Once again, Trump is set to pander to religious extremists, with an executive order declaring that religious liberty guarantees the right to discriminate against other people. Mike Pence signed a law with the same purposes in Indiana, when he signed a bill called the “Religious Freedom Restoration Act,” but he watered it down when major corporations threatened to leave the state. Now, where will they go if bigotry is legalized everywhere? Strange to see Trump as the champion of the religious right: Trump, the philanderer, Trump, the casino owner, Trump, the man who defrauded thousands of people via his “university.”
Bill Moyers’ website reports:
“Trump may sign a “religious liberty” executive order tomorrow. A draft of this order leaked to The Nation last winter, and journalist Sarah Posner called it a way for the administration to “legalize discrimination,” continuing: “The draft order seeks to create wholesale exemptions for people and organizations who claim religious or moral objections to same-sex marriage, premarital sex, abortion, and trans-identity, and it seeks to curtail women’s access to contraception and abortion through the Affordable Care Act.”
“The backlash gave the administration pause, Politico reports, but a largely unchanged version of the order may be signed tomorrow to celebrate the National Day of Prayer, during which Trump is supposed to meet with religious leaders. “The new draft is being tightly held, but one influential conservative who saw the text said it hasn’t been dialed back much — if at all — since the February leak,” Timothy Alberta and Shane Goldmacher write for Politico.”
From Politico (linked above):
“President Donald Trump has invited conservative leaders to the White House on Thursday for what they expect will be the ceremonial signing of a long-awaited—and highly controversial—executive order on religious liberty, according to multiple people familiar with the situation. Religious “freedom” in this order means the right to refuse service to gay people, who will be considered second-class citizens. Strange to see Trump as the champion of social conservatives, Trump the philanderer, Trump the casino owner, Trump the man not known for his church-going.
“Two senior administration officials confirmed the plan, though one cautioned that it hasn’t yet been finalized, and noted that lawyers are currently reviewing and fine-tuning the draft language. Thursday is the National Day of Prayer, and the White House was already planning to celebrate the occasion with faith leaders.
“The signing would represent a major triumph for Vice President Mike Pence—whose push for religious-freedom legislation backfired mightily when he served as governor of Indiana—and his allies in the conservative movement.
“The original draft order, which would have established broad exemptions for people and groups to claim religious objections under virtually any circumstance, was leaked to The Nation on Feb. 1—the handiwork, many conservatives believed, of Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner, who have sought to project themselves as friendly to the LGBT community. Liberals blasted the draft order as government-licensed discrimination, and the White House distanced itself from the leaked document in a public statement.
“Pence and a small team of conservative allies quickly began working behind the scenes to revise the language, and in recent weeks have ratcheted up the pressure on Trump to sign it. The new draft is being tightly held, but one influential conservative who saw the text said it hasn’t been dialed back much—if at all—since the February leak. “The language is very, very strong,” the source said.”
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Since President Drumpf has taken office, according to the ADL, incidents of hate crimes have gone up nearly 80% from the previous quarter. It appears that the inauguration of Mr. Drumpf has given license to a number of bigots, racists, sexists, and homophobes, to act on their prejudices.
LikeLike
Guess the religious right think they are so holy they can ignore the 10 Commandments.
LikeLike
As with a very few of our commentators, they read and understand selectively which, as your rightly describe, allows them to do what the rest of us call “ignore.”
LikeLike
Which command is violated by seeking to control the possible social maladies of “free” sexual choices for all? Every major religion views LBGT rights as an anomaly, not just the Bible. Is it right and fair that I get financially “murdered” because my health-care premiums will rise exponentially as I’m expected to subsidize behaviors that the undeniably linked to higher health problems? Your comment reveals much bias and ignorance of the issues.
LikeLike
Oh for pity’s sake, Rick, judgmental much? Who’s doing what with which consenting adult(s) is not your business, okay? As far as you “subsidizing” it, do you have the same moral outrage about cigarettes? Alcohol? McDonalds? What about the church type people who believe “spare the rod and spoil the child” and those who feel that the husband, as head of the household, has a right to control his “helpmeet” by force if necessary? Are you aware of the domestic violence rates among religious right/evangelical communities? Those are all ‘behaviors” that are “costing” you much more than LGBTQ people will ever cost you.
Normally I like your posts. You seem to be in general a true Christian – one who understands that Christ’s message was love. You’re better than this post.
