Cardinal George Pell has been charged with multiple sexual assault allegations by Australian authorities. Pell is the highest ranking member of the Catholic Church to be implicated in the child abuse scandal that has tarnished the church’s reputation throughout the past few decades.

Pell is accused of “historical sexual assault offenses.” These include at least two men who have come forward and described Pell inappropriately touching them at a swimming pool in the 1970s. Pell denied these allegations after an interview aired on Australian television in 2016 and he has denounced this “relentless character assassination,” according to the Washington Post.

Pope Francis did not release a statement on the issue, but the Vatican said that it feels “great regret” over the situation and that the Pope has appreciated what Pell did during his three years in Rome, according to the Washington Post.

Pell is set to appear at the Melbourne Magistrates Court on July 18. The magistrate will decide next week whether not to release the details of the investigation, according to BBC.

While he has repeatedly said he will fully cooperate with the investigation, Pell has also strongly denied the accusations. The Pope has granted him a leave of absence to fight the charges, according to BBC. Pell said that he would make the trip back to Australia if his doctor permits it. Last year doctors would not permit him to fly back to Australia last year so he answered questions from detectives via videochat.

“I’m looking forward finally to having my day in court,” Pell said. “I am innocent of these charges, they are false. The whole idea of sexual abuse is abhorrent to me.”

Pell, an adviser to the Pope and Prefect of the Secretariat of the Economy, is a native of Ballarat, Australia, and was the Archbishop of Melbourne and then Sydney before becoming a cardinal in 2004. Named the head of the Vatican’s finances in 2014, Pell is considered the third most powerful person in the church.

In the past decade Pell has played a prominent role on Vatican commissions created to combat sexual assault within the Roman Catholic community. In 2013 he was named one of eight cardinals charged with investigating ways to reform the church, according to CNN. However, he has also been criticized for his lack of impact on the investigations and supposed connections with known child-abusing priests.

Because of his powerful position within the Vatican and the Australian Catholic community, it is possible that these allegations will be the biggest obstacle the church faces when it comes to combatting child abuse. Peter Saunders, a British abuse survivor who served on a papal commission investigating the abuse, told the Washington Post:

[These charges] will probably rock the Vatican like nothing else has ever done…The fact that one of the pope’s right-hand men, the secretary for the economy, has in a sense been arrested and will be charged with such serious offenses, that surely has got to have some kind of effect on the Vatican and the hierarchy.

So, the coming months will be telling for how the Pope and the Catholic Church respond to the accusations against Pell and the recurring issues with abuse within the church. While they’ve dealt with past scandals within the Vatican and in other branches, such a high profile conviction brings with it new challenges in addition to worldwide attention. Pope Francis has made it one of his goals to cleanse the church of child abuse and this will likely set him back.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Cardinal George Pell Charged with Sexual Assault appeared first on Law Street.

Russia’s Supreme Court has banned the Jehovah’s Witness organization after the Ministry of Justice labeled it an extremist group. The denomination already was on shaky ground in Russia, as the government had banned its literature and website as well as arrested members and seized their property. But now with a complete and nationwide ban, the group’s headquarters in St. Petersburg and 395 local branches will all become state property.

Last year, the Russian general prosecutor issued a warning to the group, urging it to stop all “extremist” activities. But there was no clarification of what that means or which activities would be seen as “extremist.” One of the Jehovah’s Witnesses main codes of conduct is to be peaceful and not engage in violence. But according to an attorney with the country’s Justice Ministry, Svetlana Borisova, the Jehovah’s Witnesses “pose a threat to the rights of the citizens, public order and public security.”

But the Jehovah’s Witnesses dispute this claim, and the organization published a statement on its website on Wednesday. It says that Russian officials never specified any legal basis for the ban. According to the country’s anti-extremism law, crimes that are “motivated by prejudice or, as stated in Russian law, ‘ideological, political, racial, national or religious enmity, as well as hatred or enmity towards a social group’” are extremist crimes.

#Russia: #JehovahsWitnesses ban – blow 2 #FoRB, sign of totality. Pacifism is not extremism. https://t.co/FymTwysX6x pic.twitter.com/8auTw7Yp9B

— Jan Figel (@janfigel) April 21, 2017

The group argues that if that is the law under which the Jehovah’s Witnesses are banned, that sounds like a clear misuse of the law. It describes the opposite of what the organization promotes, which is anti-violence. “In the whole world, Jehovah’s Witnesses are known as peaceful, obedient, respectful citizens. We respect government, and we are politically totally neutral,” said Yaroslav Sivulsky, an official from Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia.

The anti-extremism law also makes it illegal for any group other than the Orthodox Church to claim to “offer the true path to religious salvation.” This basically means that there is no freedom of religion.

Many people see the latest court order as a crackdown on freedom of religion and expression. Some worry that other groups of people or religions will be next. Human Rights Watch issued a statement from Moscow and said the ban is “a serious breach of Russia’s obligations to respect and protect religious freedom.”

Catholics for Choice condemns #Russia‘s ban on Jehovah’s Witnesses (learn more: https://t.co/KDelnhPC1W) pic.twitter.com/FrMCalcF6X

— Catholics for Choice (@Catholic4Choice) April 21, 2017

There are about 170,000 Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia and they are all now officially in the same category as extremists like Islamic State. According to the New York Times, the group does not engage in politics or criticism against the government. But President Putin has repeatedly targeted the Jehovah’s Witnesses since his third term began in 2012, when he started promoting the Orthodox Church in order to lift Russia to greater international power.

Victor Zhenkov is a lawyer representing the organization. He called the ban “an act of political repression that is impermissible in contemporary Russia.” He said they would appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court, and if that it fails, take it to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Russia Bans Jehovah’s Witnesses, Labels Them Extremists appeared first on Law Street.

Yesterday was Ash Wednesday, which marks the beginning of Lent, the season of fasting and prayer in the Christian faith. To symbolize this, some Christians have ashes in the shape of a cross drawn on their foreheads. But this year, after a turbulent election season and uncertainty about what the future will look like for many minority groups, a faith-based organization in New York City that supports the LGBTQ community will mix its ashes with purple glitter.

“For me, glitter and ashes is the hope I feel in the resurrection of Christ,” said Reverend Marian Edmonds-Allen, who is executive director of the group Parity. The team behind the event, which goes under the name “Glitter+Ash Wednesday,” encourages churches across the country to do the same, as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or queer people have historically been unwelcome in churches.

Glitter ashes in solidarity with queer community in Hamp on Ash Wednesday. I got some. pic.twitter.com/V7Bn6unQFR

— Monte_Belmonte (@MonteBelmonte) March 1, 2017

But this modern take on a Christian tradition had some people seeing red. Jacob Lupfer, a columnist for Religion News Service in Maryland, doesn’t think this will lead to anything good. “Christianity is already divided, and now it’s along pro- and anti-gay lines,” he said. “It’s liturgically inappropriate to tamper with such an ancient and solemn rite.”

A Chicago Reverend, Donald Senior, agreed: “If you start changing its meaning, some are going to feel this is a political statement,” he said of the religious act, and added that it is a ritual that should be handled with a lot of respect.

Last week, the Trump Administration revoked guidelines from the Obama Administration allowing transgender students to use the bathroom that corresponds with their gender identity. The decision caused protests across the country, including at the legendary gay bar Stonewall Inn in New York.

