Save your soul and quit your job

Alix Breeden of Daily Kos discussed the New York State Young Republican group chat that had a lot of “extremely homophobic, racist, sexist, and antisemitic remarks.” One member even said if the chat was leaked “we would be cooked.” It was leaked. They were cooked. Some had job offers that were rescinded.

However shocking this might be, this kind of language—once thought to be culturally on its way out—is swinging back into the mainstream. But why?

The answer is simple. The nasty guy, and other far right people before him, use those kinds of words and other demeaning language, making their use by others more acceptable, and desensitizing the rest of us to their use.

Ultimately, this is a massive jump backward in a decades-long effort to denormalize hate speech, with the right feeling emboldened to make jokes and comments at the expense of people’s races, genders, and religions. And instead of pushing back, young people are also feeling pressured to let it slide—or even to laugh along. So where is this train going? And, more pressingly, will it slow down before impending impact?

A few months ago I wrote about Elon Musk’s Boring Company and his effort to put tunnels under Las Vegas to ease traffic topside. In that earlier story Musk said he would rather pay penalties than wait for environmental approvals. I noted that if his company causes environmental damage paying a penalty does nothing for the damage that probably can’t be repaired. Anjeanette Damon for ProPublica and Dayvid Figler for City Cast Las Vegas in an article posted on Kos reported on another reason why Musk would favor paying penalties.

Nevada state regulators have accused Elon Musk’s Boring Co. of violating environmental regulations nearly 800 times in the last two years as it digs a sprawling tunnel network beneath Las Vegas for its Tesla-powered “people mover.” The company’s alleged violations include starting to dig without approval, releasing untreated water onto city streets and spilling muck from its trucks, according to a new document obtained by City Cast Las Vegas and ProPublica. ... The Nevada Division of Environmental Protection could have fined the company more than $3 million under the 2022 agreement, which allowed for daily penalties to be assessed. But regulators knocked down the total penalty to $242,800. ... “Given the extraordinary number of violations, NDEP has decided to exercise its discretion to reduce the penalty to two $5,000 violations per permit, which it believes offers a reasonable penalty that will still serve to deter future non-compliance conduct,” regulators wrote in the letter.

A fine that small, compared to Musk’s wealth and the money he doesn’t have to spend on protecting the environment, will not “deter future non-compliance conduct.” I doubt the top level $3 million would act as a deterrence. Musk prefers paying penalties instead of doing proper environmental reviews because agencies and courts could look at a penalty and say it’s too big when it isn’t big enough. Emily Singer of Kos reported the nasty guy went to the Middle East on Monday to bask in the praise of Israel’s far right leaders and various Arab leaders. They lamented the nasty guy didn’t get the Nobel Peace Prize, awarded the previous Friday. The prize went to María Corina Machado, a Venezuelan woman who stood against Maduro’s vote rigging. The Nobel Committee wrote, in explaining their choice:

When authoritarians seize power, it is crucial to recognise courageous defenders of freedom who rise and resist. Democracy depends on people who refuse to stay silent, who dare to step forward despite grave risk, and who remind us that freedom must never be taken for granted, but must always be defended—with words, with courage, and with determination.

Which sounds like they are explaining why the nasty guy will never win it. Alex Samuels of Kos reported that Middle East leaders were not the only ones lamenting that the Nobel Committee passed on the nasty guy. Congressional Republicans, lead by Mike Johnson also joined the praise for the Israel-Hamas peace deal. He announced that he and the Speaker of the Israeli Knesset would urge other world leaders to jointly nominate the nasty guy to receive the Peace Prize next year. Samuels wrote:

According to a September Ipsos poll for The Washington Post, 76% of Americans believe Trump does not deserve the Nobel Peace Prize, while just 22% think he does. Even Republicans are split down the middle, while independents and Democrats are overwhelmingly opposed.