LikeLike
Guess the religious right don’t practice what they preach. Or maybe they are high on opioids?
LikeLike
I disagree. They preach hate in language coded for fellow-travelers. Your second point has merit.
LikeLike
Here’s the lawmakers ed reformers are honoring for “charter schools week”
https://www.the74million.org/article/national-charter-schools-week-to-toast-19-state-federal-champions-from-both-parties-at-capitol-hill
It’s a shame that none of them can be bothered to mention anything they do or have done for public schools.
As usual, public schools are relegated to a throw-away line tacked on the end of charter advocacy and promotion- the obligatory mention of how they supposedly support “all schools” when in fact many of them don’t do anything to support public schools.
Often they use public schools as a convenient punching bag to lobby for more charters and vouchers.
Can we get one person in DC who actually values the schools 90% of kids attend? One?
LikeLike
They would rather not mention what they have done TO public education as they simply see public education as a host to their parasitic privatization ploys.
LikeLike
Imagine if kids in public schools had a “federal champion” ? Why don’t they get one, again? Just happen to be unfashionable this year?
LikeLike
Seems more likely this comes from Pence than Trump.
LikeLike
The religious right is like America’s version of the Taliban. They are trying to turn back the clock and are using religion as a excuse to discriminate and marginalize anyone that does not see the world the way they do. These right wing Christians know their days may be numbered as young people tend to be less religious than their parents. They want regressive laws on the books to institutionalize their power and ideology. Challenges will be met by their young lockjawed Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, their moral goaltender.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/01/08/qa-why-millennials-are-less-religious-than-older-americans/
LikeLike
Maybe your bias and BS about the Right is equally “Taliban”?? I love and seek to honor all people, and am commanded to. But when behaviors and choices (that have historically and actually been linked to higher levels of risk, disease, malady and suffering) are called “freedom”, and when those that don’t believe in such practices are expected to bear the burden of the health-care and social costs of such behaviors, then just who is oppressing who.
My heterosexual and “stay with wife for life” convictions have never burdened anyone else, nor increased social problems and disease. But somehow, others can do whatever they want, call it “freedom” and want “equality” for behaviors, choices and lifestyles that are undeniably causes of higher risk and disease, and expect the rest to pay for their medical costs. Why not just give all alcoholics unlimited free whiskey and expect non-drinkers to pay for all their liver transplants??? Really???? Your analysis of the issue is less than one-inch deep and is so stereotypical a “liberal knee-jerk” reaction that it leaves me breathless.
I could care less about “religion” as the need for right and responsible behavior (which is proven by the health-risks it creates….bad fruit is self-evident)
LikeLike
IMHO, “bad fruit” are those who push their religious dogma onto others, especially in a country where religious freedom includes the right to NOT believe or adhere to the practices of ANY religion.
LikeLike
Are you seriously attempting to assert that homosexuals cause your insurance premiums to be higher than heterosexuals? Please tell me you are not that ignorant.
LikeLike
Now while the current amount may be small to miniscule, any and all behaviors chosen by free-will (choices, not things that happen to us outside of our control, or organic/genetic causes) that have documented higher levels of ailments will drive up the costs of all in the insured pool of risk. Pretty simple. Plus, the more behaviors that were once frowned upon are accepted, it is undeniable and obvious that the frequency of sickness in the population will rise.
So, those of us that abstain from choices that do increase sickness and disease are essentially subsidizing those that don’t, via premiums.
Again, do you believe in telling alcoholics to drink excessively and then promise them you will replace their livers at reduced costs? Is it fair to those that don’t drink excessively; that they are financially punished for their good choices????
LikeLike
I am not against religion. I am in favor of religious freedom. I am opposed to the notion of using religion to deny others their rights. I did not equate Christianity with the Taliban, which is why I said the religious right is an “American version of the Taliban.” I am referring to the imposition of one’s religious views on others. For example, if I am against birth control should I have the right to deny others medical coverage for birth control?
LikeLike
“Their power and ideology”??? Like, “love neighbor as self”, “consider the poor, widow, oppressed and fatherless”, like “consider others better than yourself and put the needs of others before your own”. Yup, one can sure dominate culture and build empires on that platform….NOT. Maybe “christian empires” were built on hypocrisy and practicing everything the Book says we should not do…..duh!
Maybe you need to read and honestly consider the Book, before you attempt to critique those that believe in it…..maybe?????
LikeLike
The problem is not with the beliefs of Christianity. It is how some people that purport to be good Christians interpret doctrine and conduct themselves. particularly those that try to impose their views on how other people live.
