Author: Pat Liberty

Every day for the month of November I will post something for which I am grateful. I invite you to join me in this exercise privately or by leaving a comment to share with others. Please share this blog with others and invite them to share this month long practice.

When we live from a place of gratitude within, our energy and being shift, neurobiologists believe it actually rewires the brain.  Gratitude regulates the sympathetic nervous system that activates our anxiety response. By living from a place of gratitude we strengthen the mind/body connection.  Gratitude causes a physiological response that can help relieve stress and pain, improve health over time and lighten depression.

In short, practicing gratitude can make us kinder more peaceful people.

Today I am grateful for a larger than usual migration of monarch butterflies. This is a hopeful sign in spite of our ongoing degradation of the environment. The monarch butterfly is the only butterfly known to make a two-way migration as birds do. Monarchs travel south to the hills of Mexico and southern California to winter over.

What are you grateful for today?

This blog is a safe space. The intent is to civilly engage social and political issues in a theological context. It is predicated on the inherent dignity and worth of all humanity and creation. Disrespectful, hateful and judgmental comments will be removed. Off topic comments, photographs and links to other sites may be removed at the discretion of the moderator.

Every day for the month of November I will post something for which I am grateful. I invite you to join me in this exercise privately or by leaving a comment to share with others. Please share this blog with others and invite them to share this month long practice.

When we live from a place of gratitude within, our energy and being shift, neurobiologists believe it actually rewires the brain.  Gratitude regulates the sympathetic nervous system that activates our anxiety response. By living from a place of gratitude we strengthen the mind/body connection.  Gratitude causes a physiological response that can help relieve stress and pain, improve health over time and lighten depression.

In short, practicing gratitude can make us kinder more peaceful people.

Today I am grateful for Hospice Organizations around the country that provide care and comfort to terminally ill patients and their families.  November is National Hospice Month.  To learn more about Hospice visit www.nationalhospicefoundation.org

What are you grateful for today?

This blog is a safe space. The intent is to civilly engage social and political issues in a theological context. It is predicated on the inherent dignity and worth of all humanity and creation. Disrespectful, hateful and judgmental comments will be removed. Off topic comments, photographs and links to other sites may be removed at the discretion of the moderator

Every day for the month of November I will post something for which I am grateful. I invite you to join me in this exercise privately or by leaving a comment to share with others. Please share this blog with others and invite them to share this month long practice.

When we live from a place of gratitude within, our energy and being shift, neurobiologists believe it actually rewires the brain.  Gratitude regulates the sympathetic nervous system that activates our anxiety response. By living from a place of gratitude we strengthen the mind/body connection.  Gratitude causes a physiological response that can help relieve stress and pain, improve health over time and lighten depression.

In short, practicing gratitude can make us kinder more peaceful people.

Today I am grateful for courageous journalists who continue to write unpopular truths. They are the counterweight to misinformation and lies. They are a voice of accountability.

What are you grateful for today?

This blog is a safe space. The intent is to civilly engage social and political issues in a theological context. It is predicated on the inherent dignity and worth of all humanity and creation. Disrespectful, hateful and judgmental comments will be removed. Off topic comments, photographs and links to other sites may be removed at the discretion of the moderator.

 

Every day for the month of November I will post something for which I am grateful. I invite you to join me in this exercise privately or by leaving a comment. Please share this blog with others and invite them to share this month long practice

When we live from a place of gratitude within, our energy and being shift; neurobiologists believe it actually rewires the brain. Gratitude regulates the sympathetic nervous system that activates our anxiety response. By living from a place of gratitude we strengthen the mind body connection. Gratitude causes a physiological response that can help relieve stress and pain, improve health over time and lighten depression.

In short, practicing gratitude can make us kinder more peaceful people.

Today I am grateful for Michele Pearce for giving me the idea for Days of Gratitude. Often my creativity is sparked by others. We are rarely creative in a vacuum. I believe the Spirit works through our creativity. When we share it with others it allows the Spirit to work in them as well.

What are you grateful for today?

For the better part of 100 years gross domestic product has been the indicator of overall economic health.  Heather Boushey in a New York Times Op Ed notes that according to the gross domestic product, the United States is in the longest period of economic growth in recorded American history. The gross domestic product or GDP is the sum total of all that’s produced in the economy. 

