Author Archives: Sheila

The Utilitarian Argument For Religion

When my husband and I first married, we had spirited arguments about religion. (Bad pun intended.) Neither of us was religious, but my husband held particularly negative views of organized religion; I countered by equating religion with philosophy, and arguing that humans needed to have considered beliefs about the meanings of their lives, which either philosophy or religious doctrine could supply.

Over the years, I’ve come to agree with my husband.

Dismissing all religion is, of course, is manifestly unfair. I have several friends among the clergy, and friends and family who are religious in the sense that I once saw religious belief: as a guide to help wrestle with the moral issues that confront all thinking humans. They see the bible not as some inerrant word of God, but as a repository of tales intended to illuminate those moral quandaries and suggest moral/ethical solutions.

My friends are clearly not representative of what we might call public religiosity. 

I recently came across a report that illustrates–unfortunately–the sort of religion that increasingly motivates political theocrats like Indiana’s Beckwith and Banks.

A prominent and prolific theologian in the Church of the Nazarene will face a church trial later this month for advocating for LGBTQ affirmation at a time when the denomination is doubling down on its opposition to same-sex relations.

The Rev. Thomas Jay Oord, an ordained elder and a lifelong member of the denomination, is accused of teaching doctrines contrary to the Church of the Nazarene. He is also being charged with conduct unbecoming of a minister for his efforts to move the denomination to affirm LGBTQ people. The church holds that “the practice of same-sex sexual intimacy is contrary to God’s will.”

I find it fascinating that people who assert belief in the existence of an omnipotent and all-knowing deity have the hubris to believe that they are perfectly able to ascertain the will of that unknowable deity, and are confident that their God–who presumably created the people they hate– shares their prejudices.

This news item is only one of hundreds of similar examples, which brings me to the ongoing arguments about the utility of religion in society. Persuasion recently recapped those arguments, beginning with the position of those who assert that secularism is the source of our social ills. 

A growing cadre of intellectuals think the decline of religious belief has created a moral and spiritual vacuum, which has been filled with surrogate religions like wokeness and political extremism. They believe there’s a crisis of meaning in Western societies as people scramble to fill the “God-shaped holes” in their lives with other objects of worship. They argue that a renewed commitment to the Judeo-Christian tradition is the only way to restore a sense of social solidarity and shared purpose—and perhaps even save the West.

As the essay notes, these “new Theists” present a remarkably one-sided view of the history of religion, and especially Christianity. In contrast, it points to a straight line from Enlightenment humanism to the liberal rights and freedoms that the New Theists erroneously attribute to the influence of Christianity.

Enlightenment thinkers like Voltaire challenged the authority of scripture, religious dogmatism, and the power of the Catholic Church. Baruch Spinoza rejected the idea of God as a transcendent supreme being, resisted supernatural beliefs, and made the case for religious pluralism and tolerance. In his Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, Spinoza said the state should hold sway over religion and argued for a rational interpretation of scripture. David Hume relentlessly challenged the moral and metaphysical claims of religion. While there were gradations of belief and unbelief among Enlightenment thinkers, a core aspect of Enlightenment thought was criticism of religion. And no wonder: the Enlightenment was in large part a response to centuries of religious oppression, dogma, and violence in Europe.

The essay is well worth reading in its entirety, but its basic thrust is that a Judeo-Christian “revival” would be highly unlikely to bring cohesion– “even Christians can’t agree on what it means to live in ‘one nation under God.'”

True, freedom and pluralism can be destabilizing. But as the essay notes, the proposed religious “solutions” are worse than the problem. Reversion to a phoney and contrived “Judeo-Christian tradition” wouldn’t be a step toward “some lost renaissance of cultural cohesion. It would be a return to familiar forms of tribalism, prejudice, and dogma.”

The pastors and politicians seeking to impose religious conformity are pursuing a fool’s errand–using religion (their own, of course) as a tool to achieve social consensus. (As the opening example illustrates, even theologians within the same denomination differ about “God’s will.”) 

At best, they are misreading history; at worst, they’re really advocating Christian Nationalism.  

