On June 8, 1789, Representative James Madison of Virginia stood up to address the House of Representatives in order to introduce a series of amendments to the U.S.
Really hard to push back effectively, Donna, when the R’s in Congress kowtow to ‘rump’s whims (even, or especially, when they know better), a DOJ that is his boy-toy to direct and a majority of SCOTUS who pave his way with golden bricks. I am gobsmacked that the stressed-but-held guardrails have now all but crumbled and allow an out of control despot to run roughshod over precepts we THOUGHT were sacrosanct. Many citizens are agog and beseeching “someone” to do “something”. Writing these words recalled a fave poem of mine that I’ve shared here before….Marge Piercy’s The Low Road: https://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/piercylowroad.html Basically “we” are that “someone”….but I think we’re up to it…at least we must try!🗽🇺🇸☮️
'Democracy is not about trust; it is about distrust. It is about accountability, exposure, open debate, critical challenge, and popular input and feedback from the citizenry. It is about responsible government. We have to get our fellow Americans to trust their leaders less and themselves more, trust their own questions and suspicions, and their own desire to know what is going on.'
Barbara, thanks for this poem. I had not read it before that I recall even though I have read poetry by Piercy in the past. I have shared the poem with others who are looking for inspiration right now. We are going to have to be the ones who demand better of our nation. We permitted a bunch of whiny white boys and a few others to get far too rich for anyone's good and we are paying for that. We allowed too much money in our elections and we are paying for it. We demanded little of our Supreme Court justices, believing they actually care about this nation, forgetting that the court is a bunch of human beings, some of them ideologues who want to push their own beliefs on the rest of us and call it "justice." It must be We the People who act to form the nation we want that includes everyone, not just bratty white folks in charge who never had to grow up.
Historyisaweapon.com page left me in awe of the collection of writings. the "starter page" itself can consume one for several hours. Reading Malcom X again, since maybe 15 years ago, reminds me that we still have far to go especially with this thuggish administration leeching off of the liberties of every man woman and child. It would have been interesting to read Malcom X's review on Project 2025; no doubt, his review would have scathing as it all too well proves his assertion of "the white man is the devil."
Malcom X was quite a human being. He was a person of great depth, a searcher ie observing, studying, asking "why" regarding race relationships as he had opportunity to travel throughout the world and meet people of various faiths.
I am an old white woman who has seen the actions and heard the words of cruelty towards my brothers and sisters of color. It is darkness and sin towards God's creations. We make our world very small when we are prejudice and force wrong beliefs on others.
I see in the Christian Bible, Jesus the Christ portrayed as one with white skin.
Really now???? Our Heavenly Father created Jesus,(in my opinion) as a brown person in the middle east.
Riad, we each must choose. I am "up" for choosing to love and respect more, not less. I choose to love the person underneath the "red, yellow, black, brown or white" skin . I choose to fight against the evil of prejudice in its many forms to get to know someone who will expand my heart and my understanding of God and His many creations.
Even if painful, and it is, we can choose to NOT allow ourselves to be controlled by prejudice but it is a fight against evil...it is not easy!
So much of all this revolves around choice, doesn't it? Some people do seem innately cruel, as though they can't live without debasement and humiliation of whatever "other" may be handy at the moment. But for most, it's an act of choice. Being unaware that you are making that choice doesn't excuse you from its consequences, however. That choice reduces us all -- the hater, as well as the hated. The future darkens and crystallizes into a zero-sum game from which no exit can be found. Acceptance, tolerance, the realization that we are all part of the same human family, by contrast, opens up new worlds of possibility. I still retain hope that Americans will -- through midterms -- choose the latter, not the former.
If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you.
(And once again, I am always in awe of your writing. Have you ever published a book? If so, I'd snap it up and savor reading it simply because of the succinct beauty of your prose.)
Malcolm X was a racist, black supremacist and antisemite. Odd source for inspiration. Why not his mirror reflection, David Duke? Why not focus on his known views instead of speculative views on something he never heard of in his lifetime.
Malcolm X/Hajj Malik el-Shabazz evolved greatly in his lifetime. By the time he made the pilgrimage to Mecca, he had left the Nation of Islam behind. Indeed, he was assassinated by a Nation member, and IIRC the involvement of other Nation members (and possibly even the police) has been debated ever since.
We have studied different sources of information regarding the life of Malcolm X.
I choose to see him as a searcher within his life and within his own various experiences . I see him as a brilliant person, a person of depth, working hard within his being to understand how and why some countries are more suseptable to prejudices than others.
I have nothing but respect for Malcolm X. It was his journey. He was a person of depth who took none of his experiences in life for granted.
I understand my fellow Americans better because he shared his life experiences with us...the struggles, the darkness as well as the light.
I'm sure there are at least some good readers here who roll their eyes when they see me, the self-appointed Walmart greeter here, post a "WELCOME!" comment to "newcomers" here. The poem truly shows the value that each additional voice makes, and I hope that every person who pulls out their credit card to subscribe, and who takes the time to post a comment gets recognized.
There are too many comments for me to get through all of them, but what a wonderful dilemma to have! The sheer number of them sustains me in these horrible times! On another forum, I posted that when I read Trump et al junk, I feel like the average IQ of Americans is dropping; here, I read posts from people who are so politically savvy, so well informed, so experienced and intelligent, that I feel like an imposter being here. And yet, at the same time, I continue to learn, not just from the good professor, but from each person who adds their perspective.
I don't have social media accounts and never understood the "friends" thing, but here, I honestly do feel like I've made friends. On Nov 6, 2024, I walked through the grocery store shell-shocked. I looked at every face and thought "are YOU one of THEM?!" and it was a dreadful feeling for me. Knowing the millions of readers Heather has spread all over the country and the world, this eternal optimist likes to think the person I just passed by and said hello to is actually one of the "Heather's Herd". 🌞
Miselle, I too have learned a lot from commenters here and, like you, find it hard to get through all the comments…..where DOES the time go???? I like to think of Heather’s Herd tucked in every part of the USA and across the globe….maybe our collective positive “vibe” can effect a change!
Republicans destroying the constitutional separation of church and state goes back several GOP administrations but advanced exponentially with the Bushes. And The Politics of Faith. It's where religious extremists Leonard Leo and Bill Barr got their start.
Leo's claim to fame, in the GOP of god, guns, greed, and grievance, is packing the Supreme Court with like minded racist right wing religious extremists. While Barr, who made his GOP bones making prosecution of Iran-Contra criminals go away, worked on corrupting the DOJ.
Read below Leo's purposeful perversion of the Constitution - grossly expanding the notion of conscience from the private sphere to public sphere in order to privilege personal notions of faith above our shared civil rights And Barr's claim that the Founders intended the Constitution only for people of faith and particularly for Christians. ( It's how we get to court decisions allowing bakers to refuse cakes for gay marriages, coaches imposing prayer on the playing field, and individual physicians' antiabortion prejudices overriding women's rights to medically determined standards of healthcare.)
Leo and Barr are also instrumental in promoting the antiConstitutional notion of a 'unitary executive' essentially bringing back the notion of the divine right of kings - which through the corrupted Supreme Court grants Trump's immunity from the law and upholds his absolute authority over government.
These GOP hit jobs violate both purposes of the separation of church and state - preventing government from imposing religious creed and preventing irrational habits of mind (the basis of the leap of faith) from driving government. They paved the way for the Trump presidency - Republican dominated government privileging Trump's personal beliefs and instituting his irrationality. As presaged and perpetuated by Project 2025.
Yesterday evening Secretary Bellows held a "get out the vote rally" on the eve of the Maine primaries.
If you live in Maine and haven't voted, please vote. I chose to be an "unaffiliated" voter and when I voted several weeks ago, I was able to vote either the Democratic or Republican ballot or if there was one, the Independent/Green ballot.
And if I wasn't registered to vote, I could have done so on the spot as can any Maine resident of age, can vote today and register today.
Thank you Secretary Bellows for not caving to the Trump Fascists and giving away our data. And congratulations on winning USA vs. Bellows where the court agreed -- the Fascists have no right to our voter data.
It was Bill Barr’s dad, Donald Barr, headmaster of the elite Dalton School in Manhattan that hired a 21-year-old Jeffrey Epstein to teach math and science despite the fact that Epstein had no college degree. Epstein taught at the school from 1974 until he was eventually dismissed for poor teaching performance.
Prior to this, Donald Barr also published a science fiction novel titled Space Relations in which the plot involves a planetary society ruled by an oligarchy that engages in child sex slavery, which drew intense public scrutiny and comparisons to Epstein's crimes and network years later.
Leonard Leo and Bill Barr, plus Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, and John Roberts use religion as a tool for securing power, money, and control. They are no more followers of Jesus Christ than my dog.
"Leonard Leo and Bill Barr, plus Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, and John Roberts use religion as a tool for securing power, money, and control. "
Who knew? FYI Supreme Court justices don't make much money. If that were their objective, they'd go into private practice and incfrease their incomes tenfold.
As for your dog's Christian beliefs, we await clarity.
Two creatures whose actions, based on a distorted set of beliefs, have done ongoing damage to the fabric of our society! Several writers have revealed Barr’s family connection to the evil Epstein!
Lin, Folks like Leo, Barr, and the other christofascists care nothing for religion beyond using it as a tool to control people they either don't like or are scared of. They may "piously" mouth some words that might sound like christian, but are nothing like Christian. They are just enough that the poorly-informed, carefully groomed MAGAs will think they actually care about the religion of this nation. The religion they follow is that of money and power over others and doing whatever it takes to achieve both.
Without Precedent by Lisa Graves and Dark Money by Jane Mayer are deep dives into John Roberts, Leonard Leo, and others on exactly these topics and issues. I found these books very helpful in understanding the depth and breadth of the forces working to undermine separation of church and state.
" It's where religious extremists Leonard Leo and Bill Barr got their start." If they are extremists, what are you? You state: "It's how we get to court decisions allowing bakers to refuse cakes for gay marriages, coaches imposing prayer on the playing field, and individual physicians' antiabortion prejudices overriding women's rights to medically determined standards of healthcare." Have you read those very complex decisions, including concurrences and dissents?
Lee thinks he “loves the Mormons”? What a joke. To be blunt about it, Stinking Diapers doesn’t give two shits for any religion. He needs them only to be pawns in his game.
A constitution matters not the disposition of a tyrant. It merely gives the false sense of protection. Let’s understand that Russia has a constitution and look where this has gotten them. Yesterday I received a letter from the Census reminding me that I am in a selected data base to be solicited for a survey which I refused to partake in last year since I consider the federal government to be rogue thugs. At the time they suggested that I could not be excused from this survey. I shall only pay my taxes but will notify them again of non compliance and a demand to stay off my property. I noted once last year that a rep had taped a notice on my back door and this year I will keep my gate locked thereby preventing the thugs of the Census from walking around the back. I will refrain from explicit threats but will demand of them to stay off of my land.
True. Data gathered in each census is used for a variety of reasons related to the distribution of $$ for various programs and get a broad picture of the make up of the population. And of course some of the data derived from each census is used (or misused) for redistricting purposes.
As a researcher in genealogy, I have examined many thousands of pages of the various censuses. Other than the basic personal information which stays pretty much the same (and is not made public for 72 years after the census is taken), the other questions asked and data gathered vary from census to census, reflecting the issues of concern at that time. Some time spent in close examination of the data can tell you a great deal about life in any given point in the nation's history ( and for family ancestry, many mysteries are solved and others discovered in the process of reviewing.)
These days, I don't think there is nearly as much door-to-door enumerating as in times past. As I recall, most recently the census has been conducted by mail. Only as a last resort if your form is not received, or in special circumstances - remote locations, non-existent addresses, etc. - are you likely to get a visit from someone.
I worked the 2020 Census as an enumerator. I made a mistake on the application I wanted to be a supervisor but they wouldn’t let me change it. Anyway, yes, I knocked on doors of those who had not filled in the apps. I recall being frustrated with the management of my Census and knew I would never be in that position again. I’m likely to apply in 2030 the devil willing. However, I have zero trust in any aspect of the federal government today. Funds are being shifted around and held from blue states. This is bad real bad.
Bill, I agree that you have every right in this political kakistocrisy/kleptocracy to withhold your information. Elon Musk stole and then sold the information on over 340 million US citizens and foreign workers. He then had his Fascist imbecilic DOGE boys declare several thousand people "dead". Many of them weren't deceased of course, and immediately, all of their assets, except cash were frozen. Fortunately, the SSA is filled with helpful people who actually give a damn, about the people they have sworn to help and most of them were resurrected from the SSA death roles. But for many it was a long painful process which no one deserves.
Meanwhile, Elon, the Doge Boys, the ICE and CBP thugs continue their lives with total immunity and impunity.
So yeah, Bill, I think your civil disobedience is well founded.
Thank you. I know I am correct. I need to though remain non threatening and that is hard for me. But if I should physically threaten, then it becomes an FBI investigation. Asking or telling someone to stay off my property is not a threat although it could be misconstrued as one.
Several years ago a man came to my home and threatened my family and myself because I refused to refund his deposit on a lot he tried to purchase from me. He kept the lot tied up for several months as he tried and failed to get financing. His contractual time limits expired which made the contract void except for the provisions that survive the contract. I told him to get off my property and I filed a restraining order with the courts.
I later discovered, he had restraining orders in New Hampshire and others in ME for threats he made.
Unfortunately Bill, your rights against Trump and Co. are limited compared to being threatened by an individual.
I’m interpreting Abraham Lincoln when I say that being an American is hard, but it’s simple. Have faith that right makes might by treating the idea that might makes right in any context as a vulgar mistake and a threat to the survival of the Republic.
Hindsight is 2020, so I’m not faulting Madison, but what would I do if I was him in 1789 knowing what I know now? I’d say we the people can use hindsight to be (not perfect but) more perfect.
A political (aka a “we the people”) issue emerges, and our collective intuition jumps to a collective bouquet of conflicting conclusions. We need to teach every child in every elementary school that justice is on the other side of an imperfect but appropriately simple, teachable, and well-documented process designed to get to truth and reconciliation.
Hindsight permits time travel to steal the words of a future generation. So, I’d add a Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882) quote: “Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.”
Then, instead of proposing a bill of rights, I’d say, “Ignore the context-specific rules until we all have faith in each other because we’re all expressing a collective faith in the idea of America, the (independent of context) principle that right makes might.”
Then I’d propose teaching every child in every elementary school that the “vulgar mistake” is to leave a collective bouquet of initial reflexive responses untested because its inevitable end is an ad hoc combination of lies and retribution (or words to that effect).
That requires "we the people" to vote exclusively for politicians with a record of demonstrating that they’ve taken Hippocrates’ “first, do no harm” oath by consistently saying some version of, “I won’t get you what you want. Instead, we the people will all get what we need, and we all need justice.”
Then I’d say a child won’t get an elementary school graduation certificate until the good “justice” habit is demonstrably an automatic response (no evidence of vulgar mistakes). Then I’d tell every supporter of the Republican Party that they all need to requalify for an elementary school graduation certificate and to buckle up for a Blue tsunami in November.
Fascinating how quickly a crisis of religious exclusion becomes a testimony of faith once the blessing comes from the right source. One minute Mike Lee is objecting to the government deciding which Christians count, the next he’s celebrating because his particular denomination made the approved list. The hypocrisy is almost biblical. Apparently religious freedom now means waiting for a phone call from the emperor.
Exactly right, Kazz. Or, to paraphrase the late, great Kris Kristofferson, "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose, and that's all that's left of Mike Lee"
Donna, Trump's MAGAs have been courted successfully because they know nothing of our Constitution and probably couldn't care less. As long as the guys in charge are white, work against people of color and powerful women, and tell them how much they are working for them (despite all evidence to the contrary), they are willing to go along with anything they do, until it touches them as leaving the Latter-Day Saints off the "list" (a list which shouldn't even exist at all). Poor Mike Lee proved his hypocrisy, a MAGA who was slighted, but got the word that he is loved as is his church and blah blah blah!
I agree, donna woodward, and I think a great deal of that assessment is due to the fact that Heather Cox Richardson is such a great storyteller."Honest Abe" Lincoln was a great storyteller, too. That's why, I think, he was able to be elected over opponents who had more name recognition & experience in national government than he did. I aspire, now that I'm retired, to become a first-rate novelist-storyteller.
I just stumbled on them about two months ago when an algorithm snuck onto my computer. She does not understand the Supreme Court or the federal court system. I have read hundreds of its opinions and appeared before it twice. From what I see here, at most less than a handful have ever read a single Sup. Ct. opinion but have very very strong opinions about the opinions they haven't read. Even when you read an opinion, you need to read all the other opinions cited in that opinion to fully understand it.
Although I slogged through SC cases as a law student and young attorney, I don't have your extensive exposure to SC decisions to base my opinion on. And you probably would have more direct knowledge of the Court than Heather does. But Heather's understanding of SC history and how the Court works seems spot on to me. But you may have a difference of opinion with her about how the Court has decided some cases, especially recently. Many of us, attorneys and lay people, are a little stunned by some of their reasoning lately--including three of their fellow Justices.
I agree you need to read more than just the holding or even the whole opinion, to understand a decision: concurring and dissenting opinions, cases cited in the opinions, sometimes legislative histories. It's risky to think we understand a decision when re read only a summary about it.
Slog is the right word. I find reading Constitutional cases to require aspirin and rest. But when necessary for appellate or Sup Ct work, I do read them thoroughly, as one must. The few times I've seen Richardson's discussions of court cases, I disagree that she understands the system. She tends, as I read her stuff, to have not much more than an ideologically based lay opinion.
A lot of people hate the court, depending on their policy preferences, forgetting that the role of the court is not to make policy. Coincidentally, yesterday I listened to a 1 hour discussion some years ago based on the 1st Amendment featuring Scalia and Ginsberg. I've litigated 1st amendment cases and it is much more complex than law people, including most commenters here, understand. As you know from law school, cases aren't self evident out of context.
