What Worries Evangelical Christians

The key fears that American Evangelical Christians often voice is fear about attacks on their freedom of religion and religious speech, and the existence of abortion rights. The fear of abortion is in the context of existing law that forces no woman to have an abortion, while increasingly draconian abortion restriction laws now prevent abortions for some women who want them. Regarding religious practice and speech, they feel besieged by what the see as relentless anti-Christian attacks. This is never said as far as I can recall, but presumably they believe that attacks on religion are leading to a society where religious practice will come to be banned and punished, or relegated to some sort of persecuted underground existence.

If that accurately describes fears for religion, it has never made any sense to me.

All US presidents have been or at least claim to be Christian. That includes the current president. Congress, state governors and state legislatures are all dominated by Christians and that has always been the case. The US military and civilian police forces are dominated by Christians and that has always been the case. Most federal and state judges are Christian and always have been. Republican presidents appoint radical conservative Christian justices to the Supreme Court and other federal courts. The dominant religion among the American people is Christianity. On top of that massive solid wall of overwhelming pro-Christian political, social, law enforcement and judicial power and dominance, US law forces Americans to subsidize religion with tax breaks worth over $80 billion/year.

Under those circumstances, Evangelical Christian fear of persecution is baffling to say the least. What is there to fear? The list above doesn't even cover all the power and rights that Christians have but take for granted or ignore, e.g., private and state employers in states that don't ban discrimination  against non-heterosexual people can and do fire employees simply for being non-heterosexual.

Exactly what dire threats do Evangelical Christians see that terrifies them so much that about 70% of them support a corrupt, deeply immoral president? They often point to same-sex marriage as a massive threat to religious practice and speech. They cite the example of a few businesses in some states that have been sanctioned for discriminating against same-sex couples in commerce. (Only 22 states and D.C. have anti-discrimination laws and in the other states, discrimination against non-heterosexual people is completely legal and Christians can discriminate all they want in the name of their heavily protected personal religious freedom; federal law does not explicitly ban discrimination against LGBT Americans) Some Christians claim they fear perverts in public and gender-neutral public bathrooms. Despite their massive privilege, power and majority status, they fear non-heterosexual people and want unfettered freedom to discriminate against them in commerce in defense of religious freedom.

Employers and governments in states in gray can discriminate 

against non-heterosexual people in commerce and employment

The Christianity Today editorial

Against that context, the Evangelical publication Christianity Today (CT) published an editorial yesterday asserting that the president should be removed from office on constitutional and moral grounds. Despite that conclusion, the editorial firmly asserts that in this impeachment, democratic motives have always been bad and partisan, the facts are questionable because of partisan animus and the president has been treated unfairly by being unable to defend himself. Despite that logically incoherent defense of Trump,[1] CT concludes the president should be removed from office. CT writes:

But the facts in this instance are unambiguous: The president of the United States attempted to use his political power to coerce a foreign leader to harass and discredit one of the president’s political opponents. That is not only a violation of the Constitution; more importantly, it is profoundly immoral. 

The reason many are not shocked about this is that this president has dumbed down the idea of morality in his administration. He has hired and fired a number of people who are now convicted criminals. He himself has admitted to immoral actions in business and his relationship with women, about which he remains proud. His Twitter feed alone—with its habitual string of mischaracterizations, lies, and slanders—is a near perfect example of a human being who is morally lost and confused.

The CT editorial points out that in the Clinton impeachment in 1998, CT argued this in favor of impeaching Clinton and removing him from office:

The President's failure to tell the truth—even when cornered—rips at the fabric of the nation. This is not a private affair. For above all, social intercourse is built on a presumption of trust: .... And while politicians are notorious for breaking campaign promises, while in office they have a fundamental obligation to uphold our trust in them and to live by the law. .... Unsavory dealings and immoral acts by the President and those close to him have rendered this administration morally unable to lead.

What is surprising is the emphasis on morality as a basis to assess political behavior. Some evidence indicates that for Evangelical Christians, personal morals changed to accommodate the president's immoral character and behavior. Before Trump, they believed that morality in a president was important more than other groups, but by June of 2017, Evangelical Christians was the least likely group to say that morality in a president was important. Does the CT editorial reflect a swing of the moral pendulum back to pre-Trump days? That's not yet clear.[2]

Footnote:
1. Regarding CT's flawed logic: If Trump was unable to defend himself and the facts are in question as CT asserts, then there is no objective basis to call for Trump's removal from office. The CT assertion that democratic motives are bad is irrelevant if facts count in deciding what the president did or did not do. Neither partisanship nor bad faith changes objectively true facts to false facts. The CT editorial seems to reflect a lack of understanding on that point.

