Topic: Religion
“The next conservative Administration must champion the core American value of religious freedom, which correlates significantly with poverty reduction, economic growth, and peace.”
This is oversimplified. Freedom of religion by itself does not directly correlate to poverty reduction. The link to economic growth is indirect and reliant on the idea that countries that respect individual freedoms tend to create more open and favorable environments for investment and trade. Religious freedom can foster a more stable and inclusive environment, which indirectly supports these goals, but it is not a singular or definitive cause. The Berkley Center at Georgetown studied this idea intensively, and did find positive correlations when the whole ecosystem is taken into account. Regardless, championing (truly neutral) freedom of religion is important.
Full contextual analysis of Section 2.6: Agency for International Development here.
“Transition from large awards to expensive, inefficient, and corrupt U.N. agencies, global NGOs, and contractors to local, especially faith-based, entities that are already operating on the ground.”
Primorac is advocating here for pulling funding from U.N. Humanitarian missions and giving it to “local, faith-based organizations” on the ground (he cites misuse of funds as a reason). Because faith-based organizations never misuse money, and diverting large amounts of funding to organizations with no federal oversight wouldn’t be a terrible idea. /sarcasm
Full contextual analysis of Section 2.6: Agency for International Development here.
“Left-wing authoritarian kleptocracies in Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela deny their people basic freedoms, violently and ruthlessly suppress any dissent, repress communities of faith, and generate such misery that hundreds of thousands of their citizens have attempted to cross our southern border over the past two years.”
Excuse me, what? LEFT-wing? This is a BLISTERING lie, intended to inflame people who are primed to 1) believe anything Republicans say, no matter how ridiculous, and 2) primed to hate anything with the word “Left” in it.
Left-wing is a thing. Authoritarian kleptocracies are a thing. The idea of a “left-wing authoritarian kleptocracy” is paradoxical and impossible to reconcile with traditional left-wing ideology. The two concepts are fundamentally at odds. A true left-wing authoritarian kleptocracy is an oxymoron because kleptocracy and leftist ideals of equity and anti-corruption are fundamentally incompatible. While regimes can claim leftist origins or use leftist rhetoric, once they devolve into authoritarianism and kleptocracy, they have diverged from the principles that define left-wing governance. He’s describing fascism. And, given that he mentions Nicaragua – which is one of the only four countries INCLUDING THE UNITED STATES to go backwards in terms of human rights (see above), this shameful statement rates somewhere between “out to lunch” and “completely batshit.”
Full contextual analysis of Section 2.6: Agency for International Development here.
“One egregious example of this is the extent to which accreditors have forced colleges and universities, many of them faith-based institutions, to adopt diversity, equity, and inclusion policies that conflict with federal civil rights laws, state laws, and the institutional mission and culture of the schools.”
It’s a little funny to me here that she’s suggesting that the missions of faith-based colleges are fundamentally at odds with the principles of diversity, equity, and inclusion. That’s…quite an admission. She goes on to mandate that higher education institutions should still be allowed to be accredited even if they blatantly discriminate on the basis of race or gender. Then she doubles down on the idea that being forced to treat everyone equally is *really* offensive to religious institutions. Christians, are you hearing this? Does this represent your beliefs? I find it alarming that she’s couching all religious institutions (and religious people, as it follows), as bigots (or at least protecting their right to be bigots, if they want to be).
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.2: Department of Education here.
Educational institutions can claim a religious exemption with the Office for Civil Rights at the Department of Education from the strictures of Title IX. In 2016, the Obama Administration published on the Department of Education’s website a list of colleges that had applied for the exemption. This “list of shame” of faith-based colleges, as it came to be known, has since been archived on ED’s website, still publicly available. The President should issue an executive order removing the archived list and preventing such a list from being published in the future.
Apparently, religious schools could always apply for Title IX exemptions to be bigots if they so desired, but they were published on a “list of shame” for doing so. Burke mandates eliminating this list, therefore reducing transparency about which higher education institutions applied to be legally racist/sexist/transphobic. If I were going to pay good money for an education, I think that’s something I’d like to know about the schools I’m considering.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.2: Department of Education here.