Encouraging to see such a large turnout concerned for the safety of trans youth. Must continue to show up & resist to protect #transrights. pic.twitter.com/FEI6jdvsvZ

— Susan Sarandon (@SusanSarandon) February 24, 2017

“Right now there are people in this country that feel threatened that their very presence should not be in public spaces,” said April Gutierrez, a pastor in Chicago who will also participate in the Glitter+Ash Wednesday.

But, there are many Christians who are progressive and want to show people from the LGBTQ community that they are accepted and loved. The author of “Queer Virtue”, Reverend Elizabeth M. Edman, said that the glitter is not meant to be disrespectful. For LGBTQ people, glitter often symbolizes the process of coming out and can be a very serious thing. To those that believe the glitter only means frivolity or party, she said, “It matters to understand that queer people understand very much the life-and-death aspect of Ash Wednesday. Some people hear glitter and think it’s frivolous. For queer people, glitter is serious business.”

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Christian Groups Show Solidarity With the LGBTQ Community Using Glitter appeared first on Law Street.

Let me preface this by saying I have nothing against people of the Christian faith. In fact, I know many truly decent, open-minded human beings who practice Christianity. What I do have a problem with is that subset of Christianity that uses religion as an excuse to encourage acts that violate basic human rights.

Take, for example, a writer for the website Biblical Gender Roles who goes by the name Larry Solomon (not his real name). In previous posts, he has said there is “no such thing” as marital rape because if a wife refuses sex with her husband it is “a disrespectful and unloving response… and there is no sin in you trying to initiate sex with your wife.”

He goes on to encourage husbands to have sex with their wives anyway, even if she flat-out refuses or does so “begrudgingly.”

Of course, he acknowledges that marital rape is not as pleasurable as consensual sex, and since the author wants the husbands to enjoy themselves anyway, he advises them to “focus your eyes on her body, not her face. Focus on the visual pleasure you receive from looking at her body and physical pleasure you receive from being inside your wife.”

Solomon explains that women just don’t want sex as much as men do, that sex is the primary way husbands feel close to their wives, and that if a wife denies her husband sex she is opening them both up to “temptation.” I assume what he means by “temptation” is extramarital sexual relations. So, he tells his readers, if your wife agrees to “fake it,” has sex begrudgingly, or just refuses, have sex with her anyway and ignore her face, because she’s probably giving you a look of betrayal.

What’s scary is that Larry Solomon, or whatever his real name is, isn’t the only person who thinks this way. He isn’t the only person who thinks that men have a God-given right of control over their wives or significant others. Somehow, it becomes the woman’s fault for not being “in the mood”; somehow it is her fault if her husband seeks companionship outside of their marriage. For example, the Duggar family came under fire recently because the oldest son had more than one sexual scandal in one year (if you need a refresher: it was revealed that he has previously molested two of his sisters AND had an Ashley Madison account while married). In response, the mother, Michelle, took to her blog to implore women to meet their husbands’ sexual needs even if they’re tired after a long day or “exhausted and pregnant.” She says that if you’re there for his physical needs, he’ll be there for your needs. So, essentially, fake it when you’re not in the mood for the health of your relationship.

Ladies, that’s bullshit. Marriage takes work, that is no secret. If one night you don’t feel like having sex, or your husband doesn’t feel like having sex, you don’t do it. Unless both parties agree to it, it’s not consensual, even in a marriage. If you’re refusing sex because of a deeper issue, such as a lack of communication or unresolved argument, clearly things need to be worked out emotionally before you and your significant other can get physical again and have it be pleasurable for BOTH of you. There is such a thing as marital rape, and there is no shame in saying “no.”

Marital rape is illegal in the U.S., but in several states, there is still language being used that allows spousal rape to go unpunished. According to the research in this Daily Beast article, a person can be legally drugged and sexually assaulted in some states if the perpetrator is the victim’s spouse. The existence of these caveats only adds to the rape culture already running rampant in the United States. To stop it, we have to keep sending out the message that “No Means No,” even in a marriage.

Learn More: Marital Rape in the U.S.: What are the Laws?

Morgan McMurray

Morgan McMurray is an editor and gender equality blogger based in Seattle, Washington. A 2013 graduate of Iowa State University, she has a Bachelor of Arts in English, Journalism, and International Studies. She spends her free time writing, reading, teaching dance classes, and binge-watching Netflix. Contact Morgan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post #INeedFeminism Because Sites Like “Biblical Gender Roles” Exist appeared first on Law Street.

The National Prayer Breakfast is an annual event that occurs every February in Washington D.C. As part of the event, speakers are invited to share encouraging words of faith. The National Prayer Breakfast was especially visible in the news recently as a result of controversy over a recent speech by President Obama. Read on to learn about the history, inception, and purpose of the event.

What is the National Prayer Breakfast?

The National Prayer Breakfast is an annual event held in Washington, D.C. on the first Thursday of February. This year the event celebrated its sixty-second anniversary. Among the 3,200 people in attendance, guests from all fifty states and 140 countries were represented. One of the most high-profile attendees is the president of the United States who gives a speech, as well as a designated keynote speaker whose identity is kept confidential until that morning. The event has had many notable speakers including Mother Teresa, Bono, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and NASCAR legend Darrell Waltrip. Some have garnered national attention for speeches that they have made at the Breakfast, including Doctor Ben Carson, whose speech is in the video below.

Who is invited to attend the National Prayer Breakfast?

People from all walks of life are invited. This list includes the President and First Lady, members of Congress, visiting heads of state, and a myriad of ambassadors representing scores of countries, many of them adherents of other religions or non-theist.

What is the purpose of the National Prayer Breakfast?

The purpose of the National Prayer Breakfast is two-fold, but the main intention is quite simple: to come together in prayer and thanksgiving. Non-Christians attend the breakfast, but the event is designed to make sure that everyone is respectful whenever possible. The second purpose is to hear from the prominent speakers who offer words of encouragement and/or challenge the audience to live their lives in fuller service to Christ’s teachings.

History of the National Prayer Breakfast

The first National Prayer Breakfast took place in 1953 when the houses in the United States Congress joined together to establish it during the presidency of Dwight Eisenhower. Since then not only has the National Prayer Breakfast become a yearly tradition, there are also smaller versions that occur in cities and states across the country and around the world.

The concept of the event actually began in the 1930s when a young man named Abraham Vereide began to meet  with the leaders in his home area of Seattle and counseled them to study Jesus and his teachings, especially with regard to the poor and disenfranchised. As the 1940s progressed, Vereide began to meet with members of Congress for the exact same reason. The results of these meetings moved Congress to start the breakfast and invite the president to partake in the event, as well.

Is the National Prayer Breakfast a partisan or denominational event?

All members of Congress, regardless of party affiliation, are invited to put aside their jobs as politicians and for that brief time come together as one. This is regardless of denomination as well as religion. One will see Lutherans sitting next to Evangelicals and those who are not Christian at all. The Dali Llama was also present at this year’s National Prayer Breakfast as a guest of President Obama.

Who organizes the National Prayer Breakfast?

There are many religious groups that help to put on the event, whether it is getting the venue set up, arranging for the speakers, or providing other forms of support; however, the organization that takes the leading role is a group called Fellowship Foundation. This group, which started in 1929, is framed as a network of friends from all walks of life joined together by an interest in the power of Jesus.

How is the National Prayer Breakfast similar to and different from other national religious events?