Most people on the left, ie the audience here, base their Sup Ct views on Dobbs, Citizens United, gay marriage, more recently perhaps Callais. Most on the right are the same, except their like those results. Neither side tends to understand the reasoning.
Senator Mike Lee has received an urgent wake-up call from Christian nationalism: theocracy is delightful right up until the state decides your Christianity is the wrong Christianity.
For years, Lee has helped MAGA carry its golden calf through Washington, supporting a movement that treats religious freedom as the freedom of approved Christians to govern everyone else. Then the Pentagon revised its list of recognized faith traditions and somehow left the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints outside the Christian velvet rope.
Suddenly, Lee discovered discrimination.
He posted 37 times, contacted Donald Trump, and demanded immediate theological customer service. Apparently, religious liberty becomes serious when the government’s faith-ranking department misfiles your denomination.
Fortunately, James Madison anticipated this embarrassing revelation more than two centuries ago. The First Amendment does not instruct Congress to establish the correct religion, the largest religion, or Mike Lee’s religion. It forbids government from establishing religion while protecting everyone’s free exercise of faith. That includes Mormons, Muslims, Jews, atheists, Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, and people who prefer Sunday brunch without a government-approved sermon.
Christian nationalism rejects that arrangement. It wants government to define America through a favored version of Christianity, with political power deciding who belongs inside the sacred circle. Lee apparently assumed he would always be inside.
Then the door closed.
After Lee appealed to Trump, the Pentagon removed the Christian labels, and Lee thanked officials for correcting the error. But the real error was believing religious freedom should depend on recognition from Trump, Pete Hegseth, or any other political authority.
The First Amendment was the wake-up call. Mike Lee simply hit snooze until Christian nationalism came for him.
Can’t like this enough. The snooze button expires in ten minutes. It comes for me. It comes for thee…Somewhere I can hear Mel Brooks singing “The Inquisition is Here to Stay.”
One thing that is lacking in the right wing is the intellectual capacity to see nuance or to understand the eventual consequences of their actions. Hegseth in particular is too stupid to ever understand the concept of conscience, having none himself. This condition has become the hallmark of today’s GOP. Conscience and tolerance are not only unpopular in their ranks……..they truly do not understand what we are so alarmed about.
Very good point. Madison saw conscience in his idea of religion. It plays little part in the bigotry that passes for religion not just in these times but throughout human history. If only …
In my opinion faith is a "living organism". I am a person of faith, grew up in a family in which I saw it lived out...usually in love....sometimes a "little judgy" but attempts were made.
Christ's love and presence came to me and stubbornly will not leave me. He is great, He is good, He is wise....NOT ME....and yet He is with me....He is the most important part of me.
TRUE WORDS! "BUT THE REAL ERROR WAS BELIEVING RELIGIOUS FREEDOM SHOULD DEPEND ON RECOGNITION FROM TRUMP, PETE HEGSETH, OR ANY OTHER POLITICAL AUTHORITY."
No thank you!!!! I am not of a faith that relies on a PERSON to guide my Christian life although I am grateful for a Pope whom I believe is a "fighter of the faith for the betterment of mankind and to honor our Creator, Our Lord and Savior". I rely on a triune God who knows me better than anyone and "kicks my butt" when I need it!!!
Wow! The pope heads up the organization that has paid roughly $600 BILLION to the victims of its pedophilia. I wonder how the he’ll he sleeps at night.
Often in this forum, books are recommended. After a glance at your bio, I think you might appreciate the 2025 book by Fr. Richard Rohr, "The Tears of Things". Rohr talks about how the Bible has been misinterpreted and misused by many pastors who want power.
The Catholic church has been around for many years. LOTS of horrific history, and also lots of good done as well. Pope Leo is making amends and making progress.
The Catholic Church’s record of child sexual abuse, concealment, and institutional protection of abusers deserves relentless scrutiny. But the claim that it has paid $600 billion to victims is false. Documented payments are in the billions, not hundreds of billions. In the United States, Catholic dioceses and religious orders have spent more than $5 billion on abuse-related claims since 2004, with roughly three-quarters going to victims. That is still a staggering moral and institutional failure, but accuracy matters.
"Mike Lee Discovers the First Amendment." As have you, it seems. Mike Lee clerked for the Supreme Court, which I sense you did not. Whether see sees this in that context I do not know. I suspect though that Hegseth will lose on his dumb list but whether it violates the First Amendment is not slam dunk.
Accolades to Madison without pointing out his flaws are a quiet way of ignoring his major failures. Sorry if you disagree. I consider owning slaves a very POOR example of conscience, something which Madison (and Jefferson and Washington) were all guilty of.
And excusing it as some have (not you, just others) as just a "sign of the times" is absurd. Killing Jews in Nazi Germany was a sign of the times too. Ditto so many other horrible examples of civilization's madnesses. It is interesting how few people would support someone talking about all the great things Hitler did for Germany rather than talking about his concentration camps, yet they excuse Madison and Jefferson and Washington as just a symptom of the times they live in.
And there were PLENTY of people who lived in Revolutionary times who did NOT hold slaves and were already campaigning for emancipation. That the founding fathers refused to address that horrific act (not to mention their unwillingness to grant women rights in our country) should be condemned. Slaves were already being freed in many other parts of the world by the time of the Revolutionary War. Just not in southern America.
Life in any age of history is never black or white. Nor are the people present in those times either all good or all bad. Judging anyone of any time period without studying history to understand what the society they were part of demanded of them, or allowed them is invalid.
In 1789 there were 700,000 people of African descent enslaved in the United States by white men who established the ideology of white supremacy. Africans who were taken from their native land were exploited for their labor, skills and knowledge. More than 2 million died on the middle passage. By 1860 there were more than 4 million enslaved African Americans who endured cruelty sanctioned by law for generations.
Slavery based merely on skin color was not "common". Historically, people were enslaved as a result of debt or being prisoners of war or victims of war. American style slavery based on skin color set the stage for the racism and white supremacy that endures to this day.
If people really understood more than 250 years of Americas' race based slavery, then they'd know that there were plenty of other people during that time who did have a conscience. Those who engaged in the practice of slavery did so by choice knowing full well that it was wrong, but they eased their consciences by declaring that people with darker skin were "inferior" and needed "masters" to "oversee" their lives. The atrocities committed over time have been horrendous. Once again it's all about the money as slaveholders created untold amounts of wealth off of the backs and ingenuity of others.
As white supremacy and racism live on, too many people still believe the erroneous notion that skin color should determine someone's rights and "place" in society. The divisions and angst in America today are a direct result of the "founding fathers" free will embrace of slavery based on skin color.
I didn't say you did. But you want to give J Madison more credit and I don't necessarily agree with that. He gets a lot of credit for many things he did and we rarely hear about the things he did that offset some of that. We should hear more. All of us.
It's a conundrum of the highest order, for sure: People we admire for certain values they held, often ahead of their times, yet who at the same time were captive to beliefs of their times that today we find abhorrent. It's not easy to hold two conflicting beliefs: That person was great. And that person was wrong-headed.
"It's not easy to hold two conflicting beliefs: That person was great. And that person was wrong-headed."
It's not easy but it's not a question of belief - setting aside empirical evidence to have faith in someone. It's a question of reasoned consideration of the facts. We seem designed to hold and manage contradictions. It's how we manage them at the moment. And regarding our own actions. Which facts matter the most to which circumstance.
It's a question of taking the full measure. Being neither a believer nor an apologist. But considering which of a person's individual actions are pertinent to a specific assessment we want or need to make. Unchanging absolutes - purity tests if you will - are essential to religious creed and practice. They are an obstacle to coming to consensus through reasoned debate of empirical evidence - as we are asked to do in legislating, adjudicating, and administering the law, and in the democratic transfer of power.
Something the flawed Founders themselves recognized by building into the Constitution the amendment process - to correct their own mistakes. And the electoral process. They gave us a system based on the individual's and the state's potential for self-correction and change for the better. In this, the Founders were essentially progressive.
Harry Truman seems a good example. I think in early 1971, I overheard the start of a conversation between my wife's grandfather, a lifelong Republican and Harry Truman. Her grandfather was also a good friend of Harold L. Ickes who had been a progressive Republican and president of the Chicago chapter of the NAACP back in the early 20s. I didn't learn much other than that they [grandfather and Harry Truman], called each other a time or two every year up to 1972 (the year they both died), but it triggered thoughts of how my 1st Sgt dad had always done right by the Black (or any other minority) soldiers he was responsible for.
I don't trust AI, but it has again given me a better short summary of a clearer view of what I can believe about Truman's views, as imperfect as they might be, but still truer to the spirit and letters of the Declaration of Independence and evolving Constitution.
From my prompt, "Harry Truman negative views on Blacks but support for their rights'," I got:
"...AI Overview
Harry Truman held private racial prejudices shaped by his upbringing in a segregated, former slave state, yet he became the first modern president to champion federal civil rights. His administration advanced landmark equality initiatives, proving that a leader's personal views can be separated from their public duties.
Private Prejudices vs. Public Duty
• Upbringing: Raised in Independence, Missouri, Truman was the grandson of slaveholders and grew up surrounded by the racial subordination prevalent in the post-Civil War border states.
• Private Language: In early letters and conversations, he sometimes used racial slurs and expressed beliefs in white supremacy and the geographic separation of races.
• Moral Awakening: Reports of returning Black World War II veterans facing brutal violence in the South shocked Truman. He famously stated: "My stomach turned over when I learned that Negro soldiers... were being dumped out of army trucks in Mississippi and beaten".
• Public Action: Despite his personal inclinations, Truman believed that as president, it was his constitutional duty to ensure equality and fairness for all citizens.
Major Civil Rights Achievements
• President's Committee on Civil Rights: In 1946, Truman established this committee. Their landmark report, To Secure These Rights, condemned all forms of segregation and called for a federal end to discrimination.
• NAACP Address: In 1947, Truman became the first president to address the NAACP at the Lincoln Memorial, declaring, "When I say all Americans—I mean all Americans".
• Military Desegregation: In 1948, Truman signed Executive Order 9981, officially desegregating the U.S. Armed Forces and guaranteeing equal treatment regardless of race.
• Federal Civil Service: The same year, he signed Executive Order 9980 to ensure fair employment practices and prevent discrimination in the federal government.
Later Views and Contradictions
Even after leaving the presidency, Truman’s racial views remained complex. While he remained proud of his civil rights legacy, he was critical of the tactics used during the 1960s Civil Rights Movement. For example, he controversially described lunch counter sit-ins as Communist-orchestrated and argued that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was a "troublemaker".
Historical Impact
Historians generally view Truman as a man who evolved. While he never completely shed all of his personal prejudices, he used his political capital to push the country forward, paving the way for the legislative victories of the 1960s.
Learn more about his evolution on race at the U.S. National Park Service or explore his original civil rights proposals via the Truman Library Institute..."
" ... as [ juries ] are asked to do in ... adjudication" of civil & criminal court cases. That's was part of my oft repeated closing trial argument:
"Follow the law as directed by this court ( nod toward the Judge ) but, you, members of the jury, must make weigh the credibility of the conflicting facts." Then hammer the 3 most important facts. "Use your common sense". But, attorney argument is not evidence.The Judge calls balls & strikes. The Jury decides disputed evidence.
John Adams' Boston Massacre Jury determined 2 Red Coats not guilty before 1776.
Responding to Lin: Not managing contradictions well is one of the things at the root of our political conflucts. Some contradictions can’t be resolved, in the end, and the best we can do is tolerate ideas which conflict with our own. Sometimes it’s hard to do even that, if we find a certain idea or belief or practice intolerable. (Pedophilia. Bullying. Not getting vaccinated. Not voting.) Then we draw our line in the sand and say “Here I stand.” This might seem like a purity test. On the other hand, to say There will be no purity tests might also be a kind of purity test. ’Tis a puzzlement, as the man said.
Civic consensus is necessary to avoid civl war as well as the cultural wars we’re living with now. Can consensus and intolerance co-exist?
Slaveholders at that time were criticized at that time. Their hypocrisy was noted. For example, General Lafayette, Washington’s number one, challenged Washington. Much of the same hypocrisy and conundrum we observe about the constitutional era from 2026 was there in 1789. I believe that it’s important to know. I agree it’s difficult to wrap our heads around it.
Donna, isn't that humanity? I am in the midst, so to speak, of two dear friends of almost 50 years. One is MAGA-lite, the other is pretty far left. We have so much common history, experiences and interests! Those two are estranged, and it is really hard for me, because I am at an age where people are dying off. I hate this part of the golden years! The MAGA-lite is persuadable, as she agrees our current House rep (a Dem) is a "good guy, I'd vote for him again." Notice the "again"?
I am the eternal optimist. I have to keep trying. When I meet my MAGA friend, we gently touch on politics, but then spend 97% of the time talking music, old times, health, family, etc.
Yes it is, Miselle. I have a best friend of about 70 years (who died recently). We discovered accidentally, during the Clarence Thomas hearings, that we had totalyl divergent views of who was credible, Thomas or Anita Hill. But we remained friends, never going near politics, down the decades. In practice she was one of the kindest, fairest people I've ever know. But didn't like some of what she blamed on Democrats and became a Fox News believer.
Madison wasn't alone. He was in good company as a slaveholder. I totally agree that we all should hear and learn more about our history and how it impacts us today.
A factoid known already to everyone reading this Newsletter, and…other than a banal truth, what, exactly does this have to do with tonight’s topic, again?
ICTT: Plenty of tangential comments are made on this substack and often take on lives of their own. Sometimes because they're enlightening. We're free to scroll past those we don't find of value.
Speak for yourself. Many readers here know a great deal about both our present and our past. While some others mistakenly assume most of us didn’t take 11th grade American history.
I see far too much commentary here that offers accolades to people like James Madison. I don't condemn Madison, but also don't choose to adore him either because he is, like most people in most periods of time, imperfect and an example of his period.
And I am not at all sure it IS "common knowledge" that Madison owned slaves. So there is that too.
Flawed as Madison and his fellow Founding Fathers were, their contributions were world-changing. Demanding a purity test after the fact isn't realistic - what's done is done.
Complaining that there was work that they didn't address is also futile. They did what they could to the best of their understanding in the time they had. Ever hear the motivational statement "If you see a problem, you own it."? We're surrounded by problems today and it's up to us to deal with them all. We're the owners. We can't wait around for saints or some "adorable" charismatic Leader to come redeem us and offer to fix everything for us. No one trustworthy enough is coming.
I don't disagree that Madison made contributions. I just think he is given too much credit without pointing out his flaws. That's it. Sorry if you disagree.
Bah. How much credit is too much in your opinion? Raising slavery as an issue back then would have halted ratification of the Constitution. Madison and his fellows surely knew that and saw ratification as their priority.
That JM saw the need for immediate amendments to the Constitution is also telling. After Madison's time those who came after him continued to amend it. By adding the Bill of Rights he'd established that it was not a static immutable document; that our Constitution had to be able to be adaptable and change with our situation. And thus we eventually ended up with a 14th amendment that did address slavery.
Was it accomplished in a clean or timely way? No. Does that make Lincoln a failure? Judge for yourself, but personally I don't think so. He too had a lot going on at the time and as Madison, et. al., knew all too well, "progress is messy".
Do you want or expect EVERY comment about Madison and other members of the founding fathers to begin with a lengthy preamble about the evils of enslaving human beings?
Well, then, probably neither you nor anyone else should be preaching at us in this format about what he or she thinks about this or that. Because I'll bet every one of us is a flawed person. Even you.
I am one of the most flawed people you will ever know. And you have every right to ignore what I say, to not read it, to block me if that makes you happy. It doesn't change my right to say what I feel or think. I am not preaching (I don't believe in preaching) but I do believe in trying present arguments that hopefully make sense to people willing to listen. And when I am wrong (as I sometimes am) I acknowledge that too, quite publicly as anyone who has read my comments would have to agree.
No argument, Jon. Madison was a man of his time. Some of us (most, I hope) have moved on. It would be foolhardy to ignore the what was honourable and right in the rush to condemn what was immoral and wrong. It's taken me a long time to realize this, and I no longer waste my time excoriating past beliefs/actions.
"They were pretty much self-interested, well-off white men."
But not entirely self-interested. Or they could have used their privilege to improve their situation as subjects of the king. Which was the position of the loyalists. Even within the Continental Congress. Which is why coming to consensus on the Declaration was so fraught.
Please note - this number presages the Reagan Revolution in which lower income American voters, split off from the Democratic party, elected Republicans. Workers sacrificing their economic self interest to their culture wars bigotry. The number - with its
goose stepping loyalists - also presages Republicans' MAGA move to fascism.
Love 1776, the musical. I bought the album and played it often. I was 20 years old when it opened on Broadway. Love the comments under the You Tube video. Never would I have thought we would see such a day a the one in which we find ourselves. My dad who fought in WWII would not believe what we are dealing with today.
Sorry if I am getting off track but there is a You Tube video by the Cynical Historian I just watched with a critique of what the musical got right and where it erred.
Precisely, by opening the door a bit for others that did not depend on just the good will of any particular leader, and more along with the thoughts expressed in this morning's discovery of:
'Democracy is not about trust; it is about distrust. It is about accountability, exposure, open debate, critical challenge, and popular input and feedback from the citizenry. It is about responsible government. We have to get our fellow Americans to trust their leaders less and themselves more, trust their own questions and suspicions, and their own desire to know what is going on.'
Some, at least, of the Founding Fathers viewed the king and the British government as restricting the ability of some colonists to make more money (through land speculation, etc.) than they would have been able to otherwise.
For everyone responding to Jon saying “that’s not what this article was about.”
