Mediaboss Marketing

Reverend Jesse Jackson speaks during a demonstration outside the Trump International Hotel Las Vegas ahead of the third presidential debate in Las Vegas, Nevada, U.S., on Wednesday, Oct. 19, 2016. The debate, moderated by Chris Wallace of Fox News, will be the final meeting of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton ahead of the November 8 presidential election. Photographer: Daniel Acker/BloombergDaniel AckerBloomberg

Call it the anti-diversity administration.

U.S. President Donald Trump is on course to reverse decades-old efforts to empower and protect minorities. Affirmative action policies at colleges and universities are being reviewed by the Justice Department. Trump supports curbs on immigration of non-English speakers and proposed a ban on transgender people in the military. He says its time to stop political correctness.

But civil rights advocates promise him a fight at every turn -- and a philosophically divided Supreme Court will likely be the final arbiter on the most contentious issues.

Trumps backers say the change in tone is welcome. "Diversity is a way of justifying discrimination -- hiring people based on their race, and thats a violation of federal law," said Hans von Spakovsky, a lawyer at the conservative Heritage Foundation. "Thats what the prior administration wanted to ignore."

The effects are rippling across America, with workers stepping out and challenging companies policies on diversity. A Google engineer wrote a memo arguing that men were more suited biologically to work in tech than women, drawing support of Breitbart News -- the right-wing website that was run by Trumps chief strategist Stephen Bannon. Google fired the employee this week.

Conservative commentators like Bill OReilly and Glenn Beck, and websites including the Drudge Report and Breitbart have railed against political correctness for years. Whats new is that the culture warriors now have a backer in the highest office in the land against rights advocates.

We must stop being politically correct, Trump wrote on Twitter in June, criticizing the mayor of Londons response to a terror attack attributed to radical Islamists that left seven dead. If we dont get smart it will only get worse.

Trumps stance appeals to his mostly white base, which has felt left behind in a country where they will be a minority by mid-century. His policies are also a sharp rebuke to predecessor Barack Obama, the first black president, and a vocal advocate for diversity.

Trump "is showing a radical disregard for the civil rights accomplishments of the past 50 years," said Reverend Jesse Jackson, who marched in 1965 with Martin Luther King Jr. in Selma, Alabama, and organized the Rainbow Coalition in 1984. "All elements of inclusion are under attack. Its a countercultural revolution."

Although the majority of Americans say an increasingly diverse population is positive -- the percentage of whites has fallen from 84 percent in 1965 to 62 percent in 2015, according to the Pew Research Center -- there is a deep political divide. According to a Pew poll last year, 78 percent of Democrats agreed that immigrants strengthened the country -- compared with 35 percent of Republicans.

That division was particularly pronounced after Trump announced plans in January to ban entry to the U.S. to people from seven mostly Muslim countries. The move was backed by 81 percent of Republicans and only 9 percent of Democrats, according to a February Pew poll.

From executive orders to early morning tweets, Trump has used every means to get his anti-diversity message across. His administration is a reflection of his attitudes. Eighteen of the 24 cabinet members are white males. Thats a break from the trends of earlier presidents, who had increasingly surrounded themselves with more women advisers and people of different races. About a third of Obamas cabinet was composed of white men.

"This administration is signaling in not so subtle ways that were not as concerned about civil rights anymore," said Clayborne Carson, a Stanford historian who has spent most of his professional life studying King Jr. "The impact is that certain people are going to feel empowered to move in a different direction from the ideal of diversity."

When the Google engineer was fired, the free-speech platform Gab offered him a job, as CEO Andrew Torba said Silicon Valley exists in a bubble world where Wrong Think is not permitted.

The administration will have to fend off legal challenges to the presidents anti-diversity policies. The American Civil Liberties Union and other groups have sued to overturn Trumps actions, often with the support of coalitions of Democratic state attorneys generals.

President Trumps discriminatory policies arent just un-American -- in some cases, theyre unconstitutional, and well fight them every step of the way, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said in an emailed statement.

