Tag: Donald Trump

Posted on

Religious Liberty

Fresno Bee, Nov. 2, 2025

The Trump administration’s call for a religious revival is worrying

Religious freedom is the first liberty of the First Amendment. As we consider our rights in this time of crisis, we should ponder the meaning of these 16 words: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Americans are free to believe whatever we want, but the government should not use its power to support or favor any particular religion.

One wonders then about the White House’s “America Prays” initiative. This is a call to prayer connected with the upcoming 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. When he unveiled the program last month, President Donald Trump explained that “to have a great nation, you have to have religion.” He said, “When faith gets weaker, our country seems to get weaker.” And, “We’re defending our rights and restoring our identity as a nation under God.”

This top-down call for religious revival is worrying. Our political leaders have a “free exercise” right to pray. They are at liberty to discuss religion and promote it, as free citizens. But this becomes problematic when the government leads a religious revival.

Just this week, Sean Feucht, a pastor associated with the Trump administration, revealed that, as the 250th anniversary approaches, “We are planning and plotting to do revival meetings sponsored by the U.S. government all across the nation.” This would include a “giant, massive” worship event at Mount Rushmore.

Feucht may be speaking loosely here with regard to a government-sponsored revival. The government could permit citizens to meet in public for religious purposes. But if the government sponsored a revival, this would violate the First Amendment’s “establishment clause.”

A government-sponsored religious revival will inevitably end up picking sides in disputes about religion. What will non-Christian people think about their tax dollars being spent to sponsor a Christian revival? And even within Christianity, there are deep disagreements. Will the revival include Mormons and Methodists, Catholics and Congregationalists?

And what about the growing number of non-religious people? Around 30% of Americans are not affiliated with any religion. A recent survey from the Pew Center found that 68% of Americans think that religion is “losing influence.”

This general decline of religion helps explain the rise of Christian nationalism. In my recent book on this topic, I explain Christian nationalism as “post-secular backlash.” Some Christians worry that the First Amendment system has allowed too much freedom of religion. They blame our growing lack of religious commitment on a world in which religious liberty has gone too far.

Proponents of Christian revival push back against the way the First Amendment has been applied and understood. Some want to bring back school prayer and teach Bible lessons in schools. But First Amendment cases have often been driven by Christians who want to practice their faith in their own way. Christians have been plaintiffs in recent cases opposing the promotion of the Ten Commandments in schools in Louisiana and the Bible in Oklahoma schools.

These Christians don’t want the government to impose a preferred text, prayer or interpretation of faith. It is worth asking whether we trust government officials — with all their flaws — to shape the faith of the nation.

The American Founders did not. That’s why they emphasize religious liberty. In 1779, Thomas Jefferson authored a “Statute on Religious Freedom” for the state of Virginia. This was passed into law in 1786 with the help of James Madison, who went on to author the First Amendment. The Virginia Statute says, among other things, that it is an “impious presumption” for “fallible and uninspired men” to assume “dominion over the faith of others.”

The word “dominion” is important. History records many struggles for power among religious sects. When governments get involved in these power struggles, it antagonizes some parties, while privileging others.

Perhaps a religious revival could help a nation lost in loneliness, addiction and violence. But which faith will lead the revival? And those who have left religion behind may imagine a different sort of revival: of science and rationality. If there is to be a revival, this should be the work of free citizens. It is not the business of the government.

Read more at: https://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/readers-opinion/article312711431.html#storylink=cpy

Posted on

Conspiracy Theories and Intellectual Black Holes

Fresno Bee, Sept. 7, 2025

Conspiracy theories are everywhere. Before Labor Day, the internet buzzed with the rumor that President Donald Trump was dead. He proved his existence by showing up at a press conference, where he called the rumor of his demise “fake news.”

Yet Trump has trafficked in fake news himself: At the end of May, the president shared a conspiracy theory on Truth Social claiming that former President Joe Biden had been executed in 2020 and replaced by a robotic clone.

One wonders why people get caught up in this nonsense. Perhaps we are bored, or maybe we are paranoid. But conspiracy theories have a strange pull upon us. We can be sucked into the orbit of what some philosophers call a “black hole” of knowledge and information.

The solution is simple: It involves critical thinking and calmness of soul. Stay calm, be smart and avoid intellectual black holes.

Conspiracy theories are the result of a process in which the search for meaning runs aground on a world that is often strange and inexplicable. Wishful thinking satisfies our desire for things to make sense. Communities of gullible people reinforce outlandish ideas. This process is aggravated by secrecy, distrust, isolation, polarization and suspicion.

