Mediaboss Marketing

In a blog post for The Gospel Coalition, Kevin DeYoung calls for conservative Christians to have more children and disciple them like crazy, a new culture war strategy that has me scratching my head. Not just because its sexist to tell mothers, who typically bear the disproportionate burden of child-care, to have more children than you think you can handle. And not just because its anti-child to catechize these small human beings to win a culture war. As offensive as that is, Im confounded because this isnt a new culture war strategy at all. For those of us who grew up in evangelicalism, we just called this the way we grew up.

As a child, I was catechized by youth group leaders, missionaries who had the zeal to add numbers to their newsletter reportsuh, I mean, for the Kingdom. Of course, as a child, I didnt have the awareness of this culture war strategy, I simply believed I was being taught the love and grace of a good God. When I grew older and, gasp, developed my own critical thinking abilities, I began to see with more clarity the unspoken strategies put in place to ensure I stayed in the fold long after I departed from the shelter of my Christian bubble.

If you look at one of the leading influential voices of evangelical culture, Focus on the Family, youll see very clear guidelines on how exactly to do this. When kids are very young, its important to instill respect, which means blind obedience to authority figures.

God gives us rules that we must obey.

Even if Mommy or Daddy cant see what you are doing, God sees it.

As they enter early Elementary years, erect a boundary between the Christian worldview, often referred to as the biblical way, and the secular world.

In late Elementary years, families are instructed to land the target: convert the child. Note this quote,

The majority of people who trust Christ as Savior do so before they are teens.

The National Association of Evangelicals notes a Barna study citing the average age of conversion, between 4-14.

Implicit in this reminder is the urgency to convert kids before they grow upwhat I call the Get-em-while-theyre-young ideology. What happens to kids who grow into middle school age and teenagers, as their world slowly expands and they begin to see discrepancies between the doctrines theyre taught and their own experiences? How are Christian families to keep their kids toeing the line?

Christian families are taught to repeat two steps. Step 1: Obey God no matter what. In more sophisticated language this is taught as the doctrine of the Sovereignty of God, which is prevalent on the website of the Gospel Coalition on whose board Kevin DeYoung sits (along with 8 other men). Step 2: Continue fearing the secular world. This, of course, is the driving force behind the culture wars.

The culture wars did not arise out of a vacuum; the players are carefully cultivated in their homes and families, through curation of Christian-subculture content for kids, and via the meticulous wiring of childrens minds and spirituality to blind obedience and fears of departing from the imagined safety of Christian environments.

When DeYoungs piece was published I was surprised to see a lot of fellow ex-evangelicals mock this piece by stating that this strategy will fail because their own story is that it did not work on them. Because they left.

I disagree. I think it works very well. As humans were molded by our environment. To deny this would be to ignore evidence from the scientists who study human behavior. Children are deeply impacted by the teachings they receive and the culture which shapes them. Those of us who grew up to be adults who questioned the assumptions of our childhood have done so at great mental anguish and weve paid a significant social cost. For every individual who was willing to pay that premium, there are many who stay and perpetuate the ideology of their childhood. And the culture war retains its warriors.

Kevin DeYoungs new culture war strategy isnt new, but it is effective. However, winning this war means everybody loses. A healthy and vibrant society doesnt advance itself through the imposition of sectarian interests, but through meaningful engagement with a plurality of cultures and ideas.

Rather than catechize children to win culture wars, lets raise them with values of respect and love of robust diversity. And the best way to teach kids to treat others in their community with humanity is to respect our childrens humanityto give them agency and freedom to think, to feel, to learn with gentle guidance rather than authoritarian manipulation.

Nobody raises kids in a vacuum of values, but theres a difference between leadership and indoctrination. The latter creates culture warriors. The former will raise responsible and engaged citizens for a healthy society.

See original here:
The 'Have More Children and Disciple Them Like Crazy' Culture War Strategy is Neither New Nor Responsible - Religion Dispatches

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks at a joint news conference with Polish President Andrzej Duda in the Rose Garden of the White House on June 24, 2020 in Washington, DC.

Drew Angerer | Getty Images

WASHINGTON President Donald Trump on Thursday launched his most direct attacks to date on the nationwide Black Lives Matter movement for racial justice.