The administration is also looking to the courts to further its agenda. The Justice Department intervened in an employment lawsuit, arguing that federal gender-discrimination laws shouldnt apply to sexual orientation, reversing course from the past decade of court rulings.

The U.S. Supreme Court, where justices are divided between conservatives and liberals, is already set to decide in October whether Trumps travel ban is constitutional. The make up of the court may change to become more conservative if members of the liberal wing retire in the next two years, as the challenges to Trumps policies wind through lower courts.

Even if some or all of these efforts fail to get off the ground or crumble in court, they send a message to Trumps base that the embrace of diverse groups that was a signature of the Obama administration is no longer a go.

More here:
How Trump's Policies Are Fueling the Culture Wars - TIME

President Donald Trump, flanked by Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., left, and Sen. David Perdue, R-Ga., speaks in the Roosevelt Room of the White House on Wednesday during the unveiling of legislation that would place new limits on legal immigration. Evan Vucci/AP hide caption

No single issue has been a greater animating force for the Republican base over the past decade than immigration except maybe the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare).

And with the failure of GOP health care efforts in Congress and sliding poll numbers this summer, the Trump White House seems to be making a concerted effort to elevate cultural wedge issues, from immigration and a announcing a ban on transgender people in the military to affirmative action and police conduct.

"Trump has been under siege since he took office," said Brian Jones, a Republican political consultant and veteran of several presidential campaigns, "and the cumulative effect of his administration's missteps is an eroding approval rating, even among Republicans."

So Trump's team is rolling the dice, betting that if he can't get something done through the usual avenues in Washington, he can at least keep his base supporters fired up outside of it with a dose of the cultural grievance that helped get him elected.

When a president's back is up against the wall, what he's got left is his base. He can't afford to lose his most ardent supporters, so, often, presidents go back to the embers they stoked to fire up those supporters in the first place be they cultural or economic.

The poem that you're referring to that was added later is not actually a part of the original Statue of Liberty."

Stephen Miller, White House policy adviser, on the Emma Lazarus poem "The New Colossus," found at the Statue of Liberty that references "huddled masses."

Wednesday, the Trump White House backed a hard-line immigration proposal that would significantly curtail legal immigration. The move came less than a week after the Senate health care bill went up in smoke and on the heels of some other culture-war moves from the president.

Trump tweeted a call for a ban on transgender people in the military; the Justice Department put up a personnel posting attempting to staff an effort to sue for racial discrimination against Asian Americans in university admissions; and Trump suggested in a speech to police that they should be "rough" with certain suspects.

That is all red meat for his base issues that have historically played to white grievance.

Out of the hot focus of the legislative and Russia investigation headlines, many of these issues have been there since the start of the Trump presidency. One of his first major efforts was the travel ban that targets people from six majority-Muslim countries. And the Justice Department is working to try to cut off funding to so-called sanctuary cities, as well as urging prosecutors to seek the toughest sentences possible for nonviolent drug offenders, reversing Obama-era policy.

"I assume they're doing it because these are policies that the president believes will 'make America great again,'" said Alex Conant, a former Republican National Committee spokesman and veteran political operative, who worked for Marco Rubio's presidential campaign. "Politically, it could help him maintain a floor as his poll numbers continue to slide."

And this week, Trump received the worst numbers of his presidency. A Quinnipiac poll had the president at just a 33 percent approval rating with Republican support slipping.

"Speak English"

"Speak English," the president and Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., one of the sponsors of the immigration legislation, said was one of their requirements for those who want to come to the United States. They also said these new legal immigrants had to have skills that could help the economy and that they had to be able to financially support themselves.

When confronted with the poem at the Statue of Liberty about welcoming the tired, huddled masses, White House policy adviser Stephen Miller told reporters, "The poem that you're referring to that was added later is not actually a part of the original Statue of Liberty."

