Book curses and book blessings

Here’s the link to this article.

Avatar photoby ADAM LEE

AUG 25, 2023

A medieval manuscript, with a book curse written in the margin | Book curses and book blessings
A medieval book curse. The text on the right reads: “Book of Our Lady Ter Doest donated by Lord Dean Joseph of St. Donaas in Bruges. Whoever takes it away or alienates or tears out a sheet, be damned. Amen.” Credit: Bruges Public Library

Overview:

When books were rare and precious objects, their owners protected them with curses to deter thieves and vandals. We should adopt that same attitude of repugnance toward modern-day censors.

Reading Time: 5 MINUTES

We take it for granted that books are common objects. It’s easy to find one on any subject you want to read about.

You can patronize your favorite bookstore, where the shelves are stacked floor to ceiling with books. You can borrow a treasure trove of books from your local public library for free. Or you can buy anything you want from an online bookseller with an infinite virtual catalog and have it on your doorstep in a few days.

This casual abundance makes it easy to overlook how good we’ve got it. Book lovers of past eras had a much harder time. Until very recently in human history, books were rare and precious treasures.

Before Gutenberg

For thousands of years, from the dawn of literacy until the invention of movable type (1450 in Europe, and several centuries earlier in China), the only way to copy a scroll or a book was by hand, one letter a time.

It was a slow, arduous task requiring the labor of trained scribes. Imagine a medieval scriptorium: rows of monks working by candlelight in unheated rooms, writing with quill pens and ink they made themselves from local pigments. Imagine the straining eyes, the aching backs, the cramping hands. One marginal note, written in a medieval manuscript by the copyist, gives a sense of the labor involved: “Now I’ve written the whole thing. For Christ’s sake, give me a drink!”

Even the parchment that books were written on was a valuable commodity. It was made from calfskin, and it might require the slaughter of dozens or hundreds of calves to yield enough for an entire book. There was good reason not to waste it. This led to the creation of palimpsests: a book whose previous writing was erased, washed or scraped off, so that the precious parchment could be reused for something new.

These palimpsests are a treasure trove for modern scholars. With multispectral imaging, we can read the older, nearly-invisible traces of letters underneath the newer writing. Some ancient manuscripts are only known from these remnants.

Because books were so laborious to produce, the copyists made each one an object of beauty. Many surviving ancient texts are illuminated manuscripts, decorated with elaborate border art and illustrations, sometimes made with gold or silver leaf. A particularly elaborate book like the Lindisfarne Gospels might have taken as long as ten years to craft.

All the work required meant that books were luxuries of the very rich. And to top it all off, books were fragile. Unlike, say, a marble statue or an iron tool, they could easily be destroyed by fire, by water, by rot, or by simple thoughtless vandalism. All that staggering labor could be erased in moments—and often was. (The sum total of written material in Old English comes from a mere four books that survived the centuries.)

Naturally, people who owned books were fiercely protective of them. After you’d gone to the trouble of getting a book copied for your collection, you’d be more than a little piqued if someone borrowed it and never gave it back.

“Let him be fried in a pan”

This inspired one of my favorite literary inventions: the book curse.

Scribes would write these curses at the beginning or end of a book. Like Egyptian pharaohs’ curses on anyone who desecrated their tombs, they promised an awful fate for anyone who stole the book, damaged it, mutilated it, or borrowed it and didn’t return it to the owner.

A short book curse might threaten book thieves with excommunication, damnation or general wrath of God, like this one: “May the sword of anathema slay / If anyone steals this book away.”

However, they could also be longer and more inventive. A more detailed one went like this:

“If anyone take away this book, let him die the death; let him be fried in a pan; let the falling sickness and fever seize him; let him be broken on the wheel and hanged. Amen.”Marc Drogin, Anathema: Medieval Scribes and the History of Book Curses, quoted in Atlas Obscura

Another one reads:

“To steal this book, if you should try,
It’s by the throat you’ll hang high.
And ravens then will gather ’bout
To find your eyes and pull them out.
And when you’re screaming ‘oh, oh, oh!’
Remember, you deserved this woe.”

Medieval people were seriously hardcore about protecting their books.

The evil of book burners

Of course, book curses weren’t magic spells. They had no power outside the superstitious fear they inspired in potential thieves. On the other hand, that’s why the concept is brilliant. The kind of person who’d want to steal a book, presumably, also cares deeply for the written word. That’s the same kind of person who’d be most likely to believe that words have supernatural power to inflict harm on wrongdoers.

Aside from antiques and rare editions, books aren’t so scarce anymore. On the contrary, we’re positively drowning in words. There are more books published than anyone could read in a lifetime. For the first time in history, our biggest problem isn’t finding books, but choosing which ones to read.

We live in a world those candlelit medieval scribes could scarcely have imagined. Even still, there’s something we can learn from them. The lengths they went to to safeguard their precious books—and the violent hatred they felt for thieves and vandals—is an attitude we’d do well to reclaim.

In those ancient times, it was a special kind of evil to burn or otherwise destroy a book. To do so would be to consign countless hours of labor, sweat and devotion to the flames. It was all too possible to erase a book from existence by destroying every copy.

Nowadays, book burning and censorship are merely symbolic acts. The internet enables endless digital replication, perpetual archiving and virtually free distribution, all protected by encryption if necessary. It makes wannabe book destroyers’ efforts perfectly futile. Anyone with a modicum of technical knowledge, or a little bit of money, can read any book they want with very little effort.

Even so, we should hold to the view that to burn a book—literally or metaphorically—is one of the worst crimes you can commit. To keep knowledge out of the hands of those who come seeking it is a grave sin, in the secular sense of the word. Only those with truly depraved souls would attempt such a deed.

Books are accelerators

A book is a distillation of knowledge. It condenses months or years of research into a product that can be read and absorbed in a few hours. Because of this wonderful power, books were the first accelerators that sped up the pace of human progress. The more and more widely we read, the better equipped we are to comprehend the world and to see through others’ eyes. We can each be the beneficiary of many lifetimes’ worth of progress, far more than any one individual could rediscover on their own.

It’s this acceleration that book burners and book censors want to prevent. They want to keep us all tied to a single view of the world, a single set of ideas. Every book that challenges the status quo, that proposes new ways of seeing, is a mortal threat to them. When they come knocking to take the books from our hands, we know what to say to them, courtesy of our medieval forebears. We ought to have our book curses at the ready for any who want to defile the temple of knowledge.

The cartoonish corruption of the Supreme Court

Here’s the link to this article.

Avatar photoby ADAM LEE

AUG 28, 2023

Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas | The cartoonish corruption of the Supreme Court
Credit: Wikimedia Commons/public domain

Overview:

The archconservative justices of the Supreme Court have been enjoying a steady stream of gifts and luxury travel from right-wing billionaire friends. What checks and balances are there for a corrupt judiciary?

Reading Time: 6 MINUTES

Let’s stipulate one thing to start: I don’t doubt that some people call themselves conservative because they believe in small government, low taxes and individual freedom.

However, even granting this, it’s hard to argue that this is the animating idea of the American conservative movement as it exists today. Based on the policies they support, it’s plain to see that its organizing principle is very different. Namely, conservatism appears most concerned with protecting the privileged class—wealthy, white, male Christians for the most part—and ensuring they can do whatever they want. Meanwhile, they want to subject everyone else to increasingly harsh, oppressive and arbitrary laws.

Donald Trump’s shameless attempts to exploit the presidency for his own profit—about which Republicans raised not a peep of protest—are the most glaring example. However, those efforts were unusual only in that they were so brazen. He didn’t pioneer the tactic. He only engaged in it after lesser lights of conservatism had been getting away with it for years.

With that in mind, let’s talk about Clarence Thomas.

Me and my billionaire friends

Thomas has been on the Supreme Court since 1991. He’s one of its most conservative justices, voting against abortion, against gay rights, against gun control, against church-state separation.