Comments

Banks Being Banks…

And you thought Micah Beckwith was the most “far out” candidate on Indiana’s statewide Republican ticket, just because he wants to ban books, criminalize abortion and put gay people back in. the closet?

Jim Banks says “Hold my beer.”

I had originally planned to post about reports that Banks approach is refusing to sign a bill funding Veterans programs if  unrelated culture war riders attached by the far Right are removed. Those provisions would eliminate diversity and inclusion programs and further restrict abortion nationwide. He has been quoted as saying that dropping them from a bill addressing practical matters important to veterans–a constituency Banks pretends to care about– will cause him to withhold his vote.

“If they go back to the Dem woke policies — if they fund those policies, I’ll vote against it,” Banks said. 

I wasn’t in any particular hurry to highlight this bit of “just normal for Banks” posturing. After all, with Jim Banks, threats like that just mean the sun rose in the East. He’s all culture war, all the time. Just the other day, he introduced a resolution to overturn a Biden administration rule requiring that foster parenting placements not be hostile to a child’s sexual orientation.

But then I saw this article from The New Republic.

Representative Jim Banks is running to represent Indiana in the Senate, but he categorically refuses to reject an armed rebellion against the federal government.

Banks was asked four times in person by a NOTUS reporter if he opposes a rebellion, and each time failed to give a clear answer. The fourth time, he even insulted the reporter.

I don’t take you seriously enough to answer your question,” Banks said on Tuesday, following three previous attempts on Monday when he instead chose to complain about Democrats. Why has a question with a clear easy answer become such an issue? It stems from a social media post from Banks on May 30, the same night Donald Trump was convicted in his hush-money trial.

Banks’s post on X (formerly Twitter) is pinned to the top of his profile, and has a picture of the Appeal to Heaven flag without any words. That flag today is attributed to Christian nationalism and the far right. It was also a symbol of the “Stop the Steal” movement created by Trump’s followers following the 2020 election, and carried by rioters at the Capitol building on January 6, 2021. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has attracted criticism for flying the same flag outside his vacation home in New Jersey.

In one of his multiple evasive responses to the reporter’s questions, Banks referenced the upcoming election.

“We’re in unprecedented times, and November will be the result of regular people taking our country back,” Banks said to NOTUS. “And then we’ll have a reset, and then we’ll take back our government and our country from the elites and those who are trying to destroy it. So you can infer whatever you’d like from that post.”

I was previously unfamiliar with NOTUS, which bills itself as a “new Washington publication from the nonprofit, nonpartisan Allbritton Journalism Institute.” The original article, written by the NOTUS reporter who had conducted the interview, expanded on the conversation, noting that Banks had asked him whether he was a Christian, and whether he’d ever appealed to heaven. He followed that with a rant about the Democrats “weaponizing” the law against their political opponents. (I’m pretty sure that in GOP lingo, “weaponizing” means applying the rule of law to Republicans…)

Banks adamantly refused to answer the question “Do you oppose the concept of a second civil war?”

“That’s a crazy question,” Banks said, without answering it.

And when pressed again for his answer, he didn’t respond, disappearing into an elevator.

On Tuesday, a spokesperson for Banks did not respond to emails requesting the congressman’s opinion on armed rebellion against the U.S. government. On Wednesday, the spokesperson also did not respond to text messages from NOTUS, which were sent to his confirmed cell phone number, attempting again to see if Banks would like to offer clarity. The spokesperson did not answer phone calls from NOTUS ahead of this story’s publication, either.

It’s one thing to disagree with the “biblical perspectives” of people like Beckwith and Banks. It’s more important to recognize that they do not inhabit America’s current reality–or for that matter, any reality. They are thorough MAGA theocrats, convinced that they talk to God, and that God hates the same people they do.

I’m sure mental health professionals have a diagnosis for extreme theocratic zealotry. I don’t.

But I do know that they don’t belong in public office.