The poem The New Colossus by Emma Lazarus was added in 1903, 17 years after Lady Liberty was dedicated. It was written by Lazarus 20 years earlier as part of a fundraiser for the statue. Lazarus was the daughter of a wealthy sugar refining family, but was taken with the plight of the immigrants and refugees with whom she worked. Her poem depicts the Statue of Liberty as the "Mother of Exiles." Lazarus' story and poem are featured by the National Park Service on its Statue of Liberty website.

The American immigration story for lots, if not most, is one of people coming to the U.S. with little more than the clothes on their backs "yearning to breathe free." Many are escaping poverty or war or simply seeking a better life, a chance to live a middle-class existence for themselves and their children.

It's the quintessential American Dream, that anyone can make it in the U.S.

The Trump administration argues that it is pushing forward with backing the legislation because it would be good for American jobs, especially for minorities already in the country, who cannot find work.

"Among those hit the hardest in recent years have been immigrants and, very importantly, minority workers competing for jobs against brand-new arrivals," Trump said Wednesday in announcing his support for the bill. "And it has not been fair to our people, to our citizens, to our workers."

That sentiment is real. Anecdotally, low-skilled laborers have traditionally been prone to skepticism toward new immigrants, who can be paid less. Businesses argue that Americans won't take the more dangerous, laborious work.

NPR's Amita Kelly fact checked the claim on Friday, finding mixed conclusions:

"Economists disagree whether or how much an influx of immigrants depresses wages. Some have found that new immigrants depress wages for certain groups, such as teenagers or workers with a high school diploma or less. Others say the overall effect on the economy is tiny, and an influx of immigrant workers vitalizes the economy overall."

(Kelly also dove into the specific research cited by Miller, the White House policy adviser who has been pushing this issue for years going back to when he was an aide to Jeff Sessions when he was a senator.)

It's been a similar story for years. The Washington Post took a deep look at this in 2013 and wrote:

"According to some experts, the flood of Hispanic immigrant workers in the past 25 years both legal and illegal has had a much smaller effect on employment patterns than other trends, including factory flight overseas, weakened labor unions and a spate of recessions.

"They also say that low-skilled immigration has been both a boon and a burden to America. It has squeezed public services but generated tax revenue. It has depressed wages in some areas but has revitalized ailing communities. The group that suffers most from the influx of new foreign laborers, these experts report, are earlier immigrants."

Proving divisive

It's not just the immigration push that's proving divisive. So are the other recent controversial, culturally focused steps taken by the administration.

The Justice Department says its affirmative-action effort is about "racial discrimination against Asian Americans," according to a Justice Department spokeswoman, who added that the department "is committed to protecting all Americans from all forms of illegal race-based discrimination."

"Maybe now people will finally pay attention to something we Asian Americans have been talking about for so long," Joe Zhou told the Los Angeles Times. Zhou sued Harvard in 2015 on behalf of his son, who did not get in, despite being a valedictorian with a 4.44 grade-point average, near-perfect SATs and involvement in extracurricular activities.

But not all Asian-Americans feel that way. The advocacy group Asian Americans Advancing Justice condemned the Trump administration's move and said it supports affirmative-action policies.

"Affirmative action expands educational opportunities for all applicants in a society where cultural and racial biases in testing and access to quality education deny many students equal opportunity," the group wrote in a statement.

It noted that affirmative-action policies particularly help "low-income and working class Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders."

Civil rights groups say affirmative-action opponents often focus on Asian-Americans for these kinds of cases as part of an effort to weaken affirmative-action policies more broadly.

"Since the new administration has been in office, it has been moving very deliberately to operationalize its nativist agenda with policies like this one," Advancing Justice continued. "Instead of attacking affirmative action programs, the Trump administration should use its platform to increase opportunities for all students while continuing to address the persistent equity gaps for low-income students and students of color. We support affirmative action and refuse to allow Asian Americans to be used as a wedge between communities of color."

Cornell William Brooks, the former head of the NAACP, said on CNN Wednesday that the Justice Department was looking for "ideological victims" and "racial bogeymen" that don't exist.