As Bousey writes, the problem with this metric is that it only measures things with a price tag.  As baby boomers age and provide more care to grand-grandchildren as well as their aging parents, the hidden costs and revenues of these services are not measured. By the same token, this metric fails to measure charitable services like soup kitchens, shelters and other services where there is no fee and the costs to run such programs are hidden by private donations and budget line items in charitable organizations like churches.

A further failure of the GDP as the dominant metric for measuring the US economic health is its failure to take into account the number of medical bankruptcies that happen in the United States. While there is considerable debate about the actual number of Americans who face medical bankruptcy, there is no doubt that the cost of health care in the United States is higher than it is any place in the world.  Also, what is not in doubt is that big pharma and big insurance continue to rake in record profits and contribute to the GDP in ways that distort the overall financial well-being of our country and its peoples.

In France and Australia there is a move to include quality of life and environmental factors in measuring economic well-being.  Currently in the United States, the cost of non-sustainable activity on the environment bears a price tag that is recorded in the GDP.  This means that if a company creates a toxic spill of chemicals or oil, the cost of the clean-up is recorded as an economic output.  Developing a new measurement for economic growth and well-being would include the environmental impact such disasters have on the people who are affected.  This is an invisible cost and adds to our degradation of the environment.

Developing and using a different metric to measure a society’s economic viability is good news for the poor.  It means that factors impacting quality of life and equal access to goods and services may finally begin to be included in measurements of a society’s economic health.  Overall quality of life and viability of financial assets in relation to debt become real measures for gauging society’s health.

In short, it means that measuring the well-being of the 1 percent at the top stops being the standard that measures all economic health.

According to David Jolly in a September 15^th article in the global business section of the New York Times, “The Himalayan kingdom of Bhutan has chosen to focus on ‘gross national happiness,’ complete with…9 domains and 72 indicators of happiness.”

If such a metric were adopted in the United States we would have a much more complete vision of what the majority of people face in their daily economic lives.  The United States is the largest economy in the world.  One would think that, as such, the overall economic health of its people would be among the highest in the world.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

According to the US Census Bureau, 38.1 million people live below the federal poverty line, about one in eight. The figure is set at $25,465 for a family with two adults and two children.  According to an article in the Washington Post, over one half of all families in poverty have just one parent. This further lowers the total family income. It should further be noted that there is NO place in the United States where someone can work a minimum wage job and find affordable housing. The lack of affordable child care also contributes to overall family financial strain.

Adopting a more inclusive metric to measure economic health is a step toward some measure of economic justice for the poor.  If the data from such metrics were used to inform national policy and social programs we might actually do something to help the poor instead of just shaming them for being poor.  If we created a measurement that includes everyone, we would stop measuring economic well-being by the standards of the richest of the rich. Instead, we would come down to earth where most people live just one or two paychecks away from financial disaster. 

In the richest country in the world, with the largest economy in the world, we can do far better than we are currently doing.  As long as we use the metrics of the rich, the plight of the poor will be absent from the conversation.

The measure of any society’s humanity is how well is cares for its weakest and poorest members.  Despite 124 months of increase in our GDP, we are losing ground in our humanity at an alarming rate.  Profit before people is a poor strategy for long term social stability.

 

 

The odd mixture of commercial advertising, propaganda and public relations is a phenomenon known as politainment.  It is how candidates win elections.  It is a bizarre phenomenon, but it has an increasing impact on our political process. That’s part one.

Political ads on Facebook, Twitter, Snap Chat and other social platforms are capturing the energy and attention of voters who are constantly barraged with messages from political candidates.  It is impossible to tell who is sponsoring the ads, and that includes the possibility that they come from spoofed accounts that are not based in the United States. Just this past week Facebook shut down several accounts that were based in Iran and Russia. In order to post political content on Facebook you have to go through a process that proves residency in the United States, including a photo ID.  Given that I write about the intersection of faith and politics, I had to go through this process which took well over a month.  At least Facebook can tell if the accounts are based in the United States. How well this is monitored is an unknown.