When powerful forces act behind closed doors, we suspect conspiracy.

As alienation grows and cynicism spreads, it is natural to think that something sneaky is going on. This is exacerbated by an information ecosystem that is full of misinformation and nonsense, and it’s made worse by interested parties who profit by feeding our delusions.

Our innate curiosity and desire to make sense stimulates conspiratorial speculation. We want to know how and why things work. When the answers aren’t obvious, we invent them. When the facts displease us, we construct alternatives. The search for meaning can lead into internet rabbit holes.

No one is entirely immune to this process — we all long for explanations of the inexplicable. Wishful thinking feels good, and it’s fun to speculate about hidden forces guiding the world.

This is how superstition works. Fear of black cats and broken mirrors is similar to a fear of secret governmental forces. Those who see ghosts and demons will likely see other mysterious powers pulling political strings. The desire to explain suffering, evil and death leads people to postulate sin, karma and other magical mechanisms as drivers of the world.

But it is not true that everything happens for a reason — there are no masterminds pulling the strings. Human beings are usually more incompetent than omnipotent. The world is indifferent to our desire to make meaning. Sometimes things work out well, other times, they fall apart. Events occur without any explanation other than probability, coincidence and random chance.

The philosophical cure for conspiracies is well known, and involves wisdom and moderation. We need better thinking and greater emotional control. A soul in turmoil cannot think clearly, nor is it possible to see the truth when you are stuck in the orbit of a black hole of baloney.

It would be wonderful if we could create a society in which distrust, alienation, disinformation and polarization were not so pervasive. But that ideal is beyond our reach. Freedom of speech and of the press are important values, whose side-effects are rumors, gossip and nonsense.

The real solution is education: We can benefit from training in critical thinking and emotional regulation. In wondering whether some conspiracy is true, we need to ask ourselves what it would take to know it, and whether other explanations are more plausible.

We should also monitor our intake of information. Knowing that intellectual black holes exist can help us avoid them. It is useful to understand that interested parties prey upon gullible minds. In the end, we are each responsible for thinking better and for slowing the spread of hogwash that pollutes the information ecosystem.

Read more at: https://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/readers-opinion/article311973215.html#storylink=cpy

Posted on

Truth Endures

Fresno Bee, August 11, 2025

In times like these, it is important to remember that truth endures. Despite lies and cover-ups, there are facts. Yes, there are secret files, information silos and political attacks on science and history. But truth persists despite the conspiratorial mania of the present moment.

As Winston Smith, the protagonist of George Orwell’s “1984,” put it, “If you clung to the truth even against the whole world, you were not mad.” It isn’t easy to cling to truth in a world where truth is assaulted and expertise is devalued. In this idiotic environment, bad news is dismissed as fake news and scientific reason is denigrated as ideological.

We might consider Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s anti-vax obsession here. Or we could discuss the Trump administration’s attack on climate science.

A telling example is found in President Donald Trump’s firing of Erika McEntarfer, the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Trump claimed she was a “Biden appointee” who “faked the jobs numbers before the election to try and boost Kamala’s chances of victory.” On Truth Social, Trump explained, “In my opinion, today’s Jobs Numbers were RIGGED in order to make the Republicans, and ME, look bad.”

In Trump’s telling, everything that makes him look bad — or that he does not like — is rigged, fake and even treasonous. Last month, Trump accused Barack Obama of “treason” for supposedly rigging elections in 2016 and in 2020. In May Trump said that members of the Biden administration committed “TREASON” (in typical Trumpian all-caps), as “treasonous thugs” supposedly took over Biden’s presidency as the former president’s capacities declined.

It is easy to ignore these scandalous charges since the Trumpian firehose of gibberish is constantly gushing. But if we take these charges seriously, they present us with a very ugly dilemma. Either one of America’s ruling parties is treasonous or the other is unhinged. If Trump’s accusations are true, the Democratic Party establishment should be arrested and imprisoned. If what Trump says is false, the Republican Party establishment is mired in conspiratorial claptrap.

Some folks may roll their eyes and try to ignore all of this. One way to preserve your sanity in the face of madness is to keep your head down. But indifference is a step away from complicity. Good, honest people cannot remain indifferent to the truth.

And at the end of the day, there are facts: Either the globe is warming or it isn’t. Either vaccines are safe and effective or they are not. Either the economy is waning or waxing. Scientific reasoning can deliver the truth. Political meddling muddies the water.