The National Prayer Breakfast is similar to other events such as the National Day of Prayer, in that both are a nationwide call for Prayer; however, these events differ because the breakfast is not mandated by law, but rather is sustained by private individuals. They also differ in their focus, as the National Day of Prayer is designed to be a call for Americans to humbly come before God, seeking his guidance and grace and the National Prayer Breakfast is designed as an event  to hear words of wisdom, inspiring testimony, or to give those who attend and those read about it on social media afterward something to think about in order to help to bring their own lives closer to Christ.

What topics are covered in the speeches given at the National Prayer Breakfast?

The topics have been as varied as the speakers. When Mother Teresa spoke, her topic was abortion. She condemned the procedure, stating that “any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want. This is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion.” When Doctor Carson was the speaker in 2013 he spoke about fixing America using principles from the Bible itself. Eric Metaxas, who spoke in 2012, discussed the topic of dead religion. Finally Darrell Waltrip spoke this year on his own conversion, stating that:

Good guys go to hell. If you don’t know Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, if you don’t have a relationship, if He’s not the master of your life, if you’ve never gotten on your knees and asked Him to forgive you of your sins, you’re just a pretty good guy or a pretty good gal, you’re gonna to go to hell.

Watch the video below for more on Waltrip’s speech.

Is there opposition to the National Prayer Breakfast?

Most of the dislike for the event comes from secularists and more liberal forces. Groups such as Americans United for the Separation of Church and State have opposed it on a number of grounds, ranging from their opposition to the group that sponsors it–the Fellowship Foundation–which is a fundamentalist group, to wishing that those who attended the event better understood the need for separation between church and state.

Some have even gone so far as to suggest that the National Prayer Breakfast shouldn’t exist, at least not in its present form. In addition to the critiques that the it receives from the non-religious community, it is also no stranger to political controversy. One such controversy occurred in 2012, when the National Prayer Breakfast had additional competition from the Occupy Faith DC protest, which was set up to proptest the breakfast as an event for the rich and famous only. Other controversies included when Mother Teresa called out then-President Bill Clinton and his wife Hillary on their stances on abortion; and  most recently critiques point to President Obama’s remarks at this year’s event. He was accused of comparing historical Christianity and modern extremist Islam.

Resources

Primary

National the Day of Prayer

Additional

Priests For Life: Mother Teresa’s Speech

Huffington Post: Occupy National Prayer Breakfast

American’s United Blog: Breakfast Club: Obama Endorses Seperation at Evangelical Event

America Blog: The National Prayer Breakfast Shouldn’t Exist

Americans United Blog: Doubting Thomas: Prayer Breakfast Theocrats Try to Baptize Jefferson

Doctor Ben Carson: National Prayer Breakfast Speech Transcript

Fellowship Foundation: History

Faith and Action: Salvation and Damnation in DC

Freedom Outpost: The Message You Didn’t Hear About at the National Prayer Breakfast: Without Christ, You Will Go to Hell

Chris Schultz

Chris Schultz is a Midwestern country boy who is a graduate of Dordt College in Sioux Center, Iowa and holds a bachelors degree in History. He is interested in learning about the various ocean liners that have sailed the world’s waters along with a variety of other topics. Contact Chris at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The National Prayer Breakfast: History and Controversies appeared first on Law Street.

This is going to hurt me a lot more than it is going to hurt you: Justice Antonin Scalia might have a point.

I know, I know. His “orthodoxy” and “originalism” are nothing but facades that make a joke out of Constitutional interpretation. His recalcitrance has a deteriorating effect on America. His arrogance knows no limits. But one of his thoughts contains a basic interpretation of the Constitution that is extremely important. A recent Denver Post article quotes Scalia saying, “’There are those who would have us believe that the separation of church and state must mean that God must be driven out of the public forum…That is simply not what our Constitution has ever meant.’”

I’ve already written about why it’s okay — and good — to include religion in the public discourse. So I will simply sum up my argument here: religion is still an integral part of American life, religion is still an integral American social institution, and religion still informs the morals of American public officials. Instead of dismissing that out of fear of a too-close relationship between church and state, let’s have it out in the open for our discussions. Now this one is hard for me to swallow, but it behooves me to agree with a basic component of Scalia’s belief. The separation of church and state, vital as it is, does not necessitate the eradication of religiosity from American life, public or private.

Despite feeling empty inside for supporting something that Justice Scalia said, I’ll press on. The topic is of utmost importance right now as more Americans are unhappy about perceived lack of religiosity, according to Pew Research. As 72 percent of Americans believe that religion has lost influence in the country, “a growing share of the American public wants religion to play a role in U.S. politics,” Pew’s Religion & Public Life Project claims. Scalia and I are on to something: religious presence in American public life is not only Constitutionally acceptable, but desired by an increasing number of people in the country.

What does this mean for political alignments in America? On one hand Pew notes that more “of the general public sees the Republican Party as friendly toward religion (47%) than sees the Democratic Party that way (29%).” On the other hand, there are “some signs of discontent within the GOP among its supporters, including evangelicals.” While Christians still dominate the American religious atmosphere, their political spread is complicated. Black Protestants overwhelmingly support the Democratic party as opposed to their White Republican counterparts. Meanwhile, the Catholic demographic is split between Republican Whites and Democratic Hispanics.

These spreads indicate how differentiated all religious Americans — even Christian Americans — are politically. Therefore, the growing number of Americans looking to see more religiosity in the U.S. political sphere is comprised of a variety of political interests. Neither liberals nor conservatives, then, should be too optimistic or pessimistic because of these demographics. Only those who oppose Scalia’s conception of church and state should be concerned. While religion may be less prevalent in public life right now, those who oppose religion in public life also have waning clout.

Scalia’s statement is consistent with the growing public sentiment, but how should the Supreme Court interpret this opinion? Of course, according to Scalia, the Supreme Court should completely ignore the current public dynamic and focus only on the “original” meaning of the Constitution. And in Scalia’s eyes, the “original” meaning of the First Amendment “explicitly favors religion” over non-religion, as he mentions in a recent Court opinion. Will the Supreme Court, and Scalia, look to the recent sentiments of the public to validate a preference of the religious over the non-religious? Or will some members of the Court defend agnostic and atheistic rights when applicable? With the Court slated to hear a few cases on religion in the near future, these questions should be mainstream.

Jake Ephros

Jake Ephros is a native of Montclair, New Jersey where he volunteered for political campaigns from a young age. He studies Political Science, Economics, and Philosophy at American University and looks forward to a career built around political activism, through journalism, organizing, or the government. Contact Jake at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Justice Scalia Gets It Right: There is a Political Demand for Religion appeared first on Law Street.

In the wake of the tragic and monstrous attacks on America on September 11, 2001, it is important to continue commemorating and honoring that day, and it is important to keep discussing that day’s stories and contexts. One survivor of the attacks is asking for just that. This year, Greg Trevor wrote an op-ed for New Jersey’s Star-Ledger requesting that September 11 be memorialized as a “National Day of Discussion, where Americans actively seek ways to find common ground across political, religious and cultural divides.” He suggested this as an alternative to 9/11 being commercialized like Memorial Day or rarely brought into mainstream attention like Pearl Harbor Day. America should listen to this survivor and talk about our feelings toward Islam, and our judgments about religion in general.