LikeLike
TRUMP has no ideology. He just reacts to whatever his latest stimulus was. He’s a walking billboard proving that wealth and intelligence are not connected. I think his only “talent” is self promoting and being able to make money.
LikeLike
As an apparent “extremist” of the Right, as contrasted to extremists on the Left, I have no problem with the concept of equal rights for all, as long as all those who want to be equal live with moral responsibility (and by that I mean, don’t willfully practice behaviors that are undeniably linked to higher health risks and afflictions [mental or physical] and then expect “conservative heterosexuals” to have to pay higher health-insurance premiums to “bail out and subsidize” one’s poor health choices).
The risks and frequencies of sickness and malady are so well known in the LBGT community that they should forced into their own pool of risk and pay higher premiums, and not burden the rest of us, expecting us to help pay for maladies that could’ve been avoided.
BTW, I think it is immoral, unjust and oppressive to expect non-smokers or non-gluttons to have to pay higher premiums for treating the therapies and treatments needed by smokers or obese. Why should one get “raped” financially with high health-care costs, so that others don’t have to “reap what they sow” and expect others to subsidize their costs?????
I know these are inherent evils and flaws in the concept and practice of “shared risk pools” of insurance. But, to require those of us that believe in moral and responsible health choices to pay for those that don’t (and deliberately self-inflict themselves via unhealthy choices) is oppressive and unjust, and is a ideology of liberal extremists.
Here is what the National Association of Pediatricians says: http://factsaboutyouth.com/posts/health-risks-of-the-homosexual-lifestyle/
There is a plethora of data about the associated health risks of LGBT choices. So seek justice and righteousness before equality, because equality without the former is social-policy folly.
I have no problem with people “coming out of the closet” as long as those in the closet pay for their own associated health risks.
LikeLike
‘scuse me….but the AC Peds are NOT the same as the AAP. ACPeds are a SMALL conservative sect of pediatricians. Let’s just pose this scenario…..If you needed a heart/lung transplant and your donor was a gay male, would you accept the organs to save your own life? If your answer is yes, then you sir, are a hypocrite. You are no better than a racist calling a black man the “N” word.
LikeLike
So easy to slander and malign others who make valid points against one’s paradigm, isn’t it? Oh, I’m a racist, yet I believe all people are equal before the Creator, equal with rights and dignity. Yet, when people make bad choices, that increase the frequency of risk and harm to themselves and others are we to be silent? I guess you think a doctor is a “racist” when he tells a hyperglycemic person to decrease their sugar intake????
LikeLike
Holy crap. I should have kept scrolling. You are a terrible person.
LikeLike
What has been more damaging throughout history than childbearing. It still is linked to a multitude of health problems. Are we to exclude mothers from insurance? How about coal miners? Both occupations took people off at an alarming rate during the ascendancy of American Protestantism. During that time, thousands of African-Americans were lynched by vigilantes. The churches were often complicit in their silence.
I know homosexuals who come and worship as other Christians do. Who am I to damn them?
LikeLike
Good points, and yet also erroneous. Child-bearing produces life and the ability to produce and create (for those that are economic-determinists, of which I’m not). There is a big differences between choices, actions and behaviors that are freely chosen, yet optional (ex. drug use, sex choices, diet choices) and those that happen to us outside of our control, (ex. accidents and organic, genetic or aging processes). Yes, health risks associated with certain forms of work should be covered by the employer, or larger pool. The Bible has always condemned slavery, hatred and murder, and yes hypocrites turn a blind eye to sin and oppression (so your other points are red-herrings and fallacies). BTW, I don’t damn anybody nor wish that upon them. Does the doctor “damn” you when he tells you to change a behavior that most likely will make you sick?
LikeLike
“The Bible has always condemned slavery….”
Um, wow, have you read it? It doesn’t condemn it at all. It just says that the master should treat his slaves well and that slaves should be content with their lot.
LikeLike
Please read the Book before you claim to know it. NOWHERE is “slavery” allowed, or condoned in the Bible. Taking somebody against their will and forcing them into servitude was punishable by death in the OT. The only “slavery” permitted was that of working off a debt (indentured servanthood) and after working off the debt the slave/servant was free to leave, or the use of captured POW as labor forces (but they were fed and cared for). The Bible deals with slavery as present in this corrupt and fallen world, and teaches principles for its redemptive and just use.
