nationalist movement, which encompasses Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party, launched a violent campaign against local Muslims. Modi, who has been accused of personally encouraging the violence, reportedly told police forces to stand down in the face of the ongoing violence, which killed about 1,000 people.

“The documentary has unnerved Mr. Modi as he continues to evade accountability for his complicity in the violence,” Naik, the journalist, said. “He sees the documentary as a threat to his image internationally and has launched an unprecedented crackdown in India.”

Of course, when the Indian government tells people not to watch the documentary, that's tremendous free advertising for it.

I haven't watched the documentary yet. It's difficult to find it online without paying for a subscription to some video/movie service. The best source I could find was the IslamiCity web site, which says it provides "a non-sectarian, comprehensive and holistic view of Islam and Muslims."

Part 1 of the documentary is here on that site. Part 2 of the documentary is here on that site.

The BBC is a respected organization, so my bet is that the documentary mostly, if not totally, tells the truth about the Gujarat violence and Modi's subsequent embracing of extreme Hindu nationalism. 

Courageous people in India are screening the documentary despite the government's threats against those who do this. It's really disturbing that police in riot gear were sent to a university in advance of a planned screening. 

If Modi thinks the documentary is untrue or unfair to him, he could have commented on it prior to its release, as the BBC requested. But he didn't do this, which indicates to me that Modi just doesn't like the truth being revealed about his role in the Gujarat killings.

This episode puts Modi, and India, in a bad light. A Washington Post story is scathing. Here's excerpts from "Censorship, arrests, power cuts. India scrambles to block BBC documentary."

NEW DELHI — The film had already been banned, the social media posts censored. Now, the students huddled without light or electricity around glowing smartphones to watch what their government had deemed to be subversive foreign propaganda.

China? No. They were in India, ostensibly the world’s largest democracy, and watching the BBC.

The Indian government over the past week has embarked on an extraordinary campaign to prevent its citizens from viewing a new documentary by the British broadcaster that explores Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s alleged role in a deadly 2002 riot that saw more than 1,000 people — mostly Muslims — killed.

Indian officials, invoking emergency powers, ordered clips from the documentary to be censored on social media platforms including YouTube and Twitter. The Foreign Ministry spokesman lambasted the BBC production as a “propaganda piece” made with a “colonial mind-set.” One junior minister from Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) declared that watching the film amounted to “treason.”

On Tuesday evening, authorities cut electricity to the student union hall at New Delhi’s prestigious Jawaharlal Nehru University in an attempt to prevent the film being screened — a move that only provoked defiant students around the country to try to host more viewings.

...All told, the remarkable steps taken by the government seemed to reinforce a central point of the BBC series: that the world’s largest democracy was sliding into authoritarianism under Modi, who rose to national power in 2014 and won reelection in 2019 on a Hindu nationalist platform.

Raman Jit Singh Chima, Asia Pacific policy director of the digital rights group Access Now, said the episode should “give more attention” to the “dangerous situation” of eroding civil liberties in India. The government has become “far more efficient and aggressive” in blocking content during moments of national political controversy, he said.

“How is it acceptable for India, as a democracy, to be ordering such a large amount of web censorship in the country?” Chima said. “You have to look at this incident as part of a cumulative wave of censorship.”

Christian Nationalism defeated in Pennsylvania, but still scary

Politics is divisive and arouses strong emotions. Religions are divisive and arouse strong emotions. Mix politics with religion, and not surprisingly the worst qualities of each can combine in a toxic combination.

Such is evident in countries around the world where dogmatic religion fuses with narrow-minded nationalism. Iran. India. Saudi Arabia. Israel. There are others, including the United States.

This was personified in the recent midterm election here in the United States by Doug Mastriano, the Republican candidate for Governor of Pennsylvania. 

Fortunately, Mastriano lost to Democrat Josh Shapiro by a large margin: 56% to 42%. But in the runup to the election, Mastriano often was described as the most dangerous Trump-backed far-right candidate running in a swing state.

A big reason for this was that in addition to the usual power of a Governor, in Pennsylvania the Governor appoints the Secretary of State, who oversees elections. And Mastriano thoroughly accepted Trump's Big Lie that the election was stolen from him in 2020.

So the reasonable fear was that if Mastriano was elected Governor of Pennsylvania, he would refuse to accept his state's choice for president in 2024 if Trump ran and lost to the Democrat nominee.

But the pre-election November 7 issue of The New Yorker contains a story about Mastriano that includes descriptions of his Christian Nationalism which makes Mastriano an even scarier candidate, since he not only embraced a political Big Lie but also a religious Big Lie.
Download How Election Subversion Went Mainstream in Pennsylvania | The New Yorker

Here's some excerpts related to his Christian Nationalism.

Mastriano, who is tall and bald, wore a black baseball hat. His wife, Rebbie, a chaplain, stood at his right hand, her jean jacket unzipped. Mastriano reminded the audience that he was running only because, a year earlier, in this very barn, a small group of followers had begged him to. “You urged us, even with tears in your eyes, ‘Please run for governor,’ ” he said. He had also received instructions from Heaven, Rebbie added: “God said go!”

...In the past year, grassroots groups, led by Faddis and others, have come to describe themselves as part of a statewide “patriot movement,” which Borick characterized as a “broadly defined populist and xenophobic movement.” 

The movement is fuelled in some quarters by what scholars call Christian Nationalism, which is centered on the notion that America is and should be a Christian country. Few people self-identify as Christian Nationalists; in 2021, Mastriano asked me, “Is this a term you fabricated?”

But social scientists describe it as a belief system characterized by Dominionism: the idea that God has ordained Christians to exercise control over political institutions in order to prepare for the Second Coming of Christ. “They don’t believe in one person, one vote,” Philip Gorski, a sociologist at Yale, told me. “They think they’re involved in a battle between good and evil.”

In 2020, this ideology helped drive the moral call to overturn the election. “Some of their most fanatical supernatural beliefs have been mainstreamed into the maga movement, such as the notions that Democrats are demonic or engaged in witchcraft,” Jennifer Cohn, an election-security advocate, told me.

In November, 2020, Abby Abildness, the state director of Pennsylvania’s Prayer Caucus and an “apostle” with the New Apostolic Reformation, a network of pastors, hosted a series of “Jericho marches”—religious precursors to the insurrection. Followers gathered in Harrisburg, likening it to the Biblical city of Jericho, where, according to Scripture, God knocked down the walls.

At similar marches in some states, people wore animal skins and blew rams’ horns, as they imagined the ancient Israelites did on their way into battle. Abildness declared her intent that, with God’s help, Pennsylvania’s electors would “go to the President” rather than to Biden. 

...Two years later, Mastriano won a special election for the State Senate. He pushed bills that would mandate prayer in schools and allow adoption agencies to turn away same-sex couples. “ ‘Separation of church and state’—anyone who says that, show me in the Constitution where it says it,” Mastriano has said. “It’s never been there.”

In the spring of 2020, when Governor Wolf called for places of worship to suspend in-person services, Mastriano appeared at protests alongside armed men who wore fatigues and Hawaiian shirts, a look associated with a militia called the Boogaloo Bois.

...In December, 2020, Mastriano took part in two Jericho marches. Later, on a conference call, he prayed that God would help protesters “seize the power” on January 6th. He continued, “Bless these letters that President Trump asked me this morning to send to Mitch McConnell and Kevin McCarthy outlining the fraud in Pennsylvania, and this will embolden them to stand firm and disregard what has happened in Pennsylvania until we have an investigation.” 

...Mastriano, certainly, has remained steadfast. In September, he announced that, to win God’s favor, he would undertake a forty-day fast, to end on Election Day.

How the media and Republicans got the election so wrong

Being a political junkie -- someone who has loved to follow politics since my childhood -- I feel like my immersion in the United States midterm election that happened last Tuesday, and whose votes are still being counted, should enable me to draw some philosophical conclusions from what happened.

Well, at least I'll give that a try. 

The gist of what happened, for those who don't live in the United States and/or don't follow American politics closely, is that the widely predicted Republican "Red Wave" turned out to be a Red Ripple, if even that.

Both the mainstream media and Republican leaders thought that Biden's unpopularity, combined with the historic losses that have afflicted the party of power in a midterm election (meaning, two years after a presidential election, which happens every four years), likely would propel Republicans into a clear majority in both the House and Senate.

But currently, three days after the election, Democrats are poised to maintain control of the Senate (results from Nevada should confirm that tomorrow) and control of the House is still up for grabs. At best, Republicans now are predicted to only have a 5-10 seat majority in the House, not dozens of seats as was widely thought before last Tuesday.

So why did the election turn out so differently from what was forecasted? The polls turned out to be fairly accurate in most cases. And Democrats had done well in some special elections prior to the midterms.

Thus data and facts were available that should have enabled the media and Republicans to be more realistic about the election. Indeed, some Democratic analysts correctly surmised that the election would turn out quite well for their party, which proved to be the case.

One reason that predictions didn't mesh well with the eventual reality is the same reason religious belief doesn't mesh well with reality: a longing for a pleasing narrative is prioritized over understanding how things really are.

Jesus saves. God has a plan for you. Notions like those provide a foundation for religions to construct stories that make their believers say Amen! when they hear them. The religious believers are destined to have wonderful things happen to them because that's what the narrative they embrace says.

Pretty much the same thing happened prior to the election.

Both the mainstream media and Republican leaders embraced a narrative that Biden was unpopular, inflation was high, voters didn't really care about abortion restrictions all that much, history was on the side of the party not in power during a midterm election, so Democrats were going to have a horrible election as Republicans triumphed.

Facts that didn't support that narrative were ignored or downplayed. So now the blame game has started as to why Republicans did much worse than expected and Democrats did much better. 

The simple answer is that voters rejected the crazy conspiracy theories and right-wing extremism being pushed by many Republican candidates who won their primaries by spouting crazy conspiracy theories and right-wing extremism. 

Along the way the Republican Party forgot that almost always an election can't be won just by appealing to the Republican base, their core supporters. A candidate has to reach out to independent voters and Democrats also. But Republicans had so much faith in their crazy ideas, they assumed that other voters would also.

Which turned out, not surprisingly, to be an incorrect assumption. Faith only works when someone accepts the tenets that accompany that faith. Otherwise faith just seems like crazy talk. Not being a Christian, I have no interest in Jesus saves or God has a plan for you. 

Likewise, lots of American voters had no interest in the 2020 election was stolen from Trump, which became an article of faith for any Republican candidate who wanted Trump's endorsement -- as many did. So Trump became a sort of religious leader at the head of the Republican party. To disagree with Trump was to be an apostate, an infidel, an unbeliever, a skeptic.

And that meant political suicide in a Republican primary.

So many Republican candidates lost in the midterm election because they cozied up to Trump, their Dear Leader, instead of tuning in to what voters actually cared about: not that Trump lost the 202o election, but that American democracy was in danger by people who went along with the Big Lie that Biden won that election in a fraudulent fashion. 

Moderate Republican candidates did quite well in the election. This is reassuring. Most voters in the United States want democracy strengthened, extreme political positions weakened, and elected officials to be caring, compassionate, and competent.

Three words that definitely don't describe Donald Trump. So Republicans paid the price of putting Trump into an exalted position as the head of the Republican Party who can't be questioned, and of embracing a political narrative that felt good, yet wasn't founded in reality.

Meaning, they acted like religious believers. 

Why unhappiness with tomorrow's election will be universal

With today being midterm election day here in the United States, I may be too obsessed with following election results on TV tonight to write a post for this blog.

But a post I wrote yesterday for my political blog, "Everyone will be unhappy with tomorrow's election," has some philosophical undertones. Maybe even overtones. 

It ends with:

So soon I'll be looking on the bright side. And also on the dark side. Such is life. And politics.

Putin is an autocrat. So are many religious leaders.