Philosophers have affirmed the value of truth for millennia. Plato said, “Truth is the beginning of every good thing.” To live well, Plato said, you must be a “partaker of the truth.” More recently, English philosopher Bernard Williams said that if we “lose sense of the value of truth… we may well lose everything.”

The partakers and defenders of truth are often lonely voices howling in the wilderness. This is especially true when indifference and complicity are common. And let’s face it, human beings are easily deceived. Naïve dupes happily succumb to deceptive appearances. Charlatans and con-men prey upon our credulity. And some people devote their entire lives to lies, or to lying.

To remedy this, society has developed resources to defend the truth. Oaths and rituals are designed to ensure truth-telling and promise-keeping. Our institutions celebrate the virtues of honesty and sincerity. Scholars enforce academic integrity. Legal systems require sworn testimony. We punish plagiarists, liars and perjurers.

But as Orwell warned, unscrupulous political powers can use these institutions and procedures in defense of lies. Power divorced from truth is dangerous. Despite attempting to cling to truth, Winston, the main character of Orwell’s novel, is eventually tortured and broken. He succumbs to the madness. He accepts whatever lie “the Ministry of Truth” proclaims. In the end, he learns to love Big Brother.

The moral of Orwell’s story is about the ongoing need for truth-telling, and courageous resistance to lies. This isn’t easy. History is littered with the broken bodies of those who dared to speak truth to power. But in the long run, the truth endures. And it is nobler to defend the truth than to acquiesce to a lie.

Read more at: https://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/readers-opinion/article311622581.html#storylink=cpy

Posted on

Against Warmongering

Fresno Bee, June 23, 2025

The warmongers are at it again: Bombs are falling on foreign cities; politicians are being assassinated; tanks are paraded through Washington; and troops are “liberating” Los Angeles.

“Game on,” Senator Lindsey Graham said, cheering the prospect of going “all-in” against Iran. Warmongers see a world of enemies engaged in constant battle. They imagine it is easy to achieve “unconditional surrender,” to quote President Donald Trump’s ultimatum to Iran.

The militaristic mindset explains the Trumpian call to “liberate” Los Angeles from “the socialists,” as Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem put it last week. As troops were deployed to L.A., the president told the soldiers under his command at Fort Bragg, North Carolina that the riots in Los Angeles were an assault on “national sovereignty.”

This aggressive language is a prelude to moral disaster. Moral judgment about the use of force requires careful deliberation informed by the wisdom of the world’s traditions, most of which teach us to turn the other cheek and love our enemies. If violence is ever justified, it should emerge as a last resort from out of a background commitment to nonviolence.

But that’s not how warmongering works. Rather than making arguments grounded in patience, love and justice, the warmonger rants and raves. And, indeed, that is the way war works. Violence is dumb, inarticulate and morally mute. It kills and disables. But it makes no arguments — it does not convert or convince, it only destroys.

Violence is seductive because it is spectacular. It is quick, loud, decisive and even fun. Bullies and abusers enjoy what they do. Otherwise, they wouldn’t do it. Some sinister part of human nature likes to blow stuff up. Sigmund Freud called this the death drive. He saw a key challenge of psychological development as learning to transform cruelty into something better. Civilization develops as we learn to sublimate aggression.

Moral development should lead beyond cruelty, rage and revenge. Retributivism is a step in that direction: Rather than simply lashing out in blind fury, retributive justice tells us to apply violence in measured doses according to the old recipe of an eye for an eye, or a life for a life. The retributive scheme is meant to moderate rage. It sets a limit on violence.

It was in response to the old law of “eye-for-an-eye” justice that Jesus said we should turn the other cheek and love our enemies. Christian pacifism emerged in the ancient world following this ideal. But some Christians argued that there was a right to kill in self-defense — and especially in defense of others. The “just war theory” developed, allowing defensive war as a reluctant last resort. The elaborate edifice of the just war theory aims to limit warfare and minimize bloodshed in pursuit of just causes.

In my own scholarship on this topic, I have argued that just war is much easier to describe in theory than to carry out in practice. The “fog of war” makes it difficult to master events, to predict outcomes and to ensure compliance with moral principles. Another problem is “the just war myth,” a wishful idealism that thinks it is easy to fight a just war, and that “the good guys” win because they are good.

The warmongers ignore these difficulties. They are “all-in” on war. Perhaps they think war is like a movie or a video game where widows and orphans never appear on screen. Or perhaps they are really just cruel and aggressive.