This summer, the Arab American Institute polled Americans about their attitudes toward Arabs and Muslims. Its key findings include sad statistics: just under half of Americans “support the use of profiling by law enforcement against Arab Americans and American Muslims,” while an increasing “percentage of Americans say that they lack confidence in the ability of individuals from either community to perform their duties as Americans should they be appointed to an important government position.” In the 13 years since 9/11, these numbers have only gotten worse. It’s part of a persistent Western Islamophobia. One Gallup article details this fear that so many in the West have of Muslims. At 48 percent, Muslims are the religious group most likely to feel racially or religiously discriminated against by Americans. There is great concern among Muslims internationally, too, about how the West treats them. Because the terrorists who orchestrated 9/11 were Muslim, a great deal of latent Islamophobic sentiment was released after the attacks. How are we addressing this reaction?

President Obama recently reaffirmed his statement that Islamist extremists, from Al-Qaeda to the Islamic State, are not truly Muslim. Saying that the Islamic State “is not Islamic,” he claimed that “no religion condones the killing of innocents.” Obama has made this claim before, and his predecessor affirmed the same. Less than a week after 9/11, President George W. Bush said that “the face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That’s not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace.” On the one hand, these proclamations from American presidents are laudable and can do much to temper Islamophobia in the U.S. On the other hand, it isn’t their place to make claims like that about an entire religion.

Let’s get something straight: religion is kind of complicated. There are a lot of religious texts, doctrines, and mandates that condone, value, and encourage violence. This isn’t restricted to Islam. The Old and New Testaments, too, have inspired a great deal of violence. Religions that originated in the East are not free from it, either; this summer Buddhists in Burma again attacked their Muslim neighbors.

Yet peace is prevalent in religious texts, too. Love, compassion, and understanding are fundamental in many religions, Islam included. Both these presidents are Christians, but they were more than willing to paint the over one billion adherents with one broad brush. I do not think that one person of any religion should make a broad claim about each of its adherents. Religion is a complex web of faith that we should be wary of characterizing singularly. President Obama is right in that Islam is a peaceful practice. President Obama is wrong, too, as devout Muslims have looked to their texts for justification of sick violence.

Politically, it’d be preferable if religion could be summed up by either “peace” or “violence” or some other trait. But religion’s complexity, dynamism, and diversity make it interesting, relevant, and beautiful, even. Of course, the aspects of violence contribute in no way to that beauty. Should people use religion as a justification for violence? Never. But to ignore that violence is a part of religion’s history, present, and most likely its future is unfortunately a mistake.

This is why we need a Day of Discussion. This is why we need to talk, learn, and grow. We can’t be prejudicial of Muslims, but we sure can be prejudicial of the terrorists in Iraq and Syria. We have to be mature enough to condemn those Muslims and not condemn all Muslims. Hindsight allows us to condemn the Spanish Inquisitors who persecuted people of other faiths. Those Catholics did horrible things, but we can’t condemn all Catholics or Catholicism generally. Making these distinctions is important, and generalizing is dangerous. If we listen to survivor Greg Trevor and sit down to talk about it a little more, I think we would be on the right path.

Jake Ephros

Jake Ephros is a native of Montclair, New Jersey where he volunteered for political campaigns from a young age. He studies Political Science, Economics, and Philosophy at American University and looks forward to a career built around political activism, through journalism, organizing, or the government. Contact Jake at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Violence, Religion, and the Need for a 9/11 Day of Discussion appeared first on Law Street.

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) was caught in the middle of a tug-of-war between Christians and atheists this summer. The Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) sued the IRS for allowing a church to preach about political issues during services. As religious organizations like churches can have tax-exempt status, they are forbidden from making recommendations about political candidates. While the atheists’ suit was settled, the debate remains far from over. The intersection of American religion and politics is complicated to say the least. From personal appeals to Supreme Court cases, it is hard to find more controversial issues than those involving both church and state. But we should not ignore the topic; rather, it should be tackled head on.

Anti-religious sentiment, or at least sentiment against religion in the public sphere, is alive and virulent. David Silverman, the President of the American Atheists, said that the American “political system is rife with religion and it depends too much on religion and not enough on substance. Religion is silly and religion has components that are inherently divisive. …There is no place for any of that in the political system.”

The American Atheists are at least 4,000 members strong; the FFRF has over 19,000 members who subscribe to the belief that “[t]he history of Western civilization shows us that most social and moral progress has been brought about by persons free from religion.” Malcolm X, Muhammad Ali, Betty Friedan, and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. may disagree. American slavery was countered by devout abolitionists like Sojourner Truth. The movement would not have been the same had it not been for those leaders who saw slavery as simply not Christian. The British colonies in America partially owe their origins to the religious movement of the day. People “free from religion” cannot be called superior in Western progressive movements.

Atheism itself is not the issue. But claiming a moral superiority over religious people based solely on their religiousness is a mistake. This extends to the political sphere. Not because any nation should necessarily adopt theocratic tendencies, but because we should treat religion as a social institution rather than a political taboo. Marriage, education, families, and the economy are each social institutions brought up frequently in political discussions. Beyond that, some of the most popular rhetoric connects different institutions to one another; the White House website says that “President Obama is committed to creating jobs and economic opportunities for families across America.” Republican Marco Rubio’s website claims that “Senator Rubio believes there are simple ideas that Washington should pursue in order to improve education in America and prepare our children for the jobs of tomorrow.” Families, jobs, children, and education are all important in American society. They can also be highly personal and emotional when included in our political discourse; what really makes them so different from religion as a social institution?

To the liberals, even if you don’t buy into the idea that religion is an equally important social institution to others, you cannot deny that it shapes America’s politics, and therefore it deserves discussion. Every American president has been Christian and male, but could any liberal be taken seriously while arguing that we can’t talk about gender discrimination in our politics? Barack Obama is the only Black president of America’s forty four, but what Democrat could claim that we can’t talk about race in our politics? In this way, there is a deep hypocrisy in the liberal canon. Further, if religion in politics is shunned by everyone except for Christian conservatives, then the conversation will be dominated by them alone.

To the conservatives, look at the statistics. The Pew Research center shows that people who fall under the group “Protestant/Other Christian” (distinguished by Pew from Catholics and Mormons) voted for Mitt Romney over Barack Obama at a rate of 57 percent to 42 percent. This disparity is actually wider than it was during the 2008 election in which John McCain received 54 percent of the same group to Obama’s 45 percent. Jews in 2012 voted for Obama over Romney at a rate of 69 percent to 30 percent. The widest gaps are those within the groups “Religiously unaffiliated” and “Other faiths” who voted for Obama-Romney at rates of 70 percent – 26 percent and 74 percent – 23 percent, respectively. Reaching out to Latinos and Blacks is proving to be difficult, but there are plenty of non-Christian groups that the Republican party has largely overlooked.

Religion isn’t entirely absent from the political conversation, but where it is present, its place is static and stale. MSNBC will face off right-wing Christians who lambaste abortion and gay marriage against level-headed leftists. FOX News will pit religious people claiming family values against out-of-touch academics. When liberals eschew religious political discussion and conservatives only make room for their Christian constituents, the discussion doesn’t move anywhere. There is not only a need to have bring religion into the rest of our political discussion — to have faith in politics –but to remove it from its stereotypical and often misrepresentative position. Freedom of speech and religious freedom should flourish together with a substantial discussion that allows America to have faith in our politics.

Jake Ephros

Jake Ephros is a native of Montclair, New Jersey where he volunteered for political campaigns from a young age. He studies Political Science, Economics, and Philosophy at American University and looks forward to a career built around political activism, through journalism, organizing, or the government. Contact Jake at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Having Faith in Politics appeared first on Law Street.