Today Vladimir Putin, the autocrat who controls Russia with extremely little opposition or checks and balances, did what authoritarians like him do.

Act horribly.

In Putin's twisted psyche, he has the right to unilaterally declare that four regions of eastern Ukraine now are part of Russia, following sham referendums in those regions where soldiers knocked on doors and demanded that people vote yes or no on joining Russia.

Not surprisingly, the fake voting produced strong majorities in favor of becoming part of Russia. Now Putin can claim that if Ukraine attacks those regions, as it certainly will keep on doing, that's an attack on Russia.

So nuclear weapons could be used to defend the fictitious motherland. 

That's crazy. But few people in Russia will call out Putin's craziness, because he holds virtually all of the power in his country, having smashed dissent and a free press.

On the whole, I prefer religious authoritarians who preach their own brand of craziness, because they don't control nuclear weapons or command armies. At least, I hope they don't. If Iran or ISIS were to get a nuclear weapon, I'd be deeply worried at religious zealots being able to carry out their destructive fantasies. 

The appeal of autocrats is perplexing. 

Many gurus, for example, attract throngs of disciples who want to be told how to behave and what to believe. I guess not thinking for yourself is easier than being spiritually independent. I fell partly into this trap when I was a member of a guru-centered religious organization for 35 years.

However, I retained a healthy amount of skepticism even as I outwardly complied with various rules. And almost certainly a large proportion of the Russian population is skeptical about Putin's ability to rule their country.

Problem is, autocrats -- whether political or religious -- appeal to the darker side of human nature. They put forward a vision where following their dictatorial orders will lead to great rewards, material or spiritual. Reportedly Putin's speech was autocratic in both regards, political and religious.

Thankfully, Putin has few allies in the world. Even China and India are lukewarm toward his claim of eastern Ukraine now being part of Russia, though they do business with Putin in other regards.

I can only hope that autocrats have a steadily diminishing fan base.

Yes, it can be easier to follow an authoritarian than to chart your own course in life. But I've never regretted leaving behind the religious autocracy of Radha Soami Satsang Beas, led as it is by a guru whose utterances are viewed as divine commands.

One day, perhaps in the far future, Russia will become a democracy. I'm less confident that autocratic religious organizations will do the same, but it's certainly possible. 

School board ditches pledge of allegiance due to "under God" language

Nice to see the Fargo, North Dakota school board did the right thing and stopped saying the Pledge of Allegiance at its meetings after a school board member made some great arguments about why this didn't fit with their policy of inclusion.

After all, "under God" does indeed refer to the Judeo-Christian god. If the pledge said "under gods, or no god," that would be an accurate reflection of the wide variety of religious beliefs in the United States, which includes atheists and agnostics who don't believe in any god.

To see a brief video of the persuasive argument used by the school board member, check out Fargo School Board nixes Pledge of Allegiance due to 'under God' phrase.

Christian nationalism a threat to American democracy

Most Christians are normal people who happen to believe in Jesus as their savior. I've got no problem with that, though I think they're wrong about Jesus, plus the rest of their Christian dogma.

Religions can be false (all are, in my atheist opinion) but not dangerous.

However, Christian nationalists are a distinct threat to American democracy, as evidenced by Doug Mastriano winning the Republican nomination for Pennsylvania governor in last Tuesday's primary election.

A day after the election, Greg Sargent, a columnist for the Washington Post, wrote "Say it clearly: Republicans just nominated a pro-Trump insurrectionist." In his piece Sargent describes how Mastriano views himself as doing God's will by overturning election results where a Democrat wins.

This is exceedingly dangerous. Mix right-wing political fanaticism with Christian nationalist religious fanaticism, and you've got a double-dose of zealotry devoted to overturning democracy.

Here's excerpts from Sargent's column pertaining to Mastriano's twisted worldview.

For the love of democracy, please stop using the phrase “election denier.”

Now that Doug Mastriano has won the GOP nomination for governor in Pennsylvania, countless news accounts are describing him with that phrase. This is meant to convey the idea that Mastriano won’t accept Donald Trump’s 2020 presidential reelection loss.

That’s true, but it’s insufficient. Let’s state this plainly: Pennsylvania Republicans just nominated a full-blown insurrectionist who intends to use the power of the office to ensure that, as long as he is governor, no Democratic presidential candidate wins his state again.

Mastriano’s victory also highlights another story that’s bigger than this one contest: The role of Christian nationalism in fueling the growing insurrectionist streak on the right. This nexus underscores the danger this movement poses in a way that also demands more clarity about the worldview of candidates like Mastriano.

...Mastriano is running on what is functionally an open vow to use the power of the governor’s office to nullify future election losses, even if they are procedurally legitimate, and even if he knows this to be the case.

This becomes unavoidable once you look closely at Mastriano’s own conduct. And his Christian nationalist sympathies underscore the point.

...As governor, Mastriano would likely handpick a secretary of state who would resist certifying a razor-thin legitimate Democratic victory. And Mastriano would likely try to certify sham electors for Trump or another GOP candidate.

The 2024 election in Pennsylvania might not be close; either the Republican or the Democrat might win easily. Alternatively, such an effort by Mastriano might fail. But let’s be clear: He’s telegraphing a willingness to attempt such a thing, and that he’d likely see it as a righteous act as well, even if there’s little actual voter fraud, and even if he knows this.

This may seem like a leap, but to experts in Christian nationalism, it makes perfect sense. Sarah Posner, a scholar of the religious right, has extensively demonstrated that Mastriano’s efforts for Trump were infused with Christian nationalist fervor, which holds that Trump was installed in the White House by God as “restorer of America’s white Christian heritage.”

Mastriano hinted at this in his victory speech Tuesday night. “God is good,” Mastriano said. “He uses people like you and me to change history.”

The idea that Mastriano’s victory shows God using him to “change history” is a textbook Christian nationalist trope, notes Posner. As she says, this worldview holds that the United States was founded as a Christian nation, and that this is being subverted by satanic and secular forces that Christian nationalists are duty-bound to resist.

“It’s their patriotic duty as believers to fight for that Christian nation,” Posner told me. That’s been “orthodoxy” for a long time, Posner says, but the new ingredient is the eagerness to overturn elections in service of that higher end.

Mastriano is saying he’s “empowered as a believer to overturn election results to achieve God’s will,” Posner said. To prevent the subversion of the “Christian nation,” Posner added, he hopes to take “the God-given power to change election results” to the governor’s mansion.

In this telling, liberal democratic proceduralism is inherently nonbinding. Even procedurally legitimate electoral outcomes can be deemed out of step with God’s plan and subject to nullification. Vox’s Zack Beauchamp describes these tendencies as “American Orbanism,” after Hungarian leader Viktor Orban: It relies on religiously inspired culture-warring to energize and justify the curtailment or abandonment of democracy.

It should be obvious that phrases like “election denialist” and “election conspiracist” don’t do justice to what we’re really seeing here. Getting it right on what’s at stake in places like Pennsylvania is truly urgent.

Leaked Supreme Court opinion shows abortion rights about to be overturned

Christian fundamentalists in the United States are happy right now.

Today Politico reported that a leaked draft Supreme Court opinion indicates that Roe v. Wade, which found a constitutional right to abortion in that 1973 case, is about to be overturned.

The Supreme Court has voted to strike down the landmark Roe v. Wadedecision, according to an initial draft majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito circulated inside the court and obtained by POLITICO.

The draft opinion is a full-throated, unflinching repudiation of the 1973 decision which guaranteed federal constitutional protections of abortion rights and a subsequent 1992 decision – Planned Parenthood v. Casey – that largely maintained the right. “Roe was egregiously wrong from the start,” Alito writes.

“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” he writes in the document, labeled as the “Opinion of the Court.” “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”

This is the first time a Supreme Court opinion has been leaked to the press.

It shows that someone at the court, perhaps a law clerk, recognized how horrible overturning abortion rights will be, and wanted to give a head start to the outrage rather than wait until late June or early July when the abortion decision was expected to be released to the public.

There are decent reasons to oppose abortion and even better reasons to support the right of women to choose an abortion. But a truly lousy reason to be against abortion is that this is what God wants. As in Texas Governor Greg Abbott saying, "Our creator endowed us with the right to life."

That's absurd. 

Since there is no demonstrable evidence of a creator God (or any other sort of God), obviously there's no basis for claiming to know what God has done or wants people to do.

I can understand why someone objects to abortion. A fetus is a potential human life. But a pregnant woman is an actual human life. Women are at greater risk of dying from pregnancy than from an abortion. 

So abortion is justified for that reason, along with other reasons, including simply this being what a woman chooses.

A terrible reason is that an embryo must be treated as a person at conception, which is the teaching of the Catholic Church, according to a BBC article. Obviously a few cells isn't a person. Thus probably the notion of an immortal soul is the reason for viewing those few cells as deserving more protection than the woman in whose womb the cells reside.

Six of the nine justices of the Supreme Court are Catholic, with five of those six being part of the 6-3 conservative majority. The sixth conservative, Neil Gorsuch, is Episcopalian but was raised Catholic.

So even though the final decision on abortion will be couched in legal terms, pretty clearly religious belief plays a large part in how the justices view abortion. Opposition to abortion flows largely from fundamentalist churches.

Those opposed to abortion, even in cases of rape and incest, appear to have won this Supreme Court battle, but the war for women's rights and individual freedom will continue. Hopefully the backlash over the forthcoming Supreme Court decision will lead to voters punishing Republicans at the polls in the November election.

LIfe lessons from Ukrainian military success

As I've noted before, and surely will again, I find the courage and determination of the Ukrainian people deeply inspiring.

Vladimir Putin, the Russian tyrant, thought he could send his forces into Ukraine and enjoy an easy victory.

President Zelensky would flee the country. Russian tanks would roll into Kyiv after minimal resistance. A puppet government would be installed, making Ukraine part of the Russian sphere of influence.

Thankfully, Putin was very much wrong.

He underestimated the Ukrainian military. He underestimated the will of the Ukrainian people to keep their country independent. He underestimated the willingness of the United States and our allies to back Ukraine in its fight against Russia's unprovoked invasion.

Yesterday The Atlantic published a story, "Ukraine's Three to One Advantage: It’s not technology or tactics that has given Ukrainian fighters their greatest edge."

Before sharing what does give Ukrainian fighters their greatest edge, the story's author, Elliott Ackerman, discusses other reasons they're doing so well. I see some parallels here with religious fundamentalism versus open-minded inquiry.

First, Ackerman talks about the benefits of an anti-platform-centric military. Meaning, instead of basing a battle plan around gigantic tanks and ships like an aircraft carrier, small portable missiles can demolish much larger weapon systems.

A single Ukrainian solider can carry a Javelin missile capable of destroying an armored Russian vehicle like a tank. So bigger doesn't always mean better. 

Second, Ukrainian tactics rely much more on individual initiative. Top-down control, which is how most religions are organized, lacks creativity and flexibility.

Russian doctrine relies on centralized command and control, while mission-style command and control—as the name suggests—relies on the individual initiative of every soldier, from the private to the general, not only to understand the mission but then to use their initiative to adapt to the exigencies of a chaotic and ever-changing battlefield in order to accomplish that mission.

...“The Russians don’t empower their soldiers,” Zagorodnyuk explained. “They tell their soldiers to go from Point A to Point B, and only when they get to Point B will they be told where to go next, and junior soldiers are rarely told the reason they are performing any task. This centralized command and control can work, but only when events go according to plan. When the plan doesn’t hold together, their centralized method collapses. No one can adapt, and you get things like 40-mile-long traffic jams outside Kyiv.”

So thinking for yourself as a situation changes is better than sticking to a rigid plan of attack. This fits with my long-held commitment to spiritual independence, rather than obeying the dictates of a religious leader, guru, holy book, or such.