That's part of why, despite Trump's appeal to racial and ethnic minorities that legal immigration hurts them they are less likely to peel away.

These things are always a matter of priorities.

Trump's attempts to win over black and brown communities have often fallen short. "What the hell do you have to lose?" he asked in comments aimed at black voters at a campaign rally delivered to a largely white crowd in a white Wisconsin suburb.

Trump wound up winning just 8 percent of black voters in 2016, less than George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004 and barely more than Mitt Romney in 2012.

In reality, those appeals were also largely aimed at trying to keep the GOP voting bloc together, an effort to make Trump appear open-minded to white, suburban Republicans.

The impending ban on transgender people serving in the military, which Trump announced via Twitter, caught Pentagon leaders off guard. Some seemed none-too-pleased with it and appear to be breaking ranks with their commander in chief.

Coast Guard Commandant Adm. Paul Zukunft told a transgender service member, for example, he "will not break faith."

Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Joseph Dunford issued a statement saying, "There will be no modifications to the current policy until the President's direction has been received by the secretary of defense and the secretary has issued implementation guidance."

Trying to stop the slide

The immigration legislation has little chance of passing in Congress. It doesn't have the support of 50 Republican senators, let alone the 60 total votes in the Senate needed to overcome a filibuster.

So why push this?

Narratives of health care failure and Russia investigations have dominated headlines and cable news over the past couple of months. And Trump's numbers have suffered because of it.

That Quinnipiac poll is hardly the only one. Every poll has shown a clear trend. Even Rasmussen, a polling outfit the statistical community frowns upon but the president pays attention to, had Trump at 38 percent Wednesday. Drudge highlighted the poll on its site in bolded and in red font this way:

These are historically bad numbers for a president. No one has been this low at the same time since polling began. But, in fairness, he also had historically bad numbers for any major-party nominee and still won the presidency.

That's important to remember, but it certainly didn't matter in the election, and it's not everything now. The actions the White House is taking and the issues the administration is pushing signal worries among the president's political team.

"Looking at this through a political lens," Jones said, "it appears these coordinated announcements are an effort to keep his core supporters engaged and on board the Trump train."

There are signs of bumpiness on the tracks. Trump won independents in 2016, but a late June NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll, for example, found his approval had slipped 17 points with them since February.

His base, however, appeared intact. That may be changing. Traditionally, even in the worst of times, presidents retain very high support among their party. But Quinnipiac found a softening, a 10-point drop since June among Republicans saying they "very strongly" approve of the president. Barely a majority of Republicans said they "strongly approved," 53 percent, down from 63 percent two months ago.

"The trend is worrisome," Conant said.

Insider looking out?

Trump has begun distancing himself from congressional Republicans, referring to them as "they" and publicly shaming them for having promised action on health care for seven years.

But there's only so long a president can position himself as the "outsider." Obama certainly tried. He ran a re-election campaign partially on it.

Trump is at least now partly responsible for the legislative push and for making the argument for policies. That's something he has failed to do effectively. On health care, for example, he never got beyond boilerplate political talking points and engaged the public with any depth on the nuts and bolts of policy.

Yes, health care is complicated.

President Obama was steeped in policy and, on many issues, especially health care, he was his administration's best spokesman. But when there were failures, just like Trump, Obama blamed "Congress," all of Congress.

That infuriated his own party.

"The most important lesson I've learned, is that you can't change Washington from the inside," Obama said in September 2012, two months before winning re-election. "You can only change it from the outside."

For Trump, the blameless posture is complicated by the deal-maker persona he's created for himself. He wrote a book about it. Trump has pledged to make the "best" deals.

So far, though, he's dealt only with Republicans, making no serious push to bring Democrats on board. At this point, he's only at the threatening stage with Democrats.

Maybe that shouldn't be surprising, however, considering how Trump advocates making deals in The Art of the Deal. In one section, he imagines how he would have responded to a hostile takeover attempt that played out in a different company.

