Generally speaking, a task force is appointed to help bring extra pressure to a problem that is prominent and not resolving itself by normal means. That would apply to discrimination against religious minorities, but not to discrimination against the majority religion Christianity. Given the money available to Christian defendants, they're already well taken care of. What work in that department is left for a religious liberty task force to do? If the task force ends up defending Muslim rights and the rights of people of minority faiths, and atheists, all the good. But if RoadRunner thinks that is going to happen in a task force under Trump and Sessions, then he's a bigger fool than I thought. The likely reason he's defending it is because he's gullible enough to believe the stories about infringement of the religious liberties of Christian s, and he's essentially just expressing his own self interest. If it isn't in Roadies self interest, then why is he defending it?

So this isn't a Christian canard because their are some token minorities on the board .If Road thinks that levels the playing field he's denser then i thought .This is attempt a giving undo rights to one group disguised as religious liberty nothing more .

(August 5, 2018 at 11:17 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: The likely reason he's defending it is because he's gullible enough to believe the stories about infringement of the religious liberties of Christian s, and he's essentially just expressing his own self interest.  If it isn't in Roadies self interest, then why is he defending it?

Nah the real reason he's defending it is because he's a racist piece of shit, and rightly sees this "task force" as solely for the use of white southern baptist racist pieces of shit like himself.

It seems like there is a lot of complaints about the task force defending Christians. Os that what the problem is?

Trololololololol.

(August 5, 2018 at 10:42 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: It seems like there is a lot of complaints about the task force defending Christians. Os that what the problem is?

If it only defends Christians and never defends anyone FROM Christians, that's a problem, and you really ought to agree with that.

The opposition is that any such prioritization by the justice department would unfairly focus on defending Christian cases, ignore religious minorities and atheists, and favor one religion over all others, all in an attempt to solve something that is not a problem in the first place.

Quote:The phrase “religious liberty,” as understood by its constitutional origin, attracts little controversy. One strains to recall any prominent Americans who have called for either the establishment of a national religion or the abolition of Americans’ right to worship the deity of their choosing (or none at all).

But the historical, constitutional definition and the modern, conservative definition of religious liberty are two separate things.

In the hands of the Trump administration, the phrase connotes freedoms and privileges granted mostly to Christians — specifically, the white conservative Christians who form a vital part of the Republican base. Instead of inclusive pluralism, it now stands for exclusive primacy of the Christian faith.

Trump never hid his revamped vision for religious liberty. During the 2016 campaign, he convened 1,000 evangelical leaders in New York City and proclaimed: “This is such an important election. And I say to you folks because you have such power, such influence. Unfortunately, the government has weeded it away from you pretty strongly. But you’re going to get it back.”

. . . . . . .

To this end, Trump swore to destroy the Johnson Amendment, a 1950s law that prohibits churches from campaigning for a political candidate. In May, Trump signed a religious liberty executive order surrounded by more than a dozen Christian leaders that granted them broad exemptions for politicking.

At the signing, Trump declared, “We are giving our churches their voices back.”

Churches certainly need protecting, but what about mosques or other non-Christian houses of worship? Trump’s supporters would surely say that his religious liberty agenda protects them, too. But that’s not the way it plays out.

The Trump administration has attempted to block refugees from certain majority-Muslim countries from immigrating, but the president said he might prioritize the applications of Christians from those same regions.

And what about the treatment of religious minorities here at home? We hear almost nothing about their protection. And unlike the 70 percent of Americans who claim to be Christian, these minorities are actually at risk.

There have been several well-publicized stories in recent years about citizens in majority-Christian neighborhoods in this country attempting to block the construction of mosques. Nary a peep is heard from many conservative religious-liberty groups in these cases. Those that do speak up are chastised into silence.

How conservatives have changed the meaning of ‘religious liberty’

Quote:Plenty of Americans still value the separation of church and state and, along with it, the establishment clause’s guarantee of freedom of conscience for all people. Outside the circles of the extreme right, religious liberty has long been a progressive value, celebrated by abolitionists, tax resisters, conscientious objectors and religious minorities alike. So long as an American respects the legal rights of his neighbor, the Constitution promises him the freedom to obey his own conscience when it comes to matters of religious conviction.