Then there's the Three to One Advantage -- the most important of all.

When someone is fighting a righteous battle against a malevolent aggressor who has invaded their homeland, the advantage goes to the defender, who holds the moral high ground.

The longer we talked, the more the conversation veered away from the tangible, technical variables of Ukraine’s military capacity and toward the psychology of Ukraine’s military. Napoleon, who fought many battles in this part of the world, observed that “the moral is to the physical as three is to one.” I was thinking of this maxim as Jed and I finished our tea.

In Ukraine—at least in this first chapter of the war—Napoleon’s words have held true, proving in many ways decisive.

In my earlier conversation with Zagorodnyuk, as he and I went through the many reforms and technologies that had given the Ukrainian military its edge, he was quick to point out the one variable he believed trumped all others.

“Our motivation—it is the most important factor, more important than anything. We’re fighting for the lives of our families, for our people, and for our homes. The Russians don’t have any of that, and there’s nowhere they can go to get it.”

This also explains why most of the world, aside from a few autocracies like China who support Putin's authoritarianism, is backing Ukraine. As Zelensky frequently observes, Ukraine isn't fighting just for itself. Ukraine is fighting for democracies everywhere.

If Ukraine can be invaded by Russia for no good reason, then other large countries will be emboldened to do the same.

And to those who may be thinking, What about the American invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq?, I'd respond that those situations are quite different from Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Afghanistan harbored those responsible for 9/11 and was dominated by the repressive Taliban. Iraq was ruled by a cruel tyrant, Saddam Hussein. 

True, Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, as the Bush administration wrongly alleged. But the United States set a goal of making Iraq into a democracy, which was to our credit. Putin has no interest in democracy. He only cares about the raw exercise of power and re-establishing the old Soviet Union to the greatest possible extent.

Putin is an authoritarian. So are most religious leaders.

There are lots of reasons to support Ukraine after it was invaded by Russia. One key reason is this: it wasn't Russia that invaded Ukraine. It was Vladimir Putin, the authoritarian ruler of Russia.

Now, defenders of what Russia did might say that in the United States, the president is the commander-in-chief of the military. So a decision to go to war rests with the president. 

Actually, that isn't true. Our Constitution gives Congress the right to declare war. Recently American presidents have usurped that power in various ways, but the Constitution hasn't changed. 

But in Russia, Putin is completely free to start a war on his own. He didn't become the so-called "president" of Russia in a free and fair election. He got that office through underhanded means, which is how he has remained in power for several decades, with no end in sight unless he is overthrown.

Speaking of no end in sight, that's a decent description of how long the tables are when Putin meets with those who report to him. Here he is with two of his generals after the Ukraine invasion.

This is an apt image of an authoritarian.

No sitting in a circle with some colleagues, having a free-spirited discussion where everybody's opinion is valued. One man at the head of a table, staring at two generals who know that agreeing with Putin is a must if they value their jobs. And their lives.

I've been using "authoritarian" frequently in my blog posts about Putin's totally unjustified invasion of Ukraine. I see this word as a noun as well as an adjective, as in Putin is an authoritarian.

Today it dawned on me that while Putin is an authoritarian, along with the leaders of China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, and some other countries, and Donald Trump is a would-be authoritarian, the dictionary definition of the word applies to many religious leaders also.

The Pope is chosen by a bunch of cardinals. He isn't elected by all Catholics. After becoming Pope, he isn't responsible to anyone else, so far as I know. Others can advise the Pope, but no one can impeach the Pope or otherwise remove him from office.

Ditto with gurus.

If they don't announce themselves as a guru, usually they are appointed by a previous guru. Then they remain the leader of their religious sect until they die or quit. Their followers typically are expected to have blind faith in their authority.

Which, the way I see it, makes them authoritarians. 

Or course, there are degrees of authoritarianism. Putin is a truly nasty authoritarian. He murders journalists and political opponents. He makes dissent a crime in Russia.

Often the prime minister of India, Narendra Modi, is lumped in with authoritarian leaders, but Modi was elected and while he's an extremist, I view him as a moderate authoritarian -- not at all a compliment, but a step down from an extreme authoritarian like Putin.

The same applies to religious authoritarians. The current Pope strikes me as kind and gentle, as does the Dalai Lama. Both enjoy concentrated power as the head of their religious organizations, yet they're decidedly mild authoritarians. 

The Supreme Leader of Iran, by contrast, has enormous political and religious power. So I'd definitely call him a high level authoritarian.

Writing that last sentence caused me to realize that I've always used "him" in connection with "authoritarian." Maybe there's a woman who is an authoritarian ruler, either political or religious. I just can't think of one. 

Russia invading Ukraine makes religiosity seem irrelevant

This morning I had an idea for a Church of the Churchless blog post. I jotted down the topic: Embrace what's real, not an ideal. 

It had struck me that many, if not most, of our personal problems stem from expecting too much from life. We think, "Ideally, I wouldn't be ______" (fill in the blank).

Having so much pain. Failing to enjoy my job. Arguing with my teenage child. Wondering why I'm not happier. So many possible ideals that reality doesn't match up with.

Probably I'll revisit this subject later.

Right now, I find it hard to concentrate on anything except the breaking news that Russia has invaded Ukraine, with explosions, reportedly from missile strikes, being reported in various parts of the country. 

I don't believe in religious hell. I do believe that war is hell.

Especially in cases like this one, where Vladimir Putin, who I'm reluctant to call President of Russia because Russia isn't a democracy, is engaged in a war of brute force against a neighboring smaller country.

It almost makes me nostalgic for the Cold War days I remember so vividly.

Back then the battle was between two ideologies: Communism, exemplified by the Soviet Union and Red China, versus Capitalism, exemplified by the United States and our allies.

Because this was a Cold War, not a Hot War (though arguably the Vietnam War was cold becoming hot), mostly the ideologies took center stage, not armies. Marxism-Leninism was a coherent political philosophy, as was Liberal Capitalism. 

But Putin is especially scary because he stands for nothing except his own self-interest and those of his fellow billionaire oligarchs.

Putin is invading Ukraine primarily because he fears democracy and secondarily because he wants to reconstitute the Soviet Union to the greatest extent possible by bringing previous portions of the USSR back under Russian control.

At the moment it's unclear whether Putin intends to occupy all of Ukraine, just the Eastern portion, or something in between. Regardless, I feel terrible for the people of Ukraine, whose lives are about to be turned upside down.

For most of us, life is quite predictable and dependable. This allows me to write about spirituality, religion, politics, and my personal life -- such as wearing a purple jacket yesterday. 

All of that becomes largely irrelevant for people living in a war zone. When bombs are falling nearby, staying alive is Job #1. Also, Job #2-100. We've all seen photos of the devastation in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and other places where fighting is going on.

Those situations are highly disturbing. I don't mean to discount their importance. However, the Russian invasion of Ukraine is especially worrisome, because if Putin persists with his madness, this will be the first conquest of a European country since World War II.

And we all know how that worked out, following Hitler's false claim that all he wanted was a little more room for the German people, so he needed part of Czechoslovakia. Which eventually became almost all of Europe, and the murder of six million Jews.

Putin murders his enemies. He jails journalists. He tolerates no dissent among the Russian people. He lies incessantly. 

The people of Ukraine have good reason to be afraid tonight. It's extremely unlikely that Putin amassed 190,000 troops and a huge amount of supporting materiel just to solidify Russia's hold on the separatist regions in Eastern Ukraine -- which have languished economically since falling under Russian control.

Maybe the entirety of Ukraine is too large a military bite for Putin's forces to swallow. Even if this is so, it sure looks like war has come to Ukraine, since Putin has said that his goal is to demilitarize the country.

Absent an abject surrender by Ukraine, which I doubt the proud people of that country would go along with, this means that Russia will have to destroy Ukraine's military capability. Thousands of deaths likely would result, maybe tens of thousands.

So like I said, I'm having trouble concentrating on anything but Ukraine right now. Soon I'll be back to regular posts on this blog. I just feel so bad for Ukraine, and so much anger at Putin, there's no space in my mind to write about anything else at the moment.

What the Woke Racism book says about religion

Yesterday I wrote a post for my HinesSight blog, "Woke Racism" is a great book. The subtitle of the book is "How a New Religion Has Betrayed Black America."

John McWhorter, the author, is an atheist. So when he calls woke racism a religion, that's intended as a negative judgement. 

In his chapter, The New Religion, McWhorter describes the ways what he calls The Elect (meaning, those who embrace woke racism) act in a religious fashion. 

Here's some excerpts from that chapter.

With the rise of Third Wave Antiracism we are witnessing the birth of a new religion, just as Romans witnessed the birth of Christianity. The way to get past seeing the Elect as merely "crazy" is to understand that they are a religion. To see them this way is not to wallow in derision, but to genuinely grasp what they are.

One thing that will discourage a general perception of them in this way is that they themselves will resist the charge so heartily. This is understandable.Early Christians did not think of themselves as "a religion" either. They thought of themselves as bearers of truth, in contrast to all other belief systems, whatever they chose to call themselves.

In addition, in our times, it will feel unwelcome to the Elect to be deemed a religion, because they do not bill themselves as such and often associate devout religiosity with backwardness. It also implies that they are not thinking for themselves.

...To make sense of it, we must understand them -- partly out of compassion and partly in order to keep them from destroying our own lives. This can happen only if we process them not as crazed, but parishioners. 

To do this, we must examine the ways in which their new religion so closely parallels older ones. It makes what can seem like a mess of weird opinions and attitudes into something quite coherent.

The Elect have superstition. It is inherent in a religion that, amid various other tenets and commitments, one is to accept certain suspensions of disbelief. Certain questions are not to be asked, or, if asked, only politely. The answer one gets, despite being somewhat half-cocked, is to be accepted.

...Elect philosophy requires the same standpoint. One is not to ask "Why are black people so upset about one white cop killing a black man when black men are at more danger of being killed by one another?" Or one might go ahead and ask, only to receive flabby answers after which further questions are unwelcome.

...What you actually don't "get" in your quest to wring logic out of incoherent positions like these is that for the Elect, battling racism is to be questioned only in ways that reinforce the idea that the Elect are correct -- even at the cost of basic sense. This is superstition. 

The Elect have clergy. Think of the preacher praised for his sermon as people file out of church. It probably wasn't the kind of sermon that, for most of these people, blew their minds. They enjoyed it because it was a beautiful rendition of that which they knew before, and it gave them comfort. 

On race, the Elect cherish certain top-rate thinkers for their gifts in phrasing, repeating, and crafting artful variations upon points considered crucial. These are their priests, their clergy.

You need your preacher to keep telling the religion's truth, and to tell it often, since the superstitious, nonempirical wing of the ideology is easy to drift away from as real life impinges ever upon you in daily existence.

The Elect have original sin. The Elect, then, have magic, clergy, and also a conception of original sin. Under Elect creed, the sin is "white privilege." To anticipate a question, yes, I do believe that to be white in America is to automatically harbor certain unstated privileges in terms of one's sense of belonging. 

...But the issue here is not whether I or anyone else thinks white privilege is real, but what we consider the proper response to it. The Elect are to ritually "acknowledge" that they possess white privilege, with an awareness that they can never be absolved of it. 

...Coates and DiAngelo are calling these people sinners. Yet the sinners eagerly drink in the charge, revering their accusers, and come away from this self-mortification feeling energized. Cleansed. This is worship, by people embracing the self-mortification of the inveterate sinner, stained by the original sin of white privilege. 

The Elect are evangelical. "Why don't they allow people to have different opinions?" You're missing the point. The Elect can seem truly baffling -- until we see they are a religion. Specifically, an evangelical one.

To wit: Do we wonder why fundamentalist Christians do not see their beliefs as just one of many valid opinions? They see themselves as bearers of a Good News that, if all people would simply open up and see it, would create a perfect world. 