2. Not surprisingly, the president has incoherently attacked CT as a far left organization that wants to take religion and guns away: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1207997316424187905

My Jewish Students’ Reactions To Trump’s Executive Order: ‘Confusing,’ ‘Unclear’ And ‘Really Scary’

by Alex Green: a writer and researcher.
https://www.wbur.org/cognoscenti/2019/12/13/trump-jews-national-origin-antisemitism-executive-order-alex-green

For the last four months, my 11th grade students and I have tried to make a study not only of American history, but also our public history. From Charlottesville to Emmett Till, Boston’s Faneuil Hall to Utah’s Promontory Point, how do our fellow citizens confront, hide, re-tell and wield history in the present day?

Nothing prepared us for the conversation we’ve had to take up this week, about whether we are equal citizens in the United States.

My students and I are Jews at a Jewish academy. This week, at the request of a student, I gave over a class to discussing and understanding President Trump’s new executive order, which reclassifies being Jewish as one of three things — "a race, color, or national origin”-- under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

According to the White House, the purpose of this order is to put an end to debates about Israel on college campuses that the administration sees as anti-Semitic. If found to be anti-Semitic, schools’ federal funding will be in jeopardy. To define anti-Semitism, the order uses a debated definition issued in 2016 by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance.

The order was first announced in a New York Times piece that quickly became the subject of debate because of its focus on the national origin component of the order. Responses from President Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner and many Jewish groups have made the argument that this reporting ignores the Obama administration’s consideration of a similar action, while also arguing that detractors of the order are being simplistic. The issue, they say, is more nuanced and related specifically to speech on campuses.

However, all of this dances around the key problem raised by the president’s order. American Jews are not, and have never been, a nation unto ourselves. We are an ethnic group within this republic. But make no mistake, our nationality is American. We do not come from the country of Jew.

Now we are encircled by arguments claiming that this issue is more nuanced and complex than we think, that the order doesn’t really classify us incorrectly, and that this is nothing to be worried about. Those kinds of arguments rarely work with teenagers. They are a red flag that typically indicate that adults are telling them the opposite of what is true.

In our class, we looked at the language of the Civil Rights Act and quickly dispatched with the idea that we fit the definition of a race or a color. As Jews we are neither, and the racial classification of Jews has a horrible history of being wielded against us. Instead, we focused on the pros and cons of this order, and the question of whether Jews can be classified by national origin.

Right away — even among students who may support aspects of this order — the idea of classifying us according to national origin stood out as “confusing” “unclear” and potentially “really scary.” Why scary? Some argued that it’s perhaps because the president himself appears to have little understanding that being against a policy of the Israeli government is not de facto anti-Semitism.

This is the very problem that the president is trying to address with college campuses, and it is certainly true that discourse at universities on the issue of Israel today — especially by critics — ranges from imperfect to coarse and sloppy. If changing this rhetoric is the goal, then threatening funding at universities may be a potent way get people’s attention. But doing it this way could also backfire terribly, leading to old anti-Semitic tropes about Jews secretly influencing people in power in order to get what we want. This is no abstract argument given the violent attacks against Jews in New Jersey just this week.

Of course it is true that the president says he is issuing this order to help us, so, his imperfections aside, why be concerned? The reasons are many.

It is easy to envision a situation in which legitimate criticism of Israel, including criticism by Jews, is determined to be anti-Semitic, and could risk the funding of the very institutions we need in order to foster productive discourse. The approach attacks symptoms, not causes. Nowhere does this enhance the quality of debate. It threatens those who dare to do it. Colleges that do continue to have these conversations are likely destined to have one-sided pro-Israel conversations.

It is also possible to envision Israelis being concerned about Trump’s methods. The Israeli government may want American Jews to become Israeli ones, but making Jews a separate nationality in our own nation doesn’t help that cause.

This is perhaps the most concerning point. Grouping us as no other religious group has been in this country, and making us clearly “dual citizens,” raises the trope of dual loyalty that has been a source of segregating, ghettoizing, and murdering Jews for centuries.