Trump, seizing on a quote by a man who runs a fringe Black Lives Matter knock-off group, and a chant that is not popular with protesters, suggested in tweets that the loosely organized racial justice movement poses a threat.

Trump was quoting Walter "Hawk" Newsome, who was a guest on Fox News earlier in the day. In the same interview, Newsome also said that BLM activists should be applauded for arming themselves with guns, and he said his threat to "burn down this system" could be either figurative or literal, depending upon one's viewpoint.

In his tweet, Trump falsely described Newsome as a "Black Lives Matter leader." But in reality, Newsome hasrepeatedly angered the founders of the official Black Lives Matter movement by adopting their moniker and raising money off of it, while espousing an approach to racial justice that is far more militant than the main branch of the Black Lives Matter movement.

Reached for comment about Newsome's Fox News interview, a BLM spokesperson told CNBC, "As BLM has told Mr. Newsome in the past, and as is still true today, Mr. Newsome's group is not a chapter of BLM and has not entered into any agreement with BLM agreeing to adhere to BLM's core principles."

CNBC reached out to the White House to ask if the president was aware that Newsome was not actually a "Black Lives Matter leader," but a spokesman did not respond to questions.

Exactly one minute after Trump tweeted out Newsome's quote, he posted another tweet about BLM.

This time, Trump railed at New York Mayor Bill De Blasio's recently announced decision to paint a "Black Lives Matter" mural on Fifth Avenue in front of one of Trump Tower, the site of Trump's former residence. It is one of five such murals being painted throughout the city.

Trump claims in the tweet that a chant about killing police is "their chant," referring to the Black Lives Matter movement. But that chant has not been popular with protesters in New York or anywhere else in the country in the wake of George Floyd's killing in late May in Minneapolis.

Five minutes after the mural tweet, Trump tweeted, "LAW AND ORDER!" one of his most oft-repeated phrases ever since the start of the nationwide movement for racial justice that was triggered by Floyd's death.

The tweets come near the end of a week during which the president, trailing badly behind Democrat Joe Biden in presidential polls, has repeatedly sought to sow fresh racial divisions among Americans.

In the past seven days, Trump has deployed a racist nickname for the deadly coronavirus, demanded that a toppled Confederate statue in Washington be restored, tweeted context-free videos of black people attacking white people, tweeted a doctored video purportedly showing a "racist baby," and accused former President Barack Obama of "treason."

By cranking up the same culture wars that helped Trump to win the White House in 2016, the president hopes to galvanize his core supporters, and to drive a wedge between suburban middle-class White voters and the activists protesting in cities across the nation.

Yet polls increasingly show that Trump's strategy is backfiring. Instead of siding with Trump against the protests, some of which have turned violent, a majority of Americans say the country's leaders should focus on the underlying reasons for the protests, and not on cracking down on protesters, even ones who break the law.

A New York Times/Siena College poll released this week found that63% of registered voters said they would rather back a presidential candidate "who focuses on the cause of protests, even when the protests go too far." Only 31% said they would prefer to support a candidate "who says we need to be tough on demonstrations that go too far."

Excerpt from:
Trump cranks up attacks on the Black Lives Matter movement for racial justice - CNBC

Listen and subscribe to our podcast from your mobile device:

Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Google Play | RadioPublic | Stitcher

Joe Biden has vowed to pick a woman as his running mate. But of the many qualified contenders, who should win the veepstakes? Michelle and Frank have different ideas as to whose name on the ticket could help push Mr. Biden to victory in November.

Then, editorial board member Jesse Wegman joins Ross and Frank for a Supreme Court battle: has SCOTUS usurped Congress when it comes to legislating Americas culture wars?

Background Reading:

Ive been an Op-Ed columnist for The Times since 2011, but my career with the newspaper stretches back to 1995 and includes many twists and turns that reflect my embarrassingly scattered interests. I covered Congress, the White House and several political campaigns; I also spent five years in the role of chief restaurant critic. As the Rome bureau chief, I reported on the Vatican; as a staff writer for The Timess Sunday magazine, I wrote many celebrity profiles. That jumble has informed my various books, which focus on the Roman Catholic Church, George W. Bush, my strange eating life, the college admissions process and meatloaf. Politically, Im grief-stricken over the way President Trump has governed and Im left of center, but I dont think that the center is a bad place or compromise a dirty word. Im Italian-American, Im gay and I write a weekly Times newsletter in which youll occasionally encounter my dog, Regan, who has the run of our Manhattan apartment.