 Facebook, however, announced last week that it will not police the veracity of political ads on its platform. This makes it possible for any candidate to spread disinformation about competitors without scrutiny. I suppose this is covered under the guarantee of free speech but it is pretty sleazy.

There is another phenomenon at work in election politics.  It is called the Illusory Truth Effect. It was first identified in a 1977 study at Villanova and Temple Universities. In essence it states there is an increased tendency to believe false information with increased exposure to such false information.  In other words, if someone repeats a lie often enough, people start to believe it is true.  This has been a cornerstone of the occupant’s political strategy. It was found in a 2017 study that familiarity can overpower rationality. Further, people’s beliefs can be swayed if a proven fact is repeatedly stated as wrong.     

This creates a morass of disinformation, half-truths and BS to wade through while trying to determine who to support in this circus we call an election. 

Part two in our campaign reality is vulgar amounts of money. Kantar Media CMAG estimates that political ads for the 2020 election could reach $6 billion. Group M, a prominent ad agency, estimates spending for political ads will reach $10 billion. This represents a 59% increase from the 2016 election year when an estimated $6.2 billion was spent (Forbes Magazine).

Figures from the Washington Post show second quarter fundraising for the top five Democratic candidates as follows: Mayor Pete Buttigieg 24.9 million, Former Vice President Joe Biden 22 million, Senator Elizabeth Warren 19.2 million, Senator Bernie Sanders 18 million and Senator Kamala Harris 11.8 million.  After that the remaining candidates raised about five million each.

By contrast, the occupant started fundraising immediately after his illegitimate capture of the White House in 2016. He has raised $237 million and the Republican National Convention has kicked in another $346 million.

Candidates across the political spectrum continue to find ways to circumvent stated spending limits and other restrictions created by campaign reform.  The laws read like a bad joke.  Federal law does not allow corporations and labor unions to donate money directly to candidates or national party committees.  It also limits how much money individuals and organizations involved in political action may contribute to political campaigns, politic parties and other FEC-regulated organizations.  The combined category limit (individuals, Candidate Committee, PAC contributions, etc.) is less than $100,000.  Yet, candidates are raising and spending billions for their campaigns.  Big business is in there somewhere.  It all smells like week-old fish.

It is not surprising that the candidate who spends the most money wins. These two phenomena make it paramount that we voters do our homework.  Voting is a basic civic responsibility. It is also a moral action. We are entrusted with the responsibility to elect a candidate that is qualified for the position, has an ethical stance on critical issues of our day and cares about the larger world community and not just the rich people who make this world go around.

Imagine an election cycle where everyone gets the same amount of money to run their campaign, pick an amount under a million dollars. They would spend that money to focus on their message and only their message.  There would be guidelines about smearing other candidates and most of their staff would be engaged in discovering the facts about other candidates and not making up crap to help their numbers.  Imagine that candidates could raise as much money as they wanted, but it would all benefit charities that help the poor and care for, say, migrant children in concentration camps at the border.  The candidates would be rewarded for how much money they raised for charity, not how much they raised for their campaigns.  Imagine a quid pro quo that actually benefited people and not political BS.  It would be a beautiful thing.

If concern for others were the guiding principle for elections, perhaps we wouldn’t have someone with the IQ of an eggplant and a bad comb over sitting in the Oval Office making us the laughing stock of the world. 

If you are one of those people who roll your eyes when you hear “Indigenous People’s Day,” I have three words for you.

Get over it.

This is not some politically correct trope. This is an honest effort to correct the revisionist history that has allowed us to celebrate Columbus as “discovering America.”  In truth, Columbus discovered nothing. Newsflash: there were already people here. What Columbus did was begin a period of colonization that systematically exterminated hundreds of Native Nations and millions of Native Peoples.

A conservative estimate is that ten million Native Peoples were killed by disease, malnutrition and assaults on local villages.  Make no mistake; disease is a tool of genocide.  When smallpox was running rampant in colonial villages, blankets that belonged to deceased patients were given to Natives to infect them. The remaining villagers were slaughtered in ambushes. For a period of time there was a bounty on the scalps of the Penobscot Nation–30 Pounds for males and 25 for females.

