Research shows sexual violence is more likely where women are isolated, unsupported, undereducated, unmarried, and surrounded by addiction.
Discarded boundaries do not produce freedom when children, marriage, and human dignity are treated as content.
Do bias charts capture real distortions? Absolutely; they also miss framing, sourcing, scale, and beat inexperience
Many Americans rightfully crave unity right now. The Fairness for All Act, not the Equality Act, is a better path to get there on one of the most sensitive and challenging questions of our time.
The big news today, of course, is the draft of a Supreme Court opinion that would overturn the case Roe v. Wade which first created a right to abortion in US law. An important caveat about this leak is that even if the ruling comes out precisely as is, it would not outlaw abortion in the United States. Rather the decision would return to legislatures. Roe v. Wade created a massive wound in our nation because it didn’t allow for finding the kind of compromise that we could live with as a nation together. And it has resulted in some pro-lifers seeking legal approaches that could have catastrophic long-term consequences for all civil rights, such as Texas’ new abortion law. This decision opens the door for compromises that would avoid these extreme legal approaches. Many of us pray that if this ruling comes out legislatures in D.C. and around the country see it as an opportunity to build a more durable consensus. Currently, the United States has some of the most permissive abortion laws in the western world, despite its citizens being much more conservative on the issue. As opposed to the President who stated he believes the opinion is “radical,” this could prove to be an opportunity to end our radical abortion laws and find a moderate approach in line with other similar countries. It might be tempting for those on both sides of the issue to double down on their positions in light of a ruling like this. Legislatures, however, have the opportunity now to build a compromise that can help heal this divisive issue.
If we can’t even agree about the threatened invasion of a democratic, sovereign nation playing out before us, what does that say about our own condition as an American people?
One of the big religious freedom wins of the last generation has been for religious individuals to have access to the same resources in the public square. Including a case resolved today. Of course, this makes many people unhappy. Rather than engaging the issues on their merits, they often resort to parody and ridicule. Pastafarians, those who claim to worship the flying spaghetti monster, have made a few claims, but their purpose seems to mostly be rhetorical ridicule. The Satanic Temple, on the other hand, is a group created specifically to try to undermine religious freedom claims by making their own offensive claims. These groups are not Satanists in any meaningful sense of the word. The Satanic Temple has recently sued to have an afterschool club at a Pennsylvania elementary school. In my opinion, there are two positions to reasonably take in response. 1) Rely on the Supreme Court’s position that religious accommodations can only be made for sincere religious beliefs. 2) Support them in their religious freedom. I am inclined to take the second. If the club’s purpose is to support rational inquiry, there is no reason they can’t use less offensive symbols. But while that’s obviously not their purpose, subjecting religious beliefs to a judge to decide if it’s sincere or not feels much more problematic over the long term. The reality is that those with sincere religious beliefs will outlast those who are trolling. So open the doors for all faiths, including the trolls, and eventually, they will fall away. But that’s just my first instinct. What do you think?
Stay up to date on the intersection of faith in the public square.