]]> https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/faith-politics/feed/ 4 23714 https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/africa-gets-screwed-white-man/ https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/africa-gets-screwed-white-man/#respond Wed, 30 Jul 2014 10:32:44 +0000 http://lawstreetmedia.wpengine.com/?p=21543

A 19-year-old Oklahoma teen admitted to raping and molesting young girls and boys on a missionary trip to Kenya.
Why does this kind of story not surprise me? Maybe because White people have been going to the African continent for decades claiming to help, while actually causing serious harm. Whether they're enslaving us, stealing our natural resources, or claiming our land; White people have a knack for hurting the people of Africa.

The post Africa Gets Screwed Over Once Again by the White Man appeared first on Law Street.

]]>

A 19-year-old Oklahoma teen named Matthew Durham has admitted to raping and molesting young girls and boys on a missionary trip to Kenya. Durham was volunteering with a group called Upendo and living with the children at the time of the assaults.

Why does this kind of story not surprise me? Maybe because White people have been going to the African continent for decades claiming to help, while actually causing serious harm. Whether they’re enslaving us, stealing our natural resources, or claiming our land; White people have a knack for hurting the people of Africa.

Durham was arrested last Thursday at his parents’ home in Edmond, Oklahoma after he fled Kenya due to the allegations, according to the Daily Mail. The founder of Upendo, Eunice Menja, told the FBI that Durham admitted to raping between four and ten children, including one who is HIV-positive, between April and June of this year.

According to KTLA 5, this was the fourth time Durham had visited Nairobi with Upendo, which was designed to help neglected Kenyan children. The organization’s vision statement reads, “One child at a time — while we envision a community with no more child poverty, no more child abuse but every child with each basic need met.” Oh the irony, oh the hypocrisy, it’s too much I can’t handle it.

Now it’s hard to completely blame Upendo. How were they to know that Durham was secretly into little children? But the one question that arose when I read this story was why was he allowed to sleep in the same place as these kids in the first place? He was there to help the kids, not to have a slumber party. So for that Upendo, I believe you failed.

But Durham’s lawyer doesn’t seem to think so. Stephen Jones, the lawyer who defended Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, says that Menja forced a false confession from the teenage boy with “psychological voodoo.”

Yeah, we’ll see how that holds up in court.

Jones went on to say, “I don’t think Hollywood could make up what happened at this so-called orphanage. We’re on the ground in Kenya now. We’re finding out a lot about these people. This place is right on the outskirts of Nairobi. It’s like some cult over there.”

Whether or not this “so-called orphanage” is a legitimate foundation is not the issue here. Multiple children have come forward and said that Durham touched them in inappropriate places or made them watch as he touched other kids in inappropriate places. Now whether or not you believe in voodoo is up to you, but the fact that multiple children have come forward and spoken on Durham’s behavior has to mean something, and while I get that it is your job to defend your client Mr. Jones, it seems to me like you are grasping at air.

Obviously, most of the blame falls on Durham. Even if you are exploring your sexuality you have absolutely no right to explore it with children. Mr. Durham, don’t you think that these kids have already been through enough in their short lives? Don’t you think the daily hardship that these kids have to endure is already taxing enough without you forcing yourself on them? Don’t you think that these four to ten year olds deserved to grow up just a tad bit more before they were introduced to the complicated world of sex? No. You didn’t think Mr. Durham, and for that you deserve to spend a considerable amount of time in prison to do just that.

Mic Drop

—

Trevor Smith

Featured image courtesy of [Geraint Rowland via Flickr]

Trevor Smith

Trevor Smith is a homegrown DMVer studying Journalism and Graphic Design at American University. Upon graduating he has hopes to work for the US State Department so that he can travel, learn, and make money at the same time. Contact Trevor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Africa Gets Screwed Over Once Again by the White Man appeared first on Law Street.

]]> https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/africa-gets-screwed-white-man/feed/ 0 21543 https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/culture-blog/warning-christians-coming-civil-liberties/ https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/culture-blog/warning-christians-coming-civil-liberties/#respond Thu, 17 Jul 2014 10:32:08 +0000 http://lawstreetmedia.wpengine.com/?p=20726

The Hobby Lobby ruling, not even a month old, is already proving to be disturbingly broad. Ruth Bader Ginsburg warned us about this in her dissent—that granting religious exemptions for IUDs and Plan B would be like opening a Pandora’s Box of discrimination potential—but did anyone listen to her? And so here we are, with religious zealots breathing down the necks of the Supreme Court and of the President—and they have legal precedent to back themselves up.

The post WARNING: The Christians Are Coming for Your Civil Liberties appeared first on Law Street.

]]>

Happy Thursday, folks!

It’s been a crazy couple of weeks for women out there.

First—as I’m sure you recall—SCOTUS ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby, giving employers the right to deny workers birth control coverage because of religious exemptions, and essentially giving douche-wad bosses everywhere the potential to control their employees’ uteruses.

Awesome.

And now, things are getting much, much worse.

Following the Hobby Lobby decision, religious institutions, religiously-run corporations, and basically anyone who is a fan of Jesus and also has some modicum of control over other people’s lives, are filing for the right to discriminate against people under religious exemptions.

Say good-bye to your civil rights, folks.

A group of 14 religious leaders wrote a letter to the Obama administration asking for the right to discriminate against LGBTQ people in closely-held corporations. George Fox University demanded a religious exemption that would allow it to bar a transgender student from living on campus, and the Department of Education granted it.

 

The Hobby Lobby ruling, not even a month old, is already proving to be disturbingly broad. Ruth Bader Ginsburg warned us about this in her dissent—that granting religious exemptions for IUDs and Plan B would be like opening a Pandora’s Box of discrimination potential—but did anyone listen to her?

And so here we are, with religious zealots breathing down the necks of the Supreme Court and of the President—and they have legal precedent to back themselves up.

Loves, this shit is scary. And not fear-monger-y type scary. Legit disturbing.

 

When the Hobby Lobby decision first came down it signaled yet another chip away at civil liberties and women’s rights in this country. One more piece of legal bullshit that diminishes a woman’s right to control her own body. One more reminder that women aren’t seen as real people or full adults in the United States, but rather as wards of the state, our spouses, our fathers, or apparently, our employers.

But as awful as that is, the asshat Justices who voted for this decision assured us that the Hobby Lobby ruling would end there. It would be a narrow ruling, applicable to only this situation, and that feminists would only have to fight against this one, single issue. Access to birth control regardless of what your boss’s religious beliefs are.

Justice Ginsburg called bullshit, and now I’m calling that she was right.

This ruling is not narrow. We can no longer be solely concerned with its reversal because women deserve the right to control their own goddamn bodies.

Nope. Instead, it’s turning out to be frighteningly broad, as the Supreme Court demands reviews of similar cases in lower courts and considers handing out more religious exemptions based on the precedent that Hobby Lobby’s now set.

Where does this end? There’s really no way to know just yet, but the possibilities are kind of endless.

 

Don’t want to hire women at your company? Sure thing, buddy! Claim that doing so would place an undue burden on you as a result of your religious beliefs and you’re good to go.

Don’t want to hire black people at your company either? No problem. Religious exemptions all around.

Can’t stand the thought of your female employees having consequence-free sex? Awesome. Religious exemption and boom! You just gained control over your workers’ uteruses. Don’t you feel better knowing your vagina-laden employees aren’t sleeping around (at least, not without feeling extreme anxiety about their reproductive systems)?