In reality, very few wars live up to the moral ideal. Good people die. Bad guys sometimes win. Atrocities are committed. And noble soldiers suffer post-traumatic stress disorder and moral injury.

Our culture inclines us to ignore all of this. Parades do not show off the injuries or the trauma. Films and video games make violence seem exciting. And warmongering makes war appear easy to justify.

As soldiers deploy on American streets and bombs rain down on foreign cities, we need to think more carefully about the justification of war. We also need to listen carefully to the critics of war, whose voices are often drowned out by the warmonger’s ranting. Cruelty and war are ancient maladies. But the argument against violence is as old as Jesus who advised us to love our enemies and turn the other cheek.

Read more at: https://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/readers-opinion/article309092545.html#storylink=cpy

Posted on

Trumpian Eroticism and the Politics of Passion

Fresno Bee, March 9, 2025

How Donald Trump and Elon Musk inspire passions feared by America’s Founding Fathers

American politics has become deeply erotic. Often, this manifests as love — as when Elon Musk recently tweeted, “I love Trump, as much as a straight man can love another man.” In his recent address to Congress, President Donald Trump said: “People love our country again, it is very simple.” He extolled the “faith, love and spirit” of the American people, who “will never let anything happen to our beloved country.”

To say that Trump is an erotic leader does not mean he is “sexy.” Rather, the point is that he provokes. Trump inflames the emotions — whether you love him or hate him. He is the kind of person about whom it is nearly impossible to remain indifferent. He arouses rather than enlightens.

The erotic element shows up in various ways. Fealty and devotion of the Muskian sort are obviously forms of love. Nepotism and cronyism are erotic ways of distributing power to faithful friends and family members. In such arrangements, it does not matter whether things are fair or reasonable, nor does it matter whether people are good. Rather, what matters is love and connection.

Trump is making American politics a game of seduction and power — a spectacle driven by passion. Part of this is public performance. As Trump was berating Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy the other day, he said, “This is going to be great television.” The play of passion is enthralling and compelling: you can’t look away.

In a comment on the Zelenskyy episode, Canadian novelist Stephen Marche suggested we are witnessing “rule by performers,” and what he calls “histriocracy,” the rule of the “histrionic,” — the melodramatic, theatrical or emotional. Indeed, Trump is a master of spectacles, and he knows how to keep us watching.

The erotic art of arousal can be useful in business and in politics. But it is quite different from a more sober-minded or rational approach to the world.

The distinction between the erotic and the rational is as old as Plato, who worried that unbridled eros (sexual love or desire) would destroy a good city, and that passion would undermine justice. He warned that when eros rules a city (or a soul), it is like being drunk or mad. The rule of the erotic leads to lawlessness, frenzy and tyranny. Plato hoped rationality could control the passions, but he knew that eros was a powerful force.

Sober-minded folks view political discourse as an earnest discussion of justice, virtue and truth. Rational politics is sincere, honest and moderate. In the Platonic government, careful thinkers would deliberate using logical arguments that rest upon a bedrock of first principles and unassailable truths.

Passionate politics is different. It values histrionic performances that elicit emotional responses. Here, the participants seduce and cajole with the goal of achieving popular acclaim — which is, after all, a kind of love. The erotic approach rejects sedate sincerity in favor of impassioned public displays of power and affection. Erotic politics is more interested in glory than in goodness, and it encourages inspiring fantasy rather than dull deliberation.

Political eros is chaotic and unreasonable. Sometimes, it even becomes vulgar and obscene. The risk that passion will become excessive is part of what makes it exciting and fun. That’s why sober-minded rationalists don’t understand its allure and worry that the excitement of eros will lead to dangerous excess.

John Adams once warned about the “overbearing popularity” of “great men.” He said, “Ambition is one of the more ungovernable passions of the human heart. The love of power is insatiable and uncontrollable.”

Adams and the other Founding Fathers created a system of checks and balances to restrain the erotic element. Rationalists like Adams think that laws should rule, rather than love. They view passionate personalities as dangerous, and in need of restraint.

Eroticism sees such sober rationalism as boring and shallow. Typically, devoted lovers remain enamored of their charismatic champion — despite their flaws and lawlessness — and because of his passion. Indeed, those flaws may make this figure more beloved.

In erotic politics, people are wedded to the person of the leader, warts and all. This astounds sober-minded defenders of virtue and the rule of law. But in erotic politics, it makes perfect sense to remain devoted to the beloved, since love is love, no matter what.

Read more at: https://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/readers-opinion/article301565739.html#storylink=cpy