But when groups like the ADF talk about religious liberty, they are really talking about liberty for one specific religion — Christianity. In this context, the phrase has become a rallying cry for Christian conservatives whose religious and political interests align around issues like reversing Roe v. Wade and rolling back LGBT protections. Indeed, in their study “Make America Christian Again,” sociologists Andrew Whitehead, Samuel Baker, and Joseph Perry conclude, independent of other influences, Christian nationalism was the single most determinative indicator of support for candidate Donald Trump in the 2016.

Founded in 1994 as the Alliance Defense Fund, the ADF is a legal advocacy and organizing coalition for Christian nationalists that has been aggressive in pushing for a decidedly unequal definition of religious liberty. The ADF believes not only that America was founded as a Christian nation, but also that religious conservatives like themselves must save America from moral decline. Sessions and the Trump administration’s ties to the ADF are well-known — in 2017, Sessions consulted the ADF while drafting new DOJ guidance on how to interpret federal religious liberty protections.

The ADF seems particularly focused on limiting the liberty of LGBT Americans, however. In his 2003 book “The Homosexual Agenda: Exposing the Principle Threat to Religious Freedom Today,” former ADF president Alan Sears accused fellow Americans who advocated for marriage equality of a secret agenda to “lead young men and women into homosexual behavior.” In Sears’ conspiracy theory, gay marriage is part of a larger plot to silence conservative Christians.

This idea that LGBT and other minorities were threatening the rights of the Christian majority gained traction during the decade when marriage equality was winding its way through the federal courts. Painting themselves as victims of an amoral scheme, Christian nationalists have argued that their religious freedom is slowly but surely being curtailed by gay wedding cakes and transgender bathroom bills.

. . . . . . .

As a person of faith, I recognize others’ rights to try to persuade their neighbors to ascribe to their deeply held beliefs. But I cannot remain silent while religious leaders try to redefine religious liberty as a tool of discrimination — and enlist government officials to push this agenda on a federal scale.

Jeff Sessions' 'religious liberty task force' part of a dangerous Christian nationalist campaign of discrimination, Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove, Baptist minister

What is worse about this whole affair is that the operation of such a task force is wholly internal. There is no transparency whatsoever.

(August 6, 2018 at 9:36 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(August 5, 2018 at 10:42 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: It seems like there is a lot of complaints about the task force defending Christians. Os that what the problem is?

If it only defends Christians and never defends anyone FROM Christians, that's a problem, and you really ought to agree with that.

Ok sure from a constitutional standpoint; it should be about religious liberty of all. Other than a feeling; is there anything real being pointed to, to suggest it is otherwise?

(August 5, 2018 at 1:55 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Ok, so it’s back to fear again or worry about what might occur.

But this doesn’t seem to be just about Christians. Nor is this making a new law, but about enforcing a long standing constitutional principle.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/08/r...eedom/amp/

I don’t see the issue.

The issue isn't that I'm afraid of what might occur. I think most of us have a sense of who Jeff Sessions is and what he is about.

I smell bullshit. That's all I'm saying.

Thanks for the article. Nice to hear that the DOJ still does it's job. The rest of the article was spin, plain and simple. But that's about 95% of the internet these days so I can't fault you for that.

(August 6, 2018 at 10:09 am)vulcanlogician Wrote:

(August 5, 2018 at 1:55 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Ok, so it’s back to fear again or worry about what might occur.

But this doesn’t seem to be just about Christians. Nor is this making a new law, but about enforcing a long standing constitutional principle.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/08/r...eedom/amp/

I don’t see the issue.

The issue isn't that I'm afraid of what might occur. I think most of us have a sense of who Jeff Sessions is and what he is about.

I smell bullshit. That's all I'm saying.

Thanks for the article. Nice to hear that the DOJ still does it's job. The rest of the article was spin, plain and simple. But that's about 95% of the internet these days so I can't fault you for that.

The rhetoric on both sides is rather empty. Do we have reason to suspect that such a task force won't be fair in its prioritization of cases? I think we do. And those who say we don't are either naive or disingenuous (yes, I'm looking at you, Roadie). The fact is we may never know because there is no way to determine from the outside whether the administration is or is not unfairly prioritizing only certain cases.