And maybe you don’t want to pay LGBT people the same amount of money as your straight employees. Or maybe you don’t want to hire them at all! Cool, dude. Religious exemption.

 

This shit is ridiculous. With the Hobby Lobby ruling, the Supreme Court just created a loophole for every piece of non-discrimination legislation ever enacted. Civil rights of all kinds—not just for women—are at serious risk. If anyone feels like they want to engage in some good, old-fashioned discrimination, they can pretty much do so! They just have to make a case for getting a religious exemption first.

And clearly, based on the fact that Hobby Lobby won its case, despite building it on a foundation of craptastic non-science, that’s not super hard to do.

So, way to go, SCOTUS! You really fucked things up for all of us, this time. Not only have you created an environment where everyone can be their own law book, but you’ve sent us down a path that will undoubtedly be littered with regressive politics.

The fight for personhood just got that much harder, lovelies.

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York City. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image courtesy of [Daryl Clark via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post WARNING: The Christians Are Coming for Your Civil Liberties appeared first on Law Street.

]]> https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/culture-blog/warning-christians-coming-civil-liberties/feed/ 0 20726 https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/news/free-last/ https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/news/free-last/#comments Tue, 01 Jul 2014 10:31:04 +0000 http://lawstreetmedia.wpengine.com/?p=18699

Meriam Ibrahim, the 27-year-old Christian woman who was jailed for apostasy in Sudan and sentenced to death by hanging last May has finally been set free, again. Ibrahim’s story has gone global as she is the only Sudanese woman to escape a death sentence without renouncing her faith. Ibrahim was convicted of apostasy, the renunciation […]

The post Meriam Ibrahim: Free at Last? appeared first on Law Street.

]]>

Meriam Ibrahim, the 27-year-old Christian woman who was jailed for apostasy in Sudan and sentenced to death by hanging last May has finally been set free, again.

Ibrahim’s story has gone global as she is the only Sudanese woman to escape a death sentence without renouncing her faith. Ibrahim was convicted of apostasy, the renunciation of one’s religion, after marrying a Christian man, Daniel Wani in 2011. The Sudanese government sentenced Ibrahim to death after she birthed her child, but through the efforts of diplomats and other world leaders, Ibrahim was released from jail and the charges were dropped.

Ibrahim’s release seemed to be a step forward by the hard-ass Islamic government in Sudan. It seemed that they had finally realized how barbaric they were being. But just as I raised my hands up to applaud the Sudanese government, they went and re-arrested the poor woman.

Liars! I say liars! Ibrahim barely had 24 hours of freedom before she was arrested for trying to leave the country. Really? Just for trying to leave after being imprisoned for holding on to her faith. Sudan, I didn’t hold your policies in the highest regard before, but now I am so ashamed, I can barely look you in the eye.

So ashamed.

Thankfully she was re-released on the condition that she remains in Sudan, according to her lawyer. She now faces forgery charges because of the travel documents she attempted to use to fly out of the country. South Sudan gave visas to the family to travel to America because the husband, Wani, is recognized as a citizen there. State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said that Ibrahim had all the documents needed to travel to the U.S., but that “it is up to the government of Sudan to allow her to exit the country.” Sudan sounds like a clingy ex if you ask me.

You would think that through all this Ms. Ibrahim would at least have the support of her family right? Wrong. Her own brother was quoted by CNN saying, “The family is unconvinced by the court’s decision. We were not informed by the court that she was to be released; this came as a surprise to us…This is now an issue of honor. The Christians have tarnished our honor, and we will know how to avenge it.”

Who said blood was thicker than water?

If it wasn’t for the international outcry by so many official figures across the world, Ms. Ibrahim wouldn’t have been saved. But support has come from notable figures such as British Prime minister David Cameron who said he was “absolutely appalled,” by the sentence given by the court, and told The Times that “religious freedom is an absolute, fundamental human right, I urge the government of Sudan to overturn the sentence and immediately provide appropriate support and medical care for her and her children.”

Amnesty International headed a campaign demanding the immediate release and halted execution of Ibrahim, started a Change.org petition that has gained more than 600,000 signatures, and released a statement saying, “the fact that a woman has been sentenced to death for her religious choice, and to flogging for being married to a man of an allegedly different religion is appalling and abhorrent. Adultery and apostasy are acts which should not be considered crimes at all. It is a flagrant breach of international human rights law.”

The U.S. State Department said it was “deeply disturbed” by the sentence and called on the Sudanese government to respect Ms. Ibrahim’s religious freedoms.

And to put the sweet icing on top of the justice cake, tweets calling on the Sudanese government to release Ibrahim from Hillary Clinton, David Cameron, and British personality Laura Laverne were retweeted thousands of times.

I am absolutely appalled by the decision to sentence #MeriamIbrahim to death. The way she is being treated has no place in today's world.

— David Cameron (@David_Cameron) May 31, 2014

Meriam Yahya Ibrahim’s death sentence is abhorrent. Sudan should stop threatening religious freedom and fundamental human rights.

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) May 24, 2014

#Sudan: pregnant mother sentenced to death for apostasy. Take action to save her life https://t.co/fQqZlRIRxx

— Lauren Laverne (@laurenlaverne) May 21, 2014

The problem at hand here is the so called “Freedom of Religion” in Sudan. In 2005 the Interim National Constitution of Sudan provided freedom of religion throughout the entire country, but in practice religious minorities exist between the North and the South. Christians in the North face strong social pressure to convert, and Muslims who express interest in converting face even stronger pressures to recant. Ibrahim was the first woman who did not have to convert religions to be released. Forcing women into believing in a certain religion doesn’t seem all that holy to me, and while the step is small, Ms. Ibrahim’s case is a step in the right direction.

Although she is being forced to stay in Sudan, I have a strong feeling that Amnesty International, the U.S. State Department, the British Parliament, and Hillary Clinton will all still have a strong voice in the matter and Ms. Ibrahim and her family will be free at last.

Bring it

—

Trevor Smith

Featured imaged courtesy of [Waiting for the Word via Flickr]

Trevor Smith

Trevor Smith is a homegrown DMVer studying Journalism and Graphic Design at American University. Upon graduating he has hopes to work for the US State Department so that he can travel, learn, and make money at the same time. Contact Trevor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Meriam Ibrahim: Free at Last? appeared first on Law Street.

]]> https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/news/free-last/feed/ 1 18699 https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/culture-blog/can-maybe-condone-torture-sarah-palin/ https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/culture-blog/can-maybe-condone-torture-sarah-palin/#comments Wed, 30 Apr 2014 15:42:27 +0000 http://lawstreetmedia.wpengine.com/?p=15024

The NRA Convention happened last weekend, folks! And you know what that means. LOTS of ridiculousness for us to talk about. Specifically, the ridiculousness that Sarah Palin was spewing. When she addressed the cheering crowd of gun enthusiasts, she made a wildly offensive comment equating torture with Christian indoctrination. “They obviously have information on plots […]

The post Can We Maybe Not Condone Torture, Sarah Palin? appeared first on Law Street.

]]>

The NRA Convention happened last weekend, folks! And you know what that means.

LOTS of ridiculousness for us to talk about.

Specifically, the ridiculousness that Sarah Palin was spewing. When she addressed the cheering crowd of gun enthusiasts, she made a wildly offensive comment equating torture with Christian indoctrination.

“They obviously have information on plots to carry out jihad. Oh, but you can’t offend them. You can’t make them feel uncomfortable. Not even a smidgen. Well, if I were in charge, they would know that waterboarding is how we baptize terrorists.”