 
Comments

Mike Leppert Nails It

One of the most frustrating aspects of today’s information environment is its fragmented nature. Many of us  depend upon widely respected national sources of news and even wisdom–the Heather Cox Richardsons and others who bring scholarship and acumen to in-depth discussion of the issues that confound us. Fewer of us know about or subscribe to blogs and newsletters produced by local folks–and that’s a shame, because many of them deserve to be more widely read. I’ve updated my blogroll to include a couple, including that of my friend Michael Leppert, whose weekly posts can be accessed here. I highly recommend them.

Mike is currently a lecturer at Indiana University’s Kelley School of Business, and an adjunct professor at IU’s O’Neill School of Public and Environmental Affairs. He’s also a columnist and an author. (I was honored to write the introduction to his first book, Contrary to Popular Belief.) He has worked for the State of Indiana and as a lobbyist. Because he knows how things work, his blog is a deeply informed look at politics and the policy process.

A recent post, in my humble opinion, hit it out of the park.

Leppert was considering the abortion landscape after Dobbs, and reminding voters that–on reproductive rights– We the People have the right to the final word.

In his policy classes, Leppert says he’s focused on two primary ideas: “One, that governing is choosing; and two, there is no bigger asset or burden in the public policy process more powerful than time.”

The best contemporary policy example to use for understanding American democratic processes is the debate on women’s reproductive health freedom. Not just because of the Dobbs or Roe decisions, but because it is a policy that is truly a governing choice, unimpacted by infinite conditions beyond decision-makers’ control.

Unlike economic conditions or foreign policy, which are impacted by infinite conditions beyond anyone’s control, voters have the opportunity to determine the extent of abortion rights.

In some states, unlike Indiana, voters have access to referenda or initiatives. As he notes:

Eleven states are headed for referenda votes in November on constitutional proposals to create or protect abortion rights. Nine of them were initiated by voter petition. Four of those states already effectively have bans in place. Even Arkansas reached their threshold of signatures last week just before that state’s deadline.

In states where voters can vote, they either already are, or soon will. And because of the Dobbs decision, a vote on reproductive freedom is no longer a hypothetical discussion. There is data to drive the thinking of those clinging to rational thought on the matter.

He proceeds to outline some of that data, and it’s compelling.

In Texas, which banned abortion in 2021, the infant mortality rate rose 8%, and birth defects increased by 23% (in the rest of the U.S. they decreased by 3%)

As Leppert reminds us, Texas state elected officials chose this.

Then there’s Idaho, a state that is manic in its zeal to eradicate women’s freedoms. Its bans have created a crisis of care, driving obstetricians from the state. In February, it was reported that 22 of the state’s 44 counties don’t have access to any practicing obstetrician. More than 50 of them quit practicing there since the state passed its ban in August of 2022. It already ranked in the bottom five of all states for maternal mortality outcomes….

The catastrophic choices have only begun to be impacted by the all-powerful influence of time…

Because he is a resident of Indiana, Leppert concludes by referencing just how out of touch our theocratic GOP officials are with the sentiments of Indiana’s voters.

Indiana’s time has now begun too. Judicial delays now exhausted, the bad data is being gathered in a state already ranked 44th in infant mortality, and 47th in maternal mortality. Recent polling on the issue shows the most unsurprising results I’ve ever seen, as reported by the Indiana Capital Chronicle.

Petition driven ballot initiatives aren’t available here, though 78% of voters here want it. 72% of voters are less likely to support incumbents who voted to block a referendum.

Hoosiers can and should vote accordingly.

The state’s embattled attorney general, Todd Rokita, has been aggressively seeking access to patient medical records of those who have received abortion care. 95% of voters oppose this access. “Peace on earth” wouldn’t get 95%, and even if it did, Rokita would likely fight it.

If the Republican candidates for statewide office are successful in November, we can expect Indiana to emulate Texas and Idaho  (with censorship and unremitting attacks on education thrown in)… The GOP’s “Christian warrior” candidates are even more extreme than the legislators who passed Indiana’s ban.

As Leppert reminded his readers: Hoosier voters will choose…

Comments

How Awful Are Hoosiers, Really?