"I'm not saying I would also have won, but if I went down, it would have been kicking and screaming," he wrote. "I would have closed the hotel and let it rot. That's just my makeup. I fight when I feel I'm getting screwed, even if it's costly and difficult and highly risky."

That could explain tweets like this, sent in the wee hours of July 28, the morning after the Senate's Obamacare repeal effort failed:

"As I said from the beginning, let Obamacare implode, then deal. Watch!"

"Time to force the conversation"

The White House seems to see this culture push as good politics.

In the briefing room with reporters, Miller, for example, called the immigration legislation "enormously advantageous" and said it was "time to force the conversation on this issue."

He even explicitly mentioned "battleground states."

"Public support is so immense on this," Miller contended. "If you just look at the polling data in many key battleground states across the country that over time you're going to see massive public push for this kind of legislation."

That doesn't terribly sound unlike the unnamed White House aide, who told Axios this about the president's announcement of a ban on transgender people in the military:

"This forces Democrats in Rust Belt states like Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin, to take complete ownership of this issue. How will the blue-collar voters in these states respond when senators up for re-election in 2018 like Debbie Stabenow are forced to make their opposition to this a key plank of their campaigns?"

But, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders disputed any electoral calculations behind the ban. Asked on July 26 if the decision had anything to do with trying to put pressure on Democrats in battleground seats, she said, "Not that I'm aware." She said it was all about "military readiness and unit cohesion."

A different official also told the Washington Post that the decision was about "military readiness and military resource decision." But, added, "It will be fun to watch some of them [Democrats] have to defend this, but that was never an impetus."

Some Republicans worry reviving the culture wars is the wrong place to focus to achieve the outcome this White House is looking for.

"The challenge is for every political action there is an equal and opposite reaction," Jones said, "and I think many Main Street Republicans, let alone independents, will bristle at proposals they consider to be exceptionally exclusionary particularly in the absence of addressing issues that traditionally animate the whole party, like tax reform."

More:
With His Back Against The Wall, Trump Again Turns To Grievance Politics - NPR

Wal-Mart v. Target.

Buttons v. elastic.

Pinot grigio v. Mountain Dew.

Culture wars.

We're hearing the term more and more to describe the political climate in this country; it's no longer Democrat v. Republican, liberals v. conservatives.

The gap is widening, not only along political ideologies, but culture itself.

As a country, we haven't all watched the same news for a while now; we don't drive the same cars, and half of us don't believe our bigger-than-a-parking-space SUV has any correlation to climate change because scientists and experts have an agenda (what that is, the rest of us still don't know).

Half of Republicans believe higher education is worthless, and consider the word "elite" dirty, even though they voted for a guy who literally has 24K gold wallpaper.

The state of our country has boiled down to this: PBS v. Duck Dynasty.

When Donald Trump tweeted that transgender people were now banned from serving in the military, the gap grew even wider, and if we're really talking culture, it's just a matter of time before restaurants tumble in and fall on top of news cable shows, bronze statues of Confederate heroes and freedom fries.

Therefore, I've done a bit of legwork so when the time comes, as in any day now, we know where we belong and can retreat immediately to those areas. We don't want to eat with you any more than you want to eat with us; may a stray fiber from a pussy hat never again touch a MAGA baseball cap back-to-back in adjoining booths.

It's time for some boundaries. Here you go.

THE RED ZONE

Fast Food (but not Arbys) Conservatives, waiting for your coal mining jobs to come back can make a man mighty hungry, so when its time to chow, feel free to head to any fast-food restaurant where you can get the most saturated fat for your money, with the exception of Arbys (I leave that one out for purely selfish reasons, as its my favorite). Feel free to toss that paper football of trash right out the window onto the highway because youre a goddamned American, thats why. I wont be there to see it.

Country Music More good news! Any food and drink establishment that plays country music is also your territory, as is the presence of sawdust on the floor. Is Natural Light on tap? Then youre in a Red zone, Trumpkin!

TV In the mood for something fancy? Any eatin establishment with a TV is now your territory, mainly because no restaurant televisions sets are tuned in to Masterpiece Theater or the News Hour.