Oh sure, Sarah, that’s great. Let’s torture people and call it baptism. Because that’s not problematic AT ALL.

A lot of people, conservatives included, are pretty scandalized by this latest sound bite from the Conservative Queen of Ridiculous Sound Bites. She’s talked nonsense about President Obama being a socialist, plotting to plunge the U.S. into a quagmire of evil Communism. She’s said some weird and totally untrue things about death panels being a part of the Affordable Care Act. Not to mention, she’s been unable to pinpoint any specific news publications that she reads, or to be completely in control of the English language — “refudiate” and “misunderestimate” are cases in point.

But! Despite the fact that we should all be totally used to Sarah Palin spewing nonsense, she really outdid herself this time.

Even Lucy is shocked.

Let’s start with the most glaring and obvious issue here — Palin is talking about TORTURE. This isn’t an enhanced interrogation method. This isn’t even fucking legal.

Waterboarding is torture.

And she’s talking about it pretty fucking brazenly. She’s blasé about it, really. Palin talks about torturing people with the same folksy, nonchalant charm that won her a spot on the presidential ticket back in 2008. She could be talking about her kid’s hockey game, for cryin’ out loud.

But she’s not. She’s talking about subjecting human beings to the experience of simulated drowning.

And that’s really disturbing. When a person can talk about torturing other people with such ease, it makes you wonder what they’re really capable of. And I’m not the only one who’s wondering.

The Atlantic’s Conor Friedersdorf brings up an important point—what happens if the wrong Republican gets elected? Will the United States revert back to its Bush Era, barbaric ways? Will torture become the norm once again? What else will become the norm?

Potentially, a lot of scary things. Keep in mind, Palin is a self-professed, devout Christian. She’s a woman who claims to follow the gospel of Jesus Christ — a prophet who preached peace and love above all else. I mean, let’s be real. Dude was the original hippy, am I right?

Yup.

So if she can justify torture — even when she follows a religion that, at its core, preaches peace — what else can she justify?

For starters, she can justify a blatant disrespect for the religion that she claims to cling to so tightly. Her conflation of waterboarding with baptism has been received with a lot of insult and outrage by many in the Christian community. Rod Dreher, the editor of the American Conservative, even termed the comparison “sacrilegious.”

So what are we left with? Sarah Palin has proven herself time and time again to be a lightning rod for controversy. She says crazy things. She does weird shit like deviate from her political career to star on reality shows. She gets a lot of flak.

And some of that flak isn’t well deserved. There’s always been an element of misogyny to the criticism hurled at Palin. The world collectively freaked out when she was announced as John McCain’s running mate back in 2008 — and not because she was wildly unqualified — but because she was a woman, a former beauty queen, a mother of five children. How can she be a heartbeat away from the presidency, the country asked, but not always for the right reasons.

But now? We’re left with a woman who talks about violence with reckless abandon. Who preaches her own religious and political views dogmatically, without actually following them herself. Who panders to crowds of gun-enthusiasts who cheer her on when she talks about torture.

That shit’s dangerous. So what’ll happen if the wrong Republican gets elected?

It’s impossible to say — but one thing’s for sure. Nothing good happens when you give people with a penchant for violence and self-righteousness the keys to the kingdom.

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image courtesy of [Gage Skidmore via Wikipedia]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Can We Maybe Not Condone Torture, Sarah Palin? appeared first on Law Street.

]]> https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/culture-blog/can-maybe-condone-torture-sarah-palin/feed/ 2 15024 https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/culture-blog/hobby-lobby-wants-to-remove-the-corporate-veil-and-your-birth-control-coverage/ https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/culture-blog/hobby-lobby-wants-to-remove-the-corporate-veil-and-your-birth-control-coverage/#comments Tue, 25 Mar 2014 20:28:30 +0000 http://lawstreetmedia.wpengine.com/?p=13640

Good morning, folks! Time for your weekly dosage of anti-feminist bullshit! On the menu today is Hobby Lobby, a for-profit corporation owned by a family of religious zealots that doesn’t want to cover your birth control. Also, it doesn’t want any other employer-sponsored health insurance to cover your birth control either. So, keep your legs […]

The post Hobby Lobby Wants to Remove the Corporate Veil — and Your Birth Control Coverage appeared first on Law Street.

]]>

Good morning, folks! Time for your weekly dosage of anti-feminist bullshit! On the menu today is Hobby Lobby, a for-profit corporation owned by a family of religious zealots that doesn’t want to cover your birth control.

Also, it doesn’t want any other employer-sponsored health insurance to cover your birth control either.

So, keep your legs closed?

I know, I know, conservatives bat this shit around all the goddamn time. They’re constantly challenging a woman’s right to choose, trying to flip or amend the shit out of Roe v. Wade to resurrect the age of the coat hanger, slash birth control coverage, nix preventive care exams, and pretty much destroy all the basic healthcare measures that are associated with vaginas.

And so far, they haven’t managed to deny all of us some modicum of control over our own bodies. Those of us who are lucky enough to live in a blue state with a decent level of economic privilege are still visiting the OB-GYN each year. But.

Hobby Lobby is making us really fucking nervous.

This obnoxious fuck of a company is suing the Department of Health and Human Services on the grounds that the contraceptive mandate in the Affordable Care Act infringes on their constitutional right to religious freedom. According to Hobby Lobby, since they’re owned by devout Christians, their health insurance benefits shouldn’t have to cover contraception for employees.

To make this even more awesome, Hobby Lobby is basing these claims on some crap-tastic pseudo-science about “abortifacients.” The company is already covering 80 percent of the mandatory contraceptives listed in the ACA, but is holding out on two forms of intrauterine contraception, and two forms of emergency birth control.

Contrary to the ridiculous claims they’re making about those devices, none of them are abortion pills. Which, for the record, are totally on the market and widely used. These just aren’t them.

Literally no one is a fan of this lawsuit.

For all the people who are in favor of women controlling their own bodies and sexual health, this is obviously some bullshit. Birth control and emergency contraception are basic tools that allow women to maintain their sexual health and control their destinies. Those are rights that shouldn’t be up for debate.

But what’s really surprising is who else isn’t a fan of this suit.

The entire business world.

That’s right! All the rich, conservative, white men who run the United States’ Fortune 500 companies have failed to file a single amicus brief in Hobby Lobby’s favor. They’re just as freaked out by this attempt at religious discrimination as feminists are.

Why? Because it would fuck shit up, business-wise.

Hobby Lobby’s case is built on the argument that a corporation isn’t separate from its owners. By their logic, since Hobby Lobby is owned by devout Christians, the company itself is also a devoutly Christian entity whose religious freedoms can be violated. This move conflates the business and its owners, making them one in the same.

And that’s really dangerous for business owners all across the country. The Chamber of Commerce and other organizations have filed a ton of amicus briefs opposing Hobby Lobby, citing how important it is to keep corporations separate from their owners.

This principle is called the “corporate veil,” and essentially, it protects its owners from liability. Since a corporation has a different set of rights and obligations than its owners, an owner can’t be held personally responsible for a company oversight, and vice versa.

But Hobby Lobby wants to have it both ways. They’d like to hang on to that liability protection, while simultaneously doing whatever the fuck they want.