“Prohibit abortion travel funding. Providing funding for abortions increases the number of abortions and violates the conscience and religious freedom rights of Americans who object to subsidizing the taking of life.”
In 2022, post-Roe v. Wade being overturned, the Biden Administration signed an executive order to allow Medicaid to help women seeking abortions in states where it is banned, to travel to states where they can receive medical care. The Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel issued a legal opinion that the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits using federal funds to pay for an abortion, only applies to the abortion itself, not to travel.
This is to say nothing of the fact that we are supposed to have separation of church and state in this country, and women need not concern themselves with whether or not their health care decisions “violate” someone else’s conscience. It CERTAINLY doesn’t violate someone else’s “religious freedom rights” to make health care choices for oneself. It violates someone’s freedom to dictate what their choices are. Religous concerns shouldn’t enter into the kinds of health care services we offer as a country. Your religion dictates what YOU should do, not what everyone else should do.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.5: Department of Health and Human Services here.
“Reverse the DEI Revolution in Labor Policy. Under the Obama and Biden Administrations, labor policy was yet another target of the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) revolution. Under this managerialist left-wing race and gender ideology, every aspect of labor policy became a vehicle with which to advance race, sex, and other classifications and discriminate against conservative and religious viewpoints on these subjects and others, including pro-life views. The next Administration should eliminate every one of these wrongful and burdensome ideological projects.”
Yes, because requiring businesses to treat everyone equally is a horrible burden that must be reversed! Making me treat people with respect is a violation of my God-given right to discriminate! Seriously, this is just so much garbage. I’d be curious how he thinks being forced to treat people equally under the law as a business violates his “religious, pro-life” views. Normally, religion doesn’t come up a lot in the workplace.
He also points out that “Title VII flatly prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of race, color, and national origin”, and that should be plenty. So, that’s pretty anti-LGBTQ+, and he also goes on to “eliminate racial classifications” and prohibit any “critical race theory trainings.” So, if not discriminating being the law should be enough, but you don’t teach people how to guard against discrimination, and you still allow discrimination against people for non-racial intersections, what’s the end result? Discrimination.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.9: Department of Labor and Related Agencies here.
“Nevertheless, the Biden Administration has been hostile to people of faith, especially those with traditional beliefs about marriage, gender, and sexuality. The new Administration should enact policies with robust respect for religious exercise in the workplace, including under the First Amendment, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), Title VII, and federal conscience protection laws.”
In practice, this would look like people being able to claim “religious objections” at work to get out of things like diversity training, handling same-sex marriage licenses, or even working with someone who is LGBTQ+. This would create hostile work environments.
Faith-based organizations would be given broader exemptions for their beliefs, for instance, not being required to hire anyone who doesn’t adhere to their beliefs. Health care workers could refuse to treat LGBTQ+ people. Religious hospitals could refuse to provide abortion, contraception, or gender-affirming care. Government employees could refuse to issue same-sex marriage licenses without being penalized. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg – anyone could take advantage of this and claim religious exemption for getting out of almost any task at work.
More broadly, he’s saying that your religion trumps other people’s basic civil rights. This is called religious supremacy or religious exceptionalism. Berry is arguing for this, and supports the widespread discrimination against LGBTQ+ people that will result.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.9: Department of Labor and Related Agencies here.
“The President should make clear via executive order that religious employers are free to run their businesses according to their religious beliefs, general nondiscrimination laws notwithstanding, and support participation of religious employees and employers as federal contractors and in federal activities and programs.”
More legalizing discrimination and religious exceptionalism, here. I feel like Berry would be a happier man if he allowed himself to be who he is. I promise, Jesus will still love you, Jonathan!
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.9: Department of Labor and Related Agencies here.
“Congress should clarify Title VII’s religious organization exemptions to make it more explicit that those employers may make employment decisions based on religion regardless of nondiscrimination laws.”
More of the same – allowing employers to have discriminatory hiring practices.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.9: Department of Labor and Related Agencies here.