...To be Elect is to think in exactly the same way. Key to being Elect is a sense that there is always a flock of unconverted heathen. Many of the heathen are, for example, the whites "out there," as it is often put about the white people who were so widely feared as possibly keeping Barack Obama from being elected (twice).

The Elect ban the heretic. The Elect consider it imperative to not only critique those who disagree with their creed, but to seek their punishment and elimination to whatever degree real-life conditions can accommodate. 

There is an overriding sense that unbelievers must be not just spoken out against, but called out, isolated, and banned.

...The reality is that what the Elect call problematic is what a Christian means by blasphemous. 

...The Elect are members of a religion, of a kind within which the dissenter is not someone in disagreement but is a kind of environmental pollution. 

...The religious fervor is absolutist, complete with a Manichaean sense of good versus evil. Many recall Dana Carvey's Church Lady on Saturday Night Live, with her self-celebratory obsession with smoking out the doings of "SATAN?!"

...Why can't they allow other views? Remember, this is religion, not political science, and specifically a religion eerily akin to devout Christianity. To the Elect, racism is the equivalent of Satan. If I deign to walk by Satan with the idea that we just let him be, I am missing the point. I am "wrong."

Cult of Trump shows danger of blind faith

Here in the United States we're facing a scary prospect in upcoming elections, especially the next presidential election in November 2024.

A recent Forbes story captures the problem in its headline: "Poll Finds Most Americans Think An Election Will Be Overturned Because Of Partisan Sour Grapes."

In a CNN/SRSS poll of 2,119 U.S. adults released Wednesday, 51% of respondents said it is somewhat or very likely that some elected officials will “successfully overturn the results of an election” in the U.S. in the future “because their party did not win.”

That belief was held by 49% of Democratic respondents and 57% of Republicans, as Democrats have fretted about new laws in GOP-controlled states that increase partisan officials’ power over election administrators and restrict ballot access.

Republican skepticism appears to be drawn from former President Donald Trump’s baseless claims that the 2020 election was stolen: 78% of Republicans agreed that President Joe Biden “did not legitimately win enough votes to win,” while 63% overall said he did.

Recent moves by Trump and his allies are likely to only worsen Republican voters’ faith in elections. Trump and California recall candidate Larry Elder, a right-wing radio host, repeatedly and baselessly claimed in the run-up to the vote that it would be stolen through widespread fraud. California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, handily beat back the recall effort on Tuesday.

Religious believers like to claim that there's nothing wrong with blind faith. Actually, there is. 

Even though Donald Trump lost a free and fair 2020 election to President Biden, Trump has never stopped making the utterly false claim that the election was stolen from him.

This Big Lie has infected the minds of the vast majority of Republicans -- 78% according to the poll referenced above. That's a highly disturbing number. Over three-fourths of those who belong to one of the two main political parties in the United States have lost touch with electoral reality.

Why? It isn't that the truth of the 2020 election is difficult to find. It's plain to see by anyone with vision that isn't clouded by blind faith in the utterances of Trump, who still commands the loyalty of most members of the Republican Party.

There are clear parallels between the Cult of Trump and a religious cult.

Both cults are led by an authoritarian leader who lives by the sentiment, "My way or the highway." Meaning, you either agree with me, or you should leave the cult, because obedience to the leader is non-negotiable. 

Both cults tell their followers to distrust facts disseminated by mainstream sources: scientists, journalists, academics, government agencies. Anyone who fact-checks the falsehoods spewed by the cult leader is branded as "fake news."

Both cults promise wonderful things to those who commit to blind faith in the cult teachings. Trump's devotees are told that he'll become president again, maybe even before the 2024 election, once the truth of his 2020 victory is revealed. This is akin to a Second Coming where the faithful will be rewarded and unbelievers cast into hell.

Both cults punish heretics. Republican politicians who disagree with Trump are banished from leadership positions in their party and face a primary challenge from someone more faithful. Religious cults shame and threaten those who leave the cult.

Now, I'm not saying that all fundamentalist religious people act in cultish ways. Nor am I saying that all Trump supporters worship him as their Dear Leader.

However, it seems unarguable that when unquestioning blind faith replaces reason and independent thinking, bad things happen in both politics and religion.

Mostly people we disagree with are well-meaning

Ooh, nice! I like it! 

That was the voice that speaks inside my head after I'd written the final two sentences in a Facebook message.

Mostly people we disagree with are well-meaning. They just find meaning in their lives in a different fashion than we do.

The woman I was communicating with responded with a pleasing "Well said!" My sentiment exactly. 

I said what I did in regard to a religious group, Salem Awakening, that's been having outdoor services in a public park on the riverfront. Some people distrust Salem Awakening because they have organized protests against Planned Parenthood in the guise of the Church at Planned Parenthood.

(That isn't an actual church. It's more like a franchise, since churches in various cities use that name when they protest outside a Planned Parenthood clinic.)

Even though members of the Proud Boys militia group, which took part in the January 6 insurrection at the nation's capitol, provide security for Salem Awakening when they're doing their Planned Parenthood protest thing, I'd told the woman that I didn't think Salem Awakening was up to anything nefarious.

Like I said, almost certainly the religious people doing the protesting are well-meaning. They just find meaning in a different fashion than a progressive atheist like me, who supports a woman's right to choose an abortion, does.

More and more I'm bothered by the tendency of many to demonize people who have different values than they do -- political, religious, whatever. As noted in a recent post about extreme political correctness, "I get cited by Salem's Woke Police," a sense of overzealous righteousness can lead to viewing those with different views as not just mistaken, but contemptible. 

I don't believe in God. But I used to, an Eastern religion variety. I'm a progressive. But I was raised by a highly conservative mother, and shared her Republicanism until I went to college. 

So I can completely understand why so many people find meaning in religion and right-wing politics. I no longer share those views. However, in no way do I perceive religious believers and conservatives as being bad people. They're just people who look upon certain aspects of the world in a different way than I do.

This used to be a non-controversial perspective.

Each to his or her own. We can agree to disagree. I disagree with what you're saying, but I defend your right to say it. Catch phrases like those reflected a culture where reasonable people could discuss controversial subjects in a courteous fashion. 

Things have gone downhill in this regard. Often way downhill. On the far reaches of both the political left and right, a substantial number of zealots look upon anyone who doesn't subscribe to their extreme views as unworthy of respect. This carries over into other areas, such as religion. 

Instead of being critical of someone else's perspective, there's an effort to cancel their right to express that perspective.

Instead of viewing them as well-meaning people with a different viewpoint, they're seen as dangerous promoters of a meaningless outlook on life.

Jonathan Rauch talks about this in his excellent book, "The Constitution of Knowledge: A Defense of Truth." Here's an excerpt from his chapter  Cancelling: Despotism of the Few.

Criticism seeks to engage in conversations and identify error; canceling seeks to stigmatize conversations and punish the errant. Criticism cares whether statements are true; cancelling cares about their social effects. Criticism exploits viewpoint diversity; cancelling imposes viewpoint conformity. 

Criticism is a substitute for social punishment (we kill our hypotheses rather each other); cancelling is a form of social punishment (we kill your hypothesis by killing you socially). Criticism reflects the values of the Constitution of Knowledge, seeking to inquire and learn. Cancelling reflects the values of propaganda, seeking to manipulate the information environment. 

Now, most of us don't encounter cancel culture because we aren't part of a university, social media niche, or other place where views that dissent from What is Deemed Acceptable are met with derision from those who have placed a claim on the truth as only they can know it. 

As noted above, my eyes have been opened to this distressing cultural phenomenon after being vilified on Facebook as an old white man whose views are worth precisely nothing because I committed the heinous sin of deviating from wokeness orthodoxy. 

(In that post I didn't include all the insults directed at me, only a sampling.)

I'm grateful for the experience, which admittedly was much less intense than the cancelling meted out to professors, journalists, and others who got on the wrong side of extreme left-wing dogmatism. The far right has its own brand of closed-minded dogmatism, of course.

Stuck in the middle are the vast majority of Americans, who probably constitute at least two-thirds of the United States population, but a decided minority of the outrage.

What I hope for is an outpouring in support of reasonableness that will counter the irrational screaming from the fringes. My contribution to this is a sentiment that I like a lot. Again:

Mostly people we disagree with are well-meaning. They just find meaning in their lives in a different fashion than we do.

Excessive wokeness is akin to extreme religiosity

Yesterday I wrote a post on my Salem Political Snark blog, "I get cited by Salem's Woke Police." Here I'll explore the connection between wokeness and religiosity.

Since many people who visit this blog don't live in the United States, woke is a word that means "alert to racial or social discrimination and injustice." That sounds like a good thing, which usually it is.

But as the saying goes, you can have too much of a good thing.

About three weeks ago I helped start a new Facebook group here in Salem, Oregon. The instigator was a young woman who I've never met in person. She's young, very liberal, and seemed sincere about having a Facebook group that lived up to its name, Let's Discuss Salem. 

The woman told me that anybody in Salem could join the group: liberals, independents, conservatives, anybody. That appealed to me, since I mostly associate with fellow progressives, and I thought it'd be interesting to share ideas with people of a different political persuasion.

However, as you can read in the post I wrote about the Woke Police, it didn't take long for the administrators of the Facebook group to become so amazingly woke, sometimes I wasn't sure if they were being serious. 

For example, this is a new rule for the group that got added to other equally woke rules: "7) Telling members of marginalized communities how to think, feel, and act about their own oppression is prohibited."

So only Black people in the group (if there are any) can talk to other Black people about their issues. Ditto for Latino people. As a white person, I can't express an opinion about a Black issue. Only Blacks can do that.

As I said in my Salem Political Snark blog post:

I still believe that it is better to be overly concerned about racism, sexism, nationalism, and other nasty "ism's" than under concerned. 

However, a balance needs to be struck between awareness of social problems affecting minorities and other historically oppressed groups, and an overzealous righteousness where perceived affronts to social justice are criticized in an absurd fashion.

I emailed a link to my post to some Salem friends. One wrote back to me this morning with some wise observations. 

I have just read all of what appeared in the link below. To me, your most powerful statement included "shades of gray, political nuance...." Yes, precisely. Those beating the drums on both the right and the left, including the local "Woke Police," are sending overly simplified messages.

These are designed to capture minds and memories with catchy and easily remembered soundbites. and, in many cases, to quote Shakespeare in the speech by Marc Antony "to cry havoc, and let loose the dogs of war..." to serve their particular goals.

The higher level thinking skills of critical thinking and analysis do not work well in these arenas. You have worked to challenge a general audience to think critically. Of course, that is at best a steeply uphill struggle.

The full statement she referred to said:

This is the problem with having a black and white view of the world. Nuance, shades of gray, moral ambiguity, political compromise -- that doesn't appeal to people on either the left or right who believe that how they see things is how everybody should see things.

Same applies to religious people who have a black and white view of the cosmos. In other words, fundamentalists. They view any deviation from their rigid perspective on reality as a dangerous heresy. I just read that the Taliban in Afghanistan are decreeing that music is forbidden, apparently because some weird interpretation of Islam says so.

A tiny bit of critical thinking reveals the absurdity of fundamentalism. But for those in the grip of it, that rigidity makes sense. And even is appealing. 

I sort of shudder when I remember that back in my true believing days, when the guru of the religion I followed decreed that animal rennet couldn't be eaten, I was one of the fundamentalists who obsessively read cheese labels for evidence that the rennet was animal or vegetarian. 

The woke fundamentalists of the Let's Discuss Salem Facebook page are similarly caught in the grip of a mindset that abhors reason, common sense, flexibility. Since I try to manifest each of those qualities, the Woke Police have become increasingly irritated with me.

