I’ve been accumulating browser tabs again, so it’s apparently time for another set of links to things I found interesting, with perhaps a couple of remarks on each:

  • The WSJ ran an opinion piece a while ago noting how homicides are way up in Minneapolis, including killings of children, but these are drawing little attention because (it argues) the killings aren’t done by police and don’t fit the popular political narrative and agenda. The piece concludes, “While police need to train relentlessly in de-escalation and sound tactics, they are not the problem in minority communities; criminals are. As long as the police are demonized and scapegoated, law-abiding residents of high-crime neighborhoods will continue to live in fear and wonder why no one protests when their loved ones are murdered by gangs with guns.”
  • Mohler had an article on Fulton v. Philadelphia, the Supreme Court case which recently came down in favor of religious liberty in the context of Catholic Social Services, its work in adoption, and how it refused to help same-sex couples adopt. The case was a (9-0) victory for religious liberty. However, Mohler argues that this was a compromise – to get a 9-0 verdict, the more conservative justices gave up overturning the Smith decision, one which allowed laws which are generally applicable to restrict the free exercise of religion if they apply equally to everyone. This provides an easy out for Philadelphia and others in a similar situation who wish to restrict religious liberty – they can simply ensure their laws have no exceptions. Mohler quotes Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch on this: “This decision might as well be written on the dissolving paper sold in magic shops. The city has been adamant about pressuring Catholic Social Services to give in, and if the city wants to get around today’s decision, it can simply eliminate the never used exemption power. If it does that, then voila, today’s decision will vanish, and the parties will be back where they started… Not only is the court’s decision unlikely to resolve the present dispute, it provides no guidance regarding similar controversies for other jurisdictions.” Gorsuch added, “Smith committed a constitutional error. Only we can fix it. Dodging the question today guarantees it will recur tomorrow. These cases will keep coming until the court musters the fortitude to supply an answer. Respectfully, it should have done so today.”
  • The same article from Mohler looks ahead at the Department of Education’s recent announcement that it will apply Title IX to transgender students (in Part II) and the controversies which will inevitably result, especially in terms of conflicts between the states and the federal government.
  • Bari Weiss took a look at the recent closure of the Apple Daily in Hong Kong, as part of how a free society is becoming a police state. I wasn’t aware of its founder, Jimmy Lai, before, but his story is interesting and worth reading. Partly, it’s a story about how he wanted to oppose the evils of communist China and fight for freedom. Why does the closure of a paper matter so much? Weiss quotes Mark Simon, who said, “And the killing of Apple Daily is really the largest blow against Hong Kong as a Western civil society.” Weiss adds, “If the CCP is willing to do that to the world, if it is willing to swallow up a city of more than 7 million people in broad daylight, crushing the free press, crushing dissent, and jailing journalists, you have to ask yourself: what — or who — will come next?” This article at the Federalist also looks at Jimmy Lai’s story and is worth a read.
  • Apparently, the Biden administration is working to try and crack down on “misinformation” on social media. Politico recently reported that the DNC is trying to initiate a crack down on SMS messages that propagate vaccine “misinformation”. Relatedly, in a press conference recently, Jen Psaki commented on the need for social media platforms to crack down on vaccine misinformation. Among other things, she noted that the Biden administration is “… in regular touch with social media platforms … about areas where we have concern [about misinformation.]” This is rather concerning, as apparently it means the Biden administration is working to get social media platforms to restrict dissemination of information it sees as misleading. While this press conference is focuses on vaccine misinformation, what’s to stop this power there? Once politicians can restrict the flow of information they don’t like, what’s to stop this from being used to maintain political power? There’s a reason free speech is in the First Amendment, and it’s to protect against political restrictions on speech – even if that speech could be called “misinformation”.