Why does the president have the right to do this? Does he plan to furnish us with passports in our own nation? Do the Jews who purportedly urged him to do this get to decide for us, their fellow Americans, what our status in this nation is? Perhaps this is an overreaction and the scope of this order is as limited as its supporters say, but given the history of persecution against Jews, we are well-founded in being suspicious of actions that start small and get big, and don’t do so in our favor.

That is the context in which our discussion will continue on in our classroom. Anti-Semitism is on the rise in America. The very man who issued this order makes such comments all the time. Just this week he told the American Israeli Council:

A lot of you are in the real estate business, because I know you very well. You’re brutal killers, not nice people at all. But you have to vote for me — you have no choice. You’re not gonna vote for Pocahontas, I can tell you that. You’re not gonna vote for the wealth tax. Yeah, let’s take 100% of your wealth away!

We need to fight this hate in all its forms, wherever it appears, even if in the guise that it is here to help us. But all of that rests on the answer to a crucial question raised by one of my students in the midst of our discussion. Are we still Americans?

Fact Checking The President's Letter to Pelosi

Earlier today, the president sent a scathing letter to House majority leader Nancy Pelosi attacking the impeachment process. The letter contains false, misleading or exaggerated statements. The New York Times fact checked the 5-page latter and found 19 such statements. The NYT did not comment on many other statements such as "Before the Impeachment Hoax, it was the Russian Witch Hunt" on page 4 of the letter. Both assertions in that statement are false: If the House votes to impeach, it will be legal, and solid evidence shows that Russia interfered with the 2016 elections. Such deceitful comments directly undermine democracy and the rule of law, which is the president's obvious intent.

NYT fact check of page 1

NYT fact check of page 2

NYT fact check of page 3

NYT fact check of part of page 4

NYT fact check of part of page 5

The president's unhinged, deceitful letter is likely to further divide and inflame American politics. Few or no minds will change based in this, but attitudes of some are likely to harden more. The letter further undermines democratic institutions, and respect for the constitution and the rule of law.

Ideological Susceptibility to Pseudo-Profound Bullshit

Researchers in Sweden have looked at susceptibility of liberal and conservative people to pseudo-profound bullshit, which are statements and arguments that seem to be insightful or meaningful but are meaningless. An example is the statement “we are in the midst of a high-frequency blossoming of interconnectedness that will give us access to the quantum soup itself.” That's definitely meaningless.

The researchers write for the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin journal: “This research systematically mapped the relationship between political ideology and receptivity to pseudo-profound bullshit—that is, obscure sentences constructed to impress others rather than convey truth. Among Swedish adults (N = 985), bullshit receptivity was (a) robustly positively associated with socially conservative (vs. liberal) self-placement, resistance to change, and particularly binding moral intuitions (loyalty, authority, purity); (b) associated with centrism on preference for equality and even leftism (when controlling for other aspects of ideology) on economic ideology self-placement; and (c) lowest among right-of-center social liberal voters and highest among left-wing green voters. Most of the results held up when we controlled for the perceived profundity of genuine aphorisms, cognitive reflection, numeracy, information processing bias, gender, age, education, religiosity, and spirituality. The results are supportive of theoretical accounts that posit ideological asymmetries in cognitive orientation, while also pointing to the existence of bullshit receptivity among both right- and left-wingers.”

A prior discussion here pointed out that political ideology tends to lead people to false beliefs and unsound reasoning or logic. The cause and effect relationship isn't clear, but there is a correlation between strong ideological beliefs and a tendency to read into rhetoric, facts and truths realities that accord with the ideology even if that leads to distortion and false beliefs.

One of the authors of the research commented: “I think that the notion of pseudo-profound bullshit specifically caught my attention because I have a background in philosophy and an aversion to unclear statements. Understanding how bullshit operates also struck me as particularly urgent in our current digital age, in which fake news, conspiracy theories, and ‘alternative facts’ may have greater destructive potential than ever — although people have probably engaged in bullshitting for thousands of years.” The researcher also commented that “on the left, it may stem from an uncritical openness to ideas that sound ideologically appealing or familiar; on the right, it may stem from a disinclination to critically engage with information and its sources.”

It is probably true that people have engaged in BSing for thousands of years. The historical record and modern times are full of examples. The researcher noted that his interest was in trying to promote scientific thinking regardless of differences in worldview. The research was conducted among Swedes, but presumably the data can be extrapolated at least to Westerners, if not everyone. Follow-up studies will be needed to confirm these findings and further explain the situation.