Italian Food All Italian joints are on your list, too, because, well, most of their owners came from New Jersey, and voted for Christie (and still think hes doing a great job), but the most significant qualification was the Mooch. Sure, he only lasted in the Trump admin as long as it takes a mosquito bite to itch, but the penance needs to be paid. Its going to take more than a couple Hail Marys to cancel that sin out.

Bargain Pizza As far as pizza goes, if you have to cook it once you get home or get two large pies, a bag of bread and some pizza dough with chocolate syrup on it for dessert for under $12, place that call now.

Guns and Chains You also get every establishment that gleefully permits guns, has pictures of their food on their menu for easy deciding for those who have trouble with letters, and any grub hole that has more than two locations. That means Sizzler! SIZZLER! You get SIZZLER! I know, buried the lede, but I saved the best for last.

THE BLUE ZONE

Gay Waiters Now for liberals: All right, so you have relinquished spaghetti and meatballs, but guess what you get in return? Gay waiters! Thats right, any restaurant that has the best wait staff is now your home, because if the conservatives put their hush puppies where their mouth is, both of the ends of the rainbow can be found in Blue Land.

All Ethnic Food (Except Italian) Thats not all, folks! The in the liberal corner is all ethnic food except Italian. We even get German because of Angela Merckel! All Mexican is ours, and that includes every taco shop, bertos incarnation and mom and pop place. (Even the chains. I just rewrote that rule.) Let Trump build that Mexican wall, and watch as the liberals eat it away. Chinese. Japanese. Indian. Middle Eastern. Thai. Anyone that conservatives want to ban from this country is one more spice in the collection.

Organic If a restaurant uses even one organic ingredient, the liberals get it, as well as anything that serves chow and is on wheels, so give us all the food trucks.

Gourmet Pizza As far as pizza goes for this side: If there is fresh basil, homemade mozzarella and dough that isnt delivered in frozen little balls as tight and cold as Steve Bannons heart, its progressive. They prefer things to rise instead of thaw.

So, Im sorry, liberals, this guide probably rules out most fried food and places that serve you a loaf of bread as a free appetizer. But we all have to make sacrifices for the cause, whichever cause it may be.

And this doesnt mean you cant patronize the other side, but know it comes with risks.

For every visit to Cracker Barrel, liberals should expect a heaping helping of Prosecute Hillary talk while people buy snacks in the waiting area in order to survive until they get a table. To satisfy every craving for a chimichanga, conservatives must realize that there possibly an undocumented worker nearby, plotting to take their jobs.

Now go to your corners and eat.

Originally posted here:
Keep Your Crappy Pizza: Dividing the Spoils of the Culinary Culture Wars - Phoenix New Times

For the last two decades, the evangelical church in the United States has adopted a posture many refer to as purity culture, which praises the virtue of chastity and calls on all single young adults to pledge themselves to a high standard of sexual purity before marriage. This movement was especially pronounced in the late '90s, aided by a 1997 book by Joshua Harris, I Kissed Dating Goodbye, published when he was just 21 years old. The book asks readers to consider a spiritual alternative to the secular practice of dating. Its massive popularity went on to directly and indirectly shape dating rules laid out by many evangelical parents, and in turn shape the relationships and habits of a generation of young evangelical readers.

Twenty years later, many 20- and 30-somethings still feel the effect of growing up inside purity culture. Online communities like the No Shame Movement give space to individuals to speak out about the harm physical, spiritual, mental, or emotional purity culture has caused.

In her 2015 book Damaged Goods: New Perspectives on Christian Purity, author Dianna Anderson explains some of the negative consequences of purity culture:

Many grew up being told over and over that their virginity was the most important thing they could give their spouse on their wedding night, only to reach that point and realize that having saved themselves didnt magically create sexual compatibility or solve their marital issues. Many soon divorced. Still others sat silently in their church groups, wondering what virginity could possibly mean for them as people who had been victims of incest or abuse or who felt attracted to the same gender.