Thanks to reporting by ProPublica, we also know that he’s been living large for years on a steady stream of gifts from conservative billionaires. The plutocrats who’ve lavished their wealth on him include Harlan Crow, a Texas real estate mogul; Paul Novelly, an oil baron; David Sokol, a private equity manager; and Wayne Huizenga, a CEO and investor.

In fact, “gifts” is a massive understatement. That word implies a small wrapped package, like something that would fit under a Christmas tree. The gifts that Clarence Thomas has been receiving are of an entirely different order. They’re entrance tickets into a rarefied millionaire lifestyle that the average American can only dream of.

They include flights on private jets and sailing trips on superyachts; VIP passes and skybox seats to sporting events; stays at ultra-luxury hotels, parties at waterfront mansions, and trips to exclusive resorts for the ultrarich. Crow bought several real-estate properties from Thomas and paid the tuition for Thomas’ grandnephew, whom he was raising as a son, to attend private school. He’s even bankrolled Thomas’ insurrectionist wife, Ginni, and her far-right lobbying group Liberty Central (whose mere existence poses its own massive conflicts of interest).

Like clockwork, Thomas’ leisure activities have been underwritten by benefactors who share the ideology that drives his jurisprudence. Their gifts include:

At least 38 destination vacations, including a previously unreported voyage on a yacht around the Bahamas; 26 private jet flights, plus an additional eight by helicopter; a dozen VIP passes to professional and college sporting events, typically perched in the skybox; two stays at luxury resorts in Florida and Jamaica; and one standing invitation to an uber-exclusive golf club overlooking the Atlantic coast.“Clarence Thomas’ 38 Vacations: The Other Billionaires Who Have Treated the Supreme Court Justice to Luxury Travel.” Brett Murphy and Alex Mierjeski, ProPublica, 10 August 2023.

Thomas has mentioned none of this in his yearly financial disclosures. But don’t worry, his billionaire friends swear that they’ve never discussed business on any of their little trips:

In a statement to ProPublica, Sokol said he’s been close friends with the Thomases for 21 years and acknowledged traveling with and occasionally hosting them. He defended the justice as upright and ethical. “We have never once discussed any pending court matter,” Sokol said. “Our conversations have always revolved around helping young people, sports, and family matters.”

Except:

Last October, in New Orleans, Sokol made a direct reference to a pending Supreme Court case while addressing a group of former Horatio Alger scholarship recipients. (Thomas was not in attendance.)

The speech veered into territory that made many of those in attendance uncomfortable and left others appalled, emails and others messages show. Sokol, who has written extensively about American exceptionalism and the virtues of free enterprise, minimized slavery and systemic racism, some felt. He then criticized President Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan, arguing Biden had overstepped the government’s authority, according to a recording of the speech obtained by ProPublica.

“It’s going to get overturned by the Supreme Court,” Sokol predicted, echoing a common legal commentary.

He was right. This summer, the court struck down Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan. Thomas voted in the majority.

This poses the obvious question: Was Sokol only guessing at what the court was going to rule? Or did he have insider knowledge from chatting with his buddy?

It’s not just Thomas going for a dip in the waters of corruption, either. Samuel Alito, another of the court’s archconservatives, went on an extravagant Alaska fishing trip with hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer. Singer flew him there on a private jet costing $100,000 each way and paid for his stay at a $1,000-a-night luxury lodge.

It was a profitable investment:

In 2014, the court agreed to resolve a key issue in a decade-long battle between Singer’s hedge fund and the nation of Argentina. Alito did not recuse himself from the case and voted with the 7-1 majority in Singer’s favor. The hedge fund was ultimately paid $2.4 billion.“Justice Samuel Alito Took Luxury Fishing Vacation With GOP Billionaire Who Later Had Cases Before the Court.” Justin Elliott, Joshua Kaplan and Alex Mierjeski. ProPublica, 20 June 2023.

Like Thomas, Alito didn’t disclose this trip until it was uncovered by reporters. He claimed that “personal hospitality” is exempt from disclosure requirements. This is a willfully dishonest misreading of the law.

An awareness of impropriety

The legal system has a de minimis rule, which states that some acts are too insignificant for the law to concern itself with. If I invite my friend over for dinner at my house and spend $30 on some hamburgers to grill and a six-pack of beer, that would arguably fall under the de minimis exemption.

However, if I instead invite my friend to a catered party at my multimillion-dollar vacation estate, pick him up on a private plane, and hire a celebrity chef to cook for us both, that’s not de minimis. Any reasonable person can see that there’s a vast and significant difference.

The fact that the justices didn’t report these trips suggests an awareness of impropriety. They knew it would give critics grounds to question their impartiality.

The fact that the justices didn’t report these trips suggests an awareness of impropriety.

There doesn’t even have to be an explicit quid pro quo. Any reasonable person can understand that if a Supreme Court justice is personal friends with a billionaire who showers him with gifts, favors and luxury vacations—how likely is it that said justice will vote against his friend’s desires? There can be an implicit, yet still completely obvious, understanding that if they stopped ruling the way their benefactors wanted, the stream of gifts would dry up.

While I don’t think judges should have to take a vow of poverty or live in seclusion like monks, it’s common sense that they should step back from any case which they have a personal connection to. That rule applies if a case before the court involves one of your friends. It also applies if the case involves the conservative think tank your friend has donated tens of millions of dollars to, or the Fortune 500 company whose board of directors your friend sits on, or the dark-money lobbying group your friend underwrites.

In short, if you befriend ultrarich people who have their fingers in many different pies, you should have to accept there’s a much wider spectrum of cases you have to disqualify yourself from. But the conservatives want to have their cake and eat it, too. They want to enjoy the lavish “hospitality” of their wealthy friends, but they also want to keep ruling on cases that concern them. It’s bribery and corruption in the purest sense of the word.

Checks and balances

Much like Donald Trump, these conservative justices are acting as if the law is beneath them. They’re treating their office not as a position of public trust, but as a sinecure they’re entitled to exploit for their own benefit and to do favors for their friends. This would be bad enough in any political office, but it’s especially shocking and revolting with judges appointed to life terms who never have to face the corrective will of the voters.

The simplest Constitutional cure for this rampant corruption is impeachment. Unfortunately, the prospects of that are dim. It takes a two-thirds majority of the Senate to remove a judge from office. In our polarized era, it’s clear that Republican senators value power above all.

Unlike in the days of Nixon, there will never be enough of them who’ll vote to remove a justice of their own party. As long as the Supreme Court’s conservatives keep voting the way they want, they’ll turn a blind eye to corruption or malfeasance, just as they’ve done with Donald Trump.

However, there are other reforms that can be made with a simple majority. For one, Congress could add new justices to the court to counteract the influence of the bad ones.

Or it could impose a mandatory retirement age. That’s a good idea in any case, as lifetime appointments to any office make a mockery of democracy. The judiciary needs regular turnover to keep up with the changing norms of society’s moral consensus. And, of course, it offers a useful test: will those GOP megadonors keep pouring their largesse on their “friends” when they no longer have anything to gain by it?

Victory in Ohio: Issue 1 goes down in flames

Here’s the link to this article.

Avatar photoby ADAM LEE

AUG 17, 2023

Two "Vote" buttons on an American flag | When you can't win, change the rules: Abortion and Ohio's Issue 1
Credit: Shutterstock

Overview:

Issue 1, a cynical attempt to persuade Ohioans to vote away their own power, goes down to resounding defeat. The way is cleared for reproductive autonomy to become a protected right in the Buckeye State.

Reading Time: 3 MINUTES

[Previous: When you can’t win, change the rules]

Abortion rights extended their winning streak in Ohio this summer. Progressives and freethinkers have reason to cheer as Issue 1 went down to defeat.

In 2019, Ohio governor Mike DeWine signed a total ban on abortion, which went into effect when the right-wing Supreme Court repealed Roe. It’s this law that gave rise to the infamous case of a pregnant 10-year-old rape victim who had to go to Indiana for an abortion.

