Biden Restarts White House Office of Faith-Based Initiatives

Source

The Hill writes:

The White House announced on Sunday that President Biden would be relaunching the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.

“As our country grapples with a global pandemic, a severe economic downturn, the scourge of systemic racism, an escalating climate crisis and profound polarization, President Biden knows that civil society partnerships are essential to meeting such challenges,” the White House said in a release.

The office was established 20 years ago by former President George W. Bush, the White House noted, and continued on through the Obama administration. Former President Trump did not appoint a director to the faith-based office during his tenure and its website remained blank during the four years he was in the Oval Office. Trump instead created the Center for Faith and Opportunity Initiatives, which served as the Health and Human Services Department's "liaison to the faith community and to grassroots organizations" and sought to "champion religious liberty in all HHS programs" according to its website.

Melissa Rogers will reassume the position she held in the Obama administration as executive director of the office and as senior director for faith and public policy as part of the White House Domestic Policy Council. White House Senior Adviser for Public Engagement John Dickson will serve as deputy director of the office. He previously served as national faith engagement director for the Biden campaign.

“At a time of great challenge and opportunity, the Biden-Harris administration is re-launching this bipartisan initiative,” the White House said. “The Partnerships Office’s initial work will include collaborating with civil society to: address the COVID-19 pandemic and boost economic recovery; combat systemic racism; increase opportunity and mobility for historically disadvantaged communities; and strengthen pluralism.” 

“That is not who we are. That is not what faith calls us to be. That is why I’m reestablishing the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships to work with leaders of different faiths and backgrounds who are the frontlines of their communities in crisis and who can help us heal, unite, and rebuild," he added.

What does that mean?

There is no way to know what that means. There can be multiple ways to see it. One is that it's a good way to start trying to tamp down the belief in the Christian Persecution myth by showing Christians that Biden and liberals are not trying to do evil things like forcing them to convert them to pedophilic cannibal atheists or turning them into lizard people via microchips in COVID vaccines. This is a chance to bring anti-Christian Nationalist Christians into more prominence. That would be a very good thing. 

I'm a rock solid atheist and intensely oppose mixing secular government with religion. But, right now most conservative Christians in America seem to believe that democrats and Biden are agents of Satan. Just look at the lies and hate gushing out of fascist radical right sources like Breitbart, Fox News, Gateway Pundit and the rest of the multitudes of vicious lying beasts the right has unleashed. If this is a means to try to dispel the toxic hold that decades of radical conservative dark free speech has on their minds, then maybe on balance this is a good thing. Maybe.

Of course, people can see this as much more bad than good precisely because it mixes secular government with religion. That is entirely possible. Maybe more likely than not.

I'm inclined to wait and see what, if anything, this will amount to. I'm willing to give Biden the benefit of a doubt. Of course, maybe people who know Biden and his religious beliefs better than I can articulate reasons why this is more detrimental than helpful.

Regarding the Morality of Opacity, Lies and Deceit

Kant was an absolutist

Regarding lies and deceit,[1] there are two basic choices. A person, group, party, political leader and anyone else can play their cards close, or semi-close, with blunt honesty when it is called for. Given the human condition, some things need to be left unsaid, e.g., because truth causes more harm than good. It's usually, or more likely almost always, not only black and white. Some harm and some good are both there. The issue is how one sees the balance. Opinions will differ. 

I have a powerful personal bias against unwarranted opacity in politics, including truth withholding for the alleged benefit of me, anyone else, any group, the nation or society. IMO, opacity is where (i) crime and corruption, (ii) authoritarianism, (iii) social and personal abuse, (iv) incompetence and (v) contempt for truth and the rule of law hide and flourish. Lies and deceit of omission are no more moral or justifiable than lies or deceit of commission. 