Two years ago, Harris left his position as minister of the Covenant Life Church to study theology at Regent College. There, Harris met filmmaker Jessica Van Der Wyngaard, who was completing a master's in Theological Studies. Van Der Wyngaard was considering a documentary on issues of singleness and dating in the church, and after studying alongside students like Van Der Wyngaard, Harris developed a goal to revisit his book. He wanted to figure out what he still agreed with, while addressing the impact it has had on so many. As he completed a guided study with a professor, reading books that covered Christian culture at the turn of the century, he simultaneously began asking for public input from individuals, responding to tweets and emails from readers.

Fatherhood has also changed Harris perspective. One of Harriss daughters is now entering dating age.

We do learn through the agonizing journey of mistakes and heartache and pain, and I think that my impulse as a dad is to protect her from that, but I dont think thats realistic," Harris said. "I think you create a different set of problems when you try to protect yourself or your kids from that. I think what I want for her is to have rich relationships that begin with her relationship with God and flow into relationships with men and women with many different backgrounds and perspectives, and I want her to learn by interacting with lots of people the type of person she wants to be alongside in a committed relationship.

When Jessica Van Der Wyngaard arrived at Regent in her late 20s, she saw the issues around singleness that shed experienced at her home church magnified at the university level. Other single friends agreed to feeling pressured toward marriage or made to feel as if something was wrong with them.

What frustrated me was that so much of the dialogue around sexual purity, singleness, and dating was in the hands of the people who got married when they were 21, she said. And they dont know what its like to be in your late 20s or early 30s and single, and that dialogue needed to be expressed from someone that was in that position.

After discussing the documentary, Van Der Wyngaard and Harris agreed that a partnership made sense. Van Der Wyngaard would produce and direct a documentary that followed Harriss journey as he processed his first book and looking how the issues surrounding dating and singleness in the church have evolved over the past 20 years.

Theyre calling the project I Survived I Kissed Dating Goodbye.

One of the documentarys subjects, Debra Fileta, therapist and author of True Love Dates: Your Indespensable Guide to Finding the Love of your Life, explained her participation via email:

The past 20 years, so much of the conversation within the church has been centered on what not to do in relationships ... but there aren't enough people talking about how to do dating and relationships well. So many singles are going into marriage completely unequipped due to the lack of education and conversation that's happening about relationships in the dating phase I'm thankful to have a chance to be a part of this upcoming conversation.

Earlier this summer, Van Der Wyngaard launched a Kickstarter to fund the documentary so that they could release the film for free and make it a resource for churches. Van Der Wyngaard explained that she had been waiting for years for someone to engage in the questions she believes the film will ask. She decided that crowdsourcing, as opposed to finding organizational sponsorship, was a way of including others like her who were asking the same questions.

I wanted the conversation to feel for people like they were part of it, like they were owning part of this conversation and were on the journey with us, she said.

Some familiar with Harris first book are wary of donating to revisited project without a clear understanding of what its overall message will be. Poet and public speaker Emily Joy wrote on Facebook, Unless Joshua Harris is about to renounce the entirety of purity culture, from style to content, then he doesn't need a single dollar from us and he certainly doesn't need 38,000 of them to tell us that he meant well but just got a few things wrong.

According to her Facebook page, Joy is among the post-evangelical Christians currently leaving the church due to its hate-filled rhetoric and exclusionary theology. And in fact, one of the biggest challenges that Van Der Wyngaards and Harris project will face is that many of the individuals who survived I Kissed Dating Goodbye have left the evangelical church and are less open to hearing a conservative response.

Harris says he anticipates this.

Its understandable that people want to know exactly whats going to be said before they fund something, he said. And he says that he and Van Der Wyngaard are still approaching the topic from a conservative stance.

We think we have a chance to encourage a humility and a respect which we recognize that different people would say, Well that falls so far short of where you need to be, but were trying to be realistic about where we are and who we can speak to at this point, he said.

