The Washington Post (and also The Nation) obtained a leaked draft of a plan to allow individuals, organizations, and businesses to opt out of federal regulations on religious grounds. Critics say this would permit discrimination against LGBT persons. This would implement the controversial “Religious Freedom Restoration Act” that Mike Pence tried to enact in Indiana and was forced to withdraw when major corporations threatened to leave the state.
President Trump is considering how to allow Americans to opt out of complying with federal policies and regulations on the grounds of religion, White House press secretary Sean Spicer said Thursday, a move that critics said could open the door to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender or gender identity.
“There’s clearly a lot of evidence in the last couple of years of the government coming in with regulations and policies that have, frankly, denied people the ability to live according to their faith,” Spicer said during his daily briefing. “People should be able to practice their religion, express their religion, express areas of their faith without reprisal. And I think that pendulum sometimes swings the other way, in the name of political correctness.”
”Spicer’s comments, which came on the same day Trump told the audience at the National Prayer Breakfast that his administration “will do everything possible to defend and protect religious liberty in our land,” could signal a sea change in how the federal government balances protections for gay, transgender and reproductive rights against individuals’ religious objections.
“Administration officials are considering a proposed executive order, a draft of which was obtained by The Washington Post, that would provide individuals and organizations wide latitude in denying services, employment and other benefits on the basis of their religious beliefs, though Spicer emphasized that Trump had no immediate plans to issue a directive on the issue. “There are a lot of ideas that are being floated out,” he said. “But until the president makes up his mind and gives feedback and decides that that’s final, there’s nothing to announce.
” The proposal, titled “Establishing a Government-Wide Initiative to Respect Religious Freedom,” is one of several dozen draft directives written on a range of topics by people within the administration, on the transition team or working for outside groups. Trump did not discuss any specific actions he might take at the National Prayer breakfast, but said: “Freedom of religion is a sacred right, but it is also a right under threat all around us.”
“In the event that the order is actually issued, multiple groups are already preparing to challenge it on the grounds that it effectively sanctions discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans, women and minorities.”
Diane Ravitch's blog 
FASCIST!
So when can people with strongly held religious objections to war expect to get their rebate checks from the IRS?
Well put.
Jon….excellent question…but this fascistic administration only allows for a ‘one way street’ in decision making…and that way is their street…and the determined Repubs are backing them up, to the final detriment of our nation.
With SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE gone, and all ersatz religious groups still allowed to have 501c3 status, yet preach and work for their own political agendas, it will set precedent for all non profits who benefit from this IRS status to do the same. Falwell University and all the Koch supported schools could inculcate their students even more than now, to only vote for (and to be) Trumpians forever more.
Here is a comment I just posted on another of Diane’s articles today.
Steve Bannon who is running the country, keeps Drumpf engaged in doing all this to produce the chaos Bannon promised, his plan to take down all of America’s government agencies…and then to rebuild in his own vision, a fascist (he calls it a Leninist) government.
These two are the perfect partners to destroy our nation. Bannon and his Mini Me, Drumpf.
Whereas Drumf seems to have learned both history and how to be a fantasy “Superman” leader from comic books, Bannon developed his plan from The Turner Diaries.
When a corporation is asked what religion their CEO and board off directors belong to, they will answer, “The Church of Trump”.
“Freedom of religion is a sacred right, but it is also a right under threat all around us.”
Says the man barring Muslims from the country.
In an administration of genuinely awful people, Sean Spicer has to be among the dregs: a self-righteous, whiney moron. I feel like I need a bath every time I see or hear him
Good lord, the hits just keep on coming. Two weeks into the new admin & my news-digesto-meter is already on tilt. The hands of the clock are spinning rapidly backward.
You took the words out of my mouth. Wrote the words right out of my hand? The term I use over and over again is collective exhaustion.
GregB: I read an earlier link to Politico article (reposted in my note here)–and went on to another article that relates to your reference to “collective exhaustion.” It’s title is “Trump’s Lies, Your Brain.” It’s scary . . . truly.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/01/donald-trump-lies-liar-effect-brain-214658
But it is all smoke and mirrors meat for the base. While their real agenda of tax cuts deregulation and union busting marches on. . As you say by the time the bills come into congress there will be total exhaustion.