Were the slaves allowed freedom of conscience? What about Indigenous nations? The point is, the founders never intended everyone in this country to have freedom of conscience… only certain groups. And continuing to imply that the founders were trying to allow freedom of religion for all (which is what HCR’s article is doing), ignores the very fact that the constitution was designed to protect land owning white men and no one else. This is why it has been so easily manipulated by maga. The founders committed crimes on par with the Nazis. Stories like this contribute to American exceptionalism, which prevents us from being able to effectively resist maga.
Jon, when we visited the Madison plantation on a Virginia trip, we learned that he intended to, but somehow that got lost when he died. His wife had a reprobate son and needed the money is how I remember this which means I may be remembering inaccurately.
Good way to get more space in your local library? Take out the books written by antisemites. And clear your museum walls of Picassos and Gauguins. They were pedophiles.
25% of Athens were slaves who couldn't vote. 30% of Romans (fun fact: they forced 60,000 Jewish slaves to build the Colosseum). 4 of the top ten slave regions in history were Muslim. American slaveholdgins do not even make the top 15. The point being, judging the past, especially the very distant pasgt, by the present is a careless try at analysis .
HCR doesn't mention that the Unitarian-Universalists are also removed from the list. Jefferson, although a deist, has been identified as Unitarian because his theology was pretty much identical to that religion, which was extremely popular among the intelligentsia. John Adams and John Quincy were both avowed Unitarians, as were Millard Fillmore in the 19th century and Taft in the 20th. Although nominally Episcopalian (actually, at the time, Anglican), Madison and Monroe were non-Trinitarians as well. I think that it is important to identify the religious perspectives of the "founders" as non-conformist in every way. I recommend the British Unitarian website, which gives people a lot of historical information on the development of the community from Reformation-era Socinianism. And also direct you to the work of Joseph Priestly a polymath who was incredibly influential with people like Jefferson. https://www.unitarian.org.uk/who-we-are/radical-roots/
You are so right, Rosemary. Madison was the brilliant intellectual architect of our entire system, and his unique ability to translate deep political philosophy into the actual framework of our Constitution and Bill of Rights is something we don't praise nearly enough today. Compare to Trump today . . .
We were taught that Madison was a Presbyterian, a graduate of Princenton, then a seminary, was a discriminated minority person in his native state, which had a state religion, Anglicanism, now Episcopalian.
At the time, Catholics and Jews could not take the state oaths in several states.
Jefferson was also from a Presbyterian family, although both were Deists. In Congress at the time, Presbyterians were the majority.
It should be noted, Daniel, that Presbyterianism originates from the same theological root as Baptists and all other "evangelical" faith traditions, the doctrines of John Calvin. This matters. It means that the overwhelming religious influence on society in the infant United States came from Calvin.
The other "fathers" of Protestantism were Martin Luther, a Catholic priest, and John Wesley, an Anglican priest. They had a different take from Calvin on the meaning of Christianity, chiefly, that Christian faith is living in community, in service to others.
Unlike Luther and Wesley, who were extensively trained in theology, Calvin was actually a lawyer who made up his own theology. He came up with doctrines like Original Sin, claiming that all people are born evil, thanks to the sins of Adam & Eve (the mythical first man and woman from the Hebrew Scriptures, a.k.a. The Old Testament). See: Jonathan Edwards famous sermon, "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." Calvin also invented the doctrine of Predestination, the notion that God maps out the course of every human life before they are born. Inherent in this doctrine is the notion that any decision one makes that is contrary to "God's Plan" results in immediate condemnation to Hell for eternity. From this, Calvin further extrapolated that since God has always known how everything is going to turn out (omniscience), he already knows who's going to Heaven ("The Elect") and who's going to Hell ("The Damned"). Since mere mortals are not omniscient, they can't know whether they're in or out, so it behooves them the do everything they are told to do, in hopes of being one of The Elect. This last feature of Calvinism is what makes evangelicals so susceptible to authoritarianism.
In fairness, I should note that Presbyterianism eventually moderated their stance on Calvinist doctrine. But disagreements about how moderate that stance should be resulted in the denomination splitting into conservative and liberal versions.
Baptists and all other evangelicals have clung to Calvin's theology, although they don't use his terminology.
“That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience". - James Madison
"Let there be no compulsion in religion, for the truth stands out clearly from falsehood. So whoever renounces false gods and believes in Allah has certainly grasped the firmest, unfailing hand-hold. And Allah is All-Hearing, All-Knowing."
But he us a fine example of “it’s nice to be in the dictator’s in crowd until one day, all of a sudden, you aren’t.” And it can happen on a whim, regardless of everything you’ve done for Dear Leader.
But, Kegsbreath left what is becoming the prominent religion practiced in the US -- no religion at all.
Yesterday Kegbreath embarrassed himself and all Americans with his speech in Normandy. He insulted our allies and insulted all of us, especially those who had family members that served in WWII. Many of us have that Uncle or Aunt who we never met who gave the ultimate sacrifice in WWII.
So FUCK YOU Trump, Kegsbreath, Miller and all of those that support this Fascist regime.
"...Pete Hegseth flew to France to commemorate the anniversary of the D-Day landings, but the locals were not pleased to see him.The 45-year-old Secretary of Defense was "persona non grata" for locals of Langrune-sur-Mer, a small town in Normandy where an international ceremony was held on Saturday, according to French news station BFM TV. Sylvie Lamy Thepaut, a member of the local association Langrune en Commun, did not hold back on her distaste for Hegseth.
Most of Trump's sycophants spend extensive time and effort collecting "attaboy" awards from dear leader without realizing that one "awshit" wipes the board clean and they have to start all over again (or there is no starting over).
Years ago, somebody of the Mormon faith gave me the book of mormon and tried to convert me. I opened the book to page 1, and started to read it. In the third chapter of the book, god tells some person to commit murder, and he does. I closed the book and threw it in the trash.
“Each sect believes they have the right and responsibility to turn society’s leadership away from rational secularism and to force everyone to follow their specific interpretation of faith.
Because they do not agree on what makes one a “Real Christian,” they will have to either compromise on a national religion or fight over which one will rule.
Each sect believes with absolute certainty that their interpretation of the Bible is the One True Faith. Their certainty will make compromise impossible, leaving us with the high probability of holy war.”
Lee’s religion was on the list, just not listed as Christian. Fact remains that many other religions don’t consider Mormons to be Christians. Probably why it wasn’t included in all the other various Christian traditional ones. Many other religions were excluded completely from the list but there was included the term other.
Unitarian Universalists, of which I am one, have been advised there will be no chaplaincy support in the military, and I understand there's a much longer list of other excluded liberal faiths. So if we are wounded or die for our country, I guess we will do it alone. Not exactly an enticement for enlistment.
No, he wasn't, but he knew Quakers. In his day they were involved in politics. At one point they had to vote for money for gunpowder. Contrary to Quakers' pacifism! so they called it "grains." Franklin found this amusing.
They couldn't be both Quakers and politicians, so they got out of politics.
The UU churches I have visited in ME and NE do good works with kindness and humility. I suspect that's fairly universal in the UU churches.
Yesterday, someone at the DOD, maybe Kegsbreath, is extending the deployment of the carrier groups near Iran. These sailors have not had a break in months totally against military protocol I believe. Can someone please confirm this?
I have known many people who identify as UU. All of them are committed to such (currently Anti-American) acts as feeding the hungry and protecting civil rights. They don't go around screaming that they are right and everyone else should be eradicated. This type of behavior cannot be classified as an acceptable religion by King Con and his gang of hate-mongers. People who think that they are protected from harm by the Mar-a-Lago Mafia are kidding themselves.
An Iraq war resister who came to Canada told us that when you join the army you sign a contract. It is binding on you, but not on the army, which can extend your enlistment as long as it likes.
The list exists so if you are wounded and can't tell the Chaplin what your beliefs are. he can find out and treat you as you would prefer. Notice, they removed atheist.
I am an atheist and I’m also a non militarist and have never had and will never have anything to do with the military since our military is used countless times to kill others for new made up reasons every generation of my existence and I will inform any of those around me to do likewise.
So, Bill, two non-choice choices? “Should I go, or should I leave?”
The notions of Christian establishment denies all other Abrahamic faiths in the interests of one. The notion of any basis for the establishment of must have, must entertain a model of “belief” abridges humans justly inalienable right to freedom of mind. Popular opinion, which is the basis for our elections, likewise can become an abridgement of freedom of thought. That’s called “tyranny of the majority”. Something used to justify lynchings.
I oppose any such abridgement on existential grounds. Which is to say, here I am, and here I stand. As an individual that should be everyone’s right. It is not the proper business of any government to legislate otherwise.
They aren't a list of approved religions. They are a list of faiths that Chaplins are to be aware of and plan for. That is why the March 2017 list tried to be totally inclusive, a worthy but impossible task. They did do much better than the current list, but the goal today is to remove inclusion.
Do they bother to explain that religions are inventions of humans, codes of make-believe. An atheist can be as spiritual as a faith believer, maybe more so since they have to think the thoughts themselves. I especially lose the point when the military is used to murder people, and gain more profit. The mind can do many strange things - sometimes they're real things.
Phil, if I'm not mistaken, religious affiliation (or lack of) is part of the information collected when one joins the military, so religious needs can be served in the time of crisis.
There is no "approved list." The enlistee writes in his/her religious affiliation. If a recruit listed the name of his/her non-denominational church, it was added to the list. This open-ended input is what caused the list of religions to become so long. It was then up to military command to figure out how troops could be served by a limited number of chaplains.
To be honest, consolidating the list wasn't a bad idea, in and of itself, were it done by an impartial commission and not by a committee under the thumb of an extremist evangelical with an ulterior motive.
For example, all the "mainline Protestant religions" agree on the major sacraments, with only minor difference in doctrinal emphasis. A Methodist service member would never be offended by ministry from a Lutheran chaplain.
Likewise, evangelicals agree on the basics, while quibbling over details. They too could be served by an evangelical chaplain.
It also exists to provide “approved” religious symbols for headstones and niche covers for the deceased. My parents’s ashes were interred last April with the approved Unitarian Universalist symbol - a chalice. I suspect they may be the last to have the chalice until this Constitutional violation is adjudicated.
Yes, the Unitarian Universalists were removed. The religion's roots in this country are almost as old as the country. Five presidents followed that faith, but to this litter of apostates, that means nothing.
Some of the missing are including Atheists, Asatru, Deists, Druids, Eckankar, Heathens, Humanists, Magick, New Age churches, Pagan, Rosicrucianism, Shaman, Spiritualists, Troth, Unitarian Universalists and various Wiccans
Thanks. I just did a quick online search but couldn't find them. I wonder how many there are, probably 100. I know who to ask though so will see if someone has them and circle back.
Five U.S. presidents were openly affiliated with the Unitarian faith: John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Millard Fillmore, and William Howard Taft. Thomas Jefferson is also widely considered to have Unitarian leanings, particularly in his later life. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
A breakdown of each president's connection to the denomination:
* John Adams (2nd President): Often considered the most devoutly Unitarian of the early presidents, he belonged to the First Unitarian Church of Quincy, Massachusetts. [1, 2]
* Thomas Jefferson (3rd President): While sometimes categorized as a Deist, Jefferson shared strong Unitarian theological beliefs, specifically rejecting the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus, and even built his own edited version of the Bible. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
* John Quincy Adams (6th President): Following in his father's footsteps, he was a practicing Unitarian and was instrumental in the founding of All Souls Church in Washington, D.C.. [1, 2]
* Millard Fillmore (13th President): A lifelong supporter of the Unitarian faith, holding liberal theological views typical of the denomination. [1, 2, 3]
* William Howard Taft (27th President): Perhaps the most officially active, Taft served as the president of the General Conference of Unitarian and Other Christian Churches from 1915 to 1925. [1]
To explore the historical and theological legacy of these leaders, you can read more through the Unitarian Universalist Association archives or the Dictionary of Unitarian & Universalist Biography.
General George Washington appointed John Murray (the early Universalist minister) as chaplain of the Rhode Island Regiments in the Continental Army on September 17, 1775. [1]
A breakdown of this appointment and other notable individuals named John Murray connected to Washington:
* John Murray (Chaplain): Washington supported Murray's appointment despite petitions for his dismissal from other chaplains who opposed his religious views. Murray later went on to organize the first Universalist church in America in Gloucester, Massachusetts. [1, 2, 3, 4]
Keep up the pressure to continue helping wake up those who don’t yet speak up against the administration.
Resource below to easily contact all of Congress - Be LOUD. Trump/the administration is dangerous for our country 💔🤍💙
Use/share this spreadsheet (bit.ly/Goodtrouble) to contact members of Congress, the Cabinet and news organizations. Call. Write. Email. Protest. Unrelentingly.
Reach out (beyond your own) to as many in the Senate and House as you can. All of this is bigger than “I only represent my constituents” issues.
Trump nominated Todd Blanche for permanent U.S. Attorney General. He needs to be confirmed by the Senate. Now would be a REALLY good time to speak out!
Senators and Representatives generally ignore comments not from constituents. When writing them as members of a committee, that would be different. But you’d need email and their systems are set up for form mail.
You’re right they usually do. My first round of emails February 2025 from the contact me links had a lot bounce back saying I wasn't a constituent so it either didn't get sent or basically wouldn't be read. So I changed the way I sent messages. I use one of their own in state addresses (listed on my spreadsheet to help with this) on the address line because technically it doesn't say "my" address. I also don't want to misrepresent myself any more than that, so in my messages I typically put (at the bottom) that while I'm not a constituent, I am reaching out because (insert name) does represent me on the (insert committee that fits the topic my message is about).
Another thing I do is call after hours. I don't leave my name or address/zip code so my voice doesn't go towards a count, but the more they hear from us, the better.
I also send faxes using faxzero.com (5 free/day). I don't send a lot of letters, but when I do I put the same “while I’m not a constituent” blurb I do in my emails.
I figure the more they hear a certain thing, the better. I don’t think we’ll see many big waves (like a major MAGA Congress member changing their opinions), however I think we can cause little ripples. I’m thinking staff members who hear the same thing over and over via voicemail, phone calls, letter after letter, email after email - maybe they’ll be a little more receptive each time they hear from us. Maybe they’ll talk more about our talking points to friends and family, maybeeee they’ll vote differently. As a collective, our volume matters. And, at the end of the day, if we just annoy and overwhelm some staffers working for people hurting the average American, I’m ok with that too 🙃
Oh I didn’t see it when I made mine - I wonder if we commented at the same time. I only saw 2 other comments and you weren’t listed. I appreciate you!!!
Proof that Christianity was not the basis of the founding of our country. Everyone should be able to follow their conscience, unless they harm another person.
Roger Williams believed in freedom of conscience.He was banished from the Massachusetts Bay Colony,fled and founded Providence Colony.He is revered in my home state,Rhode Island….
Except that for many reasons, it was. The FFs were a group of men (no women) who had a variety of opinions about most things, including religion and slaves. There was no "one perfect viewpoint". A large number of people who founded the US were slaveholders and their consciences led to the Civil War.
Quite a few of the Founding Fathers considered themselves Deists, in which truth and knowledge of God come from human logic, empirical reasoning, and the natural world, rather than prophets or holy books. Deism emphasizes living a moral life, following one's conscience, and using reason to improve society which was embraced by many intellectuals, scientists, and political leaders during the 17th and 18th-century Enlightenment.
Thomas Paine and Benjamin Franklin were outspoken deists, while Jefferson, Madison and Washington were more reserved about their beliefs.
Deism is/was more of a philosophical approach to religious belief. Basically it acknowledged the existence of a supreme creator, who in the beginning wound up creation like a clock and then stepped aside and let it run.
Many years ago, I was in Alexandria, VA, and dropped into Christ Church, then as now an Episcopalian/Anglican church. There are still sections of pews designated for the Washington and Lee families. (I sat in the Washington section.) It was known as Fairfax Church until 1810, when it changed to Christ Church. What a heady sense of history I got from just being in that place!
I didn't say they were. Just that Christianity was indeed the basis (or at least a MAJOR basis) for the founding of our country. Eight of the 13 original colonies before the Revolution were single-church states:
* The Anglican Church (later the Episcopal Church) was the official state church in Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and New York.
* The Congregational Church (Puritan) was the single established church in Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire.
The concept of freedom of religion across the entire country was something that came out of the Bill of Rights AFTER the country came into being under the Constitution.
I think most people would agree that this country was not truly founded to be a "melting pot" as it has become. At least a significant part of the Revolutionary War population were VERY Christian (certainly not all, but many). But I understand that there are differences of opinion about that.
While waiting for Heather's today I watched a video on Patton crushing a theft ring in Feb., 1945.
People will use government, as Heather's today shows, to privilege themselves, to hoist some of their group, or groups, over others.
The thieves Patton discovered systematically raiding 3rd Army supply depots felt themselves privileged over the fighting men in frozen trenches in the front lines. These thieves -- 43 officers and over a hundred enlisted men -- sold sorely needed U.S. supplies to black markets in France, Belgium, and parts of Germany. U.S. personnel died for want of these supplies.
And now democracy may be dying in the U.S. as criminal Donald's criminal associates conspire with him to float more of his criminality. Cover up the Epstein network. Support fellow criminals Putin, Netanyahu, Mohammed bin Salman, Erdogan, Bukele, and many others living off their international drug running, money laundering, arms dealing, and ever more of that trafficking in underage girls and young women.
And support all the U.S. billionaire criminals consolidating, corrupting all the largest social media, legacy media, and other destruction of the free press for which James Madison originally worked, as Heather recounts today.
The "Meet The Press" interview with Trump shows Trump's psychopathic mentality. It is inexplicable to me, but not a small number of Americans believe we are safer if POTUS has the psychopathic tendencies to kill at will. Trump is proving he does as long as the counties are weak and not really a current threat. His interview sounds like Iran poses an existential threat to the US. Remember how Jimmy Carter, a wonderful human, behaved when Iran had hostage leverage over the US. He was willing to damage his presidential image rather than risk the death of a single American.
