While the unclad emperor distracts us with his fecklessness (his charges are dying by the tens of thousands and his only reaction is to muzzle the messengers), his religiously conservative conspirators are busily at work. Since it's looking like we might not have to suffer four more years of this kakocracy, the next six months will be a frenzy of reaction. Oh to be a fly on the wall during the weekly White House Bible studies, though it would doubtless be a disheartening experience to witness their pious pacts with the powers and principalities.
One proud member of this anti-democratic cabal is the Secretary of State, who's busily undermining the international human rights regime. His "unalienable rights" construct is breathtaking in its audacity. He thinks that folks claim too many things as rights (which might even be true, especially in American culture that doesn't see rights and responsibilities as linked) and so is focusing on just two:
foremost among these rights are property rights and religious liberty. No one can enjoy the pursuit of happiness if you cannot own the fruits of your own labor, and no society – no society can retain its legitimacy or a virtuous character without religious freedom. (source)
This is a remarkably brazen gaslighting of the Declaration of Independence, from which the "unalienable rights" project dares to take its name. Remember what it says, and doesn't? We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness... Part of American Politics 101 is recognizing that Jefferson was tweaking John Locke's triad of "life, liberty and property," not repeating it. Jefferson's choice of "happiness" will have been recognized by everyone as a departure from thinking in the terms of property. It's a huge difference if you let yourself think about it, but what Jefferson opened up this twerp seeks to close again.
Similarly dishonest is glossing the "liberty" here as "religious freedom," especially presented thus:
Our founders knew. Our founders knew that faith was also essential to nurture the private virtue of our citizens. ... Our founders also knew the fallen nature of mankind. Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 10: “Men are ambitious, vindictive, rapacious.”
This is the same misanthropic theology which the Attorney General trumpets. Without a strong state ("law and order"!) sinful human beings will devour each other. But that's not enough: people need the fear of God - read: fear of hell - to stop them from losing it and stealing other people's stuff. "Religious freedom" here really just means social control. Far be it from me to say that this is bad theology, though I do think there's something sad about a Christianity which only seems like love to insiders. But "ambitious, vindictive, rapacious" seems like a self-fulfilling prophecy. Indeed it's a prophecy they've already fulfilled.
One proud member of this anti-democratic cabal is the Secretary of State, who's busily undermining the international human rights regime. His "unalienable rights" construct is breathtaking in its audacity. He thinks that folks claim too many things as rights (which might even be true, especially in American culture that doesn't see rights and responsibilities as linked) and so is focusing on just two:
foremost among these rights are property rights and religious liberty. No one can enjoy the pursuit of happiness if you cannot own the fruits of your own labor, and no society – no society can retain its legitimacy or a virtuous character without religious freedom. (source)
This is a remarkably brazen gaslighting of the Declaration of Independence, from which the "unalienable rights" project dares to take its name. Remember what it says, and doesn't? We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness... Part of American Politics 101 is recognizing that Jefferson was tweaking John Locke's triad of "life, liberty and property," not repeating it. Jefferson's choice of "happiness" will have been recognized by everyone as a departure from thinking in the terms of property. It's a huge difference if you let yourself think about it, but what Jefferson opened up this twerp seeks to close again.
Similarly dishonest is glossing the "liberty" here as "religious freedom," especially presented thus:
Our founders knew. Our founders knew that faith was also essential to nurture the private virtue of our citizens. ... Our founders also knew the fallen nature of mankind. Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 10: “Men are ambitious, vindictive, rapacious.”
This is the same misanthropic theology which the Attorney General trumpets. Without a strong state ("law and order"!) sinful human beings will devour each other. But that's not enough: people need the fear of God - read: fear of hell - to stop them from losing it and stealing other people's stuff. "Religious freedom" here really just means social control. Far be it from me to say that this is bad theology, though I do think there's something sad about a Christianity which only seems like love to insiders. But "ambitious, vindictive, rapacious" seems like a self-fulfilling prophecy. Indeed it's a prophecy they've already fulfilled.