The diversion of public money to private profit will go on BIGLY.
The proposals that bridge the only wall in the constitution will never break the filibusterer, neither will the funding for the Mexican wall. But expect vouchers to teach creationism to go full steam ahead.
YES
So do the opposite and go against the religious freaks. All’s fair in War.
“that Mike Pence tried to enact in Indiana and was forced to withdraw when major corporations threatened to leave the state.”
We need double impeachment: Trump and Pence together. It would be great to celebrate Spring with that.
In order:
1. Mike Pence
2. Paul Ryan
3. Orrin Hatch
4. Rex Tillerson
5. Adam Szubin
6. James Mattis
…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_line_of_succession
M, Unless there were a catastrophe affecting several at once, wouldn’t a new VP be appointed under 25th Amendment?
Uber allus…mathcs…is Steve Bannon who has been waiting in the wings for this opportunity. He is the ultimate puppet master…and these treacherous Repubs you list welcome his leadership to carry out their long term takeover plans.
Also, on your list, add the name Flynn who is as whacko and power mad as the others.
We are on the tipping edge of the Dark Ages with this new American Taliban.
The proposal, titled “Establishing a Government-Wide Initiative to Respect Religious Freedom,” is code for what comes later in the post: it “effectively sanctions discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans, women and minorities.” Trump says at the National Prayer Breakfast: “Freedom of religion is a sacred right, but it is also a right under threat all around us.” It might be so and we should address each complaint with clarity and care.
However, encroachment on the Constitutional rights afforded EVERYONE here, and the public space where everyone can live peacefully, is dangerous for everyone, including for those who embrace a specific religion. I do think people can change; however, from my own experience, I also cannot help but think that inside every religious person, especially evangelicals, is a totalitarian trying to get out.
In that general vein, below are two links that were posted earlier here on this site and that speak to the problems referred to in Diane’s note, and that I am grateful to have in my files.
The first link was from Joel Herman (posted by Diane) from Politico and is about the origins of the religious right, their beginnings in racial segregation, and then their migration of intentions from racism to taking up anti-abortion. The later seems to have brought about their “strange bedfellows” relationship with Catholics (a great historical irony of its own since “protestant” meant protest against Catholic rule from circa 1500). This is certainly not enough, but is nevertheless an essential background read for understanding today’s issues. I’ll post another note about freedom of speech. .
The second link was posted by GregB: Written for Harpers in 1941 by Dorothy Thompson, this remarkable article (for it’s date alone) talks about what kind of person in America would easily become a Nazi, and which wouldn’t. It is extremely prescient and points to the import of “reasonable discourse” in the context of developmental concerns that are embedded in human education..
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133?o=2
http://harpers.org/archive/1941/08/who-goes-nazi/
Remember those signs in the South? No Blacks. Black and White water fountains and bathrooms. What’s different from “We don’t serve “fill-in-the-blank”?
Grew up in that environment. Remember it all too well and well beyond those signs.
“What’s different from “We don’t serve “fill-in-the-blank”?”
I am at a loss here, and this is why I’d like to see the original leaked document, to see the exact extent of the proposal. Do we want to prevent, say, restaurants from stating “We don’t serve racists here”? Or we don’t want to force a Catholic priest to wed two guys, do we?
Mate Wierdl: an analogy: The baseline is fresh air, not whose dirty air should we breathe. Remember freedom? You can marry anyone you wish in a CIVIL ceremony? And we don’t have to say what our racial attitudes are at the restaurant door? At least not yet. On the other hand, it’s hard to hide your whiteness or blackness at those same restaurant doors.
I see, Catherine. Can I then write on my restaurant “You’ll be kicked out if you make racist comments.”?
A single, loud racist sob can easily ruin my small restaurant, can’t he?
So the change I now made is that I do not want to force people to declare their views on racism, but I do want to prevent them from expressing the views my expected customer base and I don’t like.
What I’d like to see in the leaked plan if it just wants to affirm a Catholic priest’s right to marry only those people in his church who are approved by his religion, or it wants to permit people in public offices to practice their religious views as they serve the public.