Samuels concluded that this campaign for the award is a convenient distraction from the government that has been shut down for more than two weeks. A tweet by paulpro shows a frame of the old Peanuts cartoon in which Lucy is holding a football to be kicked. The text has been changed to: “Come on Democrats. Pass our Budget. We promise this time we’ll definitely work on funding the ACA afterwards.” I think that is the clearest explanation of what the shutdown is all about. Singer reported on the next step in Republican efforts to gerrymander their way to protecting their House Majority in next year’s election. In North Carolina the state Senate leader, a Republican, will call the Republican controlled legislature back into session to pass a new map that could steal another seat from Democrats. North Carolina’s maps are already highly skewed. The nasty guy carried the state by just 3%, yet they hold 10 of the 14 seats the state holds in the House. The new maps need only a majority to pass and the governor can’t veto. Texas, Missouri, and Utah have already passed new maps. Ohio Republicans are expected to pass a new map by the end of November. Starting their effort are Republicans in Kansas, Indiana, Florida, and Nebraska. Dennis Goris tweeted a cartoon he created showing two young kids playing baseball looking at another with a big trophy. One says, “That’s Gerry Mander. He’s a loser who’s figured out how to get a trophy.” In today’s pundit roundup for Kos Greg Dworkin quoted Patricia Lopez of Bloomberg on what ICE in Chicago is really about:

President Donald Trump's actions in Chicago, including militarizing Immigration and Customs Enforcement and attempting to federalize National Guard troops, are seen as an exercise of raw power rather than an effort to improve public safety.

John Seidel tweeted, “From the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on deployment of National Guard: ‘Political opposition is not rebellion.’” Seidel highlighted a section of the ruling:

The spirited, sustained, and occasionally violent actions of demonstrators in protest of the federal government’s immigration policies and actions, without more, does not give rise to a danger of rebellion against the government’s authority.

In the comments LJ Slater posted 10 reminders for tomorrow’s No King’s rallies. I plan to take part and will have more in a future post. Some of the reminders:

Lead with love, not anger. Focus your energy on what you stand for, not what you stand against. Anger fades; compassion lasts. Smile and greet others. Say hello, wave, or share a word of encouragement. Small acts of friendliness build community trust and lower tension. Look out for one another. Offer water, a smile, or friendly chat to someone nearby. Check on families, elders, and people with mobility needs. Make your sign speak peace. Choose messages that uplift – creative, clever, values-based signs draw attention without aggression or profanity. Carry joy beyond the rally. After the event, share stories, photos, and reflections that highlight unity and courage – show the world what peaceful power looks like.

Pat Begley posted a meme titled The Paradox of Tolerance by Philosopher Karl Popper from The Open Society and Its Enemies.

Should a tolerant society tolerate intolerance? The answer is no. When we extend tolerance to those who are openly intolerant the tolerant ones end up being destroyed and tolerance with them. Any movement that preaches intolerance and persecution must be outside of the law. As paradoxical as it may seem, defending tolerance requires to not tolerate the intolerant.

LEastsound posted a cartoon of two men discussing a poster of a man with a bulging chest and tight pants.

First man: We asked 100 extremely online straight men what makes a man attractive. Second man: How many w– First man: Zero. We asked zero women.

And Bill Amend posted a cartoon of his Foxtrot characters celebrating Pumpkin Pi season. In last Friday’s roundup Dworkin quoted John Harwood of Zeteo:

Over four decades as a journalist, I’ve covered seven presidents, 20 Congresses, and thousands of staffers. I’ve never encountered one as sinister as Stephen Miller. I see it in the darkness of his eyes, the venom of his words, the malevolence of his affect. And also by the deliberate brutality of his campaign from the White House to deport immigrants and crush dissenters. That Miller serves as the president’s top domestic policy adviser demonstrates the unique depravity of Donald Trump’s second presidency. So does the fact that Kash Patel commands the FBI, Kristi Noem directs the Department of Homeland Security, Pete Hegseth peacocks around the Pentagon, Pam Bondi stains the office of attorney general, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. runs the Department of Health and Human Services.