(When this story was first reported, right-wingers angrily insisted it must be a fabrication intended to make them look bad. When it was proven to be true, they went silent.)

Since then, Ohio’s abortion ban has been ping-ponging between state courts. It’s currently blocked again. However, pro-choice groups saw no reason to leave the final outcome up to the discretion of a judge. Polls show that abortion rights enjoy support from a majority of Ohio residents. So they gathered signatures to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot which would make reproductive choice a human right. It will go before the voters in November, and polls say it should pass easily.

Cynical and contemptuous tactics

Sensing their looming defeat, Ohio Republicans tried to cut it off at the knees. The legislature proposed their own constitutional amendment, Issue 1, which would have raised the threshold for passing future amendments from a simple majority to a 60% supermajority. It also would have made the process for getting an amendment on the ballot more arduous.

That was a cynical tactic, since polls showed support for abortion rights at just under 60% (literally, 59%). However, what they did next showed even more contempt for voters.

The legislature hastily scheduled Issue 1 for an August special election—historically, a time of rock-bottom turnout. As recently as January, those same legislators moved to outlaw August special elections on the grounds of low turnout, only to do an about-face. Clearly, Ohio Republicans were hoping that no one would pay attention and only their backers would show up.

Instead, in a classic case of the Streisand Effect, their efforts to ensure a low-turnout election ensured massive publicity and voter interest. It shone a spotlight on their scheme, and voters responded. It didn’t hurt that pro-choice advocates had tapes of Issue 1’s sponsors, including Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose, admitting that it was intended to forestall the abortion amendment.

More than 3 million voters cast ballots. That’s staggering turnout for a special election in the dog days of summer. It’s almost double the number of people who typically vote in Ohio primaries, and five times the number that showed up for the last August election.

When the votes were all in, Issue 1 lost by a resounding margin, 57% to 43%. As it turns out, citizens don’t want to vote away their own power. It’s a stinging rebuke to conservatives who are angling for permanent minority rule.

More dirty tricks thwarted

This wasn’t the only dirty trick that anti-choicers pulled to try to thwart the will of the people. They also filed a lawsuit to get the pro-abortion amendment stricken from the ballot on a technicality, arguing it should have explicitly listed the laws it would repeal. The Ohio Supreme Court unanimously rejected this argument. (The court answered one technicality with another: a constitutional amendment doesn’t “repeal” an existing law, it voids it.)

The defeat of Issue 1 is a bellwether for reproductive freedom in Ohio. It’s a sign to right-wing legislators that, for all their gerrymandering and voter suppression, they’re not above the will of the voters. They can’t expect to have their own way forever without the majority getting a chance to have its say.

It also clears the way for more progressive constitutional amendments. Next on tap in Ohio, there’s one to raise the minimum wage and another to create a bipartisan redistricting commission to fix gerrymandered congressional maps.

And more pro-choice constitutional amendments are coming soon in other states. From Politico:

Similar efforts to put abortion rights to a popular vote are also brewing in Arizona, Florida, Missouri, Nevada and South Dakota. Activists in many of these states are hoping to get the issue before voters in 2024, in which turnout will be especially high due to the presidential election.“Abortion rights won big in Ohio. Here’s why it wasn’t particularly close.” Madison Fernandez, Alice Ollstein and Zach Montellaro. Politico, 8 August 2023.

It’s now very clear that abortion is a winning issue for Democrats, even in red states. According to a PRRI poll from February 2023, almost two-thirds of Americans say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, including majorities in many traditionally red states. What’s more, abortion is a motivating issue. It energizes voters and drives huge turnout.

In their single-minded drive to ban abortion at all costs, Republicans are running directly against the will of the majority. They’re setting themselves up to lose in states where by all rights they should win. If they were willing to moderate their beliefs, they’d likely be able to win many of these voters back. Instead, they’re becoming more and more anti-democratic.

No, it’s not ‘workism’ that’s killing the church

Here’s the link to this article.

Avatar photoby ADAM LEE

AUG 14, 2023

Times Square, cluttered with crowds and ads | Workism isn't the church's real problem
Credit: Pixabay

Overview:

Americans are overworked and overly devoted to the hustle, but that’s not why organized religion is declining. Church apologists trying to explain their decline always look outward, never inward at themselves.

Reading Time: 6 MINUTES

[Previous: Church isn’t the answer to hustle culture]

Christianity in America is suffering an unprecedented decline.

Once-thriving congregations are shrinking and graying. Parishes are being consolidated. Closed-down churches are being reborn as bookstores and breweries, concert halls and apartments.

Surveys find that nonreligious Americans—or “nones”—now constitute about 30% of the population, outnumbering every single Christian denomination. If current trends continue, nones could be a majority by 2070.

The decline has become so obvious that even Christian propagandists can’t sweep it under the carpet. So they’re in search of explanations, preferably explanations that absolve them of blame. In the Atlantic, orthodox apologist Jake Meador proposes one:

Contemporary America simply isn’t set up to promote mutuality, care, or common life. Rather, it is designed to maximize individual accomplishment as defined by professional and financial success. Such a system leaves precious little time or energy for forms of community that don’t contribute to one’s own professional life or, as one ages, the professional prospects of one’s children. Workism reigns in America, and because of it, community in America, religious community included, is a math problem that doesn’t add up.“The Misunderstood Reason Millions of Americans Stopped Going to Church.” Jake Meador, The Atlantic, 29 July 2023.

Meador paints a picture of a society that worships work above all else. He argues that high-stress jobs, inflexible schedules, and the capitalist drive to use every moment “productively” have severed the bonds of community. People are isolated, stressed, and exhausted. They’re so immersed in the hustle mindset that they drift away from religion because they can’t conceive of spending time on something that doesn’t make money.

To the churches and their defenders, this is a comforting story. It allows them to tell themselves that they haven’t been rejected. They’ve merely been pushed aside by the hustle and bustle of modern life. It holds out the promise that, if they can cut through the noise and make themselves heard, they can persuade young people to come back.

However, this face-saving explanation has a flaw.

The evidence, drawn from polls and interviews, paints a different picture. It’s not the case that young people have drifted away from church because they’re too busy with their side hustles and their TikToks. Rather, millions have chosen to cut ties with organized religion because they have stark disagreements with its moral teachings—and because the churches allow no room for dissent or difference of opinion.

The churches’ problem isn’t that they’re drowned out in the din and can’t make themselves heard. On the contrary, we hear them loud and clear.

A case in point is Charles Chaput, the archbishop of Philadelphia. In 2016, he urged liberal Catholics to quit the church. According to Chaput, people who call themselves Catholic but support abortion, contraception or LGBTQ rights are faithless liars. He declared that the church would be better off without them. Like other conservatives, he prefers a smaller, more ideologically pure church to a larger one with more diversity of opinion.

And young people are taking him at his word. According to a Pew survey, two-thirds of former Catholics left the church, not because they’re too busy, but because they stopped believing in its teachings.

Sixty years behind the times and going backward

On issue after issue, the pattern is the same. The churches’ problem isn’t that they’re drowned out in the din and can’t make themselves heard. On the contrary, we hear them loud and clear. The problem is that they’ve doubled down on moral stances that are the polar opposite of what young people believe and care about.

The second wave of feminism was more than sixty years ago, yet many churches still reject the most basic notions of gender equality. America’s two largest Christian denominations, Roman Catholic and Southern Baptist, refuse to allow women to take any leadership role. Just this year, the Southern Baptist Convention expelled two churches—including Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church—for the sin of hiring women as pastors. Women who speak out against this gross inequality have been flooded with harassment and hate mail.

To appease the religious minority that believes this, Christian churches have set themselves against the vast majority.

Above all else is the question of abortion. The repeal of Roe was a painful wake-up call, jolting women with the realization that their right to control their own bodies is slipping away. Young people recognize that opposition to abortion is motivated by religion. The churches have been loud and proud in their support of abortion bans, whereas nonbelievers are almost unanimously pro-choice.