Consider this a follow-up to yesterday’s “Extra” post.

I have written before about Indiana Democrats’ self-defeating attitudes and behaviors. A recent conversation with two very savvy political observers reminded me–again!– how incredibly unhelpful those negative attitudes are.

It’s a conversation I’ve had repeatedly. Acquaintances who are committed Democrats refrain from donating to Hoosier Democratic candidates because “they can’t win in Indiana.” Rather obviously, that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy–if these candidates lack sufficient resources to compete, they will lose. (During that recent conversation, when I reminded my friends that Obama had won Indiana, one responded “Yes, but he put significant resources here.” Yes–with sufficient resources, Democrats can win Indiana. Duh.)

This year, as I have documented, the Indiana Democratic Party has nominated a statewide (non-gerrymander-able) slate of truly excellent candidates. They are capable, moderate, and–unlike their GOP opponents–sane. Meanwhile, the Republicans are running a ticket of out-and-out White Supremecist theocrats, men who are personally repugnant supporters of an exceptionally far-Right agenda: anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-public education, anti-environment…candidates who enthusiastically support positions that survey research confirms are at odds with the positions of most Hoosiers, Republican and Democrat alike.

So why, you might ask (I’ve certainly been asking) do people who clearly recognize both the merits of the Democratic candidates and the threats posed by the Republican ones still insist that Indiana voters will opt for the Republican ones?

During that last discussion, I finally came to understand the roots of that belief. (I’m slow.)

These same people–people who care about their neighbors, who understand and worry about the current assaults on the Constitution and civil liberties, who recognize the nuanced nature of policy disputes–apparently believe that a significant majority of Hoosier voters are ignorant and hateful.

Too many of my Democratic friends view all Hoosier Republicans–especially but not exclusively rural Republicans– as uneducated and politically unsophisticated, resentful of social change and suspicious of anyone who isn’t a White Christian. They see all Republicans as MAGA bigots, mired in a Fox “News” universe, dismissive of information inconsistent with their prejudices, and they conclude that efforts to inform or persuade them are useless. (This belief actually becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy: if the Democratic candidates lack resources to communicate their positions, many Hoosier voters will lack accurate information.)

I’m willing to concede that this picture of a committed racist rube accurately describes the base of today’s GOP–the MAGA folks who form the core of what has become Trump’s political party. But I refuse to believe that all Hoosier Republicans are cut from that same MAGA cloth. There are people who are relatively uninformed, but not hateful–many people who would reject the premises and promises of Project 2025 if they knew what those premises and promises really were.

The Democrats who are writing off Hoosier voters rather clearly believe that providing sufficient resources to disseminate accurate information widely around the state is a fool’s errand. They believe that the super-majority in our deplorable state legislature is an accurate representation of unenlightened, racist and misogynistic Hoosier sentiment–after all, those voters elected that super-majority. (They forget the substantial effects of gerrymandering and vote suppression.)

The only thing that would change the minds of these dismissive observers of Indiana politics is an election that upends their smug conclusions–but their unwillingness to fund their preferred candidates adequately makes such an election result infinitely more difficult.

I’ve been working with both the McCormick and McCray campaigns, and I can report that both are well-organized, strategically sound, and–most important–right on all the issues that matter. I am absolutely convinced that–with adequate funding–they can inform voters statewide of the enormous differences between them and the GOP’s Christian Nationalist ticket, and that adequate dissemination of that information would lead to victory.

I guess it’s up to those of us in Indiana who are politically “unsophisticated” to step into the breach. Those of us who care deeply about women’s access to abortion, civil rights for our gay friends and neighbors, support for public education, and the other immensely important rights threatened by today’s far far Right GOP candidates need to contribute as much as we can so that the good guys have enough to communicate their message.

They don’t need as much as their opponents; they just need enough.

Unless, of course, my “sophisticated” friends are right, and a majority of my fellow Hoosiers are contemptible.

Comments

And Now, An Extra: The Democrats

Indiana’s state Democratic convention is over, and as promised, I will devote a post to that party’s slate of statewide candidates. They provide a striking contrast to the theocratic culture warriors who believe they will glide to victory because this is Indiana.