Ive been an Op-Ed columnist since 2009, and I write about politics, religion, pop culture, sociology and the places where they all intersect. Im a Catholic and a conservative, in that order, which means that Im against abortion and critical of the sexual revolution, but I tend to agree with liberals that the Republican Party is too friendly to the rich. I was against Donald Trump in 2016 for reasons specific to Donald Trump, but in general I think the populist movements in Europe and America have legitimate grievances and I often prefer the populists to the reasonable elites. Ive written books about Harvard, the G.O.P., American Christianity and Pope Francis, and decadence. Benedict XVI was my favorite pope. I review movies for National Review and have strong opinions about many prestige television shows. I have four small children, three girls and a boy, and I live in New Haven with my wife.

Ive been an Op-Ed columnist at The New York Times since 2017, writing mainly about politics, ideology and gender. These days people on the right and the left both use liberal as an epithet, but thats basically what I am, though the nightmare of Donald Trumps presidency has radicalized me and pushed me leftward. Ive written three books, including one, in 2006, about the danger of right-wing populism in its religious fundamentalist guise. (My other two were about the global battle over reproductive rights and, in a brief detour from politics, about an adventurous Russian migr who helped bring yoga to the West.) I love to travel; a long time ago, after my husband and I eloped, we spent a year backpacking through Asia. Now we live in Brooklyn with our son and daughter.

Tune in on iTunes, Google Play, Spotify, Stitcher or wherever you listen to podcasts. Tell us what you think at argument@nytimes.com. Follow Michelle Goldberg (@michelleinbklyn), Ross Douthat (@DouthatNYT) and David Leonhardt (@DLeonhardt) on Twitter.

The Argument Is a production of the New York Times Opinion section. The team includes Phoebe Lett, Lauren Kelley, Paula Schuzman and Pedro Rafael Rosado. Special thanks to Brad Fisher, Constanza Gallardo, Sara Nics and James T. Green.

Read more:
Place Your Bets on Bidens V.P. - The New York Times

For one thing, the laws ambiguities provide ample space for even a mind that imagines itself constrained even Scalias mind, in some cases to argue its way into ruling on behalf of its ideological objectives. Meanwhile politics abhors a power vacuum, and our juristocracy has claimed new powers in part because Congress doesnt want them, a tendency that originalism is powerless to change.

And the public seems to have accepted this abdication. The main question in American social life, the blogger Tanner Greer recently observed, is not how do we make that happen? but how do we get management to take our side? The Supreme Court, clothed in meritocratic authority, seems more like management than Congress.

All of these tendencies converged in Gorsuchs decision. The goal of his ruling, civil rights protections for gay and transgender Americans, is widely shared; the problem is that Congress has no desire to negotiate over the uncertain implications for religious liberty, single-sex institutions, transgender athletes, and more. So Gorsuch (with Robertss support) took the burden on himself, discovering the desired protections in the text of the 1964 Civil Rights Act (an act of sophistry, not interpretation) and then suggesting that all the uncertainties would be worked out in future cases in other words, by Neil Gorsuch, arbiter of sexual and religious liberties alike.

That a textualist philosophy and a Federalist Society pedigree didnt restrain him from this self-aggrandizement suggests the conservative legal movement needs either a new theory of its purpose, a new personnel strategy, or both.

But outside the right, the welcome afforded Gorsuchs ruling which reached the popular outcome, and relieved our legislators of a responsibility they didnt want is a telling indication of how our system is understood to work. We may officially have three branches of government, but Americans seem to accept that its more like 2.25: A presidency that acts unilaterally whenever possible, a high court that checks the White House and settles culture wars, and a Congress that occasionally bestirs itself to pass a budget.

What sort of Republic this is, and whether we will keep it, is for a higher court than Neil Gorsuchs to decide.