The entire scope of the documentary is still a work in progress. While they know that they cant address all issues around sexuality for instance, they do not plan on tackling topics like sexual orientation or pornography head on they are interviewing individuals like Debra Hirsch, author of Redeeming Sex: Naked Conversations about Sexuality and Spirituality, who is already asking them provoking questions that broaden the conversation.

If their Kickstarter is not funded, the project might not come to life as it is laid out, but both Harris and Van Der Wyngaard are still committed to producing a free public message. Just where the conversation will go, theyve yet to figure out.

Continue reading here:
Beyond the Purity Culture Wars - Sojourners

Left vs. Right.

Liberal vs. Conservative.

Gay Rights vs. Religious Liberty.

Pro-Choice vs. Pro-Life.

Evolution vs. Creationism.

These are the culture wars of my generation. This the rhetoric woven into the evangelicalism of my upbringing. In just about every battle, Ive fought hard on both sides, first on the right and now on the left, and Im not sure which was harderdigging my heels in on either side, or making that painful transition from one to the other.

Photo byJason RosewellonUnsplash

However, as I consider ushering my children into a better faith, I want a spiritual landscape for them that isnt set up as binaries. I think, maybe, the problem isnt which side theyll take but whether they should be forced to choose at all. Because ultimately, I dont think engaging in warfare is the best way to live in the world. I prefer we pave a path for our children to live out their vision; to create art as resistance, to make beauty as a rallying cry, and to walk in their truth with intention.

Its important to not recruit our children for our culture wars because our culture wars are particular to our context and irrelevant to their modern sensibilities. We dont know yet the issues that will plague their generation, it may or may not be the same ones that troubled our times. If we equip them with rhetoric to fight our culture wars, they will go armed into a battlefield where no one shows up. I see this in the way some young adults who have learned anti-LGBTQ dogma in the home entering into a political landscape where that contention is already over. Gay marriage equality is the law of the land in the U.S. and slowly spreading in other areas of the world.

This is not to say we do nothing to prepare our children to engage with critical issues of their time. Not at all. Unfundamentalist parenting is to raise critical thinkers who will continually interrogate all perspectives. Parents, just be prepared that this means we have to make space for them to interrogate our own treasured positions as well. My kids sometimes threaten me (jokinglyfor now) by saying they might adopt fundamentalism, and I have to be willing to give them their own agency. Now, I am fairly confident they wont, because I do everything I can to compel them, not with force, but with love, and I believe love wins. But love always liberates our children with autonomy to choose freely.

What I hope to teach them is that there is nothing beyond critique. Every position, every voice, every movement has blind spots and to expose blind spots is to help ourselves grow in integrity and contribute to bettering our world.

But most importantly, I want to raise children who learn to connect meaningfully with others in an increasingly pluralistic world. The most fundamental problem with culture wars is the way it severs connection, separating people from ideas, and driving each tribe to retreat into a small ideological enclave.

This does not mean we raise children to be wishy-washy moderates who are people pleasers without a backbone. On the contrary, the best way to engage meaningfully with others is to present oneself as whole and complex human beings, filled with passion and conviction. Encourage their fire when our children align themselves with specific causes, even ones we may not agree with, because it means they are actively taking up space with who they are. But this means we all, us and our children, need to allow other whole human beings to fully be present as well.

The greatest lie of culture wars is that we have to hide aspects of ourselves because our ideas are too polarized and conflicting. If there is a war we must take on, it is to counter this falsehood, in order that our children can live in a world where each one of them can present themselves as whole, complex, evolving people. That they can intersect one anothers paths as fully themselves, interact with one other with passionate conviction, and part ways having built one another up instead of tearing each other down.

So dont. Dont recruit our children for culture wars.

Lets make citizens, not soldiers.

Get a free downloadof a Christian parenting manifesto that helps us guide children into healthy spirituality + the most helpful parenting resources with progressive values.

Go here to read the rest:
Don't Recruit Your Children for Culture Wars - Patheos (blog)