Re authoritarianism: I now firmly believe it is an absolute necessity for the rise of out-of-power demagogues to the status of tyrant or kleptocrat. If there are exceptions to that personal rule, I am unaware of them. Hate of unwarranted opacity has long been my bias. On the matter of lying and deceit, I am persuaded by the reasoning of moral philosopher Sissela Bok, who brilliantly capsulized the issue for democracies: 

“[Johnson repeatedly told the American people] ‘the first responsibility, the only real issue in this campaign, the only thing you ought to be concerned about at all, is: Who can best keep the peace?’ The stratagem succeeded; the election was won; the war escalated. .... President Johnson thus denied the electorate of any chance to give or refuse consent to the escalation of the war in Vietnam. Believing they had voted for the candidate of peace, American citizens were, within months, deeply embroiled in one of the cruelest wars in their history. Deception of this kind strikes at the very essence of democratic government. 

When political representatives or entire governments arrogate to themselves the right to lie, they take power from the public that would not have been given up voluntarily. .... But such cases [that justify lying] are so rare that they hardly exist for practical purposes. .... The consequences of spreading deception, alienation and lack of trust could not have been documented for us more concretely than they have in the past decades. We have had a very vivid illustration of how lies undermine our political system. .... Those in government and other positions of trust should be held to the highest standards. Their lies are not ennobled by their positions; quite the contrary. .... only those deceptive practices which can be openly debated and consented to in advance are justifiable in a democracy.” 

If that reasoning is good for a national government and democracy, why isn't it good for a political party or a person? IMO, the logic flows like water just about everywhere, including to deceptive demagogues and tyrants. Or is that reasoning flawed or wrong?

Footnote: 

1. My definition of deceit includes unwarranted emotional manipulation, which usually arises when irrational or unwarranted fear, anger, hate, distrust, bigotry, etc., are fomented by speech or behavior. That's usually done intentionally to divide people and dehumanize allegedly threatening people or groups. Deceit also includes application of motivated reasoning to facts and truths (especially inconvenient ones) to distort real reality into a false reality. In my opinion, lies, unwarranted emotional manipulation and motivated reasoning are all forms of deceit.

Motivated reasoning: a cognitive biology phenomenon where personal biased reasoning produces justifications or make decisions that are most desired rather than those that accurately reflect the evidence and/or unbiased reasoning; it is an evolved personal defense mechanism against cognitive dissonance that arises when personal beliefs or desires conflict with reality or reason-logic; it is a tendency to find arguments in favor of conclusions a person, group or tribe wants to believe despite contrary evidence and/or less biased reasoning that would lead to a different conclusion or belief

Profiles in Mendacity & Moral Cowardice

Mitch McConnell: A mendacious moral coward

After he voted yesterday to acquit the ex-president of guilt for inciting the Jan.6 coup attempt, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell made a short speech attacking Donald Trump as “practically and morally responsible.” McConnell said Jan. 6 attack happened because the mob “had been fed wild falsehoods by the most powerful man on Earth, because he was angry he had lost an election.” Despite that, McConnell acquitted the ex-president on a false legal argument that a former president cannot be impeached. The Senate itself voted that it had the power to impeach the ex-president and legal scholars all believe that is constitutionally sound.

In his speech, McConnell lied by blaming Pelosi for delaying the Senate impeachment process. Immediately after his speech, Pelosi stated in public that the timing of the Senate impeachment trial was entirely due to McConnell. It is clear that McConnell always intended to protect the ex-president from impeachment. His delay in starting the Senate trial until one hour after Biden was sworn in helped solidify the bogus legal loophole he cited as his excuse to protect the ex-president.

McConnell's little speech was a propaganda masterpiece grounded in mendacity, moral cowardice and party self-interest.[1] He did not have to make any public comments at all. He did not have to lie and try to blame Pelosi for the timing of a proceeding he had complete control over. Attacking the ex-president now, was far too little and too late. There is no moral courage in truth telling when it no longer matters.

So why did he make that speech? A few commentators yesterday suggested a plausible explanation: Money, power and party loyalty. It had nothing to do with trying to set the record straight for the public. McConnell could have been doing that shortly after the Nov. 3 election when the ex-president was lying about an illegitimate election. What McConnell was doing was speaking to major republican donors. Some rich republicans had been making noises that they were considering stopping all cash flows to the fascist GOP in view of the 1/6 coup attempt and the ex-president's toxic effects on republican power and wealth. 