In Trump's power fantasies, I guess Venezuela posed an existential threat to the US. Maybe Cuba and Greenland? Funny it's not Russia or China. What's left of Trump's mental capacity is a psychopathic pea brain. If the MAGA GOP won't step up, they are complicit in treason.
His screwed up red face of pure rage at Welker revealed the true man -- and I'll bet that she's not the first woman who has faced that expression of pure disdain and uncontrollable rage. He is a monster.
A petit monstre. Will the Brits please lend US the baby balloon until after the 11/26? Then again in 2028? It could fly above the Smithsonian guarded by the Secret Service.
I wouldn't impute any rational decision making to criminal Donald. He's a suck-up to China because he's jealous of the unaccountable, unrivaled power Xi and the cadres have all arrogated. Venezuela, Greenland, Iran, Cuba -- criminal Donald has got zero intelligence about any of them. Each, rather, simply repeats availability of another world stage for him. And to be center stage presents the only coherent constant in his life.
Russia? That particular corruption ties in, again, with that sordid history with Jeffrey and the underage girls, the many trafficked young women, and all the spies, double agents, money launderers and other sordid corrupt ever connected to all the Russian oligarchs.
Let's face it, too, Merrill, America badly let its schools go, so we have the tens of millions as damaged by that as by the same number damaged by the offshoring of working-class jobs.
Threat? More like greed. Greed for oil, power or anything else tRump's deranged brain feels it needs. And I mean "feels". Nothing in there having anything to do with critical thinking. "Existential threat" denotes whatever he perceives as opposition. That encompasses almost everything and he reacts to Everything. Who is going to put out this insane flame? Waiting for November. Resist!
Yes! All theocracies are morally offensive because they erode freedom of conscience. But even worse are fraudulent preachers and practitioners who use religious labels from criminal gain or purposes. Watch what people and politicians do, not what they promise; whether they prey, not how they pray.
True of almost everyone Tuhrump chose/is choosing for his cabinet/administration. Appalling in hypocrisy, ignorance, personality disorders, racism, sycophancy, evil. You will be able to add more to the list, no doubt.
I believe that freedom of religion implies freedom from religion. Religion, or lack thereof, is a personal choice and not at all subject to approval or disapproval by government or fellow citizen.
There is an organization, of which I am a member, dedicated to this principle. It’s called the Freedom From Religion Foundation, www.ffrf.org,
Indeed! Take it a step further; freedom of consciousness; freedom to be aware of the world as you choose see it. I choose an evidence-based, scientific view of the world. Others choose to look at the world through biblical myth. I’m OK with that until they drag that myth into a legislature and use it as a basis of rules I and everyone else has to follow. I’m not at all OK with that.
Has anyone like the ACLU or the freedom from religion groups started a lawsuit over this yet? It seems like something they'd all be righteously upset over.
You can't jail someone by impeachment. The only punishment for impeachment is loss of office and, in some cases, loss of the right to ever hold office again. No jail time is even prescribed under the Constitution. For that, you need a criminal conviction, and we all know how that will go. Ask the 1500 J6ers how well it worked trying to jail the criminals of January 6th. Not very well at all.
Then we need to court martial him. Or whatever remedy is available under the law. (I'm sure he's done something jailable at the Pentagon. How about "misappropriation of funds" for those lobster dinners?)
If we do not figure out how to punish those who have broken their oath to the Constitution, lied, misrepresented, and actively attempted to dismantle our government, we will not have a country left.
As for your second paragraph, I do not agree with you. This country has been resilient through numerous times of trouble and has managed to survive. The Great Depression is a good example. Yes, there was a lot of suffering, but the country didn't disappear. We CAN get back on track. It won't be easy, but it is possible.
The great depression was one thing. Totally dismantling the constitution is something else and requires a different remedy which I don't see the people currently demanding my money even talking about.
C'mon Kass. If you are just acting out to act out, fine, but if you are trying to be rational here, you aren't.
1. Courts martial are only for actual armed service personnel, not civilians. Hegseth, despite being the Secretary of Defense (I will NOT use the W word), is a civilian.
2. If he has committed some criminal offense, then sure you can try to find a prosecutor to take the case, but keep in mind that the current DofJ which prosecutes such offenses is in the pocket of Donald Trump. They won't court martial their own Sec of Def. Never happen.
3. And even if someone decided to go after him on a federal crime, Trump would just pardon him.
1) I am neither a lawyer nor a military member. I assumed that the head of the US military would be subject to the same system of law as the rest of the US military.
2 and 3) Do you assume Trump will never leave office? Are Cabinet members free from civil lawsuits?
Honestly, Jon. You've written rationally here before. Do you not think that those who swore an oath to the Constitution and then broke that oath in order to dismantle the very protections they swore to uphold should be punished? If for no reason other than to discourage future insurrectionists from trying it again.
Or, you know, we can all just lay down and do nothing. Just let them run roughshod over us. "Close your eyes and think of England" eh?
The Uniform Code of Military Justice "generally only applies to active-duty service members, reservists on active duty, cadets, and retirees" (Wikipedia). The civilian leaders of the military are NOT considered active-duty service members, including both the President and the Secretary of Defense (nee War).
As for Trump leaving office, he will issue pardons all around. He missed that chance after his first term and saw some of his better "soldiers" go to jail, if only for a short time before he took office again and pardoned them. Significantly Steve Bannon got that treatment.
And you are misreading what I said. I did NOT say that I agreed with this at all. Of COURSE they should be held accountable. However, the Constitution disagrees with us on that one, because it gives the president with NO oversight, unlimited power to pardon anyone for any federal crimes at all. That has been upheld repeatedly by the SCOTUS and all Presidents, both GOP and Dem, have used it. Biden pardoned his son, who ABSOLUTELY should have gone to prison. Obama pardoned Chelsea Manning, and while many supported her, many didn't and she certainly violated our countries laws. Clinton pardoned his Marc Rich and his half-brother Roger.
I strongly support new pardon laws and probably a new amendment to the Constitution that would take that power away from the President, but it is too late to do anything about Trump. The Constitution is what it is today and he has that power and will obviously use it. Double sigh...
As an appointed member of the Executive Branch, not elected, he cannot be impreached, as such. But Congress (House and Senate), which supposedly ratified his appointment, can have him removed.
"...The Secretary of Defense can be impeached. Under Article II, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, the Secretary of Defense qualifies as a "civil Officer of the United States," making them subject to impeachment and removal for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." USA.gov
No - wait. How many times did Trump get impeached at the end of his first term?
Yeah. It didn't do squat, without the rest of it.
What is on my wish list for the new government order is the provision for a national plebiscite - kind of no-confidence vote about the administration. Vote to remove the whole bunch from office. Sort out the prosecutions, trials, convictions and punishments afterwards. Clean out the swamp. Get rid of that putrid stench of corruption that permeates the body politic.
In the meantime, Hegseth needs to be forced to resign.
Fundamentalist evangelical "christianity" is the furthest thing from actual Christianity. If should be banned as the anti-democratic subversive movement it is.
Lol. I grew up in a fundamentalist Christian cult called the Plymouth Brethren. We were the “real” Christians; all others were heathens. — I don’t know what “actual Christianity” is. — I wrote a book about my experiences; fanatics are difficult to live with! It took me years to reach escape velocity from these beliefs, but the adamant religiosity ruined my family. Today I am free from religion and much happier. I only wish I was free from its adherents.
I can’t say I’m sorry to see Mormons up in arms against Kegsbreath’s canceling of their religion in the Defense Dept’s list of recognized faiths. I wish I believed it would teach them tolerance or at least not to get in bed with blatant authoritarians – but it won’t. So yeah - let them feel all the discrimination themselves for a few days.
Good morning from Berlin! Two questions for you if you see this, Heather:
1. What is to keep DJT from "grudgingly" accepting the War Powers Resolution result as a get-out-of-Iran-free card and then blaming it and the Dems for the "loss" (and, of course, targeting any GOP members that supported it with ongoing abuse)? Or, forcing Iran's hand into violence and then challenging Congress not to give him the power to respond. Isn't it dangerous to offer him this out?
2. A SONG DEDICATED TO YOU: As an eminently unkown songwriter and as my own way of responding to these times, I have written three songs about the current political moment. I am quite certain you and Joanne (and some of your readers), among others, would find them interesting, at the very least. One even caused the head of American Voices Abroad – Germany to shed tears! **The newest and best of these, on the echoes of tyranny through history, is literally dedicated to you and the other historians helping us through this difficult time period.** You can now view the song at https://youtu.be/Fpw6Yzgz1Sg
I hope you (and readers!) find these pieces compelling and inspiring, and that you'll pass them to others who are fighting the good fight—and mention the songs in your writings if you feel they're worthy examples of the art you've talked about that's trying to meet the moment.
I had no idea that there were 180 faith traditions recognized by the Department of Defense. Where could I find a listing of them, as well as of the 31 religions that remained on the list?
What is the purpose of such a list? The First Amendment says a person’s religion is determined entirely by that person’s conscience. Whether the list has 31 entries, 180 entries, 180,000 entries, or any other number of entries, it is sure to be missing a religion established by someone’s conscience and, to boot, getting further and further behind with each newborn Homo sapien.
The first amendment says nothing about how a person's religion is determined. It merely says that the U.S. government shall not pass any law that "respects" any specific religion. Obviously a list like this in fact DOES "respect" certain religions over others, but in general, as a basic two-religion nation (Christian and Jewish), our current leaders do not think to much about this issue. They ignore all the other religions that are out there.
And the current “Christians” in this administration only support Judaism to the extent that Jews are placeholders in the holy lands until the Christians can take over.
As a Jewish atheist, I don't choose to support either Christians or Jews LOL. I accept my religious underpinnings only to the extent that it serves as a social background for my growth as a human being, but not for ANY religious purposes whatsoever.
But like Christopher Hitchens did, I also accept everyone's right to decide to follow ignorance if they so choose, as long as they don't expect me to subscribe to it.
There were 211 before the removal of 180 leaving 31 on the current list. I personally haven't see the list of those removed, but I would expect most of them would be variations on Shinto (the principal Chinese religion) and Hindu (the principal Indian religion). There are many sects in those primary religions. I also would expect there are some Native American religions either on the list that remain or are now off.
I have to correct you, Jon. Shinto is exclusively Japanese; the Chinese don’t practice that. If there is a principal Chinese religion, it would be Taoism or Confucianism, is my guess.
Hi Dutch Mike. The Chinese religions are Taoism and Buddhism, while Confucianism is considered a system of both ethics, personally and in terms of one's obligations to society, and philosophy. Taoism is also practiced not as a religion, but as a philosophy, a martial art, and the basis of Chinese medicine. Where Taoism is concerned, what I've just said is simplistic, but gets you on the right Way. : )
Thanks for the correction! I think you could say that Taoism, Buddhism and Confucianism are all of them more of a philosophy and/or ethics systems than a religion 'per se'...
Buddhism's Dalai Lama, monks and faithful would disagree with you. Western practitioners might choose to concentrate on the meditation practices alone, but those come from the religion, just like people can choose to do the asanas of Hinduism without becoming a religious yogi.
The ordained Taoist priests and faithful would disagree with you, too. The interconnectedness of its cosmology, spirituality, alchemy, folk beliefs and medicine come from the ineffable Tao (Dao, Way), and how one chooses to harmonize with it (wu wei) has developed over the millennia into religious and nonreligious branches.
You are correct that Confucianism is not a religion. Thank you for the dialogue!
We don’t give James Madison enough credit for his contributions to our democracy.
How much more do we need to hear before we see that this Administration violates every precept we've held sacred for 250 years?
Really hard to push back effectively, Donna, when the R’s in Congress kowtow to ‘rump’s whims (even, or especially, when they know better), a DOJ that is his boy-toy to direct and a majority of SCOTUS who pave his way with golden bricks. I am gobsmacked that the stressed-but-held guardrails have now all but crumbled and allow an out of control despot to run roughshod over precepts we THOUGHT were sacrosanct. Many citizens are agog and beseeching “someone” to do “something”. Writing these words recalled a fave poem of mine that I’ve shared here before….Marge Piercy’s The Low Road: https://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/piercylowroad.html Basically “we” are that “someone”….but I think we’re up to it…at least we must try!🗽🇺🇸☮️
I rather liked the last part, after the poem:
'Democracy is not about trust; it is about distrust. It is about accountability, exposure, open debate, critical challenge, and popular input and feedback from the citizenry. It is about responsible government. We have to get our fellow Americans to trust their leaders less and themselves more, trust their own questions and suspicions, and their own desire to know what is going on.'
—Michael Parenti
Didn't know that was a Marge Piercy poem, but I've heard the last two verses oft quoted, and I'm with her. Hope.
We must begin with the stone of mass
resistance, and pile stone on stone on stone
⬆️🎯👏🏼
Yes, I was also thinking those last few lines felt hopeful.
Barbara, thanks for this poem. I had not read it before that I recall even though I have read poetry by Piercy in the past. I have shared the poem with others who are looking for inspiration right now. We are going to have to be the ones who demand better of our nation. We permitted a bunch of whiny white boys and a few others to get far too rich for anyone's good and we are paying for that. We allowed too much money in our elections and we are paying for it. We demanded little of our Supreme Court justices, believing they actually care about this nation, forgetting that the court is a bunch of human beings, some of them ideologues who want to push their own beliefs on the rest of us and call it "justice." It must be We the People who act to form the nation we want that includes everyone, not just bratty white folks in charge who never had to grow up.
Historyisaweapon.com page left me in awe of the collection of writings. the "starter page" itself can consume one for several hours. Reading Malcom X again, since maybe 15 years ago, reminds me that we still have far to go especially with this thuggish administration leeching off of the liberties of every man woman and child. It would have been interesting to read Malcom X's review on Project 2025; no doubt, his review would have scathing as it all too well proves his assertion of "the white man is the devil."
Riad Mahayni,
Malcom X was quite a human being. He was a person of great depth, a searcher ie observing, studying, asking "why" regarding race relationships as he had opportunity to travel throughout the world and meet people of various faiths.
I am an old white woman who has seen the actions and heard the words of cruelty towards my brothers and sisters of color. It is darkness and sin towards God's creations. We make our world very small when we are prejudice and force wrong beliefs on others.
I see in the Christian Bible, Jesus the Christ portrayed as one with white skin.
Really now???? Our Heavenly Father created Jesus,(in my opinion) as a brown person in the middle east.
Riad, we each must choose. I am "up" for choosing to love and respect more, not less. I choose to love the person underneath the "red, yellow, black, brown or white" skin . I choose to fight against the evil of prejudice in its many forms to get to know someone who will expand my heart and my understanding of God and His many creations.
Even if painful, and it is, we can choose to NOT allow ourselves to be controlled by prejudice but it is a fight against evil...it is not easy!
So much of all this revolves around choice, doesn't it? Some people do seem innately cruel, as though they can't live without debasement and humiliation of whatever "other" may be handy at the moment. But for most, it's an act of choice. Being unaware that you are making that choice doesn't excuse you from its consequences, however. That choice reduces us all -- the hater, as well as the hated. The future darkens and crystallizes into a zero-sum game from which no exit can be found. Acceptance, tolerance, the realization that we are all part of the same human family, by contrast, opens up new worlds of possibility. I still retain hope that Americans will -- through midterms -- choose the latter, not the former.
ICTT, 🎯
I am reminded of the famous LBJ quote:
If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you.
(And once again, I am always in awe of your writing. Have you ever published a book? If so, I'd snap it up and savor reading it simply because of the succinct beauty of your prose.)
Malcolm X was a racist, black supremacist and antisemite. Odd source for inspiration. Why not his mirror reflection, David Duke? Why not focus on his known views instead of speculative views on something he never heard of in his lifetime.
Malcolm X/Hajj Malik el-Shabazz evolved greatly in his lifetime. By the time he made the pilgrimage to Mecca, he had left the Nation of Islam behind. Indeed, he was assassinated by a Nation member, and IIRC the involvement of other Nation members (and possibly even the police) has been debated ever since.
A Kauffmann,
We have studied different sources of information regarding the life of Malcolm X.
I choose to see him as a searcher within his life and within his own various experiences . I see him as a brilliant person, a person of depth, working hard within his being to understand how and why some countries are more suseptable to prejudices than others.
I have nothing but respect for Malcolm X. It was his journey. He was a person of depth who took none of his experiences in life for granted.
I understand my fellow Americans better because he shared his life experiences with us...the struggles, the darkness as well as the light.
He is one of the great ones, in my opinion.
“Another small incremental step for a tyrant, one giant leap off the cliff of Constitutional America”
thank you -- wonderful poem!
Note! The “I rather liked last part, after the poem” to which Jim Young refers, changes—each time you click Barbara’s link! FYI
What a great poem--and poet! Thank you, Barbara.
Bravo, Barbara!
I'm sure there are at least some good readers here who roll their eyes when they see me, the self-appointed Walmart greeter here, post a "WELCOME!" comment to "newcomers" here. The poem truly shows the value that each additional voice makes, and I hope that every person who pulls out their credit card to subscribe, and who takes the time to post a comment gets recognized.
There are too many comments for me to get through all of them, but what a wonderful dilemma to have! The sheer number of them sustains me in these horrible times! On another forum, I posted that when I read Trump et al junk, I feel like the average IQ of Americans is dropping; here, I read posts from people who are so politically savvy, so well informed, so experienced and intelligent, that I feel like an imposter being here. And yet, at the same time, I continue to learn, not just from the good professor, but from each person who adds their perspective.