  • Indeed, with social media having so much power, and the government beginning to pressure it to restrict “misinformation”, I’ve wondered what the right perspective is on social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, etc. On the one hand, they are private businesses and so they don’t have to adhere to the First Amendment in the same way the government does. On the other, allowing them to restrict speech can impede public discourse and sway the outcome in elections, etc., which seems to give them far too much power. This article from Eugene Volokh is part of a series looking at how viewing social media platforms as “common carriers” – like the postal service, phone companies, or internet service providers, could be a way to help resolve some of these issues. Carriers don’t get to discriminate about what kind of messages they carry. Here’s a key poit: “Certain kinds of important infrastructure, under these rules, are available equally to all speakers, regardless of the speakers’ ideologies. Government enterprises (such as the post office) shouldn’t decide which organizations or ideas should be handicapped in public debates. And neither should large private businesses, such as phone companies or package delivery services.” Anyway, this seems to be a helpful way of thinking about how we might change the relevant regulations – which are surely in need of changing.
  • In another Mohler article, he looks at how Masterpiece Cake Shop has been fined again in Colorado, this time for refusing to make a transgender-specific cake. Phillips, the baker, has a variety of things he won’t make cakes for, including Halloween, also for religious reasons. Mohler notes, “The point being made here is not just about the making of cake. There’s no real issue here about whether or not cake should be sold to persons without regard to their sexual identification. The issue here is the fact that artistry and communicative action is being demanded of Jack Phillips. What’s being demanded of him is to make a cake that celebrates the transgender revolution.” Mohler also quotes another author, who said, “Underlying this dispute, the really explosive part is a slippery slope. It seems monstrous to think that artisans have no control over the expressive content of their creations. Surely, a seamstress who knowingly provides choir robes and judicial robes should not be compelled to make robes for a Ku Klux Klan rally.” The issue is that the LGBTQ+ community wants to compel the baker to express their views, in violation of his religious freedom. As a society, we are forced to decide which rights we value more highly – the right of individuals to freely practice their religion, or the “right” of transgender individuals to compel people to celebrate their sexuality.
  • Via science Twitter, an interesting example of abuse of “private” location data to out a gay priest; it highlights the types of privacy issues we as a society will increasingly have to deal with. And from a Biblical perspective, it’s a reminder that there are no real secrets – everything hidden is uncovered before the eyes of him to whom we must give account, and may very well be exposed to society as well. Of course I don’t mean that this data should be public; this is certainly an abuse – but just that Biblically, there’s no room to be one person in public and someone else in private; God knows all, and Christ is Lord of all.
  • Bari Weiss has had lots of good stuff recently; here’s another one about how odd “diversity” can be and how much of a game it can become, e.g. an Iranian is not diverse but an Afghan is, etc. The larger point of the article is about Amazon’s “Inclusion Playbook” for Amazon Studios, and how it can be a smokescreen to avoid having to actually do something to fix the real problems we face.
  • Abigail Shrier has a guest post up called “The books are already burning”, dealing with how certain topics are already banned from public discourse, or bullied out of publication. One particular example is Shrier’s book highlighting possible harm caused by dramatic increases in the rate of gender reassignment among teenage girls; due to protests against the book, it’s been pulled from the shelves and book reviews have been withdrawn – not because of disagreements with the content but because discussing these issues is considered “transphobic”. Shrier calls people to stop caving in to bullying and stand up for truth, writing, “But why do so few oppose the pressure, lies, and the corrupting force of these bullying campaigns? The silent supporters have each performed the same risk-benefit calculation and arrived at the same conclusion: Speaking up isn’t worth it. It could cost a job, reputation, peace and friends — it requires the assumption of risk and a willingness to sacrifice. And it is easy to justify our silence. We tell ourselves that we are protecting our families by remaining quiet and in the short-term, and we may be. But we are also handing our children over to a culture in which freedom of conscience and expression are drowned out. We are teaching our children that truth shouldn’t be our primary concern — or at least, that truth is negotiable or subordinate to being agreeable. They are learning that it is more important to remain acceptable to the powerful than to be truly free.” She concludes, “Courage requires each one of us to speak up, publicly, for what we believe in. Even when — especially when — it carries costs.”
  • Recent goings on in the Southern Baptist Convention are pretty concerning, especially with respect to critical race theory and related issues. Here’s a helpful summary from Mark Tapscott which foresees a coming split in the SBC.