And the religious right isn’t planning to stop there. They’re pushing for even more radical restrictions of women’s rights. Their next frontier is trying to scrap no-fault divorce, which would keep people trapped in abusive or unhappy marriages. Almost 70% of divorces are initiated by women, so this is another anti-feminist idea in thin disguise.

Putting people back in boxes

You can tell a similar story about LGBTQ rights. Millennials like me, who came of age in the early 2000s, remember the Christian crusade against gay and lesbian rights, especially same-sex marriage. The Nashville Statement, signed by more than 150 evangelical leaders, declared their eternal opposition to LGBTQ rights in every form.

Of course, they didn’t win that battle. Marriage equality is a reality, delivered by the Supreme Court and reinforced by Congressional legislation. Americans support LGBTQ rights by enormous majorities. More than two-thirds of Americans support marriage equality, including majorities in 47 of 50 states. Three-quarters say LGBTQ people should be protected from discrimination.

However, anti-gay Christians haven’t given up. They’re still fighting a rearguard action, claiming a religious right to discriminate against LGBTQ people. In red states, Christian legislators are banning books with gay characters and passing Don’t Say Gay laws.


READ: The Atlantic accidentally reveals Christianity’s growing irrelevance


In fact, the Christian opposition to gay rights has only grown more vicious. A tragic example was Urban Christian Academy, a private Christian school in Kansas City that provided underprivileged children with a tuition-free education. When the school updated its mission statement to affirm LGBTQ rights, angry religious donors pulled their support. The school lost nearly all its funding and was forced to close its doors.

Transgender people face even more brutal persecution. Wherever they have power, religious conservatives want to police their bathroom use; deny them access to gender-affirming medical care; even take away children from transgender families. So virulent is their opposition to anything and everything that smacks of weakening the gender binary, a Christian university fired two (cisgender) employees merely for putting their pronouns in their e-mail signatures.

As with women’s rights and gay rights, attacks on transgender people are rooted in a religious belief that sex and gender are strictly binary and fixed at birth, and for people to want to break out of these boxes goes against the will of God. However, to appease the religious minority that believes this, Christian churches have set themselves against the vast majority. An April 2023 poll—by Fox News, no less!—finds that 86% of Americans say political attacks on transgender kids are a serious problem.

Insular and hostile

The root cause of these culture-war clashes is that most churches, especially evangelical churches, have turned insular and hostile. They’re dens of conservatism—and not traditional small-government conservatism, but radical, norm-breaking Trumpian conservatism.

Russell Moore, a former top official of the Southern Baptist Congregation, made waves recently when he spoke about pastors whose congregants scorn the literal teachings of Jesus as “liberal talking points” and “weak”.

As churches grow more fanatical, they’re also receding further from objective reality. Many pastors complain that QAnon and other noxious conspiracy theories are swallowing up their congregations. Surveys find that as many as 50% of white evangelicals are QAnon believers.

Most churches, especially evangelical churches, have turned insular and hostile.

The few prominent Christians who aren’t caught up in the tide of conspiracies have lamented how gullible their fellow believers are. Evangelical author Ed Stetzer said in 2017 that “the spreading of these conspiracies are hurting our witness and making Christians look, yet again, foolish.”

However, no one heeded him. The plague of conspiracy beliefs only got worse—so much so that by 2020, he was pleading, “If you still insist on spreading such misinformation, would you please consider taking Christian off your bio so the rest of us don’t have to share in the embarrassment?”

Looking in the mirror

Is hustle culture a real problem? Yes. Have some people stopped attending church because they’re too busy? Almost certainly.

However, Christian apologists use this as a way to avoid looking in the mirror. They want to believe that Christianity’s decline isn’t their fault. That way, they don’t have to do anything differently. Or, at worst, the problem is that they haven’t been faithful enough—so they need to do what they’ve always been doing, just more and harder. (In his column, Meador follows suit: “[A] vibrant, life-giving church requires more, not less, time and energy from its members.”)

This inability to introspect is a widespread problem in institutional Christianity. The arrow of causality is fixed pointing outward; they never turn it back upon themselves. For all they talk about repentance, they’re consistently unwilling to consider that they might have made any mistakes of their own that they need to atone for.

None of this means that there aren’t any other problems in American society. As a culture, we do work too much—some of us by choice, others very much not by choice—and overvalue wealth and success at the expense of everything that makes life meaningful.

If Christians are serious about resisting hustle culture, their help would be welcome. They could join atheists in calling for a stronger safety net, an expanded sense of mutuality, and more guarantees for workers’ rights and leisure time. It would go a long way to repair their reputation; it might even reverse their decline.

But for the churches to truly commit to this goal, rather than merely using it to shift the blame, would require real change on their part. It would require more compassion, more tolerance, and a greater willingness to reconsider long-held dogmas than they’ve displayed until now.

‘That’s why we have an Insurrection Act’

Here’s the link to this article.

Avatar photoby ADAM LEE AUG 07, 2023

The US Capitol building, lit up at dusk | "That's why we have an Insurrection Act"
Credit: Martin Falbisoner, CC BY-SA 3.0

Overview:

Special Counsel Jack Smith’s indictment reveals how far Donald Trump and his cronies were willing to go to overturn the election. American democracy had a very narrow escape indeed in 2020.

Reading Time: 5 MINUTES

Throughout his long life of wealth and privilege, Donald Trump has dodged consequences time and again. Could this finally be the case that brings him to heel?

At the start of 2023, progressives could have been forgiven for feeling cynical. At that point, it had been over two years since the election, and despite his numerous and well-documented acts of criminality, he was facing no charges. It seemed a foregone conclusion that, yet again, he would thumb his nose at the law and get off scot-free.

However, that pessimism was premature. While it took an unacceptably long time, the machinery of the justice system is finally creaking into action.

In the last few months, Trump has been hit with a flurry of indictments. He’s now facing criminal charges in New York (for his hush-money payments to a sex worker, in violation of election law); in federal court in Florida (for stealing classified documents and refusing to return them); and possibly soon in Georgia (for his felonious attempt at strong-arming the Secretary of State to “find” more votes for him).

But this is the big one. Special Counsel Jack Smith has filed felony charges against Trump for his attempts to overturn the 2020 election, including his role in inciting the deadly January 6 insurrection.

What’s in the indictment

There’s little in this indictment we didn’t already know. Most of it recounts the evidence gathered by the Congressional January 6 Commission. But it’s both informative and terrifying to see it in one place.

In late 2020, when it was clear that he had lost, Trump started spreading lies that the election was fraudulent, despite being told by his own advisors that there was no basis for believing this. A Trump campaign advisor complained about having to defend “conspiracy shit beamed down from the mothership”.

He filed a blizzard of groundless lawsuits, all of which were thrown out, and pressured Republican legislatures in swing states to override their own voters and award him the election. This effort failed as well.

The crux of the scheme, and of Jack Smith’s criminal charges, is this: When his other strategies to steal the election floundered, Trump came up with a last-ditch plan to rig the Electoral College. He conspired with his supporters to draw up fake electoral-vote certificates, hand them to Vice President Mike Pence on the floor of Congress, and have him reject the real electoral votes and count the fake ones.

Conspiracy against rights

To be perfectly clear: This isn’t free speech; this is a crime. It’s a scheme to use forged versions of official documents to change the outcome of a legal proceeding. This is like printing counterfeit dollar bills and trying to use them in a store, or forging a dead person’s will and giving it to a lawyer to read to the heirs because you don’t like what’s in the real one.

(Fittingly, one of the charges stemming from this plan is “conspiracy against rights”, first passed into law in the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1870.)

However, Pence wouldn’t go along with the plan. He insisted that the Vice President had no power to arbitrarily pick and choose electoral votes (because of course he doesn’t—if he did, no incumbent president would ever lose reelection). Trump berated him for being “too honest”, but Pence didn’t give in.