In fact, the OT is the only ancient document were slaves, aliens, strangers, widows, fatherless and all other “down and outs” were protected and cared for by the commandments to do so. All other gentile documents were pretty biased and full of favoritism and partiality (ex. the king could take your wife as a toy, or steal your land, or overtax your earnings, etc. etc).
BTW, the Year of Jubilee every 49 years could be claimed as the most redemptive ancient principle every “invented” by humanity.
LikeLike
Rick, I recall Moses laying down a bunch of laws dealing with slavery, and I don’t recall any of those laws being “If you have slaves, set them free immediately, because slavery is not permitted.”
LikeLike
Oh for pity’s sake, Rick, you don’t even know your own book! You’re talking specifically about Israelite slaves, but slavery was much more vast than that. The Bible is explicit about all aspects of slavery – where slaves can be purchased from, how different slaves are treated, what they’re used for, male vs. female slaves, etc. My favorite parts are about buying and using female slaves for concubines. Read Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy for starters.
LikeLike
“The risks and frequencies of sickness and malady are so well known….”
Then it should be easy to provide a citation proving that. I’ll wait.
LikeLike
Do any Google search with “homosexual health statistics” and the plethora of data is obvious. If you care, search yourself.
LikeLike
Laughing. When I do your homework for you (which really isn’t my job, BTW, but oh heck), what I get a plethora of is conservative propaganda. Conservapedia? WND? Family Research Council? “Homosexual lifestyle”? Really?
Please, give me one creditable link not to a conservative website. I’m still waiting.
LikeLike
Maybe men should pay a tax to fund the cost of running the prison and judicial systems, since men commit the overwhelming majority of crime.
LikeLike
If Trump’s executive order matches the draft language posted at the website below, then it will have repercussions far removed from religious beliefs. Legal scholars say that it favors Christian and specifically Catholic doctrines and that anyone, on any basis, without religious convictions can refuse to serve someone as a matter of “conscience.” Even federal employees could refuse to do their jobs.
Diane’s headline has it right. See the discussion of the draft at http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/02/donald-trump-religious-liberty-executive-order-237888
LikeLike
Trump is a known bully with a long history as a bully, and it makes sense that a hardcore bully known as Agent Orange, who is a psychopath and/or malignant narcissist, wants to make being a bully legal so bullies everywhere will have no fear of being dragged into court when they bully someone in person or on-line.
The Freedom to Troll and Bully Act. That’s what it should be called.
What Agent Orange doesn’t know is that if it becomes legal to be a bully, some of these bullies are going to end up with some severe physical injuries when they cross the wrong person.
LikeLike
Lloyd,
Your disdain, demonstrated abhorrence, detestation, execration, loathing – enmity – towards the President could definitely be considered in itself a bullying tactic –
Agent Orange? Didn’t you encounter that in the war
Your vitriolic criticisms are demeaning your stature as someone who has a great perspective to proffer-
LikeLike
I have respect for the position of the president of the United States, but not for the Agent Orange pretending to be a president. The malignant narcissist in the White House is a serial liar, a misogynist, a con-man with a long history linked to the New York crime families and members of the Russian mafia. He also has a history of racism, a history of bankruptcies, and the list goes on.
He is not a master negotiator. Someone who solves all of his personal and business problems in court does not know how to negotiate. He is a bully and an internet troll.
I think that his supporters, those who refuse to see who he really is, are blind, deaf and dumb, and as deplorable as him.
Donald Trump is not my president and never will be no matter what you think. Living in the White House and wearing the title of president does not make him a president. Agent Orange is still a serial liar, a conman, a misogynist, a fraud, and a bully.
This is my thinking vs. your thinking. What we think is only the thinking of two individuals. But how many would agree with what I think compared to how many would agree with what you think?
LikeLike
How appropriate to add to this discussion a timely piece on the National Day of Prayer…
President Donald Trump will do something this week that Barack Obama did not do in his entire eight years in office: host a National Day of Prayer event at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Trump will be taking part in the annual observance on Thursday, May 4, as thousands of events are held nationwide.
While previous presidents including Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush held gatherings at the White House honoring the day, Obama did not, choosing instead to simply issue proclamations concerning the occasion.
The National Day of Prayer was established by law during the presidency of Harry S. Truman in 1952. The legislation called on the president to designate a day other than Sunday for the American people to gather in prayer for the nation.
In 1988, President Reagan signed an amendment to the law designating the first Thursday in May for the event.