Which not only doesn't bother me, I'm learning to enjoy it. I find a special pleasure in speaking reasonably when they talk about the necessity to not let a single politically impure post or comment appear on Let's Discuss Salem.

I have the impression that this rigidity gives that woke crowd a reason for being, since they can feel superior to fellow progressives like me who are a lot looser in our speech and attitudes. At the end of my Salem Political Snark post, I include excerpts from a The Atlantic story about research concerning the different political tribes in the United States.

It turns out that about a third of Americans are on the fringes of the left and right, so far out there they aren't interested in ratcheting down the rancor and finding common ground.

But about two-thirds of Americans do want to find common ground with those who see things differently. That's good news. Problem is, the extremists tend to dominate the news, because they're the ones screaming about this or that outrage. Same seems to be true of religion.

Most religious believers aren't dogmatic. They wear their religion lightly. They don't take themselves too seriously. They accept that people with different views are entitled to those views, and may even have something to teach them.

Capitol police are speaking the truth right now

As I write this I'm listening to televised testimony of four police officers who are appearing at the first meeting of the Select Committee on the January 6 insurrection at the nation's capitol.

Watch it, Church of the Churchless commenters who think truth is relative, that what experts and professionals say can't be trusted, that everyone is free to create their own reality, that this physical realm is an illusion, that objectivity isn't possible, and other blather spewed from your religious sensibilities.

Watch it, because the truth is being spoken by four brave men who put their lives on the line. One truthful sentence from them is worth more than a thousand bullshit comments about the relativity of truth.

Truth isn't relative. Truth is truth. It is the most important thing in life, because without truth we're living a lie. Me, I choose not to do that. Those four police officers also have chosen not to do that. 

Take some time to watch this testimony. I'm sure it will be available on You Tube.

Those commenters who consider that truth is something to play word games with, that it doesn't matter if people embrace falsehoods -- watch the four police officers talk about how a dangerous mob of thousands of Trump supporters invaded the capitol because they believed a lie, that the election was stolen from Trump.

Lies matter. Falsehoods matter.

They lead to assaults on law enforcement officers who are still recovering from their many injuries. So think about this, commenters on this blog, next time you want to defend a "everyone creates their own reality" bullshit philosophy. That's an insult to the truth-telling police officers.

None of you would have had the courage to defend the capitol. You don't even have the courage to defend the truth, which requires no physical bravery, just moral strength. So learn from the four police officers. They have a lot to teach you.

QAnon, like religion, doesn't care about truth

Last night my wife and I finished watching the sixth and last episode of HBO's "QAnon: Into the Storm." 

I've written two previous posts about how QAnon bears a lot of resemblance to religion. (See here and here.) 

QAnon devotees are like religious believers. Neither cares about actual truth, while both pretend that they understand reality in a deep sense that eludes ordinary people.

I found the HBO series fascinating.

It shows us the people behind QAnon -- the computer geeks who administer the sites where Q posted his "drops," often enigmatic and usually totally wrong observations about politics and what-not.

We also see the people who interpret Q's communications via podcasts, You Tube channels, and the like. They're akin to high priests who mediate between the Almighty and the mass of believers.

The final episode doesn't definitively say who Q is, but a lot of evidence points to Ron Watkins, including Watkins' own words. 

Ron Watkins

Watkins was the administrator of 8Chan, which morphed into 8Kun, the places that Q chose to host his posts/drops. His father, Jim Watkins, also plays a large role in the HBO series.

Both Ron and Jim are intelligent schemers. They're highly watchable, along with being highly irritating at times. 

When the closing credits of the final episode appeared, I said to my wife, "I wonder if the faith of QAnon followers would be shaken if they knew that probably Q is a computer geek who wears a green baseball cap, not a high level government official with a super secret Q security clearance."

She replied, "It wouldn't matter to them. They'd continue to believe what they want to believe and wouldn't trust that Ron Watkins likely is Q."

My wife is right. 

After all, there's no demonstrable evidence that the founder of any religion actually knew anything about God, nor that God even exists. Yet billions of people worship that non-existent entity regardless.

A FiveThirtyEight review of the HBO series made the same point. (Cullen Hoback is the director of QAnon: Into the Storm.)

But even if Hoback had managed to elicit a full confession, it likely wouldn’t have much impact on QAnon as a movement. Q followers would do what they always do when confronted with conflicting evidence to their belief system: they would either dismiss it or find a way to fold the information into their worldview.

Even if someone admitted that Q’s posts were a complete fabrication, it would not be enough to penetrate the hard outer shell of belief for many followers. Q, after all, has gone underground. He (or she or they) hasn’t posted since Dec. 8, 2020, the longest stretch of silence since Q first began posting in 2017.

It's interesting that Q's postings started in the first year of Trump's presidency and ended when it became clear that Trump had lost to Joe Biden.

These were dark years for truth-telling, in Washington D.C., at least. Now truth is making a comeback, since the Biden administration is hugely more committed to honesty, science, and transparency. 

The final episode of the HBO series ends with footage of the January 6 attempted insurrection at the nation's Capitol, where  Biden's electoral college victory was being finalized. 

QAnon believers were convinced that somehow Trump would stage a "storm" of a comeback, arresting his enemies, including leading Democratic politicians, and remaining president. When this didn't happen, the QAnon faithful were deeply shaken.

Just like religious believers when, say, the predicted second coming of Christ comes and goes with no appearance by Jesus. 

However, the power of mass delusion is very strong. QAnon still has lots of adherents, as does Christianity, obviously. Inconvenient truths aren't going to dissuade people who believe in falsehood that's immune to disproof.

In a brilliant move, Episode 6 of QAnon: Into the Storm shows the Trump rioters breaking into the Capitol as the Jefferson Airplane song, "White Rabbit," plays. 

This musical paean to going down the rabbit hole, psychedelic variety, made the attempted insurrection look like the bizarre fantasy that it actually was. Sadly, I couldn't find any clips of the final episode with White Rabbit playing.

But you can hear this classic song by Grace Slick via You Tube video. I'll also share the trailer for the HBO series and a CNN interview with Hoback where he talks about his strong suspicion that Ron Watkins is Q.

QAnon is the religion of right-wing crazies

My wife and I have watched the first two episodes of HBO's "Q: Into the Storm" because we find QAnon both ridiculous and dangerous.

Ridiculous, because QAnon faithful believe in absolutely crazy stuff -- such as Hillary Clinton and other Democrats operating a pedophile ring out of the basement of a Washington D.C. pizza restaurant.

Dangerous, because so many followers of Trump in this country accept the QAnon insanity, including that mass arrests of Democrats will take place and the Orange One (Trump) will become president again.

I can't recommend the HBO series because it is much more boring than it should be, given its subject matter. 

As a review correctly points out, the makers of this documentary went overboard on filming the people involved in the web sites Q posts on in excruciating detail. Their disputes, eccentricities, and such are mildly interesting, but what gets lost are the larger questions.

Notably, how can so many people be so infatuated with the QAnon conspiracy theories that have no basis in fact?

I don't have an answer. All I can say is that the first two episodes show how closely related QAnon is to religiosity, a subject of a previous post, "QAnon and religion are both mass delusions." 

No one knows who Q is.

However, posts from Q appear on the Internet. Likewise, no one knows if God even exists, much less what the probably non-existent God is like -- since there is no real evidence of any communications from God.

Yet QAnon believers and religious devotees spend a huge amount of time conjuring up theories about their chosen faith.

Every detail of Q's posts is examined for hidden meanings, in much the same way religious writings and utterances of religious leaders considered to have a direct connection with God are studied by the faithful.

QAnon followers wrongly consider that they're part of a truth-seeking movement.

Even when predictions by Q fail to come to pass, his acolytes are spurred to dig deeper and find the reality hidden from everyone else -- you know, the people who accept facts and reason, a group I'm proud to belong to.

This bears a lot of resemblance to religious fantasies such as the Second Coming of Christ, the Christian version of QAnon's "storm." 

A new conspiracy theory called “The Storm” has taken the grimiest parts of the internet by, well, storm. Like Pizzagate, the Storm conspiracy features secret cabals, a child sex-trafficking ring led (in part) by the satanic Democratic Party, and of course, countless logical leaps and paranoid assumptions that fail to hold up under the slightest fact-based scrutiny. However, unlike Pizzagate, the Storm isn’t focused on a single block of shops in D.C., or John Podesta’s emails. It’s much, much bigger than that.

I'm bothered by the fact that so many otherwise normal people are so easily sucked into the fact-free whirlpool of QAnon. Sure, religions have been doing this sort of sucking for thousands of years, preying upon the gullibility of humans who enjoy a good story, even if it is made up.

QAnon, though, lacks the moral foundation that most religions have, which tends to limit how destructive they can be. So far as I can tell, QAnon has no ethical standards, no commitment to caring and compassion, no respect for open debate into the nature of reality.

QAnon, like the worst of the world's religions, only cares about spreading lies. Flee from it, if you're ever tempted to embrace some aspect of QAnon craziness. 

QAnon and religion are both mass delusions

The Real Time With Bill Maher show always ends with a feature called New Rules. Most of the rules are brief and humorous, while the last takes longer to explain and is more serious, though still funny in a different way.

I just finished watching our recording of the February 5 episode. 

Maher's closing New Rule was a right-on discussion of how the craziness of QAnon relates to religious belief. Probably you're familiar with this cult, but if you aren't, a BBC story describes what QAnon is about.

At its heart, QAnon is a wide-ranging, completely unfounded theory that says that President Trump is waging a secret war against elite Satan-worshipping paedophiles in government, business and the media.

QAnon believers have speculated that this fight will lead to a day of reckoning where prominent people such as former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton will be arrested and executed.

That's the basic story, but there are so many offshoots, detours and internal debates that the total list of QAnon claims is enormous - and often contradictory. Adherents draw in news events, historical facts and numerology to develop their own far-fetched conclusions.

Here's a five and a half minute video of what Maher had to say. It's both entertaining and persuasive. Once someone believes in one thing without evidence (like religion), it is easy to transfer that gullibility to another thing that lacks evidence (like QAnon). 

The You Tube video description says:

It's fun to laugh at QAnon, but if you accord religious faith the kind of exalted respect we do here in America, you’ve already lost the argument that mass delusion is bad.

Enjoy.

Religious nationalism must be fought, no matter the religion

Nationalism is dumb. Religious nationalism is dumber.

Believing that your country is superior to all others makes no sense, since lots of people in many countries, maybe most countries, consider that they're fortunate to live in the best country on Earth.

But at least there's no doubt that these countries exist. They have governments. They have boundaries. They can be photographed. So nationalism, as misguided as it is, has a foundation in objective reality.

Religious nationalism, though, adds a fantasy -- the unproven belief that Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism, or some other religion is rooted in a supernatural realm that truly exists even though there is no demonstrable evidence of it.

This makes religious nationalism a delusion attached to a irrational assumption.

Not surprisingly, religious nationalism is destructive. Hindu nationalism leads to violence and oppression of minorities in India. Jewish nationalism makes it more difficult for Israel to reach an agreement with Palestinians. Islamic nationalism encourages terrorists. Christian nationalism fosters divisiveness in the United States.

Actually, more than divisiveness. Christian nationalists played a central role in the January 6 insurrection at the nation's Capitol that was notihing less than a coup attempt. 

An opinion piece in USA Today describes how the Trump rioters who broke into the Capitol used Christian rhetoric to justify their unjustifiable actions. Here's excerpts from "Christian nationalism is a threat, and not just from Capitol attackers invoking Jesus."

After a portion of the mob entered the Senate chamber on Jan. 6, a handful of men mounted the podium. One of them lifted his hands and cried out, “Jesus Christ, we invoke your name. Amen.” Then Jacob Chansley, sometimes called the "QAnon Shaman," took his bullhorn and announced gratitude to God for being able to “send a message to all the tyrants, the communists, and the globalists that this is our nation, not theirs.”