I despise Pence for being a soulless theocrat whose heart pumps sour milk instead of blood, but I have to grudgingly give him credit for this. He refused to go along with Trump’s lawbreaking, and he held firm on that stance despite enormous pressure.

However, not everyone in Trump’s circle was so principled. The most hair-raising line of the indictment is a transcript of a conversation between White House deputy counsel Patrick Philbin and a person identified as “Co-conspirator #4″—widely believed to be Jeffrey Clark, a Trump crony in the Justice Department.

Philbin argued that if Trump succeeded with his scheme, there would be riots in every major American city. Clark/Co-conspirator 4 said:

“…that’s why there’s an Insurrection Act.”

Sit with these words for a minute.

We know—even if it’s come to seem less shocking through sheer repetition—that the president of the United States schemed to steal an election, in plain sight, and remain in office against the will of the voters. We now know, in addition, that the conspirators expected mass protest from the American people, and that they were at least considering calling out the military to put the protests down by force.

A second Civil War

As I said at the time, it’s no exaggeration to say that a competent fascist could have overthrown the United States government in 2020. We came right up to the edge of killing democracy and turning the country over to a military junta.

It’s possible the military would have refused to follow these orders if Trump had given them—but at minimum, we’d have been plunged into a massive constitutional crisis. And what would have happened if some branches of the military had gone along with the scheme while others refused? Blue states claiming Trump wasn’t president while red states claimed he was? It could have ignited a second Civil War.

Either way, we escaped by the skin of our teeth. We know the next and final act of the drama: when everything else failed, Trump gathered a mob of his followers in Washington, D.C., riled them up with more lies about a stolen election, and incited them to assault the Capitol. The mob overwhelmed the Capitol police, broke into the building while Congress fled in a panic, and ransacked the halls of government until law enforcement regrouped and chased them out. They failed to disrupt the election, but if they had captured Pence or any member of Congress, we know what they intended. They built a gallows.

A norm not to be broken lightly

There’s good reason not to prosecute former presidents. It’s not a norm to be broken lightly. Otherwise, we risk becoming a banana republic where every new president persecutes and jails his opposition. It’s not hyperbole to say that this norm has helped America have smooth handovers of power for the last two centuries, something other nations have struggled with.

But there have to be limits to what we’re willing to tolerate. Otherwise, a president could commit crimes with impunity. There may still be reason to overlook minor offenses, but extraordinary crimes demand an extraordinary response.

We approached this precipice once before, with a different Republican president. However, with Nixon, it mattered that the entire political apparatus was united against him. He resigned because Congressional Republicans made it clear to him that they’d support impeachment. Without the party behind him, he had no prospect of political survival. Rightly or wrongly, Ford’s decision to pardon him was likely motivated by the belief that there was no further harm he could do.

The situation we’re facing is very different. With a handful of principled exceptions—many of whom have already lost their seats in primaries—the Republican Party has fallen into line behind Trump. They’re still excusing his flagrant lawbreaking and his attempted coup. Even his political rivals, who’d benefit most if he were removed from the board, continue to attack and denounce Democrats for prosecuting him. Whatever the outcomes of the criminal trials, he’s all but certain to be the 2024 nominee.

Can our democracy survive when one of its two major parties has embraced insurrection and authoritarianism? Perhaps, but only if it’s apparent to everyone that there will be consequences. The United States has to deliver a strong message that attacks on the fabric of our society will be punished. Otherwise, he and others like him will just be emboldened to try again.

There’s no question about whether Trump committed the acts he’s charged with. Of course, the real hurdle is finding a jury willing to convict him. But that’s no reason not to try. On the contrary, justice demands we make the attempt. To give up before we start would be to concede that the rich and politically influential are above the law, whereas if we try him, there’s at least a chance. And if the prosecutors succeed, they may just save American democracy in the bargain.

James Haught lived life with no qualms

Here’s the link to this article.

Avatar photoby ADAM LEE JUL 27, 2023

A beautiful sun over a green field | James Haught lived life with no qualms
Credit: Shutterstock

Overview:

Bidding farewell to a giant of the freethought movement, and looking back at his achievements and the progress he bore witness to over nine decades.

Reading Time: 5 MINUTES

James Haught, a giant in the freethought movement and my long-time guest contributor, died on July 23 at the age of 91. The West Virginia Gazette-Mail, the newspaper where he worked throughout his seven-decade career in journalism, posted his obituary.

James was born in 1932 in Reader, West Virginia, a rural town without electricity or paved streets. He started work as an apprentice printer and worked his way up to the newsroom. When his H.L. Mencken-esque editor assigned him to the religion beat, they had a memorable exchange:

One day he told me: “Haught, we want you to be our religion columnist.” I said, “But I haven’t been to church in twenty years.” He said, “Fine—that means you’ll be objective.”

In his long career, he covered everything from snake-handling Pentecostals, to money-grubbing televangelists, to religious swindlers and crooks, to fundamentalists who rioted against “godless” textbooks. As he put it, “My years of covering Bible Belt religion hardened my youthful skepticism into militant agnosticism.” He penned books like Holy Horrors2000 Years of Disbelief, and Honest Doubt.

I was in contact with Jim starting in 2011. He had a regular mailing list, which I somehow found my way onto, sending interesting articles he’d come across as well as his own thoughts. He graciously gave me permission to reprint some of his columns.

In 2018, he approached me with a proposition. He wanted to put more of his vast catalog of essays online and was seeking a home for them. At the time, my son was a baby and I was working on my book Commonwealth, both of which had cut into my writing time—so this offer couldn’t have come at a more propitious time. Over the following years, he became a reliable guest contributor, first to my blog Daylight Atheism on Patheos and now here on OnlySky.

Some of my favorites from his collection include a column on the majesty of West Virginia’s mountains, his autobiographical account of his life, and an optimistic view of the human progress he bore witness to over nine decades.

From his writing, I learned about bloody religious conflicts I’d never heard of, like the Cristero War and the Taiping Rebellion, as well as violent battles for the right to organize. Proving that age is no barrier to acceptance of moral progress, he also wrote about white privilege and sexism in the freethought movement.

Even in his old age, he retained his intellect, his restless curiosity, his optimism for the future, and his staunch humanism. I hope I live so long or age so well.

I last heard from him about a month ago. He said that he’d received some serious medical news, and that he was making an appointment with a specialist for a second opinion. I wrote back a brief note, expressing my hope for good results and asking him to keep me updated. I regret that I didn’t say more—but how do you know, how can you ever know, when you correspond with someone for the last time?

Besides, it would have been arrogant of me to presume to offer words of wisdom or comfort to someone whose life experience so far outstripped mine. In the face of death, his courageous humanism never wavered.

In his honor, I’m rerunning a column of his from a few years ago about death. It’s a powerful essay, looking back on his life and confronting his own imminent mortality without fear or qualm. Out of all his writings, it’s my favorite.


I’m quite aware that my turn is approaching. The realization hovers in my mind like a frequent companion.

My first wife died ten years ago. Dozens, hundreds, of my longtime friends and colleagues likewise came to the end of their journeys. They number so many that I keep a “Gone” list in my computer to help me remember them all. Before long, it will be my turn to join the list.

I’m 86 and still work. I feel keen and eager for life. My hair’s still dark (mostly). I have a passel of children, grandchildren and rambunctious great-grandchildren. I love sailing my beloved dinghy on our small private lake, and hiking in shady forests with my three-legged dog, and taking a gifted grandson to symphony, and seeking wisdom in our long-running Unitarian philosophy-and-science circle. I remarried an adorable woman in her 70s, and we relish our togetherness. But her health is fragile. Her turn is on the horizon too.

I have no dread. Why worry about the inescapable, the utterly unavoidable, the sure destiny of today’s seven billion? However, sometimes I feel annoyed because I will have no choice. I’m accustomed to choosing whatever course I want—but I won’t get to decide whether to take my final step. Damn!

