Christian nationalism (this definition is from Christianity Today) holds that the purpose of government is to make sure that America is defined by Christianity.
Laws are supposed to create an "American nation defined by Christianity."
5/
So when the government passes laws that create a Christian nation, the laws are an appropriate use of government power.
When laws have some other purpose, they are an abuse of government power.
6/
Hence, anti-abortion laws are an appropriate use of government power, while vaccine requirements are not.
Fundamentalism also tends to have a fatalistic attitude. "If I get COVID and die, so be it. It was God's will. If that girl gets pregnant, that, too, was God's will."
7/
All the major religions have their own extremists and fundamentalists.
The non-fundamentalists in each religion are embarrassed by their own.
As long as we're talking about religion, someone just told me all religions are problematic.
I disagree.
Example: The Quakers were the first abolitionists. They fought for Black equality and in the age of racial segregation, opened schools for Black children.
They love the Second and Tenth Amendments, but that "freedom of religion" part of the First Amendment they don't really get.
I'm talking about the laws and policies people want --specifically people in favor of anti-abortion laws while opposed to vaccine and mask mandates. . ..
Someone may say: "I'm pro life. I'm in favor of anti- abortion laws. I'm also in favor of strict gun restrictions, vaccine mandates, mask mandates when necessary, and government aid so that mothers who can't afford to raise a child will be fully supported.
This is consistent.
I'm not saying I'm in agreement with such a position, but I am not talking about such people.
Do such people even exist?
I'm specifically talking about the glaring hypocrisy in saying both "my body and I'll vax if I want to" and "we need anti-abortion laws."
The latest attacks are in the Calfornia recall with a chorus of voices, including TFG, insisting that if Newsom wins, it will be because the election was rigged (CA went for Biden 63.5% to Trump 34.3)
The problem: A swatch of angry and militant Californians think it’s true.
3/
. . . for government actions that are (1) needed to protect public health and are (2) reasonable and limited in scope.
He said a school district’s decision to require student masking to prevent the spread of the virus falls within that exemption.
2/
I can't imagine such a debate. If Trump wants the nomination (and is in a position to be the nominee -- I am skeptical) I suspect everyone will step back.
Speaking of women as "host bodies" (we were speaking about that, weren't we?) this is from a 1908 Supreme Cort case on why legislatures were justified in passing laws that "protected" women.
In fact, I'm stumbling on these because I'm reading my Ruth Bader Ginsburg book aloud for my YouTube channel. I'm up to chapter 9, but I haven't gotten around to posting them yet.
This one stands alone if you're interested in the history of women's legal rights without all personal RBG story.
Women's legal status was a bit shocking in the 19th century.
I'll thread some highlights. Not much time now, but I'll add to it later.
1/
When Myra Bradwell tried to become a lawyer in the 1870s, she passed the Illinois bar, but the United States Supreme Court upheld the Illinois decision to refuse to allow her to practice law because (basically) a woman belongs in the home.
This is from the Supreme Court:
2/
When Virginia Minor tried to vote in 1872, she (like others) argued that the 14th Amendment guarantees equal rights to all persons, she was a person, the law preventing her from voting denied her equal protection of the law, therefore, she should be able to vote.
3/