We do not have a civil society.
And the incivility has an identifiable source.
Florida Man sues the CDC to allow him to unleash a fleet of floating petri dishes.
At Above the Law, Tyler Broker argues that, even as the popularity of religion has been broadly declining across the United States, attempts to favor religion and discriminate against nonbelievers (his term) have escalated. Here’s a snippet:
Federal courts have banned nonbelievers from speaking to their own legislatures, banned nonbelievers from holding private jobs such as wedding celebrants for nonbeliever couples. Another federal panel (that included the liberal-minded Diane Wood and now-Justice Amy Barrett Coney) held last fall that states can favor religious gatherings over nonreligious expressive gatherings, including political gatherings. Never mind that political speech has been universally recognized as being at the heart of the First Amendment guarantee. Never mind there are many cases in which the Supreme Court has held, again, and again, and again, that religious expression must be treated equally with nonreligious expression. Because it is painfully obvious the law has nothing to do with such decisions.
Favoring religion in the law and disfavoring nonbelievers can only be explained by bigotry. Only a bigot would claim religious citizens and religious expression is worth more to this country than nonreligious citizens and nonreligious expression. Only a bigot would claim this country is “only suitable and sustainable for a religious people.”
At the Idaho State Journal, Chris Huston writes of Republicans’, and particularly Mitch McConnell’s, reactions to Coca-Cola, Major League Baseball, and other organizations who were uppity* enough to take exception Georgia’s new voter suppression law.
Just read it.
(Syntax error fixed.)
*I use that word advisedly. I am certain it is one that Republicans use behind their closed doors.
At the Washington Monthly, David Atkins uses Tucker Carlson’s recent endorsement of “replacement theory” as a springboard to dive into what passes for (as?) “conservatism” in America’s current discourse. Here’s the crux; follow the link for the rest.
But second and perhaps more important is this: attempting to conserve the current hierarchy of wealth and power held in the hands of white men is to believe implicitly in a version of white supremacy. It follows inescapably through cold logic.
Because it is a fact that white men have held and continue to hold the vast majority of wealth and power in America, you must believe one of two things must be true: either you believe that white men are intrinsically more deserving, or you believe that institutional patriarchy and racism have combined to suppress and oppress women and people of color from gaining access to wealth and power on a level playing field. If you believe the latter, you meet the minimum standard for adherence to modern social liberalism and make yourself a pariah among conservatives. If you believe the former, you are by definition a chauvinist and white supremacist. If you claim not to be a chauvinist or white supremacist, but you believe that no actions should be taken to even protest–much less regulate or redistribute resources–to mitigate structural racism and patriarchy, you are inseparable from chauvinists and white supremacists at a social or policy level. One cannot simply declare the problem solved and assume everyone now has the same opportunities to succeed, because the problem is so obviously not solved at either a social or a policy level, and everyone so obviously does not have the same opportunities.
This is yet another reminder that Richard Nixon’s odious Southern Strategy has come full circle and turned the Party of Lincoln into the Party of the Secesh.