I have no supernatural beliefs. I don’t expect to wake up in Paradise or Hades, surrounded by angels or demons. That’s fairy-tale stuff. I think my personality, my identity—me—is created by my brain, and when the brain dies, so does the psyche. Gone forever into oblivion.

I’ll admit that some reports of “near-death experiences” raise tantalizing speculation about a hereafter. But, in the end, I assume those blinding lights and out-of-body flotations are just final glimmers from oxygen deprivation. I guess I’ll find out soon enough.

It takes courage to look death in the eye and feel ready. So be it. Bring it on. I won’t flinch. Do your damnedest. I’ll never whimper. However, maybe this is bluster and bravado, an attempt to feel strong in the face of what will happen regardless of how I react.

Unlike Dylan Thomas, I won’t rage, rage against the dying of the light. Instead, I plan to live as intensely as I can, while I can, and then accept the inevitable. I find solace in wisdom I’ve heard from other departees. Just before she died of ovarian cancer, one of my longtime friends, Marty Wilson, wrote:

“I often think of humankind as a long procession whose beginning and end are out of sight. We the living… have no control over when or where we enter the procession, or even how long we are part of it, but we do get to choose our marching companions. And we can all exercise some control over what direction the procession takes, what part we play, and how we play it.”

In The Fire Next Time, brilliant writer James Baldwin said:

“Life is tragic simply because the earth turns and the sun inexorably rises and sets, and one day, for each of us, the sun will go down for the last, last time. Perhaps the root of our trouble, the human trouble, is that we will sacrifice all the beauty of our lives, will imprison ourselves in totems, taboos, crosses, blood sacrifices, steeples, mosques, races, armies, flags, nations, in order to deny the fact of death, which is the only fact we have.”

Legendary lawyer Clarence Darrow wrote:

“When we fully understand the brevity of life, its fleeting joys and unavoidable pains; when we accept the fact that all men and women are approaching an inevitable doom; the consciousness of it should make us more kindly and considerate of each other. This feeling should make men and women use their best efforts to help their fellow travelers on the road, to make the path brighter and easier… for the wayfarers who must live a common life and die a common death.”

My journey on the road has been proceeding for eight decades. Actuarial tables make my future so obvious that I can’t shut my eyes to it. Life proceeds through stages, and I’m in the last scene of the last act.

I have a Pantheon of my favorite heroes: Einstein, Jefferson, Voltaire, Lincoln, Carl Sagan, Shakespeare, Martin Luther King Jr., Tolstoy, FDR, Beethoven, Epicurus, Gandhi, etc. They fill a different “Gone” list. They uplifted humanity, even transformed humanity, in their day—but their day ended, and life moved on.

My day was the 1960s, and ’70s, and ’80s, even the ’90s. I was a Whirling Dervish in the thick of everything. Life was a fascinating carnival. But it slides into the past so deftly you hardly notice.

While my clock ticks away, I’ll pursue every minute. Carpe diem. Make hay while the sun shines. And then I’m ready for nature’s blackout, with no regrets.

Teach your kids about propaganda, or someone else will

Here’s the link to this article.

Avatar photoby ADAM LEE

JUN 26, 2023

A dense field of American flags | Teach your kids about propaganda, or someone else will
Credit: Pixabay

Overview:

Keeping kids isolated from viewpoints you disagree with is a parenting strategy that never works. A better one is to teach them how to recognize propaganda and toxic memes when they see them.

Reading Time: 6 MINUTES

My son, going on seven years old, is boundlessly curious. That’s the natural state of childhood, and it’s one of the sublime joys of parenthood to nurture that curiosity and encourage it to grow.

He’s taken to reading on his own, and he wants to know about everything. He likes learning about animals and plants, space, mythology and religion, and world history. He’s also interested in American history, which my wife and I are trying to present in a nuanced way.

It was Flag Day this month, and his first-grade class did a lesson about it. When he came home, he wanted to learn more. I didn’t have any books on the subject, so I opened YouTube—which has its hazards, but can be an invaluable source of information—and searched for videos about Flag Day.

One of the top results was a video from PragerU Kids, a slick right-wing channel packed with jingoistic politics and regressive morality. The thumbnail caught his eye, but I kept scrolling past it.

I told him, “That one’s not good to watch. Let’s find something else.”

He insisted, “No, daddy, that one is fine! I watched it in school!”

Record scratch. Freeze frame.

My values, your propaganda

Admittedly, “propaganda” is a loaded term. Every story conveys values, implicitly or explicitly. No one calls a show propaganda when it has a moral they agree with.

A kids’ show like Hilda, which we watched together, uses magic and adventure to convey a powerful message about resisting the siren song of fear and xenophobia that empowers bigotry. Kids’ shows like Captain Planet (which I watched when I was my son’s age), or Wild Kratts (which he watches now), teach the importance of valuing nature and protecting the planet from despoilment. Mr. Rogers’ Neighborhood taught children about kindness and radical self-love (for which reason the modern right despises him).

Just the same way, the right has its own set of values. They teach their followers to believe in a cruel and angry god who will hurt them if they disobey orders or question what they’re told. They teach that men act one way and women act another way and it’s sinful and evil to step outside these rigid gender roles. They teach a simplistic version of history where America is always right and has never made any mistakes or committed any wrongs that need to be redressed.

PragerU, and its offshoot PragerU Kids, embody the latter set of values. Despite what the name suggests, it’s not a “university” in any sense. It doesn’t have classes, exams or professors, and it doesn’t grant degrees. It’s a media channel created by Dennis Prager, a right-wing political commentator. Prager is slightly unusual in that he’s Jewish rather than Christian, but in all other respects, he perfectly reflects the intolerant, anti-science, anti-rational outlook of the modern conservative movement.

Among other things, PragerU videos assert:

PragerU Kids teaches the same ideas, except it uses cartoons and animation aimed at children. One of the most disgusting examples is their video about Christopher Columbus, which argues that we should continue to celebrate Columbus Day, notwithstanding the horrendous atrocities that Columbus committed:

YouTube video

Although PragerU would never call it that, this video is an endorsement of moral relativism. It argues that we can’t condemn Columbus because it’s wrong to judge the past by the standards of the present. But if they believe that, how can they simultaneously argue that he’s deserving of a holiday in his honor?

Either we can pass judgment on figures of the past, or we can’t. If we can’t, then we can’t say anything positive or negative about them. If we can, then we can judge them worthy of condemnation, just as we can judge them worthy of fame. As with their renewable-energy videos or their Islam-versus-the-Bible videos, PragerU concocts a double standard to get to the conclusion they decided on in advance.

What is PragerU doing in public school?

So, as you can imagine, I was alarmed to hear that my son had watched a PragerU video in his public school classroom.

I didn’t think his teacher was engaged in a sinister plot to indoctrinate students. On the contrary, I was pretty sure it was an innocent mistake by a teacher who was looking for educational content, just as I was, and who didn’t realize the source of the material she found.

PragerU’s channel is designed to encourage this kind of confusion. Many of its videos aren’t political at all. They’re ordinary tutorials on topics like how to make a pinata, or how insurance works. The explicitly political videos are hidden among them like tigers lurking in tall grass.

To be sure, PragerU is clear enough about its agenda if you know what to look for. For example, its website denounces “[w]oke agendas… infiltrating classrooms, culture, and social media” and proudly declares itself to be the answer to “all the propaganda that the state is mandating be taught.” In its YouTube video descriptions, the channel says that they’re “protecting [kids] from leftist indoctrination occurring in schools”. But if you’re not on the lookout for these giveaways, they’re easy to miss.

The Flag Day video is in an intermediate category. It’s not explicitly political like the Columbus video, but it is implicitly political. It’s a fundamentally conservative view of American history: one-sided, purely laudatory, and strictly backward-looking. It praises the courage and sacrifice of the revolutionaries, hails the wisdom of the founders, and cheers for America because it won the space race and planted a flag on the Moon. It closes by encouraging kids to always love, respect and salute the flag.