Go here to see the original:
The Tempting of Neil Gorsuch - The New York Times

Everyone I know has a place to which they dream of going when travel once again becomes easy or, more importantly, safe. Some imagine a journey to visit family in another part of our country. One friend hopes to fulfill her lifelong ambition of seeing the Northern Lights in Iceland. And lately, since my Italian friends have been posting, on social media, images of the empty streets of Rome, the placid canals and under-populated piazzas of Venice, Ive found myself counting the days until I can visit Italy, the country (other than my own) where Ive always felt happiest, most comfortable, most at home. Ive fantasized how many masks and bottles of hand sanitizer it would require for me to take advantage of the cheap flights and ignore the obvious risks of transatlantic travel and meet my friends for a dish of fried artichokes and spaghetti alle vongole in my favorite outdoor trattoria in Trastevere.

But now, it seems, the bad news about our political situation has once again intensified the terrible news about the virus. And its begun to appear that even if we wanted to travel to Europe even if had the money and were willing to take that considerable risk we might not be allowed to go.

Over the past days, the European Union has announced it is considering excluding Americans from the list of travelers who will be admitted to EU countries when their borders open up on 1 July. Its not a matter of politics, not a retaliation for the fact that Donald Trump has banned travelers from Europe from entering the United States, but a more commonsense scientific decision based solely on criteria having to do with health: America has done such a poor job of controlling the Covid-19 outbreak that our infection rate is increasing dramatically while that of most European nations (and others such as Cuba, China and Vietnam) is either remaining stable or decreasing. Were simply too dangerous too likely to bring the deadly virus along with the more welcome (and needed) tourist dollars.

Clearly, its not a decision that will be made lightly. American tourists contribute heavily to the European economy, and a travel ban will significantly affect the ability of American companies to do business abroad. But unlike the US states that rushed to reopen too soon, that so clearly prioritized economic recovery over human life, the EU countries are saying theyd rather take the financial hit than see more of their citizens die.

Of course, given the current state of our economy, its unlikely that all that many Americans will be able to afford that dream trip to Paris this summer, even if we were allowed entry into France. Still, its a strange feeling: in just a few months, weve become a pariah nation. Weve gone from being admired for our spirit, our culture, our stalwart devotion to freedom despite our governments persistent attempts to curtail those freedoms and are now being viewed as a nation of super-spreaders, a danger to our own health and that of the hotel reception clerk, the waiter at the caf, the two innocent grandmas with the bad luck to sit at a table too near the Americans sipping their morning cappuccini.

Its a clear rebuke to the way that Donald Trump has handled the Covid-19 crisis: refusing to take it seriously, promising that the virus will fade away, advocating unproven cures, and (perhaps most unbelievably of all) suggesting that wearing a mask is a political gesture: a sign that we dont like him. But given that Trump has proven himself incapable of being embarrassed by anything except perhaps the low turnout at one of his rallies it seems unfair that we should be the ones who are being made to feel ashamed of what has happened to the ways in which the world views us.

And yet as much as Id like to like to blame Trump for the tragic way in which this crisis has played out, the truth is that its largely but not entirely his fault. Blame must also be laid at the feet of the governors who ignored the CDC warnings and rushed to re-open their states, and on a system that lacks a safety net to help us through crises like this, so that people are forced to choose between going to work and possibly getting sick or letting their families go hungry and lose their homes.

But finally, if the Europeans dont want us anywhere near them, some of the responsibility lies with those Americans who so proudly and fiercely insist on their God-given freedom to spread the virus.

Trump has consistently modeled bad behavior by refusing to wear a mask. He has unconscionably tried to turn the question of mask-wearing into yet another battle in the culture wars, but so far he has not made it illegal to wear a mask and to help stop the spread of infection. Being safe and smart is still our individual prerogative. So if youre concerned about the poor job we have done in keeping our neighbors and loved ones from dying, about the sharp spike in infections and hospitalizations, and now about the fact that we might not be allowed to travel to the destinations we have been dreaming about during this long quarantine, you might want to look in the mirror. And see if you are wearing a mask.

Go here to see the original:
How did America become a pariah nation of super-spreaders? - The Guardian