The current chairperson of the National Day of Prayer is Anne Graham Lotz, daughter of evangelist Billy Graham. She took over the position last year from Shirley Dobson, who held the post for the previous 25 years.
The theme of this year’s event is “For Your Great Name’s Sake,” inspired by the biblical passages 2 Chronicles 7:14 and Daniel 9:19.
Organizers are focusing on three key thoughts from the passages: “hear us … forgive us … heal us …,” Lotz explains
LikeLike
Good luck with that.
For the politicians and business people involved, it’s more like, “Hear our cries for lower taxes and increased profits for the wealthy, and forgive us for not caring about the most vulnerable among us, including the declining middle class/increasing working poor, children, seniors and the disabled, and for not providing increases in Social Security, free child care and college, nor Medicare to heal all Americans.”
(I believe G-d will see right through them and hear the above.)
LikeLike
Amen, much of todays’ “power christianity” is heretical doctrine that contradicts all of that was commanded and implied in the OT, and NT. Read Isaiah and Jeremiah, as they preach repentance and faith and condemn the leaders for ignoring the poor, alien, stranger, widow, fatherless, etc., while they selfishly pursued their agenda of wealth and power for the upper 10%. Things never change and sin will always lead to degradation and ruin, and we are quickly becoming a nation as Israel degraded into, “a basket of rotten fruit”, of which Babylon and Nebuchadnezzar wiped out and destroyed (wow, God sends the most barbaric nation on the earth to judge and destroy His own chosen, the “apple of His eye”). No favoritism or partiality with the Lord.
LikeLike
For those that believe and revere the Creator, it is good for us to be in supplication for the needs of themselves and fellow citizens, and national leaders. We are commanded to “choose life, not death” and every foolish choice we make advances the causes and forces of degradation, decay and death; of which many in the nation are blind to see the advancing waves of sin and decay. Forgive and heal is what I need, more than all.
LikeLike
Well, HALLELUJAH…NOT!
LikeLike
Rick,
Take the log out of your own eye – to be so morally superior you, yourself, must not practice any behaviors that are linked to health risks. Lest ye be judged a hypocrite, please confirm that each and EVERY day you get at least 30 minutes of physical exercise, have 4 servings of fruits, 5 servings of vegetables, drink 3 liters of water, eat no more than 9 teaspoons of sugar, consume no more than 2,800 calories, sleep 7-8 hours, etc. Otherwise, like those you judge, you too make unhealthy choices.
LikeLike
Amen to you Leigh. Tell it like it is!
LikeLike
Thanks for the reproof and I will comply. Yet, I don’t smoke and then expect the rest of the “shared-risk” pool to pay for my respiratory therapy. If I were to do something deliberately unhealthy, and of free choice, I would pay for my own cost because that is part of “if you sow to the flesh, you will reap corruption”, and in pulling the log out of my eye I would not unjustly expect others to pay for my treatments. What logs are in your eyes, that give you the “morally superior” position to criticize others.
The fact is many people make unhealthy choices, that could be avoided, and the increased health costs are spread to the whole group, and there is some inherently unjust and oppressive issues with that (but such is the nature of “shared risks”).
Is your doctor “morally superior” and with loggy-eyes when he recommends to change behavior that will lead to bad health outcomes? Is he “judging” you, or just trying to give some good advice?????????
Aren’t we all hypocrites to some degree, all needing Redemption!!!!
LikeLike
By your logic, Rick, lesbian women should get breaks on their healthcare. Disease transmission among lesbians is practically non-existent. Lesbian women are also less likely to get pregnant, and when they do get pregnant it tends to be planned with provisions for proper medical care since they have to actively seek it out rather than being something that happens as a result of a moment of passion.
Incidentally, you know what’s really a drag on our healthcare/financial systems? Men who bring children into the world and don’t take care of them. Precious few of those men are gay.
Therefore, would you say that in some ways LGBTQ people are subsidizing the “lifestyles” of the heterosexuals among us? Do you think that’s fair?
LikeLike
Good points. Yes, heterosexuals that break vows and get divorced do create social problems and costs (ex. children that now feel unloved, use excessive drugs or promiscuous sex to fill an empty life….all because of divorce of heterosexuals).
So, you are right and I realize that my myopic focus on the risks associated and documented by LGBT choices is misplaced.