Jack Jenkins of Religion News Service reported that religious leaders have been part of the protests at the ICE detention center in Broadview, Illinois, about 12 miles from downtown Chicago.

Despite the danger, religious leaders and faith activists have been a visible presence at the protests, some waving signs with slogans such as “Love thy neighbor” and “Who would Jesus deport?” Many argue they are compelled by their religious beliefs to advocate for immigrants, but as officers continue to respond with violence, some claim their religious freedom is increasingly at risk — even, they say, as the pray for the souls of ICE agents. “One of the chants that has become ubiquitous at these protests at Broadview is, ‘Love your neighbor, love your God, save your soul and quit your job,’” said Black, who pastors at the First Presbyterian Church of Chicago. “Everybody chants that.”

A tweet by Scott Horton says:

Kash Patel spends most of his time on Fox News today smearing and attacking the city and people of Chicago, a large number of which are thugs and criminals. But the available evidence shows that a much higher percentage of people inside the White House are felons than in Chicago.

Wayno posted a cartoon showing two ancient Romans, one with a bowl of greens and croutons. The other announces, “Hail Caesar’s salad.” The caption says, “Holy Romaine Empire.” In Saturday’s roundup Dworkin quoted a pair of tweets. First by Eleanor Mueller:

On this press call with the House Freedom Caucus, Johnson tells reporters: "We worked on rescissions, and there'll be more of that, we expect, in the days ahead."

And a response by Eric Michael Garcia:

This is why the Democrats are voting "No" on the CR. It's not just health care. What's the point of doing a bipartisan appropriations process if the Republicans do a partisan rescissions package?

See Lucy and the football above. Brian Beutler of Off Message talked about the standard ways to stand up to the nasty guy. Then he added:

But my sense is that what costs people like us sleep at night isn’t that we aren’t doing enough. It’s that we’ve lost confidence in the people who are in positions to do more. It’s become fashionable to repeat cliches like “nobody is coming to save us,” and “we’re going to have to save each other.” We surely do need stamina and self-sufficiency, but mantras like these let people in power—people who sought power, and people who have power by dint of wealth—off the hook too easily. They should know what we expect of them.

Mike Nellis tweeted:

A reporter asked the chair of the Nobel Peace Prize committee why Trump didn’t win, and the guy basically said it’s because he has no courage or integrity. Absolutely brutal.

There’s also that the deadline for nominations for the 2025 prize was about the time the nasty guy was inaugurated. So all the things he did this year to get the prize would only apply to next year’s award. In the comments are a lot of cartoons about the nasty guy and the Peace Prize. Walter Einenkel of Kos posted part of a transcript of Obama’s interview on “WTF with Marc Maron.”

The question has always been, can we pull off this experiment in which people are showing up from all over the place? They're not tied together by blood. They don't necessarily worship God in the same way—or worship God at all. They speak different languages. They have all these weird foods. They show up with these odd customs. And some of them were dragged here in chains and some of them had their land taken from them and their culture destroyed. And out of all that, can we create a shared creed that allows us to live peacefully together and get stuff done? There's always been this fight over what is the true story of America. And I believe deeply in this story—that if we can pull this off, if we can actually treat everybody with decency and respect, and compromise, and make democracy work—it shines a light for the entire world.

Mirroring the soceity as a whole

Before Christmas my friend and debate partner wrote in response to my look at the options the United Methodist Church has in dealing with the gay issue:

I think the answer to "can we come to terms with the gay issue?" is no. I deduce that by examining this quote:

"The UMC, partly because it is the second largest Protestant denomination (after Southern Baptist Convention), mirrors the society as a whole."...

This is simply not true as stated. For example, a lot of Americans are detached or even alienated from organized religion -- surely UMC thinking does not encompass the thinking of such people, for it is religious in nature and spirit.

