JonLowder.com

Dominionist Theocracy

Remember the Forsyth County (NC) prayer case that was appealed all the way to the Supreme Court? If not you can find all kinds of references to it here. In a nutshell the county commissioners were accused of favoring one religion (Christianity) over others because they invited Christian religious leaders to open the commission meetings with sectarian prayers. Some citizens didn't like it and with the help of the ACLU sued the county.  The county commissioners, against the advice of the county's attorney, opted to fight it with the help of the Alliance Defense Fund and the financial backing of some local Christian leaders who agreed to pay the legal costs for the county if the county lost the case, which it did.

Lately a few NC counties have opted to continue opening their meetings with sectarian prayers and the ACLU has warned them that they face a fate similar to Forsyth's. That has prompted some state legislatures to draft a bill that would, well, you'll have to read it to believe it.  Even if this goes nowhere, which will hopefully be the case, it's still a disturbing development as explained by Lex:

Back when Michelle Goldberg’s book “Kingdom Coming,” about the rise of Christian Nationalism in America, was published, I reviewed it for the News & Record and the blog I then wrote for the paper, The Lex Files. As you can see from the comments, as well as from this site, I took a lot of grief for stating, on the basis of my own reporting on the subject and my familiarity with some of Goldberg’s original sources, that there were significant numbers of people in America who wished to turn this country from a secular, constitutional democratic republic to a Dominionist theocracy; that is, a country where the law is based strictly on the Christian Bible...

Well, as it happens, down in Salisbury, the Rowan County commissioners want to be able to pray to Jesus in their official capacities, and so a bill, House Joint Resolution 494, has been introduced in the N.C. legislature that would allow that and much more besides.

This bill claims that the First Amendment’s ban on government making law “respecting an establishment of religion” applies only to thefederal government, not the states, because in the minds of the (blessedly few) 11 sponsors signing on so far, the Fourteenth Amendment, whose equal protection  clause extends the protection of federal law to every citizen of the country, never happened.

It’s tempting to call these people batshit crazy and let it go at that. Tempting though that approach is, however, it lets them off too lightly. This is an attempt to turn one state among 50 in a constitutionally established secular democratic republic into a Dominionist theocracy in violation of the very Constitution the legislators have sworn an oath to uphold.

It's safe to say that this legislative session will go down as one of the most interesting and bizarre in our living memory.

Standing on Principle

Winston-Salem city councilman Dan Besse is taking a bit of a political hit for his stance on an issue before the council. From Yes! Weekly's editorial about the matter:

The Winston-Salem city councilman took a stand last week against a proposed resolution by the city to oppose the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision, which equated money with free speech and enabled corporations and unions to make unlimited financial contributions to the political process...

But the time is being spent regardless of Besse’s opposition, largely at the behest of his political allies and constituents...

Surely there would be no harm to Dan Besse’s political future by backing down on his stance and throwing in with the opposition groups. It’s an election year, after all, and though Besse’s Southwest Ward seat seems safe, he will surely face a Republican opponent in the General Election.

The editors then provide two quotes from Besse that I think should be printed and hung on the walls in the chambers of every city/town/county council in the land:

“I strongly believe that as a good-government issue, that local governments should focus on the good things we can do — services and infrastructure that we are responsible for — instead of serving as an adjunct public debating society on issues over which we have no jurisdiction,” he said.

and

“If you can’t act on what you believe is the right thing to do, then you shouldn’t be in office,” he said.

Councilman Besse also pointed out that he is an activist on many issues like assault weapons bans, the Affordable Care Act and environmental quality, but he is active in other more appropriate venues. His point - that being a member of city council doesn't preclude him from advocating for any issue on his own time, but when he's wearing his councilmember hat he should be focused on the city's business - is spot on.