Yes Mate–I see what you mean. The more we define and make laws, the more we diminish our freedoms in the social cultural sphere, which is where we mostly live (until we have to go to court over something). In my experience with religious ideologues, the problem is not freedom as such, but their contempt for other people’s freedoms. But then “contempt” is often what those same people complain about as coming from those who don’t share their views–which is, again, why SECULAR public institutions and space are so essential to democracies.
I see it the same way. Refusing to serve LBGT people is discrimination, which recent court cases have upheld as a right for private companies to do. I think it makes the whole issue unclear and unfair.
None
“what kind of person in America would easily become a Nazi, and which wouldn’t.”
I breathe easy, I am more or less Mr A, but in my nightmares I turn into Mr H.
Anyhow, basically 99% of the population can turn Nazi. At least according to the article.
Perhaps the same characters turn Billionaires?
Nah, I am suspicious about that very German guy. He wants to assimilate too eagerly out of almost blin love of the new country. Without skepticism, he has a problem.
Mate: Maybe he was pretty clear about his past experience and, by comparison, how defunct THAT environment was.
Mate: I don’t know any millionaires, but I always wonder. I do think people can change, but in many cases, it just doesn’t happen. But I thought she had some prescient things to say.
Where can we read the original leaked plan?
I don’t know where the leaked plan can be found but the link below is a cheerleading summary of the Hobby Lobby case, which sets a precedent. There are bills in North Carolina and South Carolina calling for the right of teachers to lead prayers and religious activities in public schools.
Recall also that Bush (2) created an office of “faith-based initiatives” to make public funds available to religious organization. The “wall of separation” has been fragile.
http://hobbylobbycase.com
Laura, imo, doing something in a family business is different from doing it in a public institution. I don’t see what’s wrong with the hobbylobby victory, but teachers in public schools are different.
In my house, I can set my own rules, but on the street, the public’s rules operate. Is there a situation where these two cases are hopelessly blurred?
Mate: Abusing your family members, or even your dog?
I guess some “freedoms” like “freedom to abuse my dog” are controlled independently of place. But I think religious freedoms are not such freedoms, unless they interfere with a place-independent law, so I cannot abuse my dog even if my religion mandates it.
Are LGBT rights place-independent? That would be strange.
Anyhow, I think I now see the blurry cases: when public money is used to support religious practices. Like the way vouchers can be used. So with vouchers the difficulty is that the federal government shouldn’t decide how a state’s public funds are spent, and if a state wants to allow vouchers, it should be able to do that.
On the other hand, the federal government certainly should be able to decide how federal funds are spent, and those federal funds certainly shouldn’t be spent, even in derivative form, on supporting any religious freedoms.
I start understanding now—as I read the politico article Laura linked to—that the problem with this leaked plan is that it would allow channeling federal dollars to support religious freedoms. Do I see this correctly?
Mate: “. . . that the problem with this leaked plan is that it would allow channeling federal dollars to support religious freedoms”
It’s a folded-over kind of issue, like racial discrimination is “folded over” in the argument for States Rights for many in the South, which is of course PARTLY true. If DeVos et al cannot get straight-up tax money for religious education under the Constitution, not to mention UNREGULATED religious or “reform” profit-making education, then they’ll “fold it over” in the idea of “choice” and vouchers, then follow up in the long-term by denigrating and starving public education so that it looks so awful that parents will be glad it’s gone. And there ARE good charter schools–quality of charter schools is not the issue, however, as has been argued here over and over again.
But on a technical note, if you are interested, and if you remember my post here a couple of months ago, the underlying theoretical issue is one of the tension between two WORKING principles–and as concrete, there is ALWAYS a tension between them. So it’s not one OR the other principle, but which takes the lead, and then how they are worked out in the concrete.