But this quote was undoubtedly written for an audience involved in and committed to organized religion. Is it then true?

If we assume that in context the writer really meant "The UMC... mirrors the religiously involved (church / synagogue / mosque / temple -attending, e.g.) portion of society as a whole", well, that is also untrue, for only Christian concepts and models are in play in the UMC.

Might the writer have really meant "The UMC... mirrors Christian (or Protestant) society as a whole"? I'm not Christian and cannot offer an expert opinion, but I perceive the full breadth of Christian thinking (e.g. on gay issues) as far broader than is found in the UMC and, at the same time, more divided into strictly defined narrow-minded channels -- channels that do not interact. I'm thinking here of Catholic, evangelical and other self-righteous self-involved views. If these channels are all present in the UMC, they are at least interacting (conflicting?) and up for broad cross-examination. That doesn't mirror the society.

By now I doubt there is any truth at all in the original quote. Perhaps its just the view of a writer who thinks his own views mirror the society as a whole -- that is, of a writer who is "right".

But no one is "right" in this debate, except relative to their own specific assumptions, stated or not. The factions have contradictory base assumptions that inevitably lead to conflicting conclusions. They are really not communicating with each other at all, nor apparently wish to do so.

First of all, the writer of that sentence was me, trying to (perhaps clumsily) condense a more complex thought that was incompletely stated in the original. Let me clarify what I intended (even if the original author didn't).

The UMC … mirrors society as a whole on the issue of what to do with gays. Within the denomination are leaders (including most bishops, but they don't create denomination policy) who believe that gays should be a part of all aspects of the church. They should be allowed to be pastors (and bishops). Their loves and commitments to life partners should be honored and affirmed by our pastors in our buildings just like any straight couple. Their view is as progressive as any outside the church.

Also within the denomination are members and leaders (probably including some of those on the judicial council, the denomination's high court) whose view of gay's sinfulness is as extreme as the Fundies in other denominations. The denomination is already going too far in the scraps of acceptance that have been tossed to gays to keep them in their place.

And all the viewpoints in between are represented among the members. So, yes, the UMC, when discussing gays, does mirror the society as a whole. Both ends of the issue are represented in the society, whether religious or not. And, no, the diversity of opinions about gays is not far broader outside the denomination than in. Also, no, this is not strictly a Christian issue. Jews struggle over it too with various groups taking the same ends of the issue.

The issue will not break apart the Southern Baptist Convention because the official policy is that gays are not welcome and dissenters are shown the door. Instead the SBC may shrink until it is irrelevant. The issue also won't break apart the United Church of Christ because as a liberal denomination they have already said that gays are welcome at all levels. It is only in churches like the UMC which don't dictate much doctrine and thus allow both liberal and conservatives to be included, that may split over the issue or may suffer a decline because they allow conservatives to rule on the gay issue.

My friend is right in one aspect. The factions are not communicating with each other about gays and the only wish to do so is to tell the other side they are wrong.

Can we come to terms with the gay issue?

Alas, I didn't make it to the Ruth Ellis Center, the drop-in center for gay young adults, this evening due to bad driving conditions from snow. Then there was the problem that I couldn't tell them I went home because I only have the phone number of the office, which closes at 5:00. I don't have the number in the kitchen in the center -- the one that would get answered by the evening staff. Definitely a white Christmas this year.

Sometime back before I started this blog I may have mentioned a site devoted to Religious Tolerance. I had a reason to visit the site again (list it as a resource for the Center) so it is time to mention it again. They compare the big religions (and a few small ones too) and take a look at what these religions say about hot topics -- like gays. In our case it also talks about what gays and the culture in general also say. It is well researched and bends over backwards to be even-handed (though in a few places that means it is a bit bland -- but doesn't stop Fundies from blasting them). I've only read/scanned the sections on homosexuality. Some things it discusses:

In a section that contrasts conservatives wanting to ban gay rights and liberals supporting such rights, here is a quote from John S. Spong from a Beliefnet weekly mailing.