Forced Confidentiality Agreements Hide Immorality

One powerful tool that hides illegal, embarrassing and immoral acts by companies and wealthy people from public knowledge is the confidentiality agreement (CDA) or non-disclosure agreement (NDA). CDAs are used to prevent a company or person from suffering losses or damages from disclosing sensitive information and trade secrets to prevent the receiving party from profiting from it. Those are legitimate concerns.

However, CDAs usually impose a requirement on employees and contractors to keep all kinds of activities confidential and when disputes arise, CDAs require secret arbitration to resolve the dispute. Activities and disputes that CDAs hide include various illegal tax evasion schemes (discussed here previously), illegal pollution activities, sexual assault and harassment and settlements when consumers are harmed or cheated.

Disputes and settlements arising from a large swath of commercial and private activity are completely shielded from any public scrutiny. In essence, CDAs constitute a vast body of law that is completely private. As usual, the balance of power strongly favors commercial entities and wealthy people who rely heavily on CDAs to hide how they do business and conduct themselves, legal or not.

An article in Vox describes how former Fox News personality Gretchen Carlson came to realize how powerful the CDA shield was in terms of protecting bad acts by companies and individuals from disclosure of sexual harassment. Vox wrote:

Mandatory arbitration clauses mean that many — if not most — cases of sexual harassment are dealt with behind closed doors. Instead of making their way to court, they are settled by arbitrators, independent professionals who are selected to resolve disputes. It’s estimated that more than 60 million Americans have signed such arbitration clauses. Today, the Supreme Court ruled that it’s legal for companies to require employees to sign arbitration clauses in their employment contracts, making it impossible for these workers to bring class action lawsuits against employers over labor disputes. 

In July 2016, Gretchen Carlson sued Fox News chair and CEO Roger Ailes for sexual harassment, a move that eventually won her $20 million and encouraged dozens of other Fox employees to come forward. In the end, Ailes was forced to step down. Now Carlson is focusing her efforts on ending forced arbitration, which she signed in her own contract with Fox News, and helping women speak publicly about harassment. She’s not allowed to explain how her lawyers managed to get around the clause, and says that kind of secrecy is part of the problem. 

“Very early on, I realized that it was a pervasive epidemic,” Carlson says of mandatory arbitration. “When I filed my suit, I had no idea how pervasive it was across every socioeconomic line and every profession, from Smalltown, USA, all the way to Washington, DC.”

Let’s say you’re being harassed. You go to complain to HR. The company wipes their forehead with their hand and goes, “Phew, nobody will ever know about this,” because of these clauses. Then you get thrown into forced arbitration where, oftentimes, the company picks your arbitrator for you. You don’t get the same number of witnesses and depositions [as you would in court]. Rarely does the employee win — only 20 percent of the time. And there are no appeals.

Then you could get fired because once you bring a harassment or discrimination claim, companies rarely keep you on. So now you’re out of a job and can’t ever tell anyone why you had to leave. Also, with arbitration, because it’s secret, the perpetrator oftentimes gets to stay on the job — again, because no one knows the person has been accused — to harass again.

The system is heavily rigged in favor of the business entity and wealthy persons who draft the agreements to favor themselves. In theory, a court or government agency acting can require shielded information to be disclosed, but that is rare. CDAs are not supposed to be used to shield illegal activity, but in practice that is what they often do, either directly or indirectly.

Carlson recently published an opinion piece for the New York Times. She wrote:

When my retaliation and sexual harassment complaint against Roger Ailes, the former Fox News chairman and C.E.O., went public in 2016, there were no #MeToo or Times Up movements to help rally support for my cause. .... When I sued, I could have never known that my story and the stories of other women at Fox would turn into both a television mini-series and a film, and, more important, that I would be prohibited from speaking about these projects. 

“Winning” my complaint with a settlement and a nondisclosure agreement meant I was, essentially, forced into silence. .... Although NDAs usually prohibit employers from disparaging victims, whisper campaigns often follow women for years. As I documented in my book “Be Fierce,” the vast majority of survivors never work in their chosen professions again. American industry has lost many talented women to harassment, while allowing predators to continue climbing the professional ladder (where they have the potential to victimize even more women). 