The Indian Removal Act of 1830 expelled five Nations–Cherokee, Chicksaw, Choctaw, Creek and Seminole–from their land (where colonists wanted to grow cotton) to what is now Oklahoma.  This came to be known as the Trail of Tears.  Over 4,000 people died of cold, hunger and disease.

During the gold rush of 1848, thousands of Native Americans were displaced or died of starvation or disease due to the contamination of their land and water from mining by-products.

After the end of the American Indian wars in the late 1800’s, it is estimated that less than 238,000 Native Americans remained.

The wholesale death of ten million Native Americans is extreme in comparison to recent genocides: 6 million Jews and 800,000 Rwandans. There seems to be no end to the violence human beings do to each other, for no other reason than being different.

Much of the following history has its root in the doctrine of discovery, a concept of public international law expounded by the United States in a series of decisions of the Supreme Court. It is based on various church documents in Christian Europe in the mid 1400’s to justify the pattern of domination and oppression by European colonists.  It theologically asserted the right to claim the indigenous lands, territories and resources on behalf of Christendom. Further, it legalized the subjugation of native peoples around the world. To this day the US courts still claim this precedent to decide property rights cases brought by Native Americans.

In 1900, the Supreme Court voted that the US government had the right to overturn all Cherokee Law.  It is one in a long line of Federal laws and local ordinances that diminished Native Peoples around the country. In 1924 dual citizenship was granted to Native Americans; they were allowed to maintain citizenship in their Native Nation and were declared US citizens. Columbus Day became a Federal Holiday in 1937.  In 1940 the Hoover Commission urged assimilation which further eroded the identity of Native Peoples.  It was not until 1965 that Native Americans gained uniform voting rights. It was not until 1968 that Native Americans were granted free speech, the right to jury and protection from unreasonable search and seizure. It was not until 1978 that the Child Welfare Act was passed. It protected Native parents’ custody of their children.  Despite this law, there is ample evidence that Native Children are still removed from their parents at a higher rate than other children, especially in South Dakota.

Given this horrific history, there is ample reason to stop celebrating the chain of events begun by Columbus and to now lift up the Native Peoples of our nation. The first Indigenous Peoples Day was officially recognized in South Dakota in 1989.  Since then Alaska, Maine, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Carolina and Vermont have officially recognized Indigenous People’s Day. One hundred and thirty cities around the country have also changed their celebrations to Indigenous People’s day. Last week, Washington, DC, became the latest in a long line to make the change.

If our federal legislators ever manage to get off their dead asses and actually do something, one thing they should consider is officially changing Columbus Day to Indigenous People’s Day.

The protestant church is actually leading the way.  The United Church of Christ officially changed its designation of the holiday after their General Synod 29 and has continued to advocate for repudiation of all legislation related to the doctrine of discovery. Other Protestant denominations have, in various ways, followed suit.

A designation of Indigenous People’s Day is a formal repudiation of the colonizing history represented by Columbus.  It affirms the rights and essential human integrity of Native Peoples and their right to live in peace and maintain their tribal identity.  It is one small symbol in a long history of betrayal, broken promises and horrific treatment that may gradually shift the focus from a genocidal, racist, pro-slavery colonizer to a more honest focus on those who have been and continue to be marginalized.

If you roll your eyes when you hear Indigenous People’s Day, get over it.

Click here to see map of Indigenous Nations

This blog is a safe space. The intent is to civilly engage social and political issues in a theological context. It is predicated on the inherent dignity and worth of all humanity and creation. Disrespectful, hateful and judgmental comments will be removed. Off topic comments, photographs and links to other sites may be removed at the discretion of the moderator.

 

It’s not the kind of phone call you ever think is going to come to you, at least I didn’t.  The conversation went something like this.  “I have bad news…she’s dead…we’re not sure what happened…it’s under investigation…they think her husband did it.  I knew there were problems but I never thought it would come to this.  She went to a shelter just the other day…but she came back…her bags were still packed…she was going to leave him.  I can’t believe she’s dead.”

The numbing news of her death rocked our household.  Yes, I know domestic violence happens, yes it has come close to my life at least professionally but never in such an up close and personal way. 