Now, as to your assertion of not trusting “conservative” websites with having valid and reliable health statistic data, I respond, “prove your assertion”. Do the research to prove your inference; that data from your disdained websites is significantly different from that posted by larger, more general, total population studies.
Until you can prove your point, I can still rely upon those “biased” conservative websites you apparently have a problem with.
Finally, we all live in a shared-pool of risk and I can accept that. I’ve been paying car insurance premiums for 30 yrs in Miami FL, and have yet to be liable for causing a wreck. I just love fixing other people’s cars, and giving State Farm executives those nice big salaries….LOL
LikeLike
BTW, contrary to Lady Gaga saying “I’m born that way”, nature would never select for ( via mutation or recombinations) or create a “gay gene” or any other deterministic causal factor that makes people less likely to have heterosexual behavior, and leave less offspring. If according to evolutionary theory the highest purpose of biology is to leave offspring, then behaviors that decrease the likelihood to leave offspring will be selected against and removed by natural selection. NO, I’m not an eugenicists; only pointing out the biological arguments for LGBT are erroneous and misused.
Also, if one has no preference for heterosexual sex, then why do they want children to adopt (seems contradictory).
LikeLike
Rick,
Many heterosexual married couples don’t have children. Some gay couples do. I’m not sure what your point is. The famously conservative pundit Patrick Buchanan had a long marriage but no children. I wouldn’t make a moral judgment on his having no children, or on the gay couple who do. People make their own choices, and as long as they are not hurting other people, let it be.
LikeLike
Yes, and agreed. I just felt the need to point out that there is no biological or physical cause for LGBT choices. Those choices are due to primarily nurture, not nature, and the research on the genetic correlations to those behaviors is inconclusive.
BTW, don’t you love the evolutionary-anthropology of Stephen Pinker at MIT, who states that rape is a vestigial behavior of our animalistic past (though many of our supposed ancestors were monogamous). Sorry, ladies but we men just cannot help ourselves; it’s not our fault, or choice, or wrong, because “my genes make me do it”.
My genes may make me angry and retributive, so now premeditated murder is no longer a moral crime, but misplaced biology?
LikeLike
You really don’t understand how this works, do you? You can’t present clearly biased websites with a stated conservative agenda as proof of your assertions and then put it on me to prove that it’s not a valid website. Find me something from the CDC or the National Institutes of Health, for instance.
As for whether or not gay people are born that way – when did you decide to be straight? Could you decide to be gay if you wanted to? Yeah, didn’t think so.
LikeLike
Where’s the evidence of clear bias, unless you do the HW to prove it? Just because a site may be “conservative” and has secondary level research does not automatically make it biased. I could make the same assertions of bias if you use any liberal site.
So, my challenge still stands, and yes I’ve done enough research to be content with my understanding of the data patterns all the different groups present.
Bias is an easy word to use and so convenient for any of us to misuse.
LikeLike
And, incidentally, Rick, how do you explain homosexuality found in nature?
LikeLike
Please excuse any bias, as I will excuse yours, for we are all looking for clear patterns and signals, in a world of haze and static-random noise (unless a clear message exists and has been revealed, and can be known)
http://www.wnd.com/2015/07/claim-homosexuality-exists-in-nature/
http://creation.com/homosexual-animals
http://creation.com/arguments-against-homosexuality
LikeLike
There is no Stephen Pinker at MIT. There is, however, a Steven Pinker at Harvard who used to be at MIT – might that be who you’re talking about?
Anyway, you’ll have to provide his direct quote that says men can’t help themselves when they rape. I’m pretty sure he’s said nothing of the kind. What he has said is that human nature contains both inclinations toward violence and inclinations that counteract violence. Nowhere that I’m familiar with has he ever said that our behavior is out of our control.
In any case, Dr. Pinker is a linguist – or a psycholinguist, if you will – which has been his area of research (things like how do humans acquire and use the past tense). So his musings on violence, rape, etc. are exactly that – musings. No more or less valid than anyone else’s musings on such topics who has not studied the topics. I don’t even agree with his premise for such musings – that humans have become progressively less violent. That would certainly be news to the millions (billions?) of people killed, maimed and dislocated in wars and genocides and bombings and other various military ventures in the past century. Our violence has become “cleaner”, certainly, but it’s also become much more efficient.
And furthermore, I’m not at all sure what rape has to do with a discussion of consensual homosexual behavior.
LikeLike
I don’t think it matters who said “Men can’t help it when they rape.”