There are those who say to victims, “You took money in exchange for staying quiet, so what’s the problem?” and “If you want to talk, give your settlement money back.” These sentiments miss the point and perpetuate the lie that victims benefit from being sexually harassed. First of all, buying silence instead of stopping harassment is immoral and unjust. Next, the settlements are made not just in exchange for secrecy, but to make up for lost wages, because once you find the courage to come forward, your “reward” is often that you’ve lost your job (and potentially your career). And lastly, NDAs foster a culture that gives predators cover to commit the same crimes again. (emphasis added)

One can argue that far too much commerce in America is conducted in unwarranted secrecy. The secrecy shields far too much illegal and immoral activity. The public is unaware of how rigged the arbitration system is and they have no way to opt out. Credit card companies all require forced arbitration and secrecy about settlements. Arbitration settlements from harmed consumers are kept secret so that people cannot know what the relative value of their case may be when they are injured. The secrecy system to hide immoral and illegal acts is itself both unfair and immoral.

Public Defenses Against the Dark Arts are Weak or Non-Existent

The New York Times reports that almost no candidate running for office in 2020 is making a significant effort to combat snake oil (disinformation) and lies online. The darks arts of lies, deceit and lies-based emotional manipulation are rampant. The NYT writes:

Less than a year before the 2020 election, false political information is moving furiously online. Facebook users shared the top 100 false political stories over 2.3 million times in the United States in the first 10 months of this year. 

A hoax version of the Green New Deal legislation went viral online. Millions of people saw unsubstantiated rumors about the relationship between Ukraine and the family of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. A canard about the ties between a Ukrainian oil company and a son of Senator Mitt Romney, the Utah Republican, spread widely, too.  

Truth and public interest defenses off, disinformation and profit offenses on

The NYT comments that in September, the president’s campaign posted on content Facebook and the president’s Twitter account that included a lie about Mr. Biden’s dealings with Ukraine. That lie was viewed more than eight million times. The Biden campaign sent letters to Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Fox News, asking them to ban the content, but it remained up. That is political and corporate defense of lies, profit and/or political advantage. Truth and the public interest are of little or no concern to liars, corrupt political partisans and companies making money or gaining advantage from deceit and lies. 

Facebook sometimes labels a post or ad as false, but usually does not remove the content. Facebook policy is that politicians can run ads that make false claims or statements, including ones that have been shown to be false. Counter-disinformation is usually not a serious strategic objective for parties, campaigns and candidates who claim they are powerless to fight lies. Online companies have few restrictions on what users can say or share if they do not lie about their identity, leaving victims of disinformation and lies unable to effectively defend themselves.

Since it takes time and costs money to ferret out sources that lie about their identity, companies are reluctant to do much to combat the spreading rot. In essence, deceivers and liars are mostly free to deceive and lie with no meaningful repercussions whatever. Essentially all lies, deceit and emotional manipulation are constitutionally protected free speech.

Emotional manipulation via a literal fake flag operation - the goal includes provoking 

anti-democratic social discord, distrust and bigotry, not advocacy of knowledge, democracy or the rule of law

Weaponization, with loss of freedom and the rise of fake consent of the governed

By now, all sources of disinformation have been weaponized. Each side in political disagreement now routinely accuses the other of spreading disinformation and beling self-deluded in believing that partisan lies are truth and/or real truth is lies. There is no way to bridge the vast partisan reality and logic gap. This divide will not go away any time soon, if ever. The current rancid mindsets constitute an imminent existential threat to democracy, the rule of law and civil society. This is what tyrants, oligarchs and kleptocrats dream about. Their dreams are coming true in real time.

A final point is worth making. When partisans and special interests are able to act based on the public’s misplaced acceptance of deceit or on emotional reactions to propaganda provocations[1], the liar-deceiver-manipulators take from people who would have not consented their freedom to oppose the deceit- or manipulation-based act. In essence, spreading of deceit, lies and emotional manipulations in service to false reality, disinformation and narrow anti-public interest interests are the acts of morally corrupt tyrants, oligarchs and individuals, groups, tribes and political parties. The moral corruption arises from the taking of freedom to choose based on reality and reason and replaces it with choices based on false facts and reality and flawed reason. That is immoral.

Footnote:
1. Liars and propagandists work hard to provoke unwarranted negative emotions. That helps make partisan and special interest lies and deceit more believable. Unwarranted negative emotions, especially fear, anger, bigotry, distrust and disgust, tend to overwhelm slow conscious fact-based reason and replace that with fast, narrow unconscious moralistic reasoning. In essence, response to emotional provocation causes most people (~ 98% ?) to tend to see inconvenient reality, facts and truth more as lies and deceit than as real reality and truth. That's the basis of the biological mechanism by which disinformation is weaponized and used against people.