The story unfolded as the days went on.  The marriage was troubled, they never liked him. They don’t know if they can prove he was involved.  The funeral was delayed because of the autopsy; it will take weeks before they know definitively just what happened.  But the family knows in their heart of hearts.  And that’s what makes it so hard.  They wonder why they didn’t do more, how they could have done more.  And they struggle with what they believe about evil and about God’s will.

Violence in relationships is the unmentionable sin.  Many of us suspect that someone we know and care about is in a troubled relationship.  Perhaps it is an acquaintance from work, a friend from church, a neighbor or someone in the family.  But we don’t want to interfere.  Most of us were taught that the family is a private place and we should mind our own business. It’s one rule we should break if we suspect someone is being battered.

A woman is less safe in her own home than she is on most of the streets in the United States.  On average, twenty people per minute are physically abused by an intimate partner. During one year, this equates to more than 10 million women (and men). Remembering that much domestic violence goes unreported, the numbers are staggering.

• One in four women and one in nine men experience severe intimate partner physical violence; this includes violent sexual contact, stalking, beating, slapping, shoving, controlling behavior, control of finances and a range of other violent behaviors.
• While the statistics are harder to gather, there is also evidence of intimate partner violence in same sex relationships.
• The presence of a gun in a domestic violence situation increases the risk of homicide by 500 percent. Nineteen percent of domestic violence involves a weapon.
• One in five children are exposed to intimate partner violence ach year and 90 percent of these children are eyewitnesses to this violence.
• One in five women and one in seventy-one men have been raped in their lifetime. Almost half of victims were raped by an acquaintance. Of these, forty-five percent of women and twenty-nine percent of men were raped by an intimate partner.

Domestic violence is everyone’s business. When we, as a society, as neighbors and citizens eliminate our tolerance for abusive behavior and hold batterers accountable, we will see the staggering statistics diminish. The question to be asked is not, “Why didn’t she leave?” but rather “What were the barriers to her leaving?”

Often women have economic barriers to leaving because their partners tightly control the finances. Other times, not having a place to go (especially when there are children) is a barrier.  Domestic violence shelters exist in most areas and are the safest place for a woman to go when she leaves an abusive relationship. Leaving the relationship is the most dangerous time for a woman.  Family members and friends can be put in danger if they provide shelter.

It’s important to state that it is never God’s will that anyone be battered by her (or his) intimate partner. It is not God’s will that an intimate partner control anyone.  Husbands, boyfriends and other intimate partners do not have the “right” to subjugate their partners to get their own way. 

Intimate relationships between husbands and wives and partners are covenanted relationships.  A covenant is an agreement that people make before God.  It is entered into willingly and equally. And it does not include the right of one partner to control the other.  The marriage liturgy of my tradition, the United Church of Christ, asks this question, “Will you live together in the covenant of marriage?”  The language of “love, honor and obey” was never a part of the liturgy and in most traditions, if it was, it has long since been removed.  Marriage and covenanted relationships between partners are sacred relationships that exist for the benefit and strengthening of each partner.  It is never God’s will for anyone to be exploited, battered or abused.

The scripture that is often quoted, “Wives be subject to your husbands,” is mis-interpreted and taken out of context.  The whole text reads, “Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ. Wives be subject to your husbands, husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church.” (Ephesians 5: 22-25) It’s worth reading all of chapter 5 to see the larger context in which these few verses reside. It reinforces that intimate partner relationships are covenanted relationships.   

If you or someone you know is in an abusive, controlling or manipulating relationship, help is available.  Visit ncadv.org-resources or call the National Domestic Violence Hotline at 1-800-799-7233.  Don’t wait for your phone to ring….

This blog is a safe space. The intent is to civilly engage social and political issues in a theological context. It is predicated on the inherent dignity and worth of all humanity and creation. Disrespectful, hateful and judgmental comments will be removed. Off topic comments, photographs and links to other sites may be removed at the discretion of the moderator.

 

 

 

 

 

While the world is rightfully enthralled with the astounding work of Greta Thunberg’s environmental activism, another young woman is also coming to the fore.  She is another one to watch. Autumn Peltier, 13, has been nominated for the International Children’s Peace Prize.

She is a member of the Anishinabe tribe of the Wikwemlkong First Nation. She has been advocating for clean water since she was eight years old. Her advocacy grows out of her native heritage where water is not only life sustaining, it is considered sacred.     

