News bits: Divisions within the Christian nationalist movement; judicial ethics, or lack thereof

From the creating false narratives files:

Religious division in the Christian nationalist

political-ethnic-religious movement

Religion News Service writes:

As Christian nationalism digs in, differing visions surface

As Christian nationalists get more specific, ideological and theological divisions have reemerged.

When Tennessee Pastor Greg Locke took the stage at the ReAwaken America Tour in Pennsylvania over the weekend, the throngs who had come out to hear conspiracy theories and inflammatory rhetoric about Democratic candidates instead heard Locke aim some of his sharpest criticism at a surprising target: Pope Francis.

“If you trust anybody but Jesus to get you to heaven, you ain’t going,” Locke said, his voice rising. “You say, ‘Well what about the pope?’ He ain’t a pope, he’s a pimp … He has prostituted the church.”

It was an odd note to strike at a rally where perhaps the biggest name on the speaker’s roster was retired Gen. Michael Flynn, a Catholic who later made it a point to mention his faith while voicing support for Christian nationalism. “I’m a Christian — I’m a Catholic, by the way,” said Flynn.

Locke had aired his anti-Catholic position a few days before in a Facebook post advocating for burning rosaries and “Catholic statues.” When another user urged him to abandon the anti-Catholic rhetoric, Locke doubled down. “Catholicism is idolatry 100%” he wrote. “I will not be silent whether you follow or not. It’s a false pagan religion and so filled with perversity it’s ridiculous.”

Anti-Catholic rhetoric has long been a theme in nativist American thought, which includes some forms of extremist Protestant Christian agitators such as the Ku Klux Klan. But in the current Christian nationalist surge that fuels the ReAwaken gatherings and others like it, the ideology has served more as a glue holding together a wide range of right-wing coalitions. Locke’s remarks injected an uneasy tension, raising the prospect that what was once a unifying force is now prone to causing potential divisions in right-wing ranks.

What this interdenominational bickering means for the Christian nationalist (CN) political-ethnic-religious movement is unclear to me. I do not know how prominent and serious this kind of discord is.

False narrative creation

This is the first reporting I can recall that focuses on religious divisions within the CN movement. I find this unexpected and surprising. That is probably mostly because in my naïve atheism, Christians criticizing and bickering about religious denominational differences strikes me as ludicrous. To me, it’s like bickering over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Pure nonsense. That led me to maybe mostly falsely believe that there was mostly harmony among the different Christian denominations in the CN movement.

Obviously, I was wrong because I was ignorant. On a bit of reflection, maybe this should not have been much of a surprise at all. CN religious leaders are zealots. They take their particular brand of religion completely seriously. CN dogma is theocratic authoritarian. Authoritarianism tends to not tolerate dissent and various kinds of differences. That includes differences between Catholics and other Christian denominations.

Let that be a lesson to us all. One’s beliefs, e.g., my own atheism, leads one to construct narratives and perceptions of reality to make sense of the world and to reinforce those beliefs. Filling in reality knowledge gaps is usually psychologically reassuring. Those mental perceptions can be, probably usually are, at least partly or mostly at odds with actual reality. All of this is normal for humans. Reality creation in the absence of knowledge of facts is an important trait that makes us human. Reality creation works fast and usually completely unconsciously. 

And that is why I keep harping on the critical importance of fidelity to facts, true truths and sound reasoning in politics.** Even if they contradict personal beliefs, or are psychologically and/or socially inconvenient or threatening.

** Facts, true truths and sound reasoning are not very important in religion. Religion and theocracy are faith-based. Secular politics is reality-based. Hence a need for separation of state from church in a democracy. In a theocracy or tyranny, that need vanishes because facts, true truths and sound reasoning are what the tyrant or religious leaders say they are, even when they are completely wrong. 

On the Code of Conduct for Federal Judges

Judges are supposed to act in accord with a set of ethics rules that are a bit different from and more stringent than those that apply to lawyers. I know, ethics rules for lawyers and judges might come as a surprise to some or lots of people. The astonishing sleaze in lawyering and judging in politics over the last few years make it look like there were few, if any, meaningful ethics rules for lawyers and judges. 

The sick joke aside, the ethics code for federal judges is of public record. Here are some key bits of it for enquiring minds: 

Canon 2: A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in all Activities

(A) Respect for Law. A judge should respect and comply with the law and should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

(B) Outside Influence. A judge should not allow family, social, political, financial, or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment. A judge should neither lend the prestige of the judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge. A judge should not testify voluntarily as a character witness.

(C) Nondiscriminatory Membership. A judge should not hold membership in any organization that practices invidious discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, or national origin.

Canon 3: A Judge Should Perform the Duties of the Office Fairly, Impartially and Diligently

The duties of judicial office take precedence over all other activities. The judge should perform those duties with respect for others, and should not engage in behavior that is harassing, abusive, prejudiced, or biased. The judge should adhere to the following standards:

(A) Adjudicative Responsibilities.

(1) A judge should be faithful to, and maintain professional competence in, the law and should not be swayed by partisan interests, public clamor, or fear of criticism.

(2) A judge should hear and decide matters assigned, unless disqualified, and should maintain order and decorum in all judicial proceedings.

That might strike some readers as bizarre. For example, we are all aware of federal pro-Trump judge Aileen Cannon. She has bent over backward to protect Trump in the federal lawsuit over the documents he stole from the government and kept with him in Florida. Loose cannon Aileen has violated ethics canon 3(A)(1). From what I can tell, she will not be reprimanded and her sleazy partisan behavior will be seen as within the discretion of a federal judge. 

More importantly, we are all aware of the CN Supreme Court justice Amy Barrett. She was a long time member of a extremist Christian fundamentalist group called the People of Praise. The core dogma of that group, like core CN dogma, is to openly discriminate against non-heterosexual people and their families. Her membership in the People of Praise has led to a lawsuit demanding she recuse herself from a lawsuit about businesses that want to discriminate against non-heterosexual people. 

The Guardian wrote:

Former members of Amy Coney Barrett’s secretive faith group, the People of Praise, are calling on the US supreme court justice to recuse herself from an upcoming case involving gay rights, saying Barrett’s continued affiliation with the Christian group means she has participated in discriminatory policies against LGBTQ+ people.

The former members are part of a network of “survivors” of the controversial charismatic group who say Barrett’s “lifelong and continued” membership in the People of Praise make her too biased to fairly adjudicate an upcoming case that will decide whether private business owners have a right to decline services to potential clients based on their sexual orientation.  

They point to Barrett’s former role on the board of Trinity Schools Inc, a private group of Christian schools that is affiliated with the People of Praise and, in effect, barred children of same-sex parents from attending the school.

A faculty guide published in 2015, the year Barrett joined the board, said “blatant sexual immorality” – which the guide said included “homosexual acts” – had “no place in the culture of Trinity Schools”. The discriminatory policies were in place before and after Barrett joined.

It is reasonable to think that Barrett will not recuse herself despite her blatant violation of canon 2(C). Supreme Court justices live by their own ethics rules. There is no meaningful mechanism to enforce ethics in the Supreme Court. The judges don’t even bother to explain themselves. It’s beneath their dignity. The most we might get for an explanation from a Supreme Court judge is an admonition to move along because there is nothing to see here.