There’s nothing in this video you could point to that’s false. However, it promotes an uncritical, rah-rah view of history that contradicts the nuanced, thoughtful perspective I want to raise my son with.

How would I have done it differently? Obviously, I wouldn’t expect a Flag Day video aimed at kids to recount evils like slavery or Native American genocide. However, if I had written the script, I would have featured people who fought to make America better, like Susan B. Anthony or Martin Luther King, Jr. I would have made sure to say that symbols like the flag or the Statue of Liberty represent ideals which America is still trying to live up to, and that every generation has an opportunity to help make the nation better and to uphold the promise of liberty and justice for all.

You’ve got to catapult the propaganda

Innocent mistake or not, I couldn’t let this pass. I didn’t want my son’s class, or another class, seeing more of these videos. So I wrote the teacher a letter—a polite one!—explaining what PragerU is and making some of the same points I’ve made here. I said that I didn’t blame her, but wanted to make her aware that the channel isn’t neutral educational content. It has a disguised political agenda that’s inappropriate for public schools serving children of diverse backgrounds.

The teacher wrote back, saying that she had reviewed the video beforehand but didn’t review the entire channel, and thanked me for bringing it to her notice. That was what I expected. Hopefully, she’ll share this so all the teachers at that school will be forewarned.

However, there was one more thing I had to do.

I’m not a Christian fundamentalist homeschooler. I’m not trying to keep my son ignorant of everything I disagree with. I’d rather teach him to recognize propaganda and learn how to spot and deconstruct the assumptions it smuggles in. That way, when he encounters these ideas out in the world, he’ll be able to identify them for what they are and reject them without my help.

To that end, we watched the PragerU Flag Day video again, together. We talked about what this channel wants kids to think, and how it conflicts with ideas we’ve already taught him about, like protests and civil disobedience. We talked about people who take a knee at the flag instead of saluting it, why they do that, and why that makes other people angry.

I hope and trust that we’ve equipped my son to think for himself the next time he encounters disguised propaganda. And there will be a next time, because this stuff is insidious. The propaganda mills that crank it out are everywhere, and they try their best to seem aspirational, cool or innocuous.

If we nonbelievers and progressives don’t raise our kids right, we’re leaving them vulnerable. Teaching them critical thinking early on is essential. It’s like an intellectual vaccination, giving them a defense against all the toxic memes in the wilderness of the world.

Postscript: These two videos from Big Joel’s YouTube channel were a helpful resource: PragerU for Kids: The Worst Propaganda and PragerU for Kids: A Horrible YouTube Channel. They both informed the letter I sent to my son’s school.

Millennials: your liberal atheist elders

Here’s the link to this article.

Avatar photoby ADAM LEE

APR 20, 2023

Blue lines rising against an abstract background | Meet your liberal atheist elders
Credit: Pixabay

Overview:

Millennials are defying long-established patterns by getting older without becoming more religious or voting more conservative. It’s an unpleasant surprise for the American religious right.

Reading Time: 5 MINUTES

You get more conservative as you get older. Everyone knows that.

As you age, you settle into the world. Your youthful passions cool, and the fire of rebellion fizzles out. You get a corporate job, a steady paycheck, a pension, and a house in the suburbs. The reckless fantasies of your younger self become fond memories of the good old days. As old age creeps up, you get used to things as they are, and you instinctively become suspicious of change.

It happened to the Boomers. Those rebellious beatniks and peace-loving hippies became retirees, churchgoers, Trump supporters. It happened to Gen X too. Now, as the Millennials approach middle age, it’s their turn. It’s the way of things, as natural and inevitable as the seasons.

There’s just one problem. It’s not happening this time.

Millennials are breaking the oldest rule of politics

It’s true, historically speaking, that people tend to be liberal in their youth and to become more conservative as they age. As John Burn-Murdoch writes in the Financial Times, summing up a trend that applies to the U.K. and the U.S.:

The pattern has held remarkably firm. By my calculations, members of Britain’s “silent generation”, born between 1928 and 1945, were five percentage points less conservative than the national average at age 35, but around five points more conservative by age 70. The “baby boomer” generation traced the same path, and “Gen X”, born between 1965 and 1980, are now following suit.“Millennials are shattering the oldest rule in politics.” John Burn-Murdoch, Financial Times, 30 December 2022.

With this evidence on their side, conservatives might have had an excuse for complacency. However, the Millennial generation has broken the pattern. Not only did we start out more liberal than average, we’re staying that way as we age. In fact, we’re getting even more liberal:

If millennials’ liberal inclinations are merely a result of this age effect, then at age 35 they too should be around five points less conservative than the national average, and can be relied upon to gradually become more conservative. In fact, they’re more like 15 points less conservative, and in both Britain and the US are by far the least conservative 35-year-olds in recorded history.

This chart shows just how dramatic the trend lines are:

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?dnt=true&embedId=twitter-widget-0&features=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%3D%3D&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1608746369505976323&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fonlysky.media%2Falee%2Fmillennials-your-liberal-atheist-elders%2F&sessionId=cf91e0000f9c88b248cf623ca0136b7d5180093e&theme=light&widgetsVersion=aaf4084522e3a%3A1674595607486&width=550px


Speaking as a Millennial, I can add an anecdote to confirm this data. I’m 41 now, middle-aged by any measure, and I’m a homeowner with a family. But I haven’t become the slightest bit more conservative. I haven’t become any less of a ferocious atheist, nor have my highest priorities become lower taxes and lawn care. I’m as bright-blue liberal as I ever was—maybe more.

This is a looming apocalypse for the religious right. Until recently, their voter pool was steadily replenished as people joined the ranks of the elderly. But if Millennials aren’t aging into conservatism, that means their voters are dying off with no replacement. It’s no wonder that Republicans are resorting to increasingly aggressive gerrymandering, vote suppression, legislating from the bench by far-right judges, and other anti-democratic measures. Once they lose their grip on power, they may never get it back.

We shouldn’t have been surprised

As welcome as this news is, it shouldn’t have come as a surprise. This isn’t the first precedent Millennials have shattered.

In our heyday, Millennials were the least religious generation in American history up to that point (although Gen Z surpassed us). As poll after poll confirmed this result, Christian apologists were dismayed and bewildered.

They made some half-hearted suggestions about how to evangelize to us, but they were confident that their best ally was time. They insisted that we were just having a secular rumspringa, sowing some wild oats, and that we’d come back to Christianity as we settled down and grew older.

That didn’t happen. Instead, Millennials have been growing less religious with time.

Are these trends related? It’s very likely. Frequent church attendance and self-reported religiosity both map to political conservatism. You can debate which direction the arrow of causality points, but the connection is there. Since the Millennials are less religious than older generations, it’s to be expected that we’d also be less conservative.

Pulling up the ladder

There’s another explanation that Burn-Murdoch’s article suggests. Conservatism often accompanies wealth, stability, and a sense of security—in short, the things that make you feel like your life is going well and you’d like to keep it that way. However, younger generations haven’t had that same opportunity to build wealth.

In the U.S., the post-war generation enjoyed unprecedented prosperity. Rather than pass on those opportunities to the young, they’ve done their best to pull up the ladder behind them. Over the last few decades, conservative legislators have crippled union power, kept the minimum wage frozen at a pittance, taken a chainsaw to tax rates at the top, allowed college tuition to skyrocket, stonewalled the construction of affordable housing, and done their utmost to block universal health care.

Republicans have even proposed getting rid of (“sunsetting”) Social Security and Medicare. Nothing could be more emblematic of the conservative desire to yank away welfare programs after benefiting from them.

The predictable result is that a tiny minority has accumulated vast wealth, whereas life for everyone else has become harder and more precarious than ever. The Millennial generation has been pinched between recessions. Many of us can’t afford to buy houses. We have far lower rates of stock ownership.