AS a concrete example, take your dog: Civil law is commonly based on the principles of intelligence and excellence (PIE) with regard for what flows from the principle of generation (POG). Your “house rules” are based on the principle of generation (POG)–you get to choose what you do in your own house. However, in the case of your abusing your dog (or whatever), the former takes the lead in our culture. You can get a citation or even arrested for abusing your dog (under law). Civil law is another mediation OF PIE that gives account for what flows from POG. Civil and statues/criminal laws are quite different. Once you understand the principles, however, and how they work, stuff falls into place as a starting point for thinking our wan into the details of history. Another example: Remember the Uni-bomber’s brother who turned him in? As Plato would have Socrates say to his brother: How can you turn your brother in (to the law) and be right (break the family principle)? It’s a terrible place to be–caught in that tension. fWIW
“However, in the case of your abusing your dog (or whatever), the former takes the lead in our culture. ”
Thanks. I am not getting this: what does PIE (the “former”) say in this case? In general, I do not understand what the terms Excellence, Intelligence and Generation may have to do with laws. Gimme a link to read about this, pls.
Mate: Not merely terms, but operative principles which are sources of order in human living–of generation (underpinning family and WHO you are) and of intelligence and excellence (PIE) (underpinning the law).
As example, the blindfold on Lady Justice suggests that it doesn’t matter WHO you are (POG) (she cannot see you). Rather, the court’s judgment is about the WHAT the issue is, in detail, and regardless of who is involved (she CANNOT see who you are but she can hear the arguments). For example, you or anyone WHO abuses their dog (WHAT) is in violation of the law. Citations when I can find them. I’ll re-post my former post if you want.
Found one of the plans here. A bad photocopy with a good point by point discussion of each part
https://www.thenation.com/article/leaked-draft-of-trumps-religious-freedom-order-reveals-sweeping-plans-to-legalize-discrimination/
Thanks. This clarifies things for me.
I think we can officially debunk the theory that President Pence would be worse than President Trump.
I would change this, FLERP, only to read ‘Titular Prez Trump’…when the actual Prez is Bannon. Pence and his followers are dangerous, but they at least do not want to tear down the entire government.
In summary, the idea behind the cynically named “Religious Freedom Restoration Act,” is: My religious beliefs as a Christian “Trump” everyone else’s rights. My rights to practice my religion give me the right to infringe on your rights.
If this does not violate the constitution, nothing would.
This is why Trump’s Supreme Court nominations must be stopped!
YES
We don’t live in a theocracy. I don’t see how someone can “opt out” of federal laws on religious grounds. These “good Christians” want to legitimize discrimination against people that are different from them and call it “religious freedom.”
I was thinking about how one might go about “proving” that his/her religion provides an exemption from federal laws. Would one be required to prove it? What is someone invented a religion? I don’t see why he or she shouldn’t be “allowed” to. What if we have people who want to have human or animal sacrifice on religious grounds? Can they do that? What about atheists? Would they have to respect federal law even if they don’t agree with it while others won’t have to based on religion? How will people “prove” their religiosity? An to whom will they have to prove it? A government agency? Lots of interesting questions…
Mamie: That’s why it’s a “freedom.” When there are conflicts between the law and freedoms,, the courts are where we go. Pity the judges and juries and the idea of “construal.” That'[s why I love to watch “Law and Order.”
Mamie: This proposal generates lots of questions, but few answers. What it does give more rights to those that discriminate. It muddies the water and results in a possible absurdity as you showed above. Look at mess created by allowing public funds out of public schools. Charters are an inequitable nightmare, but vouchers will make everything more absurd. The existence of charters has helped to normalize acceptance of vouchers.
“I was thinking about how one might go about “proving” that his/her religion provides an exemption from federal laws. ”
That would be a flaw in the formulation of the federal law. Federal laws shouldn’t exempt people based on their religion—or non-religion.
“If corporations are people can we send their boards of directors off to war” OWS
What a good idea, Joel. And perhaps also send their investors.
Not mine but a poster I saw at an Occupy rally in lower Manhattan.
Too many people today don’t seem to get one of the things that our 1950s and 60s public schools drummed into our heads — religious liberty depends on the separation of Church and State.
It cannot be the business of the State to decide what counts as a religion and what does not. There exists already the maximum reasonable liberty to set up a religious organization with property exempt from taxation by the state. If religious organizations want go full-blown political and maintain their tax-advantaged status then labor unions should re-organize as churches and get the same exemption.
You guys are on a roll…terrific suggestion. Labor unions as churches, with 501c3 status, and under the Trump edict of today, would have far more clout.
But then, with stare decisis, the KKK could also become a church.