“It’s so easy to dismiss the UN’s findings by saying those happened somewhere other than the USA, but the Lisak study and the Harvard study, as well as the RAINN statistics, speak solely about US culture and US men. Because this mentality, unfortunately, is international:
“Men rape because they have been taught that they have a right to claim women’s bodies. One of the fundamental concepts at the heart of “rape culture” is the idea that rape is inevitable, men can’t help themselves, and women must therefore work to protect themselves against it. Within the context of rape culture, the idea that men are entitled to sexual experiences is deeply entrenched. The UN researchers found that this attitude is pervasive among the rapists they surveyed. Among the men who acknowledged they had sexually assaulted someone else, more than 70 percent of them said they did it because of “sexual entitlement.” Forty percent said they were angry or wanted to punish the woman. About half of the men said they did not feel guilty.”
What We Can Learn From The Largest International Study On Rape That’s Been Conducted So Far
“United Nations researchers just published a sweeping study on the roots of sexual violence, spanning six countries and two years. The survey, which they say represents the world’s largest scientific project into the subject so far, aimed to investigate the “under-researched” area of male-perpetrated rape. On average, about one in four men included in the study said they had raped someone at some point in their lives. One in ten had raped someone who wasn’t their romantic partner.”
https://thinkprogress.org/what-we-can-learn-from-the-largest-international-study-on-rape-thats-been-conducted-so-far-eb2b549a0ab3
LikeLike
“Where’s the evidence of clear bias?”
Um, when a site calls itself “Conservapedia”, I think it’s a pretty clear indication of a, gee, I dunno, conservative bias??? Ya think?
You can’t use a conservative site to prove a conservative opinion. You have to find something neutral or even left-leaning. If, for instance, I were to make a claim that conservatives have a higher STI transmission rate than liberals, would you trust a link to Salon or HuffPo saying so? Or would you expect something more objective like the CDC or National Institutes of Health? You are making a claim that supports a conservative position. You cannot use conservative sources to “prove” your point, at least not if you want to be believed.
LikeLike
For real? You expect anyone on this board to take creation.com seriously? Wow. The mind boggles.
LikeLike
Really, you cannot read the article, consider its’ claims and supporting evidence, look for bias, and then thoroughly refute it (and all other articles at the site), BEFORE you reply back to me with your “objective” attitude? Really? As if your standard of research and journalistic expertise is unquestionable?
LikeLike
I expect all educators and pedagogues to keep an open mind and analytical spirit with all data, facts and inferences, of all perspectives…..and synthesize the outcome that makes the most sense and meaning to them……regardless of your opinions of research that you know nothing about.
LikeLike
Being as I’m pretty bored today, I went ahead and read your creation.com and wnd links regarding animals. They don’t really refute anything. It’s an established fact that animals engage in homosexual behavior. Certainly they do so for all sorts of reasons and some are more definitively homosexual than others, who only engage in the behavior at times, while at other times engaging in heterosexual behavior. I don’t know that we have any way of knowing whether animals actually identify as homosexual or not.
But all of that is beside the point and a red herring, because it’s the behavior that you are condemning in humans, not the orientation (in fact, you claim that you love and value all humans, including those who identify as homosexual – so by your own words, it’s the behavior, not the orientation that is problematic). Humans, like animals, run a range of homosexual behavior. Some identify as homosexual and solely engage in homosexual behavior life-long. Most, however, are somewhere on a spectrum and even those who identify as homosexual might engage in heterosexual behavior, whether for reproduction, social cover or simply pleasure. In any case, the fact remains, that homosexual behavior is found in nature. If God was so opposed to the behavior, you’d think He would have done something about those animals.
LikeLike
If you present me with data and facts, I’ll look at it with an open mind. Conservative propaganda is not data and facts!
LikeLike
Incidentally, Rick, no, not all viewpoints are equally valid and need not be equally engaged with. If, for instance, I were to start a website all about how the world is flat, should educators, media, etc. engage my website with an open mind and evaluate the “controversy” fairly, giving equal weight to both “sides”? Clearly not. The science is settled, the earth is round. People are certainly free to claim otherwise, but reputable people need not engage such people and be “open minded” about their “facts and data”. Trying to say otherwise is simply a form of propaganda that gives undue attention to one “side” of what is not even remotely a controversy.
LikeLike
Excellent article @ http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/05/08/how-trump-could-get-fired
Author is being interviewed on NPR’s Fresh Air now. Should be available as a podcast.
LikeLike