Bare-chested to expose his white supremacist tattoos, he had paused briefly to remove his Viking-inspired horned headdress and cap — presumably to assume a properly humble posture as he claimed the United States for himself and his fellow-believers.   

...It is easy to protest when white Christian nationalism turns violent. Within the chorus of critics, however, are a substantial number of Christians who plan to take the country for Jesus another way. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Missouri, a leader of the misinformation campaign that led people to believe (falsely) that the presidential election was stolen, is among them.

Speaking in his official capacity as attorney general of Missouri in 2017, he proclaimed at a “Pastors and Pews” meetingthat their charge is to “take the lordship of Christ, that message, into the public realm and to seek the obedience of the nations — of our nation… to influence our society, and even more than that, to transform our society to reflect the gospel truth and lordship of Jesus Christ.”

Hawley is aware that not everyone will become Christian, but believes we should all live by his interpretation of Christian values. The lieutenant governor of Texas, Dan Patrick, asserts that elected officials should look to Scripture when making policy, “because every problem we have in America has a solution in the Bible.”  

Look, there's nothing wrong with loving your country, just as there's nothing wrong with loving your religion. But this is akin to loving your spouse or children.

Love isn't a competition. I can love my wife and my child without thinking that they are the very best wife and child in the whole world. It would be crazy  for me to think that way.

Yet that's what religious nationalism does. It perverts the natural love of country and religion into an extreme view that elevates a particular country and a particular religion into an exalted position that is indefensible and dangerous. 

Cult of Trump shows how delusion is linked to blind devotion

Cults come in various forms. Sure, religious cults are what first come to mind, but any form of blind devotion to an authority figure can result in cultish behavior and attitudes.

On January 6 I wrote a post for my Salem Political Snark blog, "Insurrection at Capitol today caused by the Cult of Trump."

This is what happens when people fall under the spell of an authoritarian cult leader.

A woman died today in the Capitol building after a mob incited by Trump stormed the building in an insurrection aimed at stopping Biden from being declared president-elect by Congress.

...The only good news out of today's disaster is that maybe, just maybe, it will cause those who have joined the Cult of Trump to find the guts to abandon the worst president in our nation's history.

It's astounding that so many people in the United States can be devoted to such a horrible person after Trump's many failings have been on prominent display for well over four years.

Somehow they've been sucked in to the black hole of Trump's ego, narcissism, lying, and inability to come to grips with reality, either choosing to stay in that dark place willingly or not having the capacity to break free of all the nasty stuff that Trump stands for.

A New York Times story, "'Our President Wants Us Here': The Mob That Stormed the Capitol," has this subtitle -- They came from around the country with different affiliations — QAnon, Proud Boys, elected officials, everyday Americans — united by one allegiance. To Donald Trump.

They traveled from various corners of resentment in 21st-century America. Whether motivated by a sense of economic disenfranchisement or distrust of government, by bigotry, or conspiracy or a belief that Mr. Trump is God’s way of preparing for the Rapture, they shared a fealty to the president.

In the rally that preceded the march to the Capitol (photo above), Trump told the crowd that he would be marching with them. That was a lie. Trump went back to the White House and watched the mob break in to the Capitol on TV, coward that he is. 

Now many of the Cult of Trump members who did what their beloved leader asked them to do are facing criminal charges. Serves them right. This wasn't a joke. A woman was killed during the storming of the Capitol, along with a policeman who died after being struck in the head by a fire extinguisher. 

It appears that Trump will be impeached again for inciting this murderous riot. Nonetheless, most of Trump's devotees will stick with him, because they have lost the ability to see him as he is, only as they imagine him to be. 

Here's a tweet that shows the quasi-religious fervor of Trump supporters.

And here's another tweet that shows how delusional the Cult of Trump can be. This Republican official actually believes that Trump will be president for another four years, even though Biden's electoral college victory was affirmed by Congress on January 6. 

Again, political delusions and religious delusions differ only in their subject matter, not in the warped state of mind that produces them. Likely this same official also believes that Jesus rose from the dead and redeems the sins of those who believe in him. Hey, that beats Trump! 

Political and religious delusions have a lot in common

Reality only comes in one flavor: real. But humans aren't in direct touch with reality, so we have to struggle to make sense of the world, the universe, the cosmos.

Thus the flavor of reality for us Homo sapiens has many varieties. Really, as many as there are people in the world, since everybody looks upon life in a unique way.

Science is our most powerful means of coming to a consensus on the nature of reality. By and large, scientists the world over agree on core scientific tenets -- which is far different from the widely divergent ways politicians and religious leaders look upon things.

Still, whoever looks upon reality with a reasoned, open, unbiased mind likely will agree with others who have the same approach to knowledge.

This is borne out by the fascinating after-election goings-on here in the United States. It's been obvious since a week or so after the November 3 election that Joe Biden defeated Donald Trump in the presidential race. And it's been equally obvious that Biden's win had nothing to do with fraud.

Recounts and experts in election security both point to this fact: fraud was virtually nonexistent. This was the most secure election in American history.

That's reality speaking. Unfortunately, there are other voices spouting off about how unfair and rigged the presidential election was. The loudest voice belongs to the Sore Loser-in-Chief, soon to be ex-president Trump. 

He's been complaining non-stop about fantasized fraud. There's zero evidence of this, but that doesn't stop millions of his supporters from believing Trump's lies. Which might be termed falsehoods, if Trump actually believed them.

However, news reports are saying that in private Trump knows he lost the election fairly, so this means he keeps pushing the election fraud delusion as a political ploy to discredit the validity of Biden's victory, and to establish a " I was victimized" theme for Trump's likely bid to run for president again in 2024.

Likewise, I've seen surveys of Christian ministers that reveal a surprising percentage don't really believe in God. They simply look upon being a minister as a job, and likely find other aspects of Christian life to be more appealing than theology.

To offer another example, a book I'm reading at the moment says that most Buddhists don't meditate, even though meditation is a central part of Buddhist teachings. Thus it is common for both politicians and religious people to outwardly profess one set of beliefs, while inwardly having other beliefs.

This is understandable, since we all put on one face in certain situations (like a meeting with our boss), and another face in other situations (like having a beer with friends after work). 

What's more difficult to understand is how otherwise intelligent people fall prey to obvious delusions.

There are many examples in the religious sphere, such as the existence of God, life after death, and other supernatural notions for which there is zero solid evidence. All I can figure is that when someone really wants to believe in something, their critical thinking faculty goes on vacation -- which I readily admit to doing during my 35 years as a religious believer.

I do, though, have more sympathy for those who believe in something important (like God) that's unseen, since there's a chance, albeit a slim one, that it exists even without demonstrable evidence.

Better observational methods can result in amazing discoveries. Other galaxies only were discovered in the twentieth century as telescopes became more powerful. Maybe some forms of human consciousness are capable of discerning God. Maybe.

What I have a lot more problem with is failing to recognize the existence of things that clearly do exist like evolution and human-caused global warming. It takes a really blind eye to not see that these things are part of the fabric of reality. This can be ascribed to ignorance, unless the facts are so well known to someone they are purposely deluding themselves.

Today I heard that a politician who is a fervent Trump supporter wants to know where the evidence is that election fraud doesn't exist. Wow, what a thinking error. That's similar to demanding proof that God doesn't exist. 

As I've noted many times before on this blog, it is up to those who claim something does exist to supply the proof. I can't prove that fairies aren't making the trees in our yard grow. There's just no evidence of fairies, nor is there evidence of election fraud.

It's solely in the minds of those who, for one reason or another, can't admit that Joe Biden won the presidency fairly. The evidence for a fair election is no  sign of fraud, which is clearly apparent to those with eyes willing to see.

 

Speak out! About politics, religion, everything.

Over on my Salem Political Snark blog, yesterday I wrote "Speak out about Trump's attempt to steal the election." 

Almost certainly Trump won't succeed in this. His defeat was so large, extending over five states that he won in 2016 and lost in 2020 (Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Georgia), there's no way lawsuits and recounts are going to overturn Biden's win.

Still, it's important for everyone who cares about democracy to speak out against this attempt to thwart the will of voters, even if it has little chance of coming to pass. I shared some excerpts from a September 2020 piece by Marc Elias, "What Did You Do When Democracy Was at Stake?" 

This is what Elias had to say about speaking out.

To combat this threat to our democracy, it is not enough for us to file lawsuits. It is not enough for the media to report the news. And it is not enough for citizens to shake their heads at the damage he is doing.

We must display civic courage and speak out.

Justice Scalia wrote that “requiring people to stand up in public for their political acts fosters civic courage, without which democracy is doomed.”

We must all commit to civic courage where it is the least comfortable—in the town square, in front of our neighbors and families, in our workplaces and in our daily lives.  We must each, as individuals, stand up and speak out about the importance of our democratic institutions and fundamental rights.

Absolutely. 

If someone says, "The only reason Biden won was Democratic voter fraud," it's important to say to them, "You're wrong. No voter fraud has been found in any state. Biden won a free and fair election."

Probably you won't change their mind. But you might. 

What's certain is that you have stood up for the truth by speaking out about a falsehood. And this is as important to do in areas other than politics. If someone says, "Human-caused greenhouse gas emissions aren't causing global warming," the proper response is, "You're wrong. Global warming is happening because of carbon pollution by humanity."

There are many values worth honoring. Truth is one of the most important, because without truth, it is difficult to truly love, help others, be courageous, or do the other things that make life worth living. 

I started this blog in 2004 in large part because I wanted to speak out against religious untruths. I'd call them "lies," but since some people sincerely believe the falsehoods promulgated by religions, often it makes sense to say That isn't true rather than You're lying.

If someone says, "I know that God exists," ask "How can you be sure?" Press for details. See if they can point to demonstrable evidence that God is real. Don't be content with bland statements like "I feel Him with me." 

I'm not saying that you should go out of your way to puncture someone's religious belief bubble. People have all kinds of reasons for believing in God or some other supernatural entity. If they keep their faith private, no problem. Each to their own.

But when claims about the nature of reality are made, truth claims, then lovers of truth have to speak out in defense of their beloved. Untruths need to be called out. If a religious believer simply says, "I believe in God because this makes me feel good," great. There's nothing wrong and a lot that is right about feeling good. 

That's akin to a Trump supporter saying, "I don't want to accept that Biden won because this hurts." OK. That's honest. We all turn a blind eye to some things that are unwelcome or uncomfortable to us. And many aspects of life lie outside of the bounds of objective truth. 

Art, music, philosophy, friendship, charity, the list goes on and on.

The way I see it, this makes defending truth, where it exists, even more important -- since the comparative rarity of objective truth points to its preciousness. Biden has defeated Trump. That's the truth. Trump doesn't want to admit this. 

Yet almost all leading Republicans are afraid to speak the truth to Trump. They fear his tweetful wrath. They fear for their own re-election if they go against Trump's fantasies. So they stay silent, or tell reporters, "I acknowledge that Biden won, but I can't say this openly on the record."

That's cowardice. Truth is more important than any person. Sure, we have to use common sense. To cite a common example, if you were hiding Jews in your house in Nazi Germany, speaking the truth if the Gestapo knock on your door isn't the thing to do.

But usually, speaking out about the truth is the thing to do. The sooner Trump comes to grips with the fact that he has lost, the better our country will be. Every Republican who stays silent about the election outcome is hurting our democracy.

Fact-denying Republicans are like fact-denying religious people

Like lots of other Americans, I'm really happy about Joe Biden defeating Donald Trump in our presidential election. To learn how happy, check out three posts I've written on my other blogs -- here, here, and here.

It's virtually 100% certain that Biden won a free and fair election and will be sworn in as president next January.