I have admired Jennifer McCormick since she was Indiana’s Superintendent of Public Instruction. That admiration grew when she publicly repudiated the GOP. Unlike other spineless Republican officeholders, she opted to leave a party that held a legislative super-majority and pledge allegiance to a minority party that now stands for positions she cares about–positions the GOP has abandoned. It took guts–and principles.

Jennifer is running a disciplined, strategic campaign focused on those issues: reproductive freedom, public education, union rights and a living wage, and fiscal responsibility. You can learn more about her here. 

McCormick chose Terry Goodin to run for Lieutenant Governor. Unlike the Christian Nationalist running for that spot on the GOP’s ticket, Goodin is highly qualified for the position, which is largely focused on agriculture and rural affairs. A former state legislator, Goodin is currently Indiana state director for USDA Rural Development, and has deep roots into communities that tend to vote overwhelmingly Republican. (Like McCormick, Goodin also served several years as a public school superintendent.) 

Goodin was initially criticised by Democrats who pointed to his vote in 2011 against same-sex marriage, but like many other Americans, he has grown; he issued a heartfelt apology for that vote, which he now considers hurtful and wrong. He has enthusiastically endorsed McCormicks priorities, especially on reproductive choice and public education.

Valerie McCray is a genuine political outsider. A graduate of Arsenal Tech High School in Indianapolis, she navigated the challenges of being a single mother, while earning a BA, MA, and Ph.D from the University of Michigan, and has spent 35 years as a practicing psychologist. Her professional experience underscored for her the effect of public policies on multiple populations, and convinced her to take her fights for a woman’s right to choose and “beyond-subsistence” wages to Washington. Because she knows “what it’s like to be a struggling middle-class American; a single mom, a student using the same bag for books and diapers,” she will champion “union support, healthcare for all, equal rights for everyone, strengthening public education, and repealing Citizens United,” and she promises to “fight for student loan debt reduction, closing the wealth gap, and funding environmental efforts.” You can learn more about Dr. McCray here.

In their recent convention, Democrats chose Destiny Wells as their candidate for Attorney General. Wells ran an impressive, albeit losing, campaign for Secretary of State two years ago, which she says taught her valuable lessons. Coming, as she says, from eight generations of Indiana farmers, she was a first generation college student at IU; she joined the National Guard and ROTC and today is a  a U.S. Army Reserve Lieutenant Colonel. Along the way, Wells earned a law degree which led to experience serving multiple levels of government and with NATO. (She’s been an Associate Corporation Counsel for Indianapolis, and a Deputy Attorney General for Indiana.) A major theme of her campaign is “restoring integrity to the Office of Attorney General”–a theme that will resonate with anyone who’s familiar with the operation of that office under Todd Rokita. You can learn more about Destiny and her positions here.

Not only are all of these individuals accomplished and highly qualified for the positions they seek, they are running against a collection of looney-tune MAGA extremists. Braun spent his six undistinguished years as a Senator cozying up to Trump. Beckwith is a self-identified Christian Nationalist whose only experience in public office– on a library board– outraged the community by attempting to censor books that offended his fundamentalist religious beliefs. He has NO experience relevant to the job he seeks. Banks is–as I have documented–a culture war zealot and MAGA anti-woke crusader, a clone of Beckwith. And it is impossible to summarize the multiple times I’ve posted about the despicable and unethical behaviors of Attorney General Todd Rokita.

All of these men are anti-choice, anti-gay, and anti-woman. 

There is absolutely no reason why the impressive slate of candidates being run by the Democrats can’t win-if they have the resources to distribute their messages and bona fides. (Unless, of course, you agree with the pessimist assertion that all inhabitants of rural Indiana are ignorant racist theocrats who will vote Republican because they agree with the appalling positions of the GOP candidates.)

If you care about women’s reproductive liberty, public education, intellectual freedom and civic equality, send these candidates money. Volunteer for one of their campaigns. 

And vote Blue up and down the ballot.

Comments