Many tribes around the world are advocating for the protection of waterways, rivers and streams. “Mini wichoni” means “Water is life” in Lakota.  It was chanted by 5,000 marchers at the Native Nations March in Washington, D.C. on March 10, and during hundreds of protests across the nation last year.  It was the rallying cry of an almost year long struggle to stop the Dakota Access Pipeline.

A growing movement around the world is declaring personhood to rivers.  A Native American tribe has granted personhood to a river in northern California.  It gives the river the same rights as a human, at least under tribal law. The Klamath River has long been a source for salmon for the Yurok Tribe.  In recent years development, pollution and increased use of water from the river have diminished the salmon harvest, threatening their way of life.

In Toledo, Ohio, voters approved a referendum to grant personhood for Lake Erie. Although it is being challenged, it reflects the concern and commitment people have to protecting that vast body of water.

In New Zealand, the government granted rights to the Whanganui River, a status that is in keeping with the views of the Maori Tribe, who have fished the river for over 700 years. The Maori have a saying, “I am the river, and the river is me.” The sacredness of water to First Nation People around the world cannot be overstated. The legislation has not been codified into domestic law, but it refers to the river as an “indivisible, living whole,” conferring it “all the rights, powers, duties and liabilities” of an individual.

Colombia, Chile and India are also working on similar legislation to grant personhood to rivers. In Bangladesh, all the rivers have the same legal status as humans. Ecuador has included the rights of nature in its constitution. Bolivia followed suit not long after.

It is a bold move to hold corporations accountable for how they treat the waterways of the world. It is an acknowledgement that the Western model of development threatens the world wide water supply through pollution, development and over use of water.

Environmental personhood was first highlighted in essays by University of Southern California law professor Christopher D. Stone. In his 1974 book, Should Trees Have Standing? Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects, Stone argued that if an environmental entity is given legal personality, it cannot be owned and has the right to appear in court. Who appears on behalf of the waterway varies greatly from country to country, but the role of protecting or restoring the river is the same.

These actions are consistent with the Judeo Christian tradition where humans are charged to “till the earth and keep it.” (Genesis 2:15) The intent is that humans are to be stewards of the resources of earth, overseers of its gifts and graces.  However, the creation story that is best known is from Genesis 1, where humans are told to have “dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.” (Genesis 1:26) A few verses later, the first humans are given the command to “fill the earth and subdue, and have dominion.…” (Genesis 1: 28) Having dominion over all the earth is repeated in similar fashion in the later verses of the chapter.

The intent of the two creation stories is the same; humans have the responsibility to be keepers of the earth.  Unfortunately, “dominion” has been interpreted as domination. The first creation narrative is interpreted as permission to pillage and plunder. We see the results of that theological interpretation every day.

However, there is a more accurate translation of this passage from the Hebrew. According to Ellen Davis, Distinguished Professor of Bible and Practical Theology at Duke University Divinity School,

“A more satisfactory translation of that crucial verse might be, “let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness, so they may exercise skilled mastery among (or with respect to) the fish of the sea and among the birds of the air.”

Given humanity’s penchant for translating and interpreting the bible in ways that fit our own agenda, this translation stands in stark contrast. It calls for a sustainable, respectful and consistent approach to caring for the earth and its water supply.

Spread the word, we have been translating the verse wrong for years.  It’s time to step up with a passion for the world, its people and its resources. We are stewards of the earth’s bounty.

This blog is a safe space. The intent is to civilly engage social and political issues in a theological context. It is predicated on the inherent dignity and worth of all humanity and creation. Disrespectful, hateful and judgmental comments will be removed. Off topic comments, photographs and links to other sites may be removed at the discretion of the moderator.

 

On October 8^th the Supreme Court will hear three cases involving LGBTQ rights. The outcome has far reaching implications for LGBTQ protection from discrimination and hate crimes.

According to the Daily Beast, in 2010 Donald Zarda was fired from his job as a skydiver with the Long Island Altitude Express. He came out to a customer as gay when the woman expressed discomfort being tethered to him during a jump. The company alleges that Zarda touched the woman “inappropriately” which the family denies.  Zarda was killed in a skydiving accident several years ago and the family is bringing the case forward on his behalf.