All of this has left a lasting mark on Millennials’ political views. We never had the chance to become invested in the system the way our parents and grandparents did. It’s the least surprising thing imaginable that we’re in favor of a stronger safety net, higher taxes on the rich and other progressive economic policies.

“Dropped like a rock”

As Millennials and Gen Z grow older, their opinions become a bigger part of the national mix. That’s probably why “the importance of patriotism and faith has dropped like a rock”, according to a Fox News take on this poll from the Wall Street Journal:

The Monday poll questioned U.S. respondents about the importance of patriotism, religious faith, having children and other traditional U.S. metrics. The poll found that just 39% of Americans say their religious faith is very important to them, and just 38% say patriotism is very important. The WSJ compared those numbers to the first time it ran the poll in 1998 when 62% of Americans said religion was very important to them, and 70% said patriotism was very important.

Needless to say, these results have occasioned hand-wringing among the American right. However, they’ve got no one to blame for it but themselves.

For decades, conservatives have sought to weld both religion and patriotism to their own brand of politics. They wanted to convince people that the only way of being patriotic was to be a right-wing Christian. Arguably, they succeeded. But instead of forcing everyone into their mold, as they intended, all they achieved was to turn off everyone who didn’t identify with their brand and send them rushing for the exits.

That’s a major factor behind the decline of Christianity, and the same thing is happening with patriotism. Younger Americans are less inclined to identify with a country that ignores their desires and devalues their lives, just as they’re less inclined to identify with a religion that ignores their views on LGBTQ rights, climate change, gun control, and racial justice. It’s the ultimate reaping-the-whirlwind moment for the religious right.

Why we need public school: Pluralism is how progress happens

Here’s the link to this article by Adam Lee.

MAR 02, 2023

Two children studying and doing schoolwork | Why we need public school: Pluralism is how progress happens
Credit: Pixabay

Overview:

An openly white supremacist homeschooling network raises hard questions about how much control parents should have over their children’s education, and what public school offers that homeschooling can’t replace.

The battle over public schools is a clash of values.

There’s no such thing as neutral or value-free education. Every choice about what to present or what to omit from the classroom carries ideological weight.

That’s why red-state politicians want to present one version of the world, a version that’s scrubbed of references to racism, LGBTQ people, and non-Christians. They want to present their perspective to the exclusion of all others, and they demand that no white student should ever be exposed to facts that make them feel bad or that might cause them to question their parents’ worldview. They want public school to be (ahem) a safe space that doesn’t challenge their preconceptions.

On the other hand, liberals and progressives want an education that’s pluralistic and secular, one that presents a diversity of viewpoints without demanding that students adopt one of them in particular. We believe that this is the way for young people to mature into informed adults who have the power to choose for themselves. And if it stirs up some uncomfortable emotions along the way, that’s not a bad thing. Confronting facts that challenge what you believe is the only path to wisdom and personal growth.

Why is pluralism so important? To find out, let’s consider the opposite scenario: a disturbing case of anti-pluralistic education. What happens when education is purged of every viewpoint except one? When that desire is taken to an extreme, we end up in a dark and ugly place.

Unmasking “Dissident Homeschool”

“Dissident Homeschool” is a chat channel on the messenging service Telegram with several thousand subscribers. According to a report in the Huffington Post, it’s a haven for neo-Nazis and white supremacists seeking advice on how to raise and educate their children away from the “corrupting” influence of liberal, democratic society.

The owners of the channel, who went by the handles “Mr. Saxon” and “Mrs. Saxon”, created lesson plans steeped in their hateful ideology. They wrote about teaching their kids to celebrate Adolf Hitler’s birthday and copying out Hitler quotes as penmanship exercises. Their history curriculum pours hate on Martin Luther King and celebrates American racists like Robert E. Lee and George Lincoln Rockwell. Even math lessons are twisted into a tool to teach kids that non-white people are violent and dangerous.

This Nazi couple claimed to be proud of their beliefs, but their actions showed the opposite. They knew their racist ideas were evil, shameful and indefensible. That’s why they tried to keep their real identities secret. That’s also why they taught their children not to repeat these teachings where outsiders could hear:

We do not start teaching our children these things until we know they are able to *not* say certain things, and to keep things quiet around certain people. Also, when our children do have that “accidental racism”, we as parents can quickly step in and chuckle, and say “Oh kids! They say the darndest things!”

Despite these precautions, they weren’t careful enough. From clues they disclosed about themselves, an anti-fascist group called Anonymous Comrades Collective unmasked them as Katja and Logan Lawrence from Upper Sandusky, Ohio.

The Huffington Post followed up with additional confirmation, including relatives who recognized their voices when they were interviewed on a Nazi podcast, Achtung Amerikaner.

Because of the First Amendment, there aren’t legal consequences for teaching these ideas, abhorrent as they are. But the social consequences are very real. Shortly after being unmasked, Logan Lawrence was fired from his family’s insurance business. They’re now pariahs, as they should be.

The value of homeschooling

The idea of secret Nazis among us, taking their kids out of public school to teach them racism, sounds like a test case for why homeschooling should be banned. However, I wouldn’t go that far.

What I would say is that most kids are better off in public school. Most of us parents, even the best-educated and enthusiastic ones, aren’t qualified to teach every subject in a standard curriculum. It’s an incredible privilege to have an array of professionals working together to teach our kids.

However, homeschooling can be a vital safety valve. For kids who are suffering persistent bullying or harassment, or who have special needs the school can’t or won’t address, it’s valuable to have as an option. There are thousands of atheist, agnostic and secular families who homeschool for these reasons. Plus, especially since COVID, it can be a way to protect medically fragile kids from disease.

That said, homeschooling shouldn’t be a free-for-all. Society has a responsibility to ensure that everyone gets an education that meets basic standards. Ideally, homeschooling would be well-regulated. There should be a curriculum of topics that have to be taught, and at least occasional inspections or tests to ensure that homeschooled kids aren’t falling behind.

If homeschooling has a bad reputation, it’s because most homeschool families are religious fundamentalists, or belong to other ugly ideologies like this one, who want to raise their children in a bubble. They do it so they can control their kids’ access to information and prevent them from learning facts their parents don’t approve of.

Pluralism and progress

This story is a cautionary tale about the virtues of pluralism. Besides the other virtues of public education, it’s intrinsically good for young people to meet and get to know people whose beliefs and cultures are different from theirs. Public schools are better at offering that experience than either homeschooling or exclusive private schools.

It’s not proof against every evil ideology—I’m not claiming that no Nazi ever graduated from public school—but it makes it harder for the most hateful ideas to take root. When you get to know Black, or Jewish, or gay, or Latino, or atheist people, you can see that they’re human beings who are the same as you, with the same aspirations and the same struggles.

It’s through encounters with different cultures and different ideas that moral progress happens. In some right-wing visions for society, there would be no more public schools. Instead, every family would seek out a private school that taught dogmas they agreed with. Everyone would be sorted into ideological silos, never having to learn about or come into contact with anyone or anything that’s different, new, or challenging. That’s a recipe for stagnation and factionalism.

Pluralism opens up our intellectual horizons. It’s what leads us to see the world through other eyes. It’s what nudges us to consider perspectives other than the familiar. And, through hearing critiques and dissents from what we already believe, it’s what pushes us to reevaluate those ideas and see if they hold up. It’s the vital ingredient in people forming views that are truly their own, rather than just mindlessly regurgitating what they’ve been taught. It’s no surprise that it’s anathema to Nazis, white supremacists and other acolytes of hate. And, for the same reason, you should immediately be suspicious of any politician who proposes to limit pluralism by banning or burning books.

Adam Lee

DAYLIGHT ATHEISM

Adam Lee is an atheist author and speaker from New York City. His previously published books include “Daylight Atheism,” “Meta: On God, the Big Questions, and the Just City,” and most recently “Commonwealth: A Novel of Utopia.” He’s published editorials for NBC News, Political Research Associates, The Guardian, Salon, and AlterNet.