It’s wrong to frame the Baptist battle as a fight between “true conservatives” versus the “woke.” The battle isn’t left versus right. Instead, it’s over much more elemental concerns, including truth, transparency, corruption, and—ultimately—character. frenchpress.thedispatch.com/p/character-is…
For example, there are good-faith arguments to be had about the best institutional methods of dealing with sex abuse. Calling victims “whores” or “crazy” is not among those methods. Nor is describing victim advocates as instruments of a “Satanic scheme.”
When leaders lament, however, that the wrong side won the Civil War or claim that only armed citizens will save cities from “black people,” they do not assure America that the nation’s largest, most powerful denomination has decisively rejected a shameful past.
There is much room for healthy debate and disagreement within the SBC. There should be no room for corruption and cruelty. The true issue in the SBC isn’t ideological. It’s not theological. It’s sin, including sin at the highest levels. frenchpress.thedispatch.com/p/character-is…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
A thread on the folly of the anti-CRT bills and the danger of banning ideas. First, let's get one thing perfectly straight. Not one of the anti-CRT bills I've read bans Critical Race Theory. Not one. So right from the start the public is sold a bill of goods. /1
The bills are typically crafted in such a way that they're both over-inclusive and under-inclusive. For example, is this TN provision "banning CRT"? Nope. It's prohibition would sweep up even a teacher critiquing communism (a "creed"). /2
Moreover, because the language of the statutes is so broad and vague, it will leave teachers, parents, and students deeply confused about their scope. Prepare for complaints whenever parents/students simply feel offended or uncomfortable. /3
Quick law of war thread: The use of an otherwise-civilian building for military purposes converts it into a military target. This is a basic aspect of the law of war. The blame for the attack on the target thus rests with the entity that converted it into a military target. /1
This was a constant problem for us in Iraq—particularly the use of mosques for military purposes. Al Qaeda would use the mosques to plan ops, they’d sometimes place snipers in mosques. Sometimes they’d trigger ambushes from mosques. /2
The goal was to create a win/win. If we used restraint, they had a safe haven. If we raided the location, they’d claim we were persecuting Islam and would try to use it as a recruiting tool. In response we’d often let Iraqi troops take the lead in mosque operations. /3
There's lots of confusion about the Angry Cheerleader (A.C.) case argued yesterday. It echoes the 1A confusion you often see on this site.
Does the fact that A.C. doesn't have a "right" to be a cheerleader mean discipline for off-campus speech is appropriate? No. Here's why: /1
Even if a student doesn't have a right to play sports or to participate in any selective extracurricular activity, they still may not be denied access to the activity for unlawful reasons. Easy example, you can't say cheer is for "whites only." /2
Or to take an easier free speech example than A.C.'s profane outburst. Would you see the case the same way if A.C. filmed herself at a Trump rally or wearing Biden swag? The state can't say cheer is for red or blue only. /3
A short thread--if you've litigated/defended the First Amendment for any length of time, you know that there is always an issue ("emergency") of the day that puts creative minds to work trying to figure out ways to grant gov. more power over speech/expression. /1
The creative minds who sought to support/defend university speech codes tried hard to extend the definitions of "fighting words" or the scope of anti-harassment regulations to ban subjectively-defined "hate speech." They largely failed. /2
The drug war, which has exacted a huge cost in civil liberties, has also deeply impacted the First Amendment. Does Employment Division v. Smith come out the same way if it's not dealing with Peyote? Is Morse v. Frederick decided the same way without a reference to marijuana? /3
Last week @NancyAFrench and I published a comprehensive report detailing how a huge Christian camp enabled a superpredator named Pete Newman. This week, I describe how it tried to silence a victim who wanted to tell his story (thread): frenchpress.thedispatch.com/p/kanakuk-kamp…
The camp claims it has worked cooperatively with the "overwhelming majority" of victims. But that qualification is important. When one victim (and family) balked at signing a non-disparagement agreement. They received a legal threat (/2):
When the parties still failed to agree on the terms of a non-disparagement agreement, the camp twice sought a court order to force them to sign. It even sought to fine the family more than $26,000. The camp failed (/3):
How Sidney Powell's legal team just clowned a huge chunk of right-wing media, a thread. /1
If you're Powell's lawyers, you've got a huge challenge. You have a client who spent weeks stating provable falsehoods that were amplified and spread to millions of Americans through some of America's most popular outlets for news and commentary. Not great. /2
You can't admit to the lie. That would essentially admit "actual malice." So, what are you left with? Let's call it the "obviously crazy claim defense." In other words, her claims might LOOK like factual assertions, but they're so over-the-top they're really something else. /3