I don't have social media accounts and never understood the "friends" thing, but here, I honestly do feel like I've made friends. On Nov 6, 2024, I walked through the grocery store shell-shocked. I looked at every face and thought "are YOU one of THEM?!" and it was a dreadful feeling for me. Knowing the millions of readers Heather has spread all over the country and the world, this eternal optimist likes to think the person I just passed by and said hello to is actually one of the "Heather's Herd". 🌞
Miselle, I too have learned a lot from commenters here and, like you, find it hard to get through all the comments…..where DOES the time go???? I like to think of Heather’s Herd tucked in every part of the USA and across the globe….maybe our collective positive “vibe” can effect a change!
thank you for posting again! i missed it before.
Beautiful inspiration, than
You. I’m in!
Thank you wonderful words from Marge Piercy..
Republicans destroying the constitutional separation of church and state goes back several GOP administrations but advanced exponentially with the Bushes. And The Politics of Faith. It's where religious extremists Leonard Leo and Bill Barr got their start.
Leo's claim to fame, in the GOP of god, guns, greed, and grievance, is packing the Supreme Court with like minded racist right wing religious extremists. While Barr, who made his GOP bones making prosecution of Iran-Contra criminals go away, worked on corrupting the DOJ.
Read below Leo's purposeful perversion of the Constitution - grossly expanding the notion of conscience from the private sphere to public sphere in order to privilege personal notions of faith above our shared civil rights And Barr's claim that the Founders intended the Constitution only for people of faith and particularly for Christians. ( It's how we get to court decisions allowing bakers to refuse cakes for gay marriages, coaches imposing prayer on the playing field, and individual physicians' antiabortion prejudices overriding women's rights to medically determined standards of healthcare.)
Leo and Barr are also instrumental in promoting the antiConstitutional notion of a 'unitary executive' essentially bringing back the notion of the divine right of kings - which through the corrupted Supreme Court grants Trump's immunity from the law and upholds his absolute authority over government.
These GOP hit jobs violate both purposes of the separation of church and state - preventing government from imposing religious creed and preventing irrational habits of mind (the basis of the leap of faith) from driving government. They paved the way for the Trump presidency - Republican dominated government privileging Trump's personal beliefs and instituting his irrationality. As presaged and perpetuated by Project 2025.
*Protect this* :
AMERICANS UNITED
FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
Freedom Without Favor,EqualityWithout Exception
.https://www.au.org/.
*Or get this*:
Caligula God
.https://youtu.be/NJvVEt6F_Xw?si=B91pSR1JDFM5i74K.
^Vote Blue No Matter Who*
or be complicit in Republican repurposing our democratic republic as a ChristoFascist state,
Leonard Leo's acceptance speech at the 2017 Canterbury Medal Gala - Becket
.https://becketfund.org/leonard-leo-speech-2017-canterbury-medal-gala/.
Education Law & Policy: Luncheon Speech with Former Attorney General William Barr
.https://youtu.be/sjazw1_YaEE?si=3Ci0MkTVWM2uC-E7.
Yesterday evening Secretary Bellows held a "get out the vote rally" on the eve of the Maine primaries.
If you live in Maine and haven't voted, please vote. I chose to be an "unaffiliated" voter and when I voted several weeks ago, I was able to vote either the Democratic or Republican ballot or if there was one, the Independent/Green ballot.
And if I wasn't registered to vote, I could have done so on the spot as can any Maine resident of age, can vote today and register today.
Thank you Secretary Bellows for not caving to the Trump Fascists and giving away our data. And congratulations on winning USA vs. Bellows where the court agreed -- the Fascists have no right to our voter data.
I live in Maine and I’m going to hold my nose and vote for Platner.
Maine is sounding better and better. Except for the winters.
What a couple of vile little pricks.
It was Bill Barr’s dad, Donald Barr, headmaster of the elite Dalton School in Manhattan that hired a 21-year-old Jeffrey Epstein to teach math and science despite the fact that Epstein had no college degree. Epstein taught at the school from 1974 until he was eventually dismissed for poor teaching performance.
Prior to this, Donald Barr also published a science fiction novel titled Space Relations in which the plot involves a planetary society ruled by an oligarchy that engages in child sex slavery, which drew intense public scrutiny and comparisons to Epstein's crimes and network years later.
WoW!!
Leonard Leo and Bill Barr, plus Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, and John Roberts use religion as a tool for securing power, money, and control. They are no more followers of Jesus Christ than my dog.
Maybe less than your dog. Unless they have been brutalized, dogs tend to be friendly creatures except when they “smell” unkindness.
Jenn, there are plenty of atheists on this forum who are better followers of Christ than those "Christians".
"Leonard Leo and Bill Barr, plus Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, and John Roberts use religion as a tool for securing power, money, and control. "
Who knew? FYI Supreme Court justices don't make much money. If that were their objective, they'd go into private practice and incfrease their incomes tenfold.
As for your dog's Christian beliefs, we await clarity.
Two creatures whose actions, based on a distorted set of beliefs, have done ongoing damage to the fabric of our society! Several writers have revealed Barr’s family connection to the evil Epstein!
Lin, Folks like Leo, Barr, and the other christofascists care nothing for religion beyond using it as a tool to control people they either don't like or are scared of. They may "piously" mouth some words that might sound like christian, but are nothing like Christian. They are just enough that the poorly-informed, carefully groomed MAGAs will think they actually care about the religion of this nation. The religion they follow is that of money and power over others and doing whatever it takes to achieve both.
Without Precedent by Lisa Graves and Dark Money by Jane Mayer are deep dives into John Roberts, Leonard Leo, and others on exactly these topics and issues. I found these books very helpful in understanding the depth and breadth of the forces working to undermine separation of church and state.
" It's where religious extremists Leonard Leo and Bill Barr got their start." If they are extremists, what are you? You state: "It's how we get to court decisions allowing bakers to refuse cakes for gay marriages, coaches imposing prayer on the playing field, and individual physicians' antiabortion prejudices overriding women's rights to medically determined standards of healthcare." Have you read those very complex decisions, including concurrences and dissents?
Mike Lee (as usual) took away the wrong message from his lord and master, DonJohn Trump.
What he SHOULD have noticed is that Trump would have thrown all Mormons, including Lee, under the bus if it served his purpose of staying in power.
That's TYRANNY, Mike.
Mike Lee showed his true colors by standing up for HIS religion and ignoring the greater principle. He is a self-interested lackey.
Lee thinks he “loves the Mormons”? What a joke. To be blunt about it, Stinking Diapers doesn’t give two shits for any religion. He needs them only to be pawns in his game.
More than we care to admit, I’m afraid.
A constitution matters not the disposition of a tyrant. It merely gives the false sense of protection. Let’s understand that Russia has a constitution and look where this has gotten them. Yesterday I received a letter from the Census reminding me that I am in a selected data base to be solicited for a survey which I refused to partake in last year since I consider the federal government to be rogue thugs. At the time they suggested that I could not be excused from this survey. I shall only pay my taxes but will notify them again of non compliance and a demand to stay off my property. I noted once last year that a rep had taped a notice on my back door and this year I will keep my gate locked thereby preventing the thugs of the Census from walking around the back. I will refrain from explicit threats but will demand of them to stay off of my land.
That's just plain silly, Bill. There are so many good reasons for the Census.
True. Data gathered in each census is used for a variety of reasons related to the distribution of $$ for various programs and get a broad picture of the make up of the population. And of course some of the data derived from each census is used (or misused) for redistricting purposes.
As a researcher in genealogy, I have examined many thousands of pages of the various censuses. Other than the basic personal information which stays pretty much the same (and is not made public for 72 years after the census is taken), the other questions asked and data gathered vary from census to census, reflecting the issues of concern at that time. Some time spent in close examination of the data can tell you a great deal about life in any given point in the nation's history ( and for family ancestry, many mysteries are solved and others discovered in the process of reviewing.)
These days, I don't think there is nearly as much door-to-door enumerating as in times past. As I recall, most recently the census has been conducted by mail. Only as a last resort if your form is not received, or in special circumstances - remote locations, non-existent addresses, etc. - are you likely to get a visit from someone.
I worked the 2020 Census as an enumerator. I made a mistake on the application I wanted to be a supervisor but they wouldn’t let me change it. Anyway, yes, I knocked on doors of those who had not filled in the apps. I recall being frustrated with the management of my Census and knew I would never be in that position again. I’m likely to apply in 2030 the devil willing. However, I have zero trust in any aspect of the federal government today. Funds are being shifted around and held from blue states. This is bad real bad.
Do you live in this country?
I don't, but we have people saying the same thing as you are, Bill. It's a conspiracy theory plain and simple.
Bill, I agree that you have every right in this political kakistocrisy/kleptocracy to withhold your information. Elon Musk stole and then sold the information on over 340 million US citizens and foreign workers. He then had his Fascist imbecilic DOGE boys declare several thousand people "dead". Many of them weren't deceased of course, and immediately, all of their assets, except cash were frozen. Fortunately, the SSA is filled with helpful people who actually give a damn, about the people they have sworn to help and most of them were resurrected from the SSA death roles. But for many it was a long painful process which no one deserves.
Meanwhile, Elon, the Doge Boys, the ICE and CBP thugs continue their lives with total immunity and impunity.
So yeah, Bill, I think your civil disobedience is well founded.
Thank you. I know I am correct. I need to though remain non threatening and that is hard for me. But if I should physically threaten, then it becomes an FBI investigation. Asking or telling someone to stay off my property is not a threat although it could be misconstrued as one.
Several years ago a man came to my home and threatened my family and myself because I refused to refund his deposit on a lot he tried to purchase from me. He kept the lot tied up for several months as he tried and failed to get financing. His contractual time limits expired which made the contract void except for the provisions that survive the contract. I told him to get off my property and I filed a restraining order with the courts.
I later discovered, he had restraining orders in New Hampshire and others in ME for threats he made.
Unfortunately Bill, your rights against Trump and Co. are limited compared to being threatened by an individual.
I’m interpreting Abraham Lincoln when I say that being an American is hard, but it’s simple. Have faith that right makes might by treating the idea that might makes right in any context as a vulgar mistake and a threat to the survival of the Republic.
Hindsight is 2020, so I’m not faulting Madison, but what would I do if I was him in 1789 knowing what I know now? I’d say we the people can use hindsight to be (not perfect but) more perfect.
A political (aka a “we the people”) issue emerges, and our collective intuition jumps to a collective bouquet of conflicting conclusions. We need to teach every child in every elementary school that justice is on the other side of an imperfect but appropriately simple, teachable, and well-documented process designed to get to truth and reconciliation.
Hindsight permits time travel to steal the words of a future generation. So, I’d add a Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882) quote: “Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.”
Then, instead of proposing a bill of rights, I’d say, “Ignore the context-specific rules until we all have faith in each other because we’re all expressing a collective faith in the idea of America, the (independent of context) principle that right makes might.”
Then I’d propose teaching every child in every elementary school that the “vulgar mistake” is to leave a collective bouquet of initial reflexive responses untested because its inevitable end is an ad hoc combination of lies and retribution (or words to that effect).
That requires "we the people" to vote exclusively for politicians with a record of demonstrating that they’ve taken Hippocrates’ “first, do no harm” oath by consistently saying some version of, “I won’t get you what you want. Instead, we the people will all get what we need, and we all need justice.”
Then I’d say a child won’t get an elementary school graduation certificate until the good “justice” habit is demonstrably an automatic response (no evidence of vulgar mistakes). Then I’d tell every supporter of the Republican Party that they all need to requalify for an elementary school graduation certificate and to buckle up for a Blue tsunami in November.
Not one iota more!
Fascinating how quickly a crisis of religious exclusion becomes a testimony of faith once the blessing comes from the right source. One minute Mike Lee is objecting to the government deciding which Christians count, the next he’s celebrating because his particular denomination made the approved list. The hypocrisy is almost biblical. Apparently religious freedom now means waiting for a phone call from the emperor.
Exactly right, Kazz. Or, to paraphrase the late, great Kris Kristofferson, "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose, and that's all that's left of Mike Lee"
⬆️🎯👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
Donna, Trump's MAGAs have been courted successfully because they know nothing of our Constitution and probably couldn't care less. As long as the guys in charge are white, work against people of color and powerful women, and tell them how much they are working for them (despite all evidence to the contrary), they are willing to go along with anything they do, until it touches them as leaving the Latter-Day Saints off the "list" (a list which shouldn't even exist at all). Poor Mike Lee proved his hypocrisy, a MAGA who was slighted, but got the word that he is loved as is his church and blah blah blah!
I agree, donna woodward, and I think a great deal of that assessment is due to the fact that Heather Cox Richardson is such a great storyteller."Honest Abe" Lincoln was a great storyteller, too. That's why, I think, he was able to be elected over opponents who had more name recognition & experience in national government than he did. I aspire, now that I'm retired, to become a first-rate novelist-storyteller.
Good that you use the word "sacred."
It's time for a memorial service - poor democracy!
Nothing at all.
Are Baptists included or excluded.
Wher'e your list of precepts that have been violated? At least Hegseth provides a list of whose precepts offend him.
I take it you're not a reader of Heather's letters. I can't do as well as she's done, listing the constitutional and other norms violated.
I just stumbled on them about two months ago when an algorithm snuck onto my computer. She does not understand the Supreme Court or the federal court system. I have read hundreds of its opinions and appeared before it twice. From what I see here, at most less than a handful have ever read a single Sup. Ct. opinion but have very very strong opinions about the opinions they haven't read. Even when you read an opinion, you need to read all the other opinions cited in that opinion to fully understand it.
Although I slogged through SC cases as a law student and young attorney, I don't have your extensive exposure to SC decisions to base my opinion on. And you probably would have more direct knowledge of the Court than Heather does. But Heather's understanding of SC history and how the Court works seems spot on to me. But you may have a difference of opinion with her about how the Court has decided some cases, especially recently. Many of us, attorneys and lay people, are a little stunned by some of their reasoning lately--including three of their fellow Justices.
I agree you need to read more than just the holding or even the whole opinion, to understand a decision: concurring and dissenting opinions, cases cited in the opinions, sometimes legislative histories. It's risky to think we understand a decision when re read only a summary about it.
Slog is the right word. I find reading Constitutional cases to require aspirin and rest. But when necessary for appellate or Sup Ct work, I do read them thoroughly, as one must. The few times I've seen Richardson's discussions of court cases, I disagree that she understands the system. She tends, as I read her stuff, to have not much more than an ideologically based lay opinion.
A lot of people hate the court, depending on their policy preferences, forgetting that the role of the court is not to make policy. Coincidentally, yesterday I listened to a 1 hour discussion some years ago based on the 1st Amendment featuring Scalia and Ginsberg. I've litigated 1st amendment cases and it is much more complex than law people, including most commenters here, understand. As you know from law school, cases aren't self evident out of context.
Most people on the left, ie the audience here, base their Sup Ct views on Dobbs, Citizens United, gay marriage, more recently perhaps Callais. Most on the right are the same, except their like those results. Neither side tends to understand the reasoning.
Mike Lee Discovers the First Amendment
Senator Mike Lee has received an urgent wake-up call from Christian nationalism: theocracy is delightful right up until the state decides your Christianity is the wrong Christianity.
For years, Lee has helped MAGA carry its golden calf through Washington, supporting a movement that treats religious freedom as the freedom of approved Christians to govern everyone else. Then the Pentagon revised its list of recognized faith traditions and somehow left the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints outside the Christian velvet rope.
Suddenly, Lee discovered discrimination.
He posted 37 times, contacted Donald Trump, and demanded immediate theological customer service. Apparently, religious liberty becomes serious when the government’s faith-ranking department misfiles your denomination.
Fortunately, James Madison anticipated this embarrassing revelation more than two centuries ago. The First Amendment does not instruct Congress to establish the correct religion, the largest religion, or Mike Lee’s religion. It forbids government from establishing religion while protecting everyone’s free exercise of faith. That includes Mormons, Muslims, Jews, atheists, Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, and people who prefer Sunday brunch without a government-approved sermon.
Christian nationalism rejects that arrangement. It wants government to define America through a favored version of Christianity, with political power deciding who belongs inside the sacred circle. Lee apparently assumed he would always be inside.
Then the door closed.
After Lee appealed to Trump, the Pentagon removed the Christian labels, and Lee thanked officials for correcting the error. But the real error was believing religious freedom should depend on recognition from Trump, Pete Hegseth, or any other political authority.
The First Amendment was the wake-up call. Mike Lee simply hit snooze until Christian nationalism came for him.
Mike Lee still doesn't get it. He only fought for his religion and no one else's that was removed.
Can’t like this enough. The snooze button expires in ten minutes. It comes for me. It comes for thee…Somewhere I can hear Mel Brooks singing “The Inquisition is Here to Stay.”
One thing that is lacking in the right wing is the intellectual capacity to see nuance or to understand the eventual consequences of their actions. Hegseth in particular is too stupid to ever understand the concept of conscience, having none himself. This condition has become the hallmark of today’s GOP. Conscience and tolerance are not only unpopular in their ranks……..they truly do not understand what we are so alarmed about.
💯✅️‼️
Very good point. Madison saw conscience in his idea of religion. It plays little part in the bigotry that passes for religion not just in these times but throughout human history. If only …
Michael cannot like this enough, so well said.. The question is how many others have hit the snooze alarm once too often..
Michael Corthell,
In my opinion faith is a "living organism". I am a person of faith, grew up in a family in which I saw it lived out...usually in love....sometimes a "little judgy" but attempts were made.
Christ's love and presence came to me and stubbornly will not leave me. He is great, He is good, He is wise....NOT ME....and yet He is with me....He is the most important part of me.
TRUE WORDS! "BUT THE REAL ERROR WAS BELIEVING RELIGIOUS FREEDOM SHOULD DEPEND ON RECOGNITION FROM TRUMP, PETE HEGSETH, OR ANY OTHER POLITICAL AUTHORITY."