He's on track to win 306 electoral votes, the same number Trump won in 2016, which Trump has never stopped bragging about. The popular vote is hugely in Biden's favor, with additional tallies in New York and California adding to that impressive total. 

Three mid-West battleground states were won by Biden that Clinton narrowly lost in 2016. I came across this information in a tweet today.

Late-innings scorecard: President Trump won Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania by less than 80,000 votes in 2016. Today, Joe Biden is ahead in those states by more than 210,000 votes.

So the presidential election isn't close. In 2000 George W. Bush defeated Al Gore by virtue of a highly controversial Supreme Court decision that awarded Bush Florida by a razor-thin margin of less than 600 votes. 

Now Biden is ahead by many tens of thousands of votes in a variety of states. There's no evidence of any substantial voter fraud, just unproven allegations of a few problems that have no bearing on the election outcome in states where they supposedly occurred.

Yet only a few Republican leaders have acknowledged that Biden won the election. Trump himself is refusing to concede. The Trump administration is putting up roadblocks to Biden beginning the important process of transitioning the federal government to a new president. 

In short, Republicans are denying reality. The election facts are clear, yet they refuse to embrace them. They have a fantasy that somehow Trump will be able to steal the election from Biden.

Thus they're acting very much like religious people.

Republicans have blind faith in Trump. Religious people have blind faith in God. Republicans ignore the lack of demonstrable evidence that fraud took place in the election. Religious people ignore the lack of demonstrable evidence that a supernatural being exists. Republicans believe that evil Democrats somehow manipulated election results in favor of Biden. Religious people believe that an evil Devil or some other negative power somehow leads humans away from God.

The common denominator between Republicans and religious people is their rigid dogmatism.

Rather than learning what reality has to teach them, they deny reality. They elevate their subjective personal beliefs over objective truth. If facts don't fit with their world view, they ignore the facts instead of changing their viewpoint.

In the post I wrote yesterday, I included a tweet from election law expert Marc Elias.

What Elias is getting at is that Republican lawyers are starting with what they want to have happen -- the results of the election being overturned so Trump ends up the winner. They they try to conjure up some reasons why this should occur. This is akin to religious people starting with a belief in God, then making up reasons why God exists.

Which is backwards. Election law requires that evidence of fraud come first, with a lawsuit following based on that evidence. Likewise, a belief in God should come after evidence for God, not before.

It doesn't bother me that so many Americans believe strongly in Trump. That's their right. But it's deeply concerning that these Trump fans are willing to ignore the results of the election and trash our democracy in an effort to keep Trump in office. This also is my problem with religion. A private belief in God is fine. It's when religious people try to force their personal beliefs onto others that my atheist anger fires up.

As the saying goes, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. (The original had "his," which I've changed to "their.")

Am I happy about Trump's defeat? Hell, yes!

Tonight I wrote another post on my Salem Political Snark blog about Donald Trump's ever-so-pleasing defeat to Joe Biden, the next President of the United States. 

I called it, "Trump may never concede, but Biden has whipped his ass." Here's what I said, along with the tweets that I included in the post.

Last Tuesday was tough for progressives like me.

Sure, I knew that mail-in ballots, largely from Democrats, were going to take a while to count, and in-person voting on election day would be dominated by Republicans. But knowing is one thing. Emotions are a whole other thing. 

I worried that somehow Trump would pull out another close victory like he did in 2016. Wednesday I felt better as Trump's lead in battleground states began to shrink. Thursday, even better. 

And today, Friday, I'm feeling damn fine! 

Now starts the fun part -- basking in the warm glow of Biden's almost certain victory, while shivering with delight at Trump becoming increasingly frantic to deny the truth of his loss.

It looks like Biden will get 306 electoral votes, the same number Trump got in 2016 that he's been bragging about as a massive victory ever since. Probably Biden won't rub that fact in Trump's face, but I sure will.

You're a big fat loser, Donald. You've gotten your sorry ass kicked. You'll go down in history as a one-term president who was impeached, had very low approval ratings, and will be known as the worst president in modern times. Maybe in all times.

It's going to be ever so satisfying to watch Trump flail around in the coming days and weeks, desperately trying to con his way into a victory that was denied him by rough, tough, kick-ass Joe Biden. Trump is acting like the cowardly wimp that he is.

His insults, lying, and bravado thinly disguise his deep insecurity and lack of confidence. Trump has surrounded himself with fawning admirers who don't question his incompetence, lack of morality, and inability to act like a normal human being.

Trump always has been able to cheat, lie, or buy his way out of problems. It's hugely delicious to now see him confronted by the undeniable reality of a massive election defeat. Votes can't be bull-shitted away.

They are what they are, the expression of how badly Americans wanted to see Trump drummed out of the White House.

Trump is going to lose two red states, Arizona and Georgia, that helped propel him to victory in 2016. And the Blue Wall of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania is back up again, much stronger and more impressive than Trump's mythical "Mexico is going to pay for it" wall.

It's fitting that Trump began his failed presidency with a bizarre conspiracy theory -- that Barack Obama was born in Kenya -- and he's ending his failed presidency with an equally bizarre conspiracy theory -- that the election was stolen from him. 

I'm so looking forward to watching Trump's fragile ego disintegrate as day by day, week by week, the reality that he has lost the election big-time sinks into his feeble brain.

Fortunately, there's plenty of space in his mostly empty cranium for other facts to sink in: he faces serious legal problems without the protection of the presidency; his hotels and resorts are going to suffer under the weight of his unpopularity; nobody but his most rabid supporters is going to care about what he says or tweets about once Biden is inaugurated.

Here's some tweets I came across today that appealed to me.

I'm inspired by speaking truth to power. Here's an example from Salem.

I've never been much of an organization man. Which, I suppose, now needs to be phrased as "organization person." Regardless, I can recall numerous instances when I haven't been shy about rocking an organizational boat when I felt that was deserved.

So I get inspired by people who do this in their own way. Probably most of us do. There's something about an individual, or a small group, standing up for values they believe in against a more powerful entity that resonates in most hearts and minds. 

We admire underdogs of the canine variety who aren't afraid to bare their teeth and snarl at the big German Shepherd. We love movies about a solitary crusader who takes on a malevolent corporation. We applaud musicians who share songs of protest with us.

And because this is a Church of the Churchless blog, I never tire of hearing about members of a religion who risk ostracism, or worse, by speaking out about bad things happening in their faith.

Thus it isn't surprising that I was energized last night by watching on You Tube a meeting of the Salem-Keizer school board here in Oregon that I thought would be considerably less interesting than it turned out to be.

Students in the school district, which is the second largest in the state, have been engaged in Black Lives Matter protests for several weeks or more. They've been calling for the removal of school resource police officers for reasons that make a lot of sense.

Last night the school board, which currently is dominated by conservatives, met to approve a $1.5 billion budget that includes money for the school resource officers. I decided to watch the meeting online because I'd written on my Salem Political Snark blog about the Salem City Council addressing this issue, since the Police Department supplies some of the officers for that program.

But the school board meeting turned out to be gripping, filled with drama. I wrote about it today in "Superintendent calls out Salem-Keizer school board for not being anti-racist."

Along with the students who called, with good reason, for the resignation of two school board members, the heroine of the evening was Superintendent Christy Perry.

She stood up against the school board in a marvelous message that she read near the beginning of the meeting. This was a surprising moment, as I noted in my blog post about the meeting.

The good news is that after the low point of Heyen's self-absorbed opening remarks, I was mesmerized by a powerful statement from Salem-Keizer Superintendent Christy Perry. 

It was amazing.

I've included the entire statement at the end of this post, boldfacing parts that stuck out for me. Perry courageously criticized the school board for their weak-kneed responses to student demands in the wake of weeks of Black Lives Matter protests here in Salem.

Here's a few excerpts to whet your appetite for reading the whole statement.

We have provided opportunities to help understand our own biases. Our board members barely engage in the training. We have instances of social media display of white supremacy, a black face mask and mockery over that mask. All actions I can’t defend.

... I will advocate for Director Blasi as your next board chair because she is one of the few leaders who have at least the embers of trust from our communities of color.

... I am so committed to this, that I will only continue to do this work if I can have will and the strength to do this even if it means calling you out.

... I commit to the vision for creating the conditions for safe and welcoming schools, especially for our students of color, which includes an antiracist agenda and truly listening to our communities of color. I urge you to reaffirm your commitment to my contract as well knowing full well my support for anti-racist learning.

Really gutsy of Perry.

The school board hires and fires superintendents. Yet she was willing to publicly call them out for failing to do their duty to protect and serve students of color and other disadvantaged students. I liked her statement that she wants the board to reaffirm their commitment to her contract.

Sure, it's fair to say that Perry, being the Superintendent, is a powerful person who was speaking truth to other powerful people on the school board. But that doesn't take away from her inspiring message. 

Most people reading this post will have no interest in the Salem-Keizer School District. However, I urge you to read Perry's message by clicking on the continuation to this post if you have any interest in those who stand up for their values even when this is risky for them. Again, I've boldfaced parts that I found particularly moving.

Inside the cult of Trump, his rallies are church and he is the Gospel

I blame MSNBC's Chris Hayes. Every weekday I record his hour-long program, then watch it while doing my at-home exercising. 

Today a guest of his was Jeff Sharlet, who talked about a piece he wrote for Vanity Fair about the religious nature of Trump devotees. 

Being anti-Trump and anti-religion, naturally I couldn't wait to read what Sharlet had written. But I didn't anticipate how scary it would be.

Tomorrow Trump holds his first rally since the COVID-19 crisis hit.

Since Trump likes to do the stupidest, most anti-scientific thing possible, the rally is going to be at an indoor arena that holds 19,000 people, where Trump supporters will be packed shoulder to shoulder, masks optional, screaming in adoration as they behold their Savior. 

In short, COVID-19's dream, a marvelous way to spread itself.

I've always thought that the people who attend Trump rallies were crazed, but until I read "He's the Chosen One to Run America," I pictured those people as being more politically crazed than religiously crazed.

It turns out that they're both -- a really dangerous combination. The only good news is that Trump's approval ratings have been sliding the past few months. According to the highly-respected FiveThirtyEight web site, polls show Joe Biden with a nine-point national lead over Trump at the moment.

So most Americans aren't buying what Trump is selling, namely himself. Still, the fanaticism of his most ardent supporters is deeply worrisome. Hopefully they won't go berserk when, as I sure hope, Trump loses his re-election bid this November.

Here's some excerpts from "Inside the Cult of Trump, His Rallies are Church and He Is the Gospel."

In 2016, I attended Trump rallies around the country to witness the role played by religion. I found it in the fervor for oft-traded stories of the candidate’s riches, his private plane, “Trump Force One” and its golden interior, and in the promises of D-list preachers who opened his rallies with sermons ranging from the staples of abortion and decadence to the miraculous wealth with which God had anointed Trump.

Back then, the candidate was taken as living proof of what’s known as the Prosperity Gospel, a kind of country cousin to establishment Christian conservatism, not so much about saving society as it is about getting right with God by getting rich. Show your faith in his blessings, as revealed in the opulent lives of his anointed preachers, and good fortune will trickle down.

Like Trump, the Prosperity Gospel is transactional—a ready-made religion for a man who came by it, like so little else in his life, honestly. In the books he claims to have written, Trump invokes a personal trinity: his father, Fred, who taught him strength; his mentor, the red-hunting mafia lawyer Roy Cohn, who taught him cunning; and his childhood pastor, bestselling Christian self-help author Norman Vincent Peale, who taught him The Power of Positive Thinking.

Believe in it, preached Peale, and it can be yours. Quid pro quo, a deal with God: affluence (or the dream of it to come) in return for unquestioning loyalty. Trump’s campaign channeled a convergence of conservatisms: Fred Trump’s brutality, Cohn’s corruption, and the cross wrapped in a flag preached by Peale.