“There exists already the maximum reasonable liberty to set up a religious organization with property exempt from taxation by the state”
How is this tax exemption warranted in the first place? Can I buy a mountain, build a castle on top, declare it an ateist temple, and hence make it tax exempt?
Tax exemption is a corollary of the establishment clause.
I thought the Establishment clause is against giving tax exemption and other state or federal privileges to religious institutions.
On the wikipedia page, I read the following, which seems to imply that religious institutions do have to pay the same tax as any other institution
No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion.
It’s then beyond me how this could happen
The Supreme Court, in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002), upheld the constitutionality of private school vouchers, turning away an Establishment Clause challenge.
Mate..you pretty much can do that…your castle needs only to prove a few simple statements, and then a state and federal IRS approval to your application…and you are off and running as a 501c3 or a 501c4. With the first you can raise money from donations (which is how Falwell and his ilk got so very wealthy), and with the second you can do political action. However, if you are a church you are NOT allowed the political action as in supporting a candidate.
Many public schools now form 501c3 Parent organizations to do fund raising for special school projects…and it is very fair and good idea if there is not enough money from taxation. However, since so many half baked religions also can get this status, that is a different situation. The religious colleges and others schools, IMO, have no right to have more clout on tapping everyone’s taxes for their existence to push their brand of religious thinking. They should function like private schools and be responsible for their own budget raised from tuition, and have NO right to leech off public taxation which should only go to public schools which serve everyone.
DeVos feels the opposite it true, and now our Prez Bannon-Drumpf is supporting her with the latest chicanery to vitiate our American process of Separation of Church and State. This is a rotten road to follow and we MUST fight it.
“They should function like private schools and be responsible for their own budget raised from tuition, and have NO right to leech off public taxation which should only go to public schools which serve everyone.”
Amen. I can’t see, btw, where the establishment law or whichever law grants tax exemption to religious institutions.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”
Taxing something requires making laws about it. If you cannot make laws about it you cannot tax it.
Conversely, the principle of no taxation without representation means that the strings of public accountability remain attached to every tax dollar. But religion is a private business, in the strongest possible sense, and thus no establishment of religion owes the public an account.
Yes, tax exemption is an advantage of a sort, but the Constitution makes such a special case of religion and insists on such a strong hands-off policy with respect to religion that this exemption cannot be helped.
” “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”
Taxing something requires making laws about it. If you cannot make laws about it you cannot tax it.”
What you quoted just says “make no law for establishing a religion”. It doesn’t say, what happens after the religion is established, hence laws could apply to it.
Blue State citizens should object to paying federal taxes on religious grounds.
How long would it take the red states to cry uncle.
Section 3,
(b) Persons and organizations do not forfeit their religious freedom when providing social services, education, or healthcare; earning a living, seeking a job, or employing others; receiving government grants or contracts: or otherwise participating in the marketplace, the public square, or interfacing with Federal, State or local governments.
What does interfacing mean? Is deciding on recipients of a Federal grant considered “interfacing”?
http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/2016-state-religious-freedom-restoration-act-legislation.aspx
Here is a brief history of the act and concerns about its use to protect religious groups who engage in forms of discrimination that have consequences for the public. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/congress-should-amend-the-abused-religious-freedom-restoration-act/2015/06/25/ee6aaa46-19d8-11e5-ab92-c75ae6ab94b5_story.html?utm_term=.216c8d0a77b9
Here are pending state versions of the act. http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/2016-state-religious-freedom-restoration-act-legislation.aspx
Doesn’t this Section 3/b I quoted from the leaked document directly contradict this Supreme court opinion (Reynolds v US)
Freedom of religion means freedom to hold an opinion or belief, but not to take action in violation of social duties or subversive to good order.
Let’s see section 3/b here directly
Persons and organizations do not forfeit their religious freedom when providing social services, education, or healthcare…
The wall between Church and State is a two-way wall, protecting both sides — Religions from being regulated by the state and People from being forced to support religions they do not share. People who honestly care about religious liberty should be very wary of anyone trying to punch holes in that wall.