What McConnell was doing in that speech was a necessary attempt to save the party by keeping the cash flowing in. The fact that there was a violent coup attempt fomented by the ex-president was not McConnell's concern. Money and power for the republican party and politicians was his concern.

McConnell will not face the wrath of the ex-president's rabid supporters in the next election because he was just re-elected on Nov. 3 for another six years. He is 79 years old now and unlikely to run again. Even if he does run in 2026, GOP voters won't remember yesterday's attack on the ex-president. There was neither honesty nor moral courage in his speech. 

What is the GOP?

Since 44 GOP senators voted not guilty, one can believe that they are actual fascists, regardless of the excuse they may point to as the reason for their vote. Seven voted guilty, maybe leaving them as the radical right authoritarian wing of the GOP in the Senate. Or, maybe it just masks quiet fascism. None of the seven complain about the dozens of voter suppression laws that red states have passed since the Nov. 3 election.[2] That is tacit support for fascist single party rule.

What the party leadership is after the impeachment is the same as what it was before. A self-interested group of incredibly arrogant elites lusting for power and wealth. They work in service to powerful and wealthy people and interests. That policy and ideology comes at the expense of the public interest. The fascist GOP opposes free and fair elections. It's leaders lie whenever they deem it useful, even if their lies can be easily denied by evidence. These elites could not care less about democracy, truth, honest governance, competence or the well-being of the American people.

Footnotes: 

1. It is interesting that during the impeachment Schumer asked for and got Senate permission to read aloud George Washington's 1796 farewell address to the American people. I think that will happen when the Senate reconvenes after the impeachment. In retrospect, the reason for that makes a lot of sense. Washington's letter contains blunt, urgent warnings about the deadly danger to democracy of a vindictive, demagogic, authoritarian political party in power. Schumer probably foresaw how this would play out and what it meant in terms of power and politics. At least, that's how I see it now. At the time, I was baffled as to why Schumer mentioned the letter at all.

2. From a Jan. 24, 2021 article: 

Republican legislators across the country are preparing a slew of new voting restrictions in the wake of former President Donald Trump’s defeat.

Georgia will be the focal point of the GOP push to change state election laws, after Democrats narrowly took both Senate seats there and President Joe Biden carried the state by an even smaller margin. But state Republicans in deep-red states and battlegrounds alike are citing Trump’s meritless claims of voter fraud in 2020 — and the declining trust in election integrity Trump helped drive — as an excuse to tighten access to the polls.  

Some Republican officials have been blunt about their motivations: They don’t believe they can win unless the rules change. “They don’t have to change all of them, but they’ve got to change the major parts of them so that we at least have a shot at winning,” Alice O’Lenick, a Republican on the Gwinnett County, Ga., board of elections in suburban Atlanta, told the Gwinnett Daily Post last week. She has since resisted calls to resign.

The chair of the Texas Republican Party has called on the legislature there to make “election integrity” the top legislative priority in 2021, calling, among other things, for a reduction in the number of days of early voting. .... Trump plans to remain involved in “voting integrity” efforts, keeping the issue at the top of Republicans' minds.

How Close the 2020 Election Really Was

On Feb. 9, the Washington Post published this analysis of how close the election was. It was very close. WaPo writes:

Republicans came within 90,000 votes of controlling all of Washington

In fact, Republicans came, at most, 43,000 votes from winning each of the three levers of power. And that will surely temper any move toward drastic corrective action vis-a-vis former president Donald Trump.

The Democrats’ narrow retention of the House is surely one of the biggest surprises of 2020. In an election in which most analysts expected the Democrats to gain seats, they wound up losing 14, including virtually all of the “toss-ups.” While the GOP lost the presidential race and control of the Senate, we very nearly had a much different outcome.  

Biden won the three decisive states — Arizona, Georgia and Wisconsin — by 0.6 percentage points or less, which was similar to Trump’s 2016 victory. If you flip fewer than 43,000 votes across those three states, the electoral college is tied 269 to 269. In that case, Trump would probably have won, given that the race would be decided by one vote for each House delegation, of which Republicans control more. 