In 2012 Aimee Stephens was fired from her job at R.G. and G.R. Funeral Homes in Michigan for being transgender.  At work she dressed as a cisgender man, but outside of work she was herself, a woman.

In the third case, Gerald Bostock was fired from his job as a child welfare services worker in Clayton County, GA, for being gay. The agency claimed Bostock was fired for mismanagement of funds, but he contends he was fired for being gay. In many states, workers can be fired for being gay (See Map)

At question here is whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 covers sexual orientation and sexual identity. In response to the three above cases, the occupant’s administration has argued that Title VII does not include sexual orientation or gender identity and it is therefore legal to fire and discriminate against people who are LGBTQ.  The Department of Justice (DOJ) argues that sexual orientation and gender identity are traits and are therefore not covered by Title VII. The DOJ has filed an amicus brief in support of Stephens’ employer, and is effectively arguing against itself as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (which is part of the DOJ) is on Stephens’ side.

The Supreme Court, in past years, has ruled favorably for the LGBTQ population.  According to the History Channel, the Supreme Court voted on LGBTQ rights as early as 1958. Although initial rulings denied rights to the LGBTQ population they set important precedents that paved the way for more favorable rulings.

In a 1958 postal authorities refused to distribute a gay magazine on the grounds that it was obscene. The Supreme Court ruled that obscene speech is not protected by the first Amendment. What is significant about this case is that the Supreme Court ruled that “obscenity and sex are not synonymous.” And ideas with “even the slightest redeeming social importance,” including controversial ideas are protected.

In 1996, the case Romer v. Evans found that the Colorado voter initiative violated the Constitution’s equal protection clause. The argument posited that by protecting the LGBTQ population, it constituted “special rights” for a specific population. Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, “These protections constitute ordinary civil life in a free society.”

Two years later the Supreme Court ruled that same-sex harassment is covered under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits workplace discrimination on the basis of sex, race, color, national origin and religion.  And we all know how well that has worked out for women and minorities.

Perhaps most significantly, the Equal Marriage Protection Act of 2015 made marriage equally available to all people.

According to a New York Times article, the current case coming before the court in October “…may turn on whether the Justices focus on the words of the statute or their sense of what the lawmakers who voted for it in 1964 understood what they were doing.“

 The New York Times article continues: “In a 1998 decision in a Title VII case, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote ‘that it was the words that matter. Statutory prohibitions, he wrote, often go beyond the principal evil to cover reasonably comparable evils and it is ultimately the provisions of our laws rather than the principle concerns of our legislators by which we are governed.’” If that remains true, these cases have a chance of making a stand in favor of equality for the LGBTQ community.

 If the court rules in favor of the employers, it is a start down a slippery slope. Can someone be fired if they “look” gay? Who gets to decide? Will there be an affidavit one has to sign and produce on demand to potential employers? Will there be an arm band one has to wear to announce their sexual orientation once it has been determined that one is gay?

If these cases rule in favor of employers, LGBTQ rights will be set back in frightening ways. In spite of the idiotic cases about who bakes wedding cakes and what services can be denied to whom on the basis of sexual orientation, the larger questions of health care, access to loved ones in the hospital and how first responders treat those in need of medical attention are not far from being on the table for discussion.

These cases have the potential to declare open season on the LGBTQ community, paving the way to blatant discrimination in housing and employment, not to mention increases in violent crime.

The occupant’s agenda to appease his right wing cronies is to support these discriminatory practices. That this right wing contingent identifies itself as “Christian” is maddening because everything they stand for has nothing to do with Jesus, his teachings, or the truth of who God is. They are religious (not to be confused with faithful) bullies hiding behind a smokescreen of phony piety to push a conservative social agenda designed to preserve straight, white male power.

This is also a prelude to a wholly different concern: increasing partisanship in Supreme Court rulings. The Supreme Court is to be a bastion of neutrality, beholden to no one and committed to the rule of law and the best interests of Americans whose cases come before them.  Supporting blatant discrimination puts the Supreme Court in a slippery slope of partisanship and should make us all nervous regardless of our sexual orientation or identity.