Yes, there have, in very recent times, reared their ugly heads a motley assortment of Loony Ignoramus Right-Wing-Nut Interpretations of the Establishment Clause, just as there have in very recent times reared their ugly heads a motley assortment of Loony Ignoramus Right-Wing-Nut Interpretations of the Second Amendment, but those are radical departures from the long history of mainstream construals and what we may hope to be a short-lived aberrations.
The House of Representatives is working on legislation to allow the mentally ill to buy guns.
Duck!
“The House of Representatives is working on legislation to allow the mentally ill to buy guns.”
So now, finally, little Donald can buy himself a gun.
Do they make guns for little hands?
Well, then little Dumb Donny may have to resort to the Girls Guide to Guns by Natalie Foster.
She is very reassuring and motherly, so I think Donny will be able to forget his debilitating insecurities, and will walk home with a fashionable little gun.
If you are like me, though, all of those choices can start to get a little overwhelming. But fear not! I have some advice that will aid you in finding the right gun. I will also list a few of my favorite female friendly firearms as well as a few recommended by the readers.
Shopping for a gun, as my friend Gracie from Packing Pretty says, is like shopping for a pair of jeans, new shoes or a new bra. You have to try several to be able to find the right one. Guns are very personal pieces of machinery and you need to be feel comfortable shooting the one you ultimately choose. The primary factors that play in to choosing a firearm to purchase are the following: Purpose, Comfort and Cost.
http://girlsguidetoguns.com/2013/01/08/what-gun-should-i-buy/
LOL
Thanks, roaring laughter is a good way to start a Saturday.
The establishment clause is not about a state religion, that is one of those late neo-con myths with no grounding in history. We have many religious establishments and the Constitution says that Congress shall make no law respecting them.
https://www.aclu.org/other/establishment-clause-and-schools-legal-bulletin
Jon, just in case, this is a reply to my post: I didn’t talk about state religion. As I understand it, the tax exempt status of religious institutions was not ruled to be a consequence of the Establishment clause.
Indeed, the Establishment clause prohibits to make any specific laws regarding religious institutions.
So now the standard trick to grant some privileges to religious establishments is to make a law that grants those privileges to a broader class of institutions.
In case of giving tax exempt status to religious establishments, the trick was to lump religious institutions together with hospitals, schools as places where good deeds are done for the public, hence deserve to be tax exempt.
exemptions were granted to all houses of religious worship within a broad class of property owned by nonprofit, quasi-public corporations which included hospitals, libraries, playgrounds, and scientific, professional, historical, and patriotic groups, and the legislative purpose was thus not aimed at establishing, sponsoring, or supporting religion,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walz_v._Tax_Commission_of_the_City_of_New_York
Then the question is: why is it assumed automatically that a religious institution serves the public good? Do Catholic churches serve Muslims or LGBT people?
The establishment clause confers a special status on establishments of religion that long predates any notion of 501c or other do-goodership and is indeed independent of whether an establishment of religion does any good at all. It is both bedrock and a two-edged sword — it invokes conditions both permitting and restricting that do not apply to other types of groups. It supercedes any laws or regulations that might have been tacked on at a later date.
(And please don’t quote me Wikipediots. I wasted enough time there know what brand of adolescent neocon nut-jobs swarm the political articles — you might as well cite me Breitbart — however good it may be for checking trivia on defunct rock bands.)
Still, it’s a nice, general and simple strategy to introduce a bill that would give privileges to religious groups: one just has to find other groups that would also get the privilege without much harm, and the Establishment clause is bypassed.
For example, the secret exemptions that got leaked would probably be easily attacked with the Establishment clause, but with little work, it could give serious headache to opponents.
Now that the Muslim ban got blocked by a Seattle judge, Little Debbie-Donnie’s cabinet probably start realizing that they need to work a bit harder on the legal front to have their games with spurious executive orders played out to their satisfaction.
Maybe we can even figure out how they are going to modify the religious freedom bill to make it legally sound.
Your concluding paragraph indicating that “multiple groups are already preparing to challenge” the Executive Order is heartening… but… While the lower courts will probably side with those who value civil speech, the new Supreme Court, which might include a justice with views to the right of Anton Scalia, might think differently. Democracy depends on civility, on “politically correct” treatment of each other. Hate speech cannot be shielded by religion… that is unless we are about to enter a period of Christian jihad.