So, at the end of the day, this lawsuit is a problem for everyone. It’s a problem for business owners who don’t want the corporate veil to get ripped to shreds. It’s a problem for women — specifically those employed at Hobby Lobby — who need their birth control to be covered under their health insurance. It’s also a problem for literally anyone whose behavior or existence violates someone’s religious beliefs.

If Hobby Lobby wins this suit, it would set a precedent that could make widespread discrimination totally legal. If the owner of a restaurant doesn’t like gay people, he or she can refuse to serve them. If a doctor doesn’t like abortion, he or she can refuse to prescribe birth control. If a landlord doesn’t like Jewish people, he or she could refuse to rent to them.

Virtually any kind of discrimination could be protected under a veil of religious freedom, making each individual person — and their company — a law book unto themselves.

This shit is ridiculous, am I right?

Religious conservatives, you do you. You be religious! You proselytize against birth control all you want. But stop trying to use your religious beliefs as an excuse to treat those of us who aren’t on your team like crap.

We’re seriously over it.

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image Courtesy of [Annabelle Shemer via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Hobby Lobby Wants to Remove the Corporate Veil — and Your Birth Control Coverage appeared first on Law Street.

]]> https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/culture-blog/hobby-lobby-wants-to-remove-the-corporate-veil-and-your-birth-control-coverage/feed/ 4 13640 https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/culture-blog/matthew-mcconaughey-is-narcissistic-at-the-oscars-becomes-conservative-hero/ https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/culture-blog/matthew-mcconaughey-is-narcissistic-at-the-oscars-becomes-conservative-hero/#comments Wed, 05 Mar 2014 11:30:37 +0000 http://lawstreetmedia.wpengine.com/?p=12830

Loves, how many of you watched the Oscars on Sunday night? I did, after a fair amount of effort finagling a live-stream feed onto my TV. Thanks for the complication, Time Warner! Anyway, if you stayed up to watch the end — or if you’ve been on the internet in the last 48 hours — […]

The post Matthew McConaughey Is Narcissistic at the Oscars, Becomes Conservative Hero appeared first on Law Street.

]]>

Loves, how many of you watched the Oscars on Sunday night?

I did, after a fair amount of effort finagling a live-stream feed onto my TV. Thanks for the complication, Time Warner!

Anyway, if you stayed up to watch the end — or if you’ve been on the internet in the last 48 hours — you’ll know that Matthew McConaughey won Best Actor. Moment of silence for Leonardo DiCaprio, who’s having nightmares right now.

This what Leonardo DiCaprio’s nightmares look like #Oscars pic.twitter.com/yhkAkgDxSP

— Joel Pavelski (@joelcifer) March 3, 2014

Anyway, conservatives are freaking out about McConaughey’s Oscar acceptance speech. In it, the first thank you he threw out into the void was to God, making him one of only four actors to mention the Almighty in an Oscar acceptance speech over the last 12 years.

“First off,” said McConaughey, “I want to thank God, because that’s who I look up to. He has graced my life with opportunities that I know are not of my hand or of any other human hand. He has shown me that it’s a scientific fact that gratitude reciprocates … When you’ve got God, you’ve got a friend, and that friend is you.”

D’aw. Conservatives are drooling over this show of Christian religiosity. Please note, no one gave half a shit about the other three God-thankers in recent Oscar history — because none of them were white, Texas boys with a charming Southern drawl.

Anyway! Here’s what the conserva-turds have to say about Matthew’s Godly mention.

Rick Perry tweeted out Monday morning:

Texas boy counting his blessings. http://t.co/O6fbEN4QrF

— Rick Perry (@GovernorPerry) March 3, 2014

Tea Party darling Michelle Malkin proclaimed via Twitter:

Silence a Hollywood liberal: Give thanks to God. http://t.co/FYOMiCoQFg

— Michelle Malkin (@michellemalkin) March 3, 2014

And of course, not to be left out, Fox News chimed in with an unusually straight-news style headline: “Matthew McConaughey one of few to thank God in Oscar acceptance speech.”

Folks, the conservative Right’s excitement over McConaughey’s God speech is interesting for a few reasons.

First of all — holy racism, Batman. I mentioned that there were three other Oscar winners who thanked God in their acceptance speeches in recent years. Those actors are Denzel Washington, Jennifer Hudson, and Forrest Whitaker. They’re all Black. And no conservative pundits cared even a little, tiny bit, when they mentioned God on Oscar night.

Some would argue that’s because African-Americans are statistically more likely to be devout Christians. When stereotypes abound about church-going, Gospel-singing Black folk, who’s really surprised when Black actors start talking about God? Clearly, no one.

But I’d say that’s not the real reason conservatives are so much more excited about Matthew McConaughey’s Godliness than Jennifer Hudson’s. What’s actually going on here?

Conservatives see Matthew McConaughey as one of them. And they’re all kinds of pumped that someone on their team is a visible member of the Hollywood glitterati.

After all, McConaughey’s wearing the uniform. He’s white, straight, cis-gendered, and charmingly Southern. He’d fit right in if he headed back to the Bible Belt—he’s even related to a Confederate soldier. He’s a perfect poster boy.

But it goes deeper than that. The most important aspect of McConaughey’s conservative appeal is his narcissism.

After he finished thanking God, Matthew launched into a weird diatribe about how he’s his own hero. It was kind of bizarre, and if you try really hard, you can squeeze some inspirational juice out of it along the lines of, “You’re your own toughest competition, be the best you can be!”

Except you’d have to try really, really hard. The clearest takeaway here is that Matthew McConaughey is really obsessed with himself. And he kind of always has been. Remember when he got married, and all he could talk about was how lucky his wife was to have him as her Prince Charming? Barf.

Conservatives are notorious for their narcissism. That’s exactly the trait that allows them to vilify poor people, single mothers, women, and abortion providers. It’s how they came up with that term, “personal responsibility,” and used it to dismantle the social safety net. It’s the reasoning behind their destructive opposition to basic human needs, like universal healthcare, affordable housing, and nutritious food.

Conservatives are conservative because their politics lack empathy. They’re unable to put themselves into someone else’s shoes. It’s easy to fight for a ban on abortion when you’ve never been faced with an unwanted pregnancy. It’s even easier to claim that universal healthcare is communism when you’ve never been denied access to medical care because of your inability to cough up the cash.

 

It’s fairly common for conservatives to switch teams when they’re faced with shitty situations. Take this guy for example, who worked on the McCain-Palin ticket in 2008. He went from a Republican staffer to an Obamacare activist — after he was diagnosed with cancer and denied health insurance.

Republicans often can’t see the harm their policies cause until they’re in the middle of their own self-inflicted crosshairs. Even then, if they switch teams, it’s primarily for self-preservation. Right-wing politics is all about narcissistic self-interest. I do not like this, their policies scream like a toddler throwing a tantrum. And it’s imperative that I get what I want.

This pretty much sums up Right-wing politics.

So, it makes sense for people like Michelle Malkin and Rick Perry to be excited about Matthew McConaughey’s Oscar speech. God talk aside, it was about as narcissistic as you can get. And that resonates with conservatives.

So, while your Internet is blowing up about the Godliness of McConaughey, please remember that his speech wasn’t reflective of Christian values like peace and charity. It’s no coincidence that conservatives are excited about it.

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image courtesy of [Denise Cross Photography via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Matthew McConaughey Is Narcissistic at the Oscars, Becomes Conservative Hero appeared first on Law Street.

]]> https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/culture-blog/matthew-mcconaughey-is-narcissistic-at-the-oscars-becomes-conservative-hero/feed/ 7 12830