No thank you!!!! I am not of a faith that relies on a PERSON to guide my Christian life although I am grateful for a Pope whom I believe is a "fighter of the faith for the betterment of mankind and to honor our Creator, Our Lord and Savior". I rely on a triune God who knows me better than anyone and "kicks my butt" when I need it!!!
Wow! The pope heads up the organization that has paid roughly $600 BILLION to the victims of its pedophilia. I wonder how the he’ll he sleeps at night.
Often in this forum, books are recommended. After a glance at your bio, I think you might appreciate the 2025 book by Fr. Richard Rohr, "The Tears of Things". Rohr talks about how the Bible has been misinterpreted and misused by many pastors who want power.
The Catholic church has been around for many years. LOTS of horrific history, and also lots of good done as well. Pope Leo is making amends and making progress.
Thanks, Miselle, I’ll check it out.
The Catholic Church’s record of child sexual abuse, concealment, and institutional protection of abusers deserves relentless scrutiny. But the claim that it has paid $600 billion to victims is false. Documented payments are in the billions, not hundreds of billions. In the United States, Catholic dioceses and religious orders have spent more than $5 billion on abuse-related claims since 2004, with roughly three-quarters going to victims. That is still a staggering moral and institutional failure, but accuracy matters.
Your right, Michael, it’s closer to $6 BILLION, not 600 billion. I suppose that my sense of moral outrage inflated the number in my mind.
"Mike Lee Discovers the First Amendment." As have you, it seems. Mike Lee clerked for the Supreme Court, which I sense you did not. Whether see sees this in that context I do not know. I suspect though that Hegseth will lose on his dumb list but whether it violates the First Amendment is not slam dunk.
James Madison, like Thomas Jefferson, was a slaveholder. Moreover, he never emancipated any of his slaves even after his death.
The founding fathers were not saints, by any means. Not even close.
This article is specifically about freedom of religion and conscience. We can recognize Madison 's contributions to that area.
That doesn't mean anyone is condoning slavery.
Accolades to Madison without pointing out his flaws are a quiet way of ignoring his major failures. Sorry if you disagree. I consider owning slaves a very POOR example of conscience, something which Madison (and Jefferson and Washington) were all guilty of.
And excusing it as some have (not you, just others) as just a "sign of the times" is absurd. Killing Jews in Nazi Germany was a sign of the times too. Ditto so many other horrible examples of civilization's madnesses. It is interesting how few people would support someone talking about all the great things Hitler did for Germany rather than talking about his concentration camps, yet they excuse Madison and Jefferson and Washington as just a symptom of the times they live in.
And there were PLENTY of people who lived in Revolutionary times who did NOT hold slaves and were already campaigning for emancipation. That the founding fathers refused to address that horrific act (not to mention their unwillingness to grant women rights in our country) should be condemned. Slaves were already being freed in many other parts of the world by the time of the Revolutionary War. Just not in southern America.
Life in any age of history is never black or white. Nor are the people present in those times either all good or all bad. Judging anyone of any time period without studying history to understand what the society they were part of demanded of them, or allowed them is invalid.
Not correct. In 1789, slaves were common throughout the world (including, as always, black Africa). In the 1930s and 1940s, killing Jews was not.
In 1789 there were 700,000 people of African descent enslaved in the United States by white men who established the ideology of white supremacy. Africans who were taken from their native land were exploited for their labor, skills and knowledge. More than 2 million died on the middle passage. By 1860 there were more than 4 million enslaved African Americans who endured cruelty sanctioned by law for generations.
Slavery based merely on skin color was not "common". Historically, people were enslaved as a result of debt or being prisoners of war or victims of war. American style slavery based on skin color set the stage for the racism and white supremacy that endures to this day.
If people really understood more than 250 years of Americas' race based slavery, then they'd know that there were plenty of other people during that time who did have a conscience. Those who engaged in the practice of slavery did so by choice knowing full well that it was wrong, but they eased their consciences by declaring that people with darker skin were "inferior" and needed "masters" to "oversee" their lives. The atrocities committed over time have been horrendous. Once again it's all about the money as slaveholders created untold amounts of wealth off of the backs and ingenuity of others.
As white supremacy and racism live on, too many people still believe the erroneous notion that skin color should determine someone's rights and "place" in society. The divisions and angst in America today are a direct result of the "founding fathers" free will embrace of slavery based on skin color.
Madison was also probably the shortest man in Congress at the time.
Shortest President ever at 5'4".
Never said they were.
I didn't say you did. But you want to give J Madison more credit and I don't necessarily agree with that. He gets a lot of credit for many things he did and we rarely hear about the things he did that offset some of that. We should hear more. All of us.
It's a conundrum of the highest order, for sure: People we admire for certain values they held, often ahead of their times, yet who at the same time were captive to beliefs of their times that today we find abhorrent. It's not easy to hold two conflicting beliefs: That person was great. And that person was wrong-headed.
"It's not easy to hold two conflicting beliefs: That person was great. And that person was wrong-headed."
It's not easy but it's not a question of belief - setting aside empirical evidence to have faith in someone. It's a question of reasoned consideration of the facts. We seem designed to hold and manage contradictions. It's how we manage them at the moment. And regarding our own actions. Which facts matter the most to which circumstance.
It's a question of taking the full measure. Being neither a believer nor an apologist. But considering which of a person's individual actions are pertinent to a specific assessment we want or need to make. Unchanging absolutes - purity tests if you will - are essential to religious creed and practice. They are an obstacle to coming to consensus through reasoned debate of empirical evidence - as we are asked to do in legislating, adjudicating, and administering the law, and in the democratic transfer of power.
Something the flawed Founders themselves recognized by building into the Constitution the amendment process - to correct their own mistakes. And the electoral process. They gave us a system based on the individual's and the state's potential for self-correction and change for the better. In this, the Founders were essentially progressive.
Harry Truman seems a good example. I think in early 1971, I overheard the start of a conversation between my wife's grandfather, a lifelong Republican and Harry Truman. Her grandfather was also a good friend of Harold L. Ickes who had been a progressive Republican and president of the Chicago chapter of the NAACP back in the early 20s. I didn't learn much other than that they [grandfather and Harry Truman], called each other a time or two every year up to 1972 (the year they both died), but it triggered thoughts of how my 1st Sgt dad had always done right by the Black (or any other minority) soldiers he was responsible for.
I don't trust AI, but it has again given me a better short summary of a clearer view of what I can believe about Truman's views, as imperfect as they might be, but still truer to the spirit and letters of the Declaration of Independence and evolving Constitution.
From my prompt, "Harry Truman negative views on Blacks but support for their rights'," I got:
"...AI Overview
Harry Truman held private racial prejudices shaped by his upbringing in a segregated, former slave state, yet he became the first modern president to champion federal civil rights. His administration advanced landmark equality initiatives, proving that a leader's personal views can be separated from their public duties.
Private Prejudices vs. Public Duty
• Upbringing: Raised in Independence, Missouri, Truman was the grandson of slaveholders and grew up surrounded by the racial subordination prevalent in the post-Civil War border states.
• Private Language: In early letters and conversations, he sometimes used racial slurs and expressed beliefs in white supremacy and the geographic separation of races.
• Moral Awakening: Reports of returning Black World War II veterans facing brutal violence in the South shocked Truman. He famously stated: "My stomach turned over when I learned that Negro soldiers... were being dumped out of army trucks in Mississippi and beaten".
• Public Action: Despite his personal inclinations, Truman believed that as president, it was his constitutional duty to ensure equality and fairness for all citizens.
Major Civil Rights Achievements
• President's Committee on Civil Rights: In 1946, Truman established this committee. Their landmark report, To Secure These Rights, condemned all forms of segregation and called for a federal end to discrimination.
• NAACP Address: In 1947, Truman became the first president to address the NAACP at the Lincoln Memorial, declaring, "When I say all Americans—I mean all Americans".
• Military Desegregation: In 1948, Truman signed Executive Order 9981, officially desegregating the U.S. Armed Forces and guaranteeing equal treatment regardless of race.
• Federal Civil Service: The same year, he signed Executive Order 9980 to ensure fair employment practices and prevent discrimination in the federal government.
Later Views and Contradictions
Even after leaving the presidency, Truman’s racial views remained complex. While he remained proud of his civil rights legacy, he was critical of the tactics used during the 1960s Civil Rights Movement. For example, he controversially described lunch counter sit-ins as Communist-orchestrated and argued that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was a "troublemaker".
Historical Impact
Historians generally view Truman as a man who evolved. While he never completely shed all of his personal prejudices, he used his political capital to push the country forward, paving the way for the legislative victories of the 1960s.
Learn more about his evolution on race at the U.S. National Park Service or explore his original civil rights proposals via the Truman Library Institute..."
" ... as [ juries ] are asked to do in ... adjudication" of civil & criminal court cases. That's was part of my oft repeated closing trial argument:
"Follow the law as directed by this court ( nod toward the Judge ) but, you, members of the jury, must make weigh the credibility of the conflicting facts." Then hammer the 3 most important facts. "Use your common sense". But, attorney argument is not evidence.The Judge calls balls & strikes. The Jury decides disputed evidence.
John Adams' Boston Massacre Jury determined 2 Red Coats not guilty before 1776.
Responding to Lin: Not managing contradictions well is one of the things at the root of our political conflucts. Some contradictions can’t be resolved, in the end, and the best we can do is tolerate ideas which conflict with our own. Sometimes it’s hard to do even that, if we find a certain idea or belief or practice intolerable. (Pedophilia. Bullying. Not getting vaccinated. Not voting.) Then we draw our line in the sand and say “Here I stand.” This might seem like a purity test. On the other hand, to say There will be no purity tests might also be a kind of purity test. ’Tis a puzzlement, as the man said.
Civic consensus is necessary to avoid civl war as well as the cultural wars we’re living with now. Can consensus and intolerance co-exist?
Slaveholders at that time were criticized at that time. Their hypocrisy was noted. For example, General Lafayette, Washington’s number one, challenged Washington. Much of the same hypocrisy and conundrum we observe about the constitutional era from 2026 was there in 1789. I believe that it’s important to know. I agree it’s difficult to wrap our heads around it.
⬆️🎯👏🏼
Donna, isn't that humanity? I am in the midst, so to speak, of two dear friends of almost 50 years. One is MAGA-lite, the other is pretty far left. We have so much common history, experiences and interests! Those two are estranged, and it is really hard for me, because I am at an age where people are dying off. I hate this part of the golden years! The MAGA-lite is persuadable, as she agrees our current House rep (a Dem) is a "good guy, I'd vote for him again." Notice the "again"?
I am the eternal optimist. I have to keep trying. When I meet my MAGA friend, we gently touch on politics, but then spend 97% of the time talking music, old times, health, family, etc.
Yes it is, Miselle. I have a best friend of about 70 years (who died recently). We discovered accidentally, during the Clarence Thomas hearings, that we had totalyl divergent views of who was credible, Thomas or Anita Hill. But we remained friends, never going near politics, down the decades. In practice she was one of the kindest, fairest people I've ever know. But didn't like some of what she blamed on Democrats and became a Fox News believer.
Madison wasn't alone. He was in good company as a slaveholder. I totally agree that we all should hear and learn more about our history and how it impacts us today.
A factoid known already to everyone reading this Newsletter, and…other than a banal truth, what, exactly does this have to do with tonight’s topic, again?
ICTT: Plenty of tangential comments are made on this substack and often take on lives of their own. Sometimes because they're enlightening. We're free to scroll past those we don't find of value.
The commenter appears to be virtue signaling. Undoubtedly sincere, but HCR readers are exactly history illiterates.
Speak for yourself. Many readers here know a great deal about both our present and our past. While some others mistakenly assume most of us didn’t take 11th grade American history.
And you are the only literate?????
bbb, I wonder if you meant to write "aren't" instead of "are"?
We knew about that - it's common knowledge. Instead, he fought the battles he understood. What is your point?
I see far too much commentary here that offers accolades to people like James Madison. I don't condemn Madison, but also don't choose to adore him either because he is, like most people in most periods of time, imperfect and an example of his period.
And I am not at all sure it IS "common knowledge" that Madison owned slaves. So there is that too.
Flawed as Madison and his fellow Founding Fathers were, their contributions were world-changing. Demanding a purity test after the fact isn't realistic - what's done is done.
Complaining that there was work that they didn't address is also futile. They did what they could to the best of their understanding in the time they had. Ever hear the motivational statement "If you see a problem, you own it."? We're surrounded by problems today and it's up to us to deal with them all. We're the owners. We can't wait around for saints or some "adorable" charismatic Leader to come redeem us and offer to fix everything for us. No one trustworthy enough is coming.
I don't disagree that Madison made contributions. I just think he is given too much credit without pointing out his flaws. That's it. Sorry if you disagree.
Bah. How much credit is too much in your opinion? Raising slavery as an issue back then would have halted ratification of the Constitution. Madison and his fellows surely knew that and saw ratification as their priority.
That JM saw the need for immediate amendments to the Constitution is also telling. After Madison's time those who came after him continued to amend it. By adding the Bill of Rights he'd established that it was not a static immutable document; that our Constitution had to be able to be adaptable and change with our situation. And thus we eventually ended up with a 14th amendment that did address slavery.
Was it accomplished in a clean or timely way? No. Does that make Lincoln a failure? Judge for yourself, but personally I don't think so. He too had a lot going on at the time and as Madison, et. al., knew all too well, "progress is messy".
Do you want or expect EVERY comment about Madison and other members of the founding fathers to begin with a lengthy preamble about the evils of enslaving human beings?
Well, then, probably neither you nor anyone else should be preaching at us in this format about what he or she thinks about this or that. Because I'll bet every one of us is a flawed person. Even you.
I am one of the most flawed people you will ever know. And you have every right to ignore what I say, to not read it, to block me if that makes you happy. It doesn't change my right to say what I feel or think. I am not preaching (I don't believe in preaching) but I do believe in trying present arguments that hopefully make sense to people willing to listen. And when I am wrong (as I sometimes am) I acknowledge that too, quite publicly as anyone who has read my comments would have to agree.
Thank you for your contributions Jon.
No argument, Jon. Madison was a man of his time. Some of us (most, I hope) have moved on. It would be foolhardy to ignore the what was honourable and right in the rush to condemn what was immoral and wrong. It's taken me a long time to realize this, and I no longer waste my time excoriating past beliefs/actions.
They were pretty much self-interested, well-off white men.
"They were pretty much self-interested, well-off white men."
But not entirely self-interested. Or they could have used their privilege to improve their situation as subjects of the king. Which was the position of the loyalists. Even within the Continental Congress. Which is why coming to consensus on the Declaration was so fraught.
1776 - "Cool, Considerate Men" (1972 Film Clip)
https://youtu.be/LxaAw2viEIQ?si=itvT1JGqGaQ2wp1r
Please note - this number presages the Reagan Revolution in which lower income American voters, split off from the Democratic party, elected Republicans. Workers sacrificing their economic self interest to their culture wars bigotry. The number - with its
goose stepping loyalists - also presages Republicans' MAGA move to fascism.
Love 1776, the musical. I bought the album and played it often. I was 20 years old when it opened on Broadway. Love the comments under the You Tube video. Never would I have thought we would see such a day a the one in which we find ourselves. My dad who fought in WWII would not believe what we are dealing with today.
Sorry if I am getting off track but there is a You Tube video by the Cynical Historian I just watched with a critique of what the musical got right and where it erred.
I often think the same thing about my DAV father Michele
I graduated high school in 1976; my Mom got me that cassette tape as a gift and I wore it out listening to it.
I might have to take a look at that YouTube video (and the comments) along with the one from the Cynical Historian.
The entire movie is available on You Tube
Precisely, by opening the door a bit for others that did not depend on just the good will of any particular leader, and more along with the thoughts expressed in this morning's discovery of:
'Democracy is not about trust; it is about distrust. It is about accountability, exposure, open debate, critical challenge, and popular input and feedback from the citizenry. It is about responsible government. We have to get our fellow Americans to trust their leaders less and themselves more, trust their own questions and suspicions, and their own desire to know what is going on.'
—Michael Parenti
Some, at least, of the Founding Fathers viewed the king and the British government as restricting the ability of some colonists to make more money (through land speculation, etc.) than they would have been able to otherwise.
For everyone responding to Jon saying “that’s not what this article was about.”
Were the slaves allowed freedom of conscience? What about Indigenous nations? The point is, the founders never intended everyone in this country to have freedom of conscience… only certain groups. And continuing to imply that the founders were trying to allow freedom of religion for all (which is what HCR’s article is doing), ignores the very fact that the constitution was designed to protect land owning white men and no one else. This is why it has been so easily manipulated by maga. The founders committed crimes on par with the Nazis. Stories like this contribute to American exceptionalism, which prevents us from being able to effectively resist maga.
True. Let’s destroy everything they created.
Jon, when we visited the Madison plantation on a Virginia trip, we learned that he intended to, but somehow that got lost when he died. His wife had a reprobate son and needed the money is how I remember this which means I may be remembering inaccurately.
Good way to get more space in your local library? Take out the books written by antisemites. And clear your museum walls of Picassos and Gauguins. They were pedophiles.
25% of Athens were slaves who couldn't vote. 30% of Romans (fun fact: they forced 60,000 Jewish slaves to build the Colosseum). 4 of the top ten slave regions in history were Muslim. American slaveholdgins do not even make the top 15. The point being, judging the past, especially the very distant pasgt, by the present is a careless try at analysis .
No, the founding fathers were not perfect. They were men of their time.