"I think that we have in recent years entered a 'New Dark Age' in the Western world. It is marked by the rise of religious systems that seek to build security by encouraging prejudice against a designated victim. Both evangelical fundamentalism and the kind of ultra-conservative Roman Catholicism that is at present installed in the Vatican are publicly defined by their visceral and uninformed hostility toward homosexual persons. What the heretic was in the Middle Ages, the black in the days of slavery and segregation, and the Jew in Nazi Germany, the homosexual has become in the religious hysteria of our day. This kind of behavior is always a response to fear and to a rapidly changing world. Security-providing religion, which always requires a victim, is like a drug that carries us over the rough places of life. It is certainly not the wave of the Christian future....Beyond that I think we ought to recognize that truth and unity cannot ever be built on identifying a victim that creates the illusion of unity because there is a common enemy. When these institutions say that God hates the same things that the worshiper hates, everyone should be very suspicious."

In a page about whether religion should trump gay rights, the site's author, B.A. Robinson wrote:

"Unfortunately, in debates, sermons, articles, books etc., people rarely describe their fundamental beliefs. Instead, they usually deal with conclusions that they have derived from those beliefs. Thus, dialogue between those with opposing beliefs is almost impossible. Debate deals with too high a level of abstraction; fundamentals are generally neglected. Discussion often degenerates into mutual hatred."

In other words, debates don't change minds.

As part of a discussion of whether various denominations will split over the gay issue there is an entire page about the United Methodist Church. Some things it says:

The UMC, partly because it is the second largest Protestant denomination (after Southern Baptist Convention), mirrors the society as a whole. More liberal denominations have decided in favor of gays, more conservative against gays. Only those encompassing a wide spectrum are caught in the debate. If the UMC can come to terms with the gay issue, it becomes a gift to other congregations. If not, it has missed an opportunity of grace.

There are several core problems in the gay debate within the UMC.

* John Wesley, denomination founder, stressed our faith is based on a quadrilateral of the bible, tradition, experience, and reason. Alas, conservatives stress the first two and liberals stress the last two.
* Conservatives believe the bible to be inerrant -- free of error. Liberals believe the bible expresses the faith of real believers based on what those believers knew. And they knew nothing about homosexuality. So liberals look to broader themes, such as justice and caring.
* Both sides are convinced God agrees with them and prayer is ineffective in determining God's view on this (and likely many) matters.

We have been at the point for a long time now where one side insists zero tolerance for homosexual acts is the only moral solution and the other side insists full inclusion of all people is likewise the only moral solution. Given there is no middle ground what are scenarios of the future? None of them are good.

* Maintain the status quo. Yeah, the church stays together, but the issue will come up every 4 years for a good long time (no matter which side wins), sapping energy better spent elsewhere. If trends of acceptance of homosexuality among youth continue liberals will eventually get their way with a might backlash from conservatives -- unless youth are disgusted over the church's position on the issue and leave. When the vote goes in favor of gays then conservatives will leave. Either way the American church is going to be smaller (the worldwide denomination is growing).

* Reach a compromise. Almost impossible to reach or implement because both sides feel a compromise is a violation of the will of God. It's a sin or it isn't. We can't have partial justice.

* Allow each congregation to decide the issue for itself: This is a combination of compromise and split. If a congregation can successfully choose it becomes an administrative mess for the bishop. But many congregations will split instead. Again, either full morality or full justice is denied.

* Split. This resolves the issue, but in the process tears apart congregations, friendships, and families. Some members will feel alienated by the church of their youth. In spite of the high personal cost this might be the least damaging option. The two parts might reunite in the future (as it did after a split over slavery, though it took a century) or they might drift apart, making reunification impossible.

* Ignore the 1000 pound gorilla: Catholics have put a cap on the issue -- but not to their benefit.