So, 43,000 votes for president, 32,000 votes for the House and 14,000 votes for the Senate.[1] Shifts of 0.6 percent for president, 2.2 percent for the House, and 0.3 percent for the Senate.

That is how close it was. That result came despite the ex-president's shocking incompetence, corruption, harsh divisiveness, cruelty, tens of thousands of lies, his racism and his clear anti-democratic authoritarianism. An overwhelming majority of republicans in congress support him and so does an overwhelming majority of rank and file republicans.

That says something about American democracy, politics and society. They are all seriously poisoned.

Footnote: 

1. The Senate vote was based on the margin of Ossoff's win in the primary election, not the general election.

Pledges, oaths, vows, promises, etc.*

 

*I am collectively calling these OP title actions “personal commitments.”  How seriously should they be taken?  Are they important?  Are they a matter of taste, interpretation?  Reflective of personal integrity?  For example, let me tell you a personal story regarding how I feel about commitments.  Then we’ll get to my OP questions.

I’ve been thinking about the Pledge of Allegiance again.  I see the Senate group all say it in unison, each new day of the Impeachment Trial, after a prayer is offer up by the Senate Chaplain.  The last time someone requested that I say the Pledge of Allegiance, it was at the judge’s request during my jury duty, about 3-4 years ago.  At the time, I just stood there; I didn’t do it.  I’m sure those around me, in my VERY “red” district, figured I was a communist or something.  But I just couldn’t do something that didn’t sit well with me at the time.  It still really doesn’t.  I’ve still got too many questions.

When I was a kid, I remember how we used to “pledge allegiance to the wall,” a la Simon and Garfunkel (“My Little Town”).  Heck, I didn’t know what allegiance meant; all I knew was that we were supposed to face the wall, put our hands over our hearts, look at the flag, and “just do it®”.  I’m guessing I couldn’t even pronounce some of the words correctly.  The “Republic” for which it stands?  Indivisible (that sounds like arithmetic)? Liberty (I think I saw that word on money)?  Huh??  Just big words that sounded important.  But such is the indoctrination of kids.  Get ‘em early. :D

Now that I’m an adult, and with a lifetime of bigger words under my belt ;), let’s take a look at what that Pledge actually says, in more detail:

I pledge allegiance

-What is “allegiance” anyway?  Webster defines it as “loyalty or commitment of a subordinate to a superior or of an individual to a group or cause.”  Synonyms, “faithfulness, loyalty, obedience, fealty, etc.”  As a free-spirit type, I’m not really one to mindlessly “obey,” etc.  I don’t even like the sound of that word.  I understand commitment, and I am committed to many things in my life.  I’m committed to my marriage.  I’m committed to my vegetarianism.  I’m committed to my personal “principles” (which is what brings this question up here in the first place).  But am I committed to the flag?  Well, sort of; I mean, it’s the flag of my home country.  Can someone be “sort of” committed to something?  And if so, is that really “commitment?”  Let’s stick a pin in this, as Rachel would say.  Moving on…

To the flag of the United States of America.

-Yeah, it’s the flag of the U.S. alright.  That part is definitely true.

And to the Republic

-Republic.  What is a “Republic?”  Wikipedia defines it as “A republic (Latin: res publica, meaning "public affair") is a form of government in which "power is held by the people and their elected representatives". In republics, the country is considered a "public matter", not the private concern or property of the rulers.

IOW, I think this means “government representatives” of/for/in the stead of the people to do the “peoples’ business.”  You know… senators, representatives, I guess even the judicial and the executive branches would qualify.  These all (except for the judicial) are elected representatives.  And the executive (duly elected POTUS) is our proxy for nominating the judges.  So in a way, he (it’s always been a he so far) is the/our elected rep for naming judges. 

So yeah.  I wouldn’t dispute this as not being a truth.

For which it [the flag] stands,

-Again true.  The flag stands for the Republic.  We got a lot of other flags (state flags, city flags, flags people put on their cars when their sports team wins, etc.).  But the U.S. Flag is the one that is supposedly the ultimate unifier.  Again, I’d say this statement is true.