HCR doesn't mention that the Unitarian-Universalists are also removed from the list. Jefferson, although a deist, has been identified as Unitarian because his theology was pretty much identical to that religion, which was extremely popular among the intelligentsia. John Adams and John Quincy were both avowed Unitarians, as were Millard Fillmore in the 19th century and Taft in the 20th. Although nominally Episcopalian (actually, at the time, Anglican), Madison and Monroe were non-Trinitarians as well. I think that it is important to identify the religious perspectives of the "founders" as non-conformist in every way. I recommend the British Unitarian website, which gives people a lot of historical information on the development of the community from Reformation-era Socinianism. And also direct you to the work of Joseph Priestly a polymath who was incredibly influential with people like Jefferson. https://www.unitarian.org.uk/who-we-are/radical-roots/
Sorry, but you people give way too much credit to your founding fathers and your sclerotic, antiquated Constitution.
When you learn a little history, if you are capable of thought, you might see our Constitution differently
You are so right, Rosemary. Madison was the brilliant intellectual architect of our entire system, and his unique ability to translate deep political philosophy into the actual framework of our Constitution and Bill of Rights is something we don't praise nearly enough today. Compare to Trump today . . .
We were taught that Madison was a Presbyterian, a graduate of Princenton, then a seminary, was a discriminated minority person in his native state, which had a state religion, Anglicanism, now Episcopalian.
At the time, Catholics and Jews could not take the state oaths in several states.
Jefferson was also from a Presbyterian family, although both were Deists. In Congress at the time, Presbyterians were the majority.
It should be noted, Daniel, that Presbyterianism originates from the same theological root as Baptists and all other "evangelical" faith traditions, the doctrines of John Calvin. This matters. It means that the overwhelming religious influence on society in the infant United States came from Calvin.
The other "fathers" of Protestantism were Martin Luther, a Catholic priest, and John Wesley, an Anglican priest. They had a different take from Calvin on the meaning of Christianity, chiefly, that Christian faith is living in community, in service to others.
Unlike Luther and Wesley, who were extensively trained in theology, Calvin was actually a lawyer who made up his own theology. He came up with doctrines like Original Sin, claiming that all people are born evil, thanks to the sins of Adam & Eve (the mythical first man and woman from the Hebrew Scriptures, a.k.a. The Old Testament). See: Jonathan Edwards famous sermon, "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." Calvin also invented the doctrine of Predestination, the notion that God maps out the course of every human life before they are born. Inherent in this doctrine is the notion that any decision one makes that is contrary to "God's Plan" results in immediate condemnation to Hell for eternity. From this, Calvin further extrapolated that since God has always known how everything is going to turn out (omniscience), he already knows who's going to Heaven ("The Elect") and who's going to Hell ("The Damned"). Since mere mortals are not omniscient, they can't know whether they're in or out, so it behooves them the do everything they are told to do, in hopes of being one of The Elect. This last feature of Calvinism is what makes evangelicals so susceptible to authoritarianism.
In fairness, I should note that Presbyterianism eventually moderated their stance on Calvinist doctrine. But disagreements about how moderate that stance should be resulted in the denomination splitting into conservative and liberal versions.
Baptists and all other evangelicals have clung to Calvin's theology, although they don't use his terminology.
Coz we dont hear much of him and get blinded by mainstream whatever "the script sayd from upper controlists" news?
“That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience". - James Madison
"Let there be no compulsion in religion, for the truth stands out clearly from falsehood. So whoever renounces false gods and believes in Allah has certainly grasped the firmest, unfailing hand-hold. And Allah is All-Hearing, All-Knowing."
- Quran, Surah Al-Baqarah, verse 256
Who is "we"?
Damn straight, Robin, we certainly do not!
OMG, I apologize. Freudian slip calling you "Robin", as that's the nickname I immediately think of for the name Rosemay.
Anyway, in spite of my fumbling, you are right on, Rosemary!
How is it Freudian?
I thought I stated that in my post. Nickname for Rosemary.
Still don’t get it.a F slip is an unintentional error thought to reveal an unconscious thought. How does ROBIN FIT THIS DEFINITION
So, basically, Lee is thanking “Dear Leader” for granting his religion a place at the table. Exactly what Madison was preaching against.
But he us a fine example of “it’s nice to be in the dictator’s in crowd until one day, all of a sudden, you aren’t.” And it can happen on a whim, regardless of everything you’ve done for Dear Leader.
But, Kegsbreath left what is becoming the prominent religion practiced in the US -- no religion at all.
Yesterday Kegbreath embarrassed himself and all Americans with his speech in Normandy. He insulted our allies and insulted all of us, especially those who had family members that served in WWII. Many of us have that Uncle or Aunt who we never met who gave the ultimate sacrifice in WWII.
So FUCK YOU Trump, Kegsbreath, Miller and all of those that support this Fascist regime.
I couldn't find a link that included Hegseth and Persona Non Grata in the title but there are plenty that do go on to make it plain as day, like https://www.yahoo.com/news/videos/french-villagers-tell-persona-non-162653769.html
"...Pete Hegseth flew to France to commemorate the anniversary of the D-Day landings, but the locals were not pleased to see him.The 45-year-old Secretary of Defense was "persona non grata" for locals of Langrune-sur-Mer, a small town in Normandy where an international ceremony was held on Saturday, according to French news station BFM TV. Sylvie Lamy Thepaut, a member of the local association Langrune en Commun, did not hold back on her distaste for Hegseth.
Hegseth in France was a particular embarrassment to every patriotic American. Did you notice the Statue of Liberty blushing during his “speech”?
😱😀 No, but I wouldn't be surprised if France asks for us to return her.
The Statue of Liberty was originally supposed to be about the abolition of slavery. The only remnant: a broken chain at her feet, hard to see.
It would be totally appropriate. The French don’t elect Marine LePen!
That guy is the definition of a sicko.
👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👍🏻👍🏻🎯💥
Most of Trump's sycophants spend extensive time and effort collecting "attaboy" awards from dear leader without realizing that one "awshit" wipes the board clean and they have to start all over again (or there is no starting over).
Everything Dump touches dies. Everyone in his orbit eventually ends up under the wheels of a speeding bus.
ICTT, you took the words right out of my mouth.😊
It's a typical thing for a sycophant to happily ignore this fact. "Yes, it has happened to others. But Dear Leader won't do that to meeee..."
Dave: so well said!
Yeah, DM, he was sure throwing off “first they came for….”vibes…. 🤦🏻♀️
Lee’s real faith isn’t Mormonism, but Moronism, especially the servile, bootlicking variety.
thank you for the good laugh
ICTT, that's two days in a row you've made me laugh. Keep up the good work!
Ah, my work here is done… 😀
Badum-tsss! That's a good one, ICTT!
Years ago, somebody of the Mormon faith gave me the book of mormon and tried to convert me. I opened the book to page 1, and started to read it. In the third chapter of the book, god tells some person to commit murder, and he does. I closed the book and threw it in the trash.
When does the Inquisition start? Looks like the scope is being finalised....
“Each sect believes they have the right and responsibility to turn society’s leadership away from rational secularism and to force everyone to follow their specific interpretation of faith.
Because they do not agree on what makes one a “Real Christian,” they will have to either compromise on a national religion or fight over which one will rule.
Each sect believes with absolute certainty that their interpretation of the Bible is the One True Faith. Their certainty will make compromise impossible, leaving us with the high probability of holy war.”
https://andrawatkins.substack.com/p/three-sects-of-christian-nationalism?
hasn't it already begun?
Lee’s religion was on the list, just not listed as Christian. Fact remains that many other religions don’t consider Mormons to be Christians. Probably why it wasn’t included in all the other various Christian traditional ones. Many other religions were excluded completely from the list but there was included the term other.
Unitarian Universalists, of which I am one, have been advised there will be no chaplaincy support in the military, and I understand there's a much longer list of other excluded liberal faiths. So if we are wounded or die for our country, I guess we will do it alone. Not exactly an enticement for enlistment.
I thought some of the "founding fathers" were Unitarians...
They were. What have our leading idiots done with Quakers? Do they know Benjamin Franklin was one?
No, he wasn't, but he knew Quakers. In his day they were involved in politics. At one point they had to vote for money for gunpowder. Contrary to Quakers' pacifism! so they called it "grains." Franklin found this amusing.
They couldn't be both Quakers and politicians, so they got out of politics.
Nixon was a Quaker. He may not have been a practicing one, but had that background.
Congregationalists, yes. Not sure about Unitarians.
Fellow UU here. I know a very gifted military chaplain who is UU and I can't imagine what he is feeling today for those he cares for.
I wonder if he will be "reassigned."
The UU churches I have visited in ME and NE do good works with kindness and humility. I suspect that's fairly universal in the UU churches.
Yesterday, someone at the DOD, maybe Kegsbreath, is extending the deployment of the carrier groups near Iran. These sailors have not had a break in months totally against military protocol I believe. Can someone please confirm this?
I have known many people who identify as UU. All of them are committed to such (currently Anti-American) acts as feeding the hungry and protecting civil rights. They don't go around screaming that they are right and everyone else should be eradicated. This type of behavior cannot be classified as an acceptable religion by King Con and his gang of hate-mongers. People who think that they are protected from harm by the Mar-a-Lago Mafia are kidding themselves.
An Iraq war resister who came to Canada told us that when you join the army you sign a contract. It is binding on you, but not on the army, which can extend your enlistment as long as it likes.
Which may be the point. They want a "Christian Army," aka "Only Christians We Recognize As Christians Army."
They should change the Marine Hymn to "Onward Christian Soldiers."
Super smart move when you are in command of an all volunteer army.
Exactly.
Except the Senator apparently overlooked discrimination until it applied to him.
Exactly
The Dept. of Defense should not be in charge of deciding which religions are acceptable. Why does this list even exist?
The real point. Who the fuck elected Kegsbreath the Pope?
Nope, he needs to be ejected...'cause Whiskey Pete is an overcompensating dope...
No need to demean the Pope. He was anointed, no doubt, by the closest bottle of booze.
The list exists so if you are wounded and can't tell the Chaplin what your beliefs are. he can find out and treat you as you would prefer. Notice, they removed atheist.
I am an atheist and I’m also a non militarist and have never had and will never have anything to do with the military since our military is used countless times to kill others for new made up reasons every generation of my existence and I will inform any of those around me to do likewise.
And that is your right. I am also am atheist, but I served back in the Vietnam era. Didn't have a lot of choice.
Yes you did. Had my lotto number come up low, it would have been Canada or Sweden for me.
So, Bill, two non-choice choices? “Should I go, or should I leave?”
The notions of Christian establishment denies all other Abrahamic faiths in the interests of one. The notion of any basis for the establishment of must have, must entertain a model of “belief” abridges humans justly inalienable right to freedom of mind. Popular opinion, which is the basis for our elections, likewise can become an abridgement of freedom of thought. That’s called “tyranny of the majority”. Something used to justify lynchings.
I oppose any such abridgement on existential grounds. Which is to say, here I am, and here I stand. As an individual that should be everyone’s right. It is not the proper business of any government to legislate otherwise.
But that doesn't explain why there's an official list of "approved" religions. Just have your religion, or lack thereof, listed in your file.
They aren't a list of approved religions. They are a list of faiths that Chaplins are to be aware of and plan for. That is why the March 2017 list tried to be totally inclusive, a worthy but impossible task. They did do much better than the current list, but the goal today is to remove inclusion.
Do they bother to explain that religions are inventions of humans, codes of make-believe. An atheist can be as spiritual as a faith believer, maybe more so since they have to think the thoughts themselves. I especially lose the point when the military is used to murder people, and gain more profit. The mind can do many strange things - sometimes they're real things.
Bill, exactly--this is part of the MAGA campaign to wipe out the "woke" DEI initiatives.
Apparently this list has existed since about 1775
Phil, if I'm not mistaken, religious affiliation (or lack of) is part of the information collected when one joins the military, so religious needs can be served in the time of crisis.
There is no "approved list." The enlistee writes in his/her religious affiliation. If a recruit listed the name of his/her non-denominational church, it was added to the list. This open-ended input is what caused the list of religions to become so long. It was then up to military command to figure out how troops could be served by a limited number of chaplains.
To be honest, consolidating the list wasn't a bad idea, in and of itself, were it done by an impartial commission and not by a committee under the thumb of an extremist evangelical with an ulterior motive.
For example, all the "mainline Protestant religions" agree on the major sacraments, with only minor difference in doctrinal emphasis. A Methodist service member would never be offended by ministry from a Lutheran chaplain.
Likewise, evangelicals agree on the basics, while quibbling over details. They too could be served by an evangelical chaplain.
It also exists to provide “approved” religious symbols for headstones and niche covers for the deceased. My parents’s ashes were interred last April with the approved Unitarian Universalist symbol - a chalice. I suspect they may be the last to have the chalice until this Constitutional violation is adjudicated.
I had thought I read about UU folks being removed.
Yes, the Unitarian Universalists were removed. The religion's roots in this country are almost as old as the country. Five presidents followed that faith, but to this litter of apostates, that means nothing.
The list was last changed in 2017. The 2017 list had about 211 entries; the 2026 cut reduces that by roughly 180. There is a lot missing.
Some of the missing are including Atheists, Asatru, Deists, Druids, Eckankar, Heathens, Humanists, Magick, New Age churches, Pagan, Rosicrucianism, Shaman, Spiritualists, Troth, Unitarian Universalists and various Wiccans
Some very prominent Founding Fathers were Deists...that speaks volumes...
Here is the current list.
Agnostic (AN)
Baha'i faith (BH)
Buddhism (BU)
Christian - Assemblies of God (AG)
Christian - Baptist (BA)
Christian - Brethren (BR)
Christian - Catholic (CA)
Christian - Church of Christ (CC)
Christian - Church of God (CG)
Christian - Church of the Nazarene (CN)
Christian - Episcopal/Anglican (EA)
Christian - Evangelical (EV)
Christian - Jehovah's Witnesses (JW)
Christian - Lutheran (LU)
Christian - Methodist (ME)
Christian - Non Denominational (ND)
Christian - Orthodox (OX)
Christian - Other (CO)
Christian - Pentecostal (PE)
Christian - Presbyterian (PR)
Christian - Quaker (QU)
Christian - Reformed (RE)
Christian - Scientist (SC)
Christian - Seventh Day Adventist (SA)
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (CJ)
Hindu (HI)
Islam (Muslim) (IS)
Judaism (Jewish) (JU)
No Religion (NR)
Other Religions (OR)
Sikh (SI)
The Unitarian Universalist faith was removed in this round. It doesn't fit Project 2025's goals. In 2017, the adjudicated rapist was also president.
Yes, UU was removed.
Interesting comment thanks. It made me realize that I would like to see the original as well as all updates to date.
This is included in HCRs list of sources:
https://www.military.com/dod-officially-drops-180-faiths-from-militarys-recognized-religion-list
I believe both lists are posted on X which I don’t use. UU’s are not on the revised list.
Thanks. I just did a quick online search but couldn't find them. I wonder how many there are, probably 100. I know who to ask though so will see if someone has them and circle back.
An AI assessment:
Five U.S. presidents were openly affiliated with the Unitarian faith: John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Millard Fillmore, and William Howard Taft. Thomas Jefferson is also widely considered to have Unitarian leanings, particularly in his later life. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
A breakdown of each president's connection to the denomination:
* John Adams (2nd President): Often considered the most devoutly Unitarian of the early presidents, he belonged to the First Unitarian Church of Quincy, Massachusetts. [1, 2]
* Thomas Jefferson (3rd President): While sometimes categorized as a Deist, Jefferson shared strong Unitarian theological beliefs, specifically rejecting the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus, and even built his own edited version of the Bible. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
* John Quincy Adams (6th President): Following in his father's footsteps, he was a practicing Unitarian and was instrumental in the founding of All Souls Church in Washington, D.C.. [1, 2]
* Millard Fillmore (13th President): A lifelong supporter of the Unitarian faith, holding liberal theological views typical of the denomination. [1, 2, 3]
* William Howard Taft (27th President): Perhaps the most officially active, Taft served as the president of the General Conference of Unitarian and Other Christian Churches from 1915 to 1925. [1]
To explore the historical and theological legacy of these leaders, you can read more through the Unitarian Universalist Association archives or the Dictionary of Unitarian & Universalist Biography.
General George Washington appointed John Murray (the early Universalist minister) as chaplain of the Rhode Island Regiments in the Continental Army on September 17, 1775. [1]
A breakdown of this appointment and other notable individuals named John Murray connected to Washington:
* John Murray (Chaplain): Washington supported Murray's appointment despite petitions for his dismissal from other chaplains who opposed his religious views. Murray later went on to organize the first Universalist church in America in Gloucester, Massachusetts. [1, 2, 3, 4]
Exactly!
Keep up the pressure to continue helping wake up those who don’t yet speak up against the administration.
Resource below to easily contact all of Congress - Be LOUD. Trump/the administration is dangerous for our country 💔🤍💙
Use/share this spreadsheet (bit.ly/Goodtrouble) to contact members of Congress, the Cabinet and news organizations. Call. Write. Email. Protest. Unrelentingly.
Reach out (beyond your own) to as many in the Senate and House as you can. All of this is bigger than “I only represent my constituents” issues.
Comments/reactions help keep this bumped ✊
Trump nominated Todd Blanche for permanent U.S. Attorney General. He needs to be confirmed by the Senate. Now would be a REALLY good time to speak out!
Thank you so much for this excellent tool.
You’re welcome! Thanks for being aware and active!
Senators and Representatives generally ignore comments not from constituents. When writing them as members of a committee, that would be different. But you’d need email and their systems are set up for form mail.
You’re right they usually do. My first round of emails February 2025 from the contact me links had a lot bounce back saying I wasn't a constituent so it either didn't get sent or basically wouldn't be read. So I changed the way I sent messages. I use one of their own in state addresses (listed on my spreadsheet to help with this) on the address line because technically it doesn't say "my" address. I also don't want to misrepresent myself any more than that, so in my messages I typically put (at the bottom) that while I'm not a constituent, I am reaching out because (insert name) does represent me on the (insert committee that fits the topic my message is about).