As Trump knows, the best kind of deal—the kind that pays—is not only transactional, it’s transformative. With some minor exceptions, the establishment Christian right has embraced the gospel of Trump, and it has prospered: Trump’s administration stocked top to bottom with its apostles, the movement mightier now than it was under George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan.

Trump, meanwhile, has fused his penchant for self-pity with the paranoia that runs like a third rail through Christian conservatism, the thrilling promise of “spiritual war” with dark and hidden powers.

In 2016, the Trump faith was name it and claim it, Make America Great Again, the prospect of the restoration of a mythic (read: white) past. Now, though, the kingdom has come. Trump is no longer storming the gates; he holds the power.

The faith for 2020, I learned at his rallies, is a secret one, its password a wink that’s really a warning, its enemy invisible and everywhere: the deep state, the pedos and the FBI, Democrat-ruled sanctuary cities and the “illegals” they send forth to pillage the heartland. MAGA has become KAG, Keep America Great—which requires not a new prosperity but the eradication of America’s enemies within. “If you do not bring forth what is within you,” as the gospel of Thomas puts it, “what you do not bring forth will destroy you.”

...Four years ago, the mood at Trump’s rallies was electric but heavy, a mix of anger and the possibility of “winning”—winning so much, Trump promised, that we’d get tired of winning. Since then he has won; and won and won and won. The energy now is victorious—and even darker.

If the arena is a safe space for Trumpers, a church where the like-minded can join together in a sea of red hats, the world outside is scarier than ever. “Secret murders everywhere,” says Pastor Sean, his voice low and growly. “Pedophiles and evil.” That’s why he loves Trump: because he believes God has chosen Trump for this hour. That which Trump’s critics see as crude and divisive, Pastor Sean takes as proof of his anointing. He is God’s champion, a fighter, a “counterpuncher.”

...Look upon me, you who reflect upon me,” declares the divine voice of perhaps the most famous gnostic text, a poem called “The Thunder, Perfect Mind.” So it is in the arenas of Trump, thousands of red hats just like his, the hats that at each rally he throws to the crowd, giving of himself. Such are the miracles of Trump, adored for his golden tower, his golden faucets, his generosity. He who has taken the most also gives the most.

...“He wants to discipline us,” Dave says. He, in this instance, means not Trump but his father: God. Like Trump, COVID-19 is an instrument of his will, and he has allowed the virus as a punishment for our “corporate” sin, our failure as a nation to fully embrace him and his messenger, Trump, a view not so distant from that of many Christian right leaders, including Franklin Graham, Fox News preacher Robert Jeffress, and Ralph Drollinger, who leads a White House Bible study.

...Only the truly initiated—Dave, Diane, QAnon—know the name of “The Storm” that’s coming, but nearly all of Trump’s devotees can read the signs, red flares over blue seas: A CNN crew arrested on camera, live, in Minneapolis; in New York, a viral video of a riot cop flashing the O.K. symbol; and in Washington, following a gas processional, the president of the United States marching through the sterile aftermath to hold aloft a Bible, upside down—a sign? A signal?—its red ribbon dangling along his wrist like a snake’s tongue.

What does it mean?

“Pray over it,” says Dave, of that which is given for our witness. “Let it settle.”

American's support for Black Lives Matter has risen sharply

With the coronavirus crisis still going strong, and Donald Trump still acting as badly as ever, it's great to have some good news to celebrate. Behold...

This graphic comes from a story in today's New York Times. Net support is the difference between the percent of people supporting a policy minus the percent of people opposing the policy. Here's how the story starts out.

American public opinion can sometimes seem stubborn. Voters haven’t really changed their views on abortion in 50 years. Donald J. Trump’s approval rating among registered voters has fallen within a five-point range for just about every day of his presidency.

But the Black Lives Matter movement has been an exception from the start.

Public opinion on race and criminal justice issues has been steadily moving left since the first protests ignited over the fatal shootings of Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown. And since the death of George Floyd in police custody on May 25, public opinion on race, criminal justice and the Black Lives Matter movement has leaped leftward.

Over the last two weeks, support for Black Lives Matter increased by nearly as much as it had over the previous two years, according to data from Civiqs, an online survey research firm. By a 28-point margin, Civiqs finds that a majority of American voters support the movement, up from a 17-point margin before the most recent wave of protests began.

And this trend is evident from more than the Civiqs surveys.

The survey is not the only one to suggest that recent protests enjoy broad public support. Weekly polling for the Democracy Fund’s U.C.L.A./Nationscape survey shows a significant increase in unfavorable views of the police, and an increase in the belief that African-Americans face a lot of discrimination.

Perhaps most significant, the Civiqs data is not alone in suggesting that an outright majority of Americans agree with the central arguments of Black Lives Matter.

A Monmouth University poll found that 76 percent of Americans consider racism and discrimination a “big problem,” up 26 points from 2015. The poll found that 57 percent of voters thought the anger behind the demonstrations was fully justified, while a further 21 percent called it somewhat justified.

Polls show that a majority of Americans believe that the police are more likely to use deadly force against African-Americans, and that there’s a lot of discrimination against black Americans in society. Back in 2013, when Black Lives Matter began, a majority of voters disagreed with all of these statements.

What this shows is that public opinion on a moral issue can be slow to change, but when it does, the change can be rapid.

Being 71, I remember when homosexuality was considered abhorrent, and same-sex marriage being legal didn't enter peoples' minds. But now Americans are generally accepting of LGBTQ people, with same-sex marriage being taken for granted. The New York Times story notes that inequality pushes a moral button in most people.

And whether on gay marriage or civil rights, American public opinion tends to drift toward the side advocating equal treatment. Public opinion doesn’t have nearly as clear a record of drifting toward the left on issues that don’t hinge on equal treatment under the law, like gun control and abortion.

Obviously, then, morality is a social construct, not a God-given commandment. And there's plenty of evidence that animals other than us have similar reactions to inequality. 

But sadly, all too often us humans, who like to believe we possess an elevated sense of justice, don't act as morally as monkeys. To give a current example, President Trump is refusing to rename military bases that carry the names of Confederate generals, even though the Army Secretary and Defense Secretary were open to this. 

So the president of the United States is fine with honoring generals who fought against the United States in an effort to keep slavery alive and well in the southern states. 

It's understandable that Trump wasn't aware that these bases were named after Confederate generals. I sure wasn't. However, now that it is been pointed out to him, it definitely is a moral injustice which needs to be rectified. When Joe Biden becomes president, it will be.

The Army bases in question, all in Southern states, are Fort Bragg, N.C.; Forts Benning and Gordon in Georgia; Forts Pickett, A.P. Hill and Lee in Virginia; Fort Polk and Camp Beauregard in Louisiana; Fort Hood, Texas; and Fort Rucker, Ala.

George Floyd protest brought my community together

There are lots of ways to feel a sense of community with our fellow humans.

Going to a religious gathering is one way, but definitely isn't the best way, because religions are divisive -- if you aren't a member of a particular faith, likely attending a "service" there is going to feel out of place.

Yesterday I took part in a protest here in Salem, Oregon against the murder of George Floyd by a Minneapolis policeman. I was deeply moved by thousands of people coming out to protest the needless killings of so many black Americans at the hands of police officers.

What connected us was a commitment to justice for all.

It is deeply wrong to treat people of color differently from white people. But my country's racist past -- slavery -- is still being manifested today. This has to stop. Hopefully the massive protests around the United States will help bring about positive changes in not only policing, but other areas such as education and health care where blacks still are not treated equally.

Have a look at the photos I took at the protest, plus a video of part of the march that followed a rally. I used an Adobe Spark web page to share the images.

Two examples of how religion is screwing up George Floyd protests

Here in the United States it's been great to see so many people protesting the murder of George Floyd at the hands of a Minneapolis police officer who kneeled on Floyd's neck for about nine minutes while he was saying, "I can't breathe."

Of course, this is just the latest person of color who has been killed by police for no good reason. Black Lives Matter protests have been going on years, but I'm hopeful our country finally is sending a clear message to police that the unjust killings have to stop. 

Many people of faith have been taking part in the protests, so I readily admit that religious groups can play a strong role in social justice movements. 

But then there's Donald Trump, who has an unerring ability to say the wrong thing at the wrong time.

A New York Times story explains how Trump screwed up an opportunity today to bring our country together. Here's excerpts from "Trump Says Jobs Report Made It a 'Great Day' for George Floyd, Stepping on Message."

WASHINGTON — President Trump drew immediate criticism from Democrats on Friday for declaring that new unemployment numbers made it “a great day” for George Floyd, the black man whose death in the custody of white police officers has touched off protests and rioting across the country.

“Hopefully, George is looking down right now and saying this is a great thing that’s happening for our country,” Mr. Trump said. “This is a great day for him, it’s a great day for everybody. This is a great day for everybody. This is a great, great day in terms of equality.”

After a week of unrest in the capital, Mr. Trump had gone to the Rose Garden to declare victory over a coronavirus pandemic that ravaged the economy, promoting the new numbers and planning to carry that message with him on a trip to Maine later in the day. But his jarring reference to Mr. Floyd overshadowed it.

Former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, was among those who immediately criticized the president’s remarks.

“George Floyd’s last words — ‘I can’t breathe, I can’t breathe’ — have echoed all across this nation and, quite frankly, around the world,” Mr. Biden said. “For the president to try to put any other words in the mouth of George Floyd I, frankly, think is despicable.”

Mr. Biden pointed out that the economic news that Mr. Trump was so intent on celebrating did not extend to black Americans, whose unemployment rate had actually risen to 16.8 percent from 16.7 percent.

“The fact that he did so on a day when black unemployment rose,” Mr. Biden added, “tells you everything you need to know about this man.”

Trump isn't religious. He just uses religion for his own political purposes now and then.

Still, how could any sensible person (which doesn't describe Trump) believe that someone who recently died in a horrible fashion, tearing him away from loved ones, would be "looking down" from heaven, or wherever, saying that a jobs report was a great day for himself?

Aside from being an incredibly stupid thing to say, it was horribly insensitive to George Floyd's family and friends. This just shows how narcissistic Trump is, being incapable of empathy and compassion for others.

Then there's a small story close to home, right here in Salem, Oregon, that has a more tenuous connection with religion -- but a connection nonetheless. Below is how I described it on Facebook posts today. This is a quote from the no such thing as secular story mentioned in the post which, naturally, I heartily disagree with:

“Said another way,” Vande Griend continues, “this class is about learning to practice in our real lives what Abraham Kuyper declared when he said, ‘There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry, Mine!’”

SALEM MAN CALLS POLICE FOR WRITING BLACK LIVES MATTER MESSAGES IN CHALK ON PUBLIC SIDEWALKS. Only in Salem... hopefully. Amazing display of concern by Doug Vande Griend, who spelled out his name during the phone call to police that was captured on video.

Naturally I Googled this name. Unless there are two men with the same name in Salem, Vande Griend appears to be an attorney who writes about deep Christian notions such as "there is no such thing as secular." (subject of his third-year thesis in law school)

Interesting. I definitely consider there is such a thing as secular, being decidedly non-religious myself. But, hey, each to his own. Along that line, a Doug Vande Griend wrote a piece, "The Role of the Church in Society," that concluded with the passage below the line.

It seems to me that Vande Griend certainly was trying to "lord it over others" when he objected to peaceful writing of timely messages on a sidewalk. Likely the coming rain will wash the chalk away, so an "appropriate sense of humility" would have been to smile and applaud this display of civic activism.
-------------------
"People instinctively want their perspectives, whatever the topic, to prevail over those of others. But that want can be sinful. An appropriate sense of humility should restrain us from trying to 'lord it over others (Church Order, Art. 85). May we pray for that sense of humility."