One nation

-Geographically, again true.  We are all connected, as least in name, as a “United” States.  Or as Obama called it, “We’re not the red states, or the blue states, but the United States.”  So, I can philosophically accept this.  That could be a way of “getting around” the claim; to look at it philosophically.  But this is NOT the end of the “one nation” story.

Under God

-Oops, Houston we got a problem.  Someone is trying to skew the pledge and infiltrate it with religion.  I guess it was just to put that Final Authority Figure (The Chairman of the Board and Final Decider) behind the power of the Pledge; a Seal of Approval.  What happened to separation of church and state?  That’s supposed to be a truism also.  I’m still Oops-ing here.  The peoples’ Pledge is beginning to crack, even though it’s ironically and disingenuously attempting to be bolstered by Almighty God. :-O  We needed to call in God as a Reinforcement?

Indivisible

-Indivisible?  No that’s NOT really true.  We are very divided.  In fact, that “division” is supposed to be one of our so-called strengths; a beautiful coalition of races, creeds/ideologies, colors, ethnicity/heritage, etc., all coming together toward one end: a majestic melting pot of commradory and community.   All for one and one for all.  E Pluribus Unum.  So, this indivisible adjective does not fly here.  It barely walks.

With liberty and justice for all.

-Ok, now we’re really pushing the envelope here.  We all know that such (liberty and justice) is a goal, but too often just a dream, a hopeful dream we wanna believe; that the “moral arc of the universe is long, but it [should/will] bends towards justice.” But… often not the case.  Sorry, no can do.  I can’t give this phrase a pass either.

Wow.  That’s a lot to lay on a person; some heavy stuff.  So I ask myself, how committed am I to this Pledge?  Some of it is right and true.  Some of it is not right and not true.  Do I just say the parts that are true and stay silent on the parts that I believe are not?  Do I say it all, knowing it is a false Pledge I’m making/committing to?  *Should* the principles behind pledges mean that much/be that important?  I can rote-ly recite it, even though it is so disingenuous, faulty?  Am I just too touchy/feely about what I will compromise on, and what I won’t?  Should I swim with the rest of the fishes (no mafia reference intended ;) and just, as mom and dad finally insisted… “because!!”?  How does this whole thing work exactly?  Where are my “lines” drawn?

Well, I hope I typed that out OK and that it was coherent.  I'm going to quickly peruse it but don’t want to go back and polish it up, as I’m running a bit late and want to catch the Trial again today.  I put this out on the fly as I “typed out loud.”  Anyway…

Now for the questions:

- Are commitments important?

- How seriously do you personally take them?

- Do you discriminate/compromise between those you take “half-heartedly,” and those you “really mean?”

- Finally, regarding the Trial of Impeached President Donald J. Trump, do you trust that the senators took their impeachment oath** seriously?  Or was it just some kind of blithe formality?

Let’s discuss.  And thanks for recommending.  BBL.

____________

**“solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of (the president’s name), President of the United States, now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws: so help me God.”

'We shouldn't have followed him': Nikki Haley turns on Trump after MAGA riots

 Former Trump United Nations ambassador Nikki Haley has turned on former President Donald Trump for his role in stoking the United States Capitol riots on January 6th.

In an interview with Politico's Tim Alberta, Haley said that she didn't think Trump would be a significant figure in the Republican Party going forward, and she admitted it was a mistake for the GOP to help him in his efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

"He went down a path he shouldn't have, and we shouldn't have followed him, and we shouldn't have listened to him," she said. "And we can't let that ever happen again."

Haley insisted that she was proud of the work she had done for the former president, and claimed that something fundamentally changed in him after he lost the election.

"I mean, I'm deeply disturbed by what's happened to him," she said. "Never did I think he would spiral out like this... I don't feel like I know who he is anymore... The person that I worked with is not the person that I have watched since the election."

https://www.rawstory.com/we-shouldnt-have-fallen-him-nikki-haley-turns-on-trump-after-maga-riots/?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=6552

"I mean, I'm deeply disturbed by what's happened to him," she said. "Never did I think he would spiral out like this...??