Another thing I do is call after hours. I don't leave my name or address/zip code so my voice doesn't go towards a count, but the more they hear from us, the better.
I also send faxes using faxzero.com (5 free/day). I don't send a lot of letters, but when I do I put the same “while I’m not a constituent” blurb I do in my emails.
I figure the more they hear a certain thing, the better. I don’t think we’ll see many big waves (like a major MAGA Congress member changing their opinions), however I think we can cause little ripples. I’m thinking staff members who hear the same thing over and over via voicemail, phone calls, letter after letter, email after email - maybe they’ll be a little more receptive each time they hear from us. Maybe they’ll talk more about our talking points to friends and family, maybeeee they’ll vote differently. As a collective, our volume matters. And, at the end of the day, if we just annoy and overwhelm some staffers working for people hurting the average American, I’m ok with that too 🙃
Not all set up same way. Depends on individual representative. See NY Kirsten Gillibrand.
lol gmta
I'll delete mine to avoid redundancy ❤️😍😅
Oh I didn’t see it when I made mine - I wonder if we commented at the same time. I only saw 2 other comments and you weren’t listed. I appreciate you!!!
Thank you Megan!
Proof that Christianity was not the basis of the founding of our country. Everyone should be able to follow their conscience, unless they harm another person.
Roger Williams believed in freedom of conscience.He was banished from the Massachusetts Bay Colony,fled and founded Providence Colony.He is revered in my home state,Rhode Island….
https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/roger-williams/
Except that for many reasons, it was. The FFs were a group of men (no women) who had a variety of opinions about most things, including religion and slaves. There was no "one perfect viewpoint". A large number of people who founded the US were slaveholders and their consciences led to the Civil War.
And not all the Founding Fathers were Christians.
Quite a few of the Founding Fathers considered themselves Deists, in which truth and knowledge of God come from human logic, empirical reasoning, and the natural world, rather than prophets or holy books. Deism emphasizes living a moral life, following one's conscience, and using reason to improve society which was embraced by many intellectuals, scientists, and political leaders during the 17th and 18th-century Enlightenment.
Thomas Paine and Benjamin Franklin were outspoken deists, while Jefferson, Madison and Washington were more reserved about their beliefs.
Deism is/was more of a philosophical approach to religious belief. Basically it acknowledged the existence of a supreme creator, who in the beginning wound up creation like a clock and then stepped aside and let it run.
Many years ago, I was in Alexandria, VA, and dropped into Christ Church, then as now an Episcopalian/Anglican church. There are still sections of pews designated for the Washington and Lee families. (I sat in the Washington section.) It was known as Fairfax Church until 1810, when it changed to Christ Church. What a heady sense of history I got from just being in that place!
I can imagine.
I didn't say they were. Just that Christianity was indeed the basis (or at least a MAJOR basis) for the founding of our country. Eight of the 13 original colonies before the Revolution were single-church states:
* The Anglican Church (later the Episcopal Church) was the official state church in Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and New York.
* The Congregational Church (Puritan) was the single established church in Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire.
The concept of freedom of religion across the entire country was something that came out of the Bill of Rights AFTER the country came into being under the Constitution.
The presence of religion in the colonies does not mean it was a basis for the founding of our country.
I think most people would agree that this country was not truly founded to be a "melting pot" as it has become. At least a significant part of the Revolutionary War population were VERY Christian (certainly not all, but many). But I understand that there are differences of opinion about that.
While waiting for Heather's today I watched a video on Patton crushing a theft ring in Feb., 1945.
People will use government, as Heather's today shows, to privilege themselves, to hoist some of their group, or groups, over others.
The thieves Patton discovered systematically raiding 3rd Army supply depots felt themselves privileged over the fighting men in frozen trenches in the front lines. These thieves -- 43 officers and over a hundred enlisted men -- sold sorely needed U.S. supplies to black markets in France, Belgium, and parts of Germany. U.S. personnel died for want of these supplies.
And now democracy may be dying in the U.S. as criminal Donald's criminal associates conspire with him to float more of his criminality. Cover up the Epstein network. Support fellow criminals Putin, Netanyahu, Mohammed bin Salman, Erdogan, Bukele, and many others living off their international drug running, money laundering, arms dealing, and ever more of that trafficking in underage girls and young women.
And support all the U.S. billionaire criminals consolidating, corrupting all the largest social media, legacy media, and other destruction of the free press for which James Madison originally worked, as Heather recounts today.
The "Meet The Press" interview with Trump shows Trump's psychopathic mentality. It is inexplicable to me, but not a small number of Americans believe we are safer if POTUS has the psychopathic tendencies to kill at will. Trump is proving he does as long as the counties are weak and not really a current threat. His interview sounds like Iran poses an existential threat to the US. Remember how Jimmy Carter, a wonderful human, behaved when Iran had hostage leverage over the US. He was willing to damage his presidential image rather than risk the death of a single American.
In Trump's power fantasies, I guess Venezuela posed an existential threat to the US. Maybe Cuba and Greenland? Funny it's not Russia or China. What's left of Trump's mental capacity is a psychopathic pea brain. If the MAGA GOP won't step up, they are complicit in treason.
His screwed up red face of pure rage at Welker revealed the true man -- and I'll bet that she's not the first woman who has faced that expression of pure disdain and uncontrollable rage. He is a monster.
Yes, laurie -- but don't forget the 13- and 14-year-old girls doomed to see that rage.
A petit monstre. Will the Brits please lend US the baby balloon until after the 11/26? Then again in 2028? It could fly above the Smithsonian guarded by the Secret Service.
Yes, Merrill -- a clear and present danger.
I wouldn't impute any rational decision making to criminal Donald. He's a suck-up to China because he's jealous of the unaccountable, unrivaled power Xi and the cadres have all arrogated. Venezuela, Greenland, Iran, Cuba -- criminal Donald has got zero intelligence about any of them. Each, rather, simply repeats availability of another world stage for him. And to be center stage presents the only coherent constant in his life.
Russia? That particular corruption ties in, again, with that sordid history with Jeffrey and the underage girls, the many trafficked young women, and all the spies, double agents, money launderers and other sordid corrupt ever connected to all the Russian oligarchs.
Let's face it, too, Merrill, America badly let its schools go, so we have the tens of millions as damaged by that as by the same number damaged by the offshoring of working-class jobs.
Threat? More like greed. Greed for oil, power or anything else tRump's deranged brain feels it needs. And I mean "feels". Nothing in there having anything to do with critical thinking. "Existential threat" denotes whatever he perceives as opposition. That encompasses almost everything and he reacts to Everything. Who is going to put out this insane flame? Waiting for November. Resist!
Our current leaders are morons.
Some are, not all. They all seem to think we are though, and a lot of us appear to qualify.
Members of the Church of Moron — the only Pete Kegsbreath-approved religion on the list.
🤣
Malignant narcissists.
Yes! All theocracies are morally offensive because they erode freedom of conscience. But even worse are fraudulent preachers and practitioners who use religious labels from criminal gain or purposes. Watch what people and politicians do, not what they promise; whether they prey, not how they pray.
Theocracies are the height of hubris.
It’s appalling that Hegseth is being allowed to do this. 😡😡😡😡
But he is the very definition of appalling, par example, in the flesh. 😱
True of almost everyone Tuhrump chose/is choosing for his cabinet/administration. Appalling in hypocrisy, ignorance, personality disorders, racism, sycophancy, evil. You will be able to add more to the list, no doubt.
I believe that freedom of religion implies freedom from religion. Religion, or lack thereof, is a personal choice and not at all subject to approval or disapproval by government or fellow citizen.
There is an organization, of which I am a member, dedicated to this principle. It’s called the Freedom From Religion Foundation, www.ffrf.org,
I agree - freedom from religion is just as vital as freedom of religion.
Freedom of conscience,
Freedom of conscience.
Indeed! Take it a step further; freedom of consciousness; freedom to be aware of the world as you choose see it. I choose an evidence-based, scientific view of the world. Others choose to look at the world through biblical myth. I’m OK with that until they drag that myth into a legislature and use it as a basis of rules I and everyone else has to follow. I’m not at all OK with that.
Don't forget the Satanists.
Will someone in the Pentagon, perhaps a chaplain, leak the full list that was replaced and the mostly Christian one that replaced it?
180 were removed. Audacy.com
I'm not sure how that site is supposed to help.
Try this from HCR's source list instead:
https://www.military.com/dod-officially-drops-180-faiths-from-militarys-recognized-religion-list
Has anyone like the ACLU or the freedom from religion groups started a lawsuit over this yet? It seems like something they'd all be righteously upset over.
Impeach and jail Hegseth! If we don't punish these oath-breakers, we deserve what the country becomes.
You can't jail someone by impeachment. The only punishment for impeachment is loss of office and, in some cases, loss of the right to ever hold office again. No jail time is even prescribed under the Constitution. For that, you need a criminal conviction, and we all know how that will go. Ask the 1500 J6ers how well it worked trying to jail the criminals of January 6th. Not very well at all.
Then we need to court martial him. Or whatever remedy is available under the law. (I'm sure he's done something jailable at the Pentagon. How about "misappropriation of funds" for those lobster dinners?)
If we do not figure out how to punish those who have broken their oath to the Constitution, lied, misrepresented, and actively attempted to dismantle our government, we will not have a country left.
Thank you for saying that so clearly!!
As for your second paragraph, I do not agree with you. This country has been resilient through numerous times of trouble and has managed to survive. The Great Depression is a good example. Yes, there was a lot of suffering, but the country didn't disappear. We CAN get back on track. It won't be easy, but it is possible.
The great depression was one thing. Totally dismantling the constitution is something else and requires a different remedy which I don't see the people currently demanding my money even talking about.
C'mon Kass. If you are just acting out to act out, fine, but if you are trying to be rational here, you aren't.
1. Courts martial are only for actual armed service personnel, not civilians. Hegseth, despite being the Secretary of Defense (I will NOT use the W word), is a civilian.
2. If he has committed some criminal offense, then sure you can try to find a prosecutor to take the case, but keep in mind that the current DofJ which prosecutes such offenses is in the pocket of Donald Trump. They won't court martial their own Sec of Def. Never happen.
3. And even if someone decided to go after him on a federal crime, Trump would just pardon him.
Its a battle you can't win, tragically.
1) I am neither a lawyer nor a military member. I assumed that the head of the US military would be subject to the same system of law as the rest of the US military.
2 and 3) Do you assume Trump will never leave office? Are Cabinet members free from civil lawsuits?
Honestly, Jon. You've written rationally here before. Do you not think that those who swore an oath to the Constitution and then broke that oath in order to dismantle the very protections they swore to uphold should be punished? If for no reason other than to discourage future insurrectionists from trying it again.
Or, you know, we can all just lay down and do nothing. Just let them run roughshod over us. "Close your eyes and think of England" eh?
The Uniform Code of Military Justice "generally only applies to active-duty service members, reservists on active duty, cadets, and retirees" (Wikipedia). The civilian leaders of the military are NOT considered active-duty service members, including both the President and the Secretary of Defense (nee War).
As for Trump leaving office, he will issue pardons all around. He missed that chance after his first term and saw some of his better "soldiers" go to jail, if only for a short time before he took office again and pardoned them. Significantly Steve Bannon got that treatment.
And you are misreading what I said. I did NOT say that I agreed with this at all. Of COURSE they should be held accountable. However, the Constitution disagrees with us on that one, because it gives the president with NO oversight, unlimited power to pardon anyone for any federal crimes at all. That has been upheld repeatedly by the SCOTUS and all Presidents, both GOP and Dem, have used it. Biden pardoned his son, who ABSOLUTELY should have gone to prison. Obama pardoned Chelsea Manning, and while many supported her, many didn't and she certainly violated our countries laws. Clinton pardoned his Marc Rich and his half-brother Roger.
I strongly support new pardon laws and probably a new amendment to the Constitution that would take that power away from the President, but it is too late to do anything about Trump. The Constitution is what it is today and he has that power and will obviously use it. Double sigh...
As an appointed member of the Executive Branch, not elected, he cannot be impreached, as such. But Congress (House and Senate), which supposedly ratified his appointment, can have him removed.
Oh, yes he can.
"...The Secretary of Defense can be impeached. Under Article II, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, the Secretary of Defense qualifies as a "civil Officer of the United States," making them subject to impeachment and removal for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." USA.gov
Okay, then! Let's get right on it!
No - wait. How many times did Trump get impeached at the end of his first term?
Yeah. It didn't do squat, without the rest of it.
What is on my wish list for the new government order is the provision for a national plebiscite - kind of no-confidence vote about the administration. Vote to remove the whole bunch from office. Sort out the prosecutions, trials, convictions and punishments afterwards. Clean out the swamp. Get rid of that putrid stench of corruption that permeates the body politic.
In the meantime, Hegseth needs to be forced to resign.
Fundamentalist evangelical "christianity" is the furthest thing from actual Christianity. If should be banned as the anti-democratic subversive movement it is.
Lol. I grew up in a fundamentalist Christian cult called the Plymouth Brethren. We were the “real” Christians; all others were heathens. — I don’t know what “actual Christianity” is. — I wrote a book about my experiences; fanatics are difficult to live with! It took me years to reach escape velocity from these beliefs, but the adamant religiosity ruined my family. Today I am free from religion and much happier. I only wish I was free from its adherents.
I can’t say I’m sorry to see Mormons up in arms against Kegsbreath’s canceling of their religion in the Defense Dept’s list of recognized faiths. I wish I believed it would teach them tolerance or at least not to get in bed with blatant authoritarians – but it won’t. So yeah - let them feel all the discrimination themselves for a few days.
Good morning from Berlin! Two questions for you if you see this, Heather:
1. What is to keep DJT from "grudgingly" accepting the War Powers Resolution result as a get-out-of-Iran-free card and then blaming it and the Dems for the "loss" (and, of course, targeting any GOP members that supported it with ongoing abuse)? Or, forcing Iran's hand into violence and then challenging Congress not to give him the power to respond. Isn't it dangerous to offer him this out?
2. A SONG DEDICATED TO YOU: As an eminently unkown songwriter and as my own way of responding to these times, I have written three songs about the current political moment. I am quite certain you and Joanne (and some of your readers), among others, would find them interesting, at the very least. One even caused the head of American Voices Abroad – Germany to shed tears! **The newest and best of these, on the echoes of tyranny through history, is literally dedicated to you and the other historians helping us through this difficult time period.** You can now view the song at https://youtu.be/Fpw6Yzgz1Sg
(The song's home page, where you can also find the other songs, is www.lyricist.net/trains-will-run.)
I hope you (and readers!) find these pieces compelling and inspiring, and that you'll pass them to others who are fighting the good fight—and mention the songs in your writings if you feel they're worthy examples of the art you've talked about that's trying to meet the moment.
I had no idea that there were 180 faith traditions recognized by the Department of Defense. Where could I find a listing of them, as well as of the 31 religions that remained on the list?
What is the purpose of such a list? The First Amendment says a person’s religion is determined entirely by that person’s conscience. Whether the list has 31 entries, 180 entries, 180,000 entries, or any other number of entries, it is sure to be missing a religion established by someone’s conscience and, to boot, getting further and further behind with each newborn Homo sapien.
No such list should exist anywhere!
Conscience is missing in action in this regime.
Yes. MIA & presumed dead.
The first amendment says nothing about how a person's religion is determined. It merely says that the U.S. government shall not pass any law that "respects" any specific religion. Obviously a list like this in fact DOES "respect" certain religions over others, but in general, as a basic two-religion nation (Christian and Jewish), our current leaders do not think to much about this issue. They ignore all the other religions that are out there.
And the current “Christians” in this administration only support Judaism to the extent that Jews are placeholders in the holy lands until the Christians can take over.
As a Jewish atheist, I don't choose to support either Christians or Jews LOL. I accept my religious underpinnings only to the extent that it serves as a social background for my growth as a human being, but not for ANY religious purposes whatsoever.
But like Christopher Hitchens did, I also accept everyone's right to decide to follow ignorance if they so choose, as long as they don't expect me to subscribe to it.
Love Christopher Hitchens - his book God is Not Great is on my bookshelf.
There were 211 before the removal of 180 leaving 31 on the current list. I personally haven't see the list of those removed, but I would expect most of them would be variations on Shinto (the principal Chinese religion) and Hindu (the principal Indian religion). There are many sects in those primary religions. I also would expect there are some Native American religions either on the list that remain or are now off.
I have to correct you, Jon. Shinto is exclusively Japanese; the Chinese don’t practice that. If there is a principal Chinese religion, it would be Taoism or Confucianism, is my guess.
Hi Dutch Mike. The Chinese religions are Taoism and Buddhism, while Confucianism is considered a system of both ethics, personally and in terms of one's obligations to society, and philosophy. Taoism is also practiced not as a religion, but as a philosophy, a martial art, and the basis of Chinese medicine. Where Taoism is concerned, what I've just said is simplistic, but gets you on the right Way. : )
Thanks for the correction! I think you could say that Taoism, Buddhism and Confucianism are all of them more of a philosophy and/or ethics systems than a religion 'per se'...
Buddhism's Dalai Lama, monks and faithful would disagree with you. Western practitioners might choose to concentrate on the meditation practices alone, but those come from the religion, just like people can choose to do the asanas of Hinduism without becoming a religious yogi.
The ordained Taoist priests and faithful would disagree with you, too. The interconnectedness of its cosmology, spirituality, alchemy, folk beliefs and medicine come from the ineffable Tao (Dao, Way), and how one chooses to harmonize with it (wu wei) has developed over the millennia into religious and nonreligious branches.
You are correct that Confucianism is not a religion. Thank you for the dialogue!
Oh, thank you, DM, yes, that was my bad error. Sorry folks, I make 'em all the time!