A recent Facebook audit comes from ongoing public pressure, not just from conservatives but from liberal civil rights groups and corporations. The conservatives tend to want more protection of free speech, and there is already a lot of evidence of Facebook or YouTube blocking content some committee determined dangerous (e.g., about C-19).
The liberals tend to want to block speech or advertising they consider hate speech or otherwise just unacceptable in terms of the latest politically correct or ideological pantheon of social crimes. It's actually the liberals putting on the most pressure right now. FB and YT have also blocked Christian content (even Prager U videos about the 10 Commandments).
How they get away with this so far is that they are deemed private enterprises and "publishers," meaning they get to determine what's on their sites. This is protected by their First Amendment rights.
But then again, they also bill themselves as "public forums" where all manner of ideas can be discussed, and if you add Google, which owns YT, FB that owns Instagram, and Twitter, which also censors tweets, you could say they're actually info monopolies. As public forums and as monopolies or nearly so on information communication, it would seem the First Amendment should apply.
So for now, Big Info Tech is clearly suppressing conservative content they don't like and not blocking enough content liberals deem censorable.
None of this is good for the First Amendment or free and pluralistic democracy.
© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2020
*This blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact me or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com/, or connect with me at www.linkedin.com/in/rexmrogers.
Since May 25, 2020, when George Floyd was brutally and unnecessarily killed by a Minneapolis policeman demonstrating what police brutality looks like, protests and eventually also riots have struck nearly every city and hamlet in the United States. Calls for racial justice, reforming or defunding police departments, rejecting what some see as “systemic racism” characterizing all of American society, noting “Black lives matter,” and a host of related or tangential issues are ringing loudly across the land.
To say race and/or racism are complicated issues is to make a profound understatement. But they are, and they “complexify” still further by mixing with many other issues and agendas in the noisy public square.
These are some of my thoughts on race and/or racism, attempting to make some sense, to create order from chaos, for now, for I like any living human being can and will likely change, though I hope for reasons rooted in a thorough understanding of my own Christian worldview.
© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2020
*This blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact me or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com/, or connect with me at www.linkedin.com/in/rexmrogers.
Social movements, inevitably, move beyond their founders, triggering events, and initial raison d'être. Don’t believe me? Read history—that is, if anyone cares anymore about history:
“Is there anything of which one can say, “Look! This is something new”? It was here already, long ago; it was here before our time” (Ecc. 1:10).
© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2020
*This blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact me or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com/, or connect with me at www.linkedin.com/in/rexmrogers.
Every day, some terrible discouraging development assaults our senses. It can be overwhelming.
It helps us get a clue on what people in the Middle East and North Africa have faced for decades. Layered crises, one blending with another.
This brings to mind my Mother’s favorite Bible verse:
“Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God.
And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus” (Phil. 4:6-7).
Living in peace in the midst of turmoil is not sticking our ostrich head in the sand, it’s not whistling past the graveyard, nor is it being a clueless Pollyanna.
SAT-7 blesses Middle Eastern viewers with the peace and hope of the God of the Bible.
Living in peace during crises is a blessing of God.
© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2020
*This blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact me or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com/, or connect with me at www.linkedin.com/in/rexmrogers.
Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (SOGI) are the new frontier of cultural change in the United States.
And those in favor of advancing these ideas just got a rocket-boost from the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS).
With Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), SCOTUS ruled that same-sex couples were guaranteed the right to marry by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. This 5-4 decision legalized a controversial political, philosophic, and religious behavioral question, effectively overruling religious liberty on this matter.
Since this time, LGBTQ+ groups have continued to work, lobby, or promote an expansion of what they consider essential rights in every sector of society. On June 15, 2020, LGBTQ+ got a victory handed to them, actually in fact a launchpad, by SCOTUS.
In Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), SCOTUS held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees against discrimination because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. In other words, the Court read SOGI back into the meaning of “sex” as written in the 1964 laws and with that move undermined the rule of law.
Despite Justice Neil Gorsuch’s verbal gymnastics in the majority opinion, SCOTUS put religious liberty on a legal collision course with SOGI.
This ruling is a landmark of the wrong kind, making SOGI—subjective and unverifiable identities, not objective traits—what the law calls a “protected category.” This will have seismic impact upon American culture, including, but far beyond, discussions about who uses women’s bathrooms, who participates in women’s sports, what pronouns corporations are forced to use, etc.
While this ruling will undoubtedly affect schools and universities, businesses, camps, youth organizations, daycare, and other workplace conditions or sex-specific facilities, it will also affect churches and Christian nonprofit organizations.
The Heritage Foundation said, “SOGI laws threaten the freedom of citizens, individually and in associations, to affirm their religious or moral convictions—convictions such as that marriage is the union of one man and one woman or that maleness and femaleness are objective biological realities to be valued and affirmed, not rejected or altered. Under SOGI laws, acting on these beliefs in a commercial or educational context could be actionable discrimination.”
“Currently, Title VII, a section of the Civil Rights Act, allows religious exemptions for faith-based organizations to hire with an eye to religious qualifications. Some have used this to argue that religious organizations can refuse to hire and/or fire employees who are LGBTQ if it conflicts with their sincerely held religious beliefs. However, because LGBTQ persons are now included under the “sex” category of Title VII, it is unclear whether these exemptions are still understood to permit religious organizations to discriminate on the basis of LGBTQ status.”
In an analysis the day after the decision, the ECFA said, “In pending and future employment litigation involving LGBT discrimination claims, the Court's decision in this case puts ministry employers in a defensive posture. As the Court has now interpreted the law, Title VII presumptively prohibits LGBT discrimination. Accordingly, religious groups with theological views that do not align with that interpretation will need to show that they are entitled to an exception under existing laws, such as the ministerial exception defense. The scope of that defense will be addressed by the Court in a separate ruling expected to be released later this month.”
You can bank on it that proponents will use this precedent to argue for approval of The Equality Act and likely make it an issue in the 2020 presidential election. One problem with this act is that it defines gender identity about as broadly, and ambiguously, as it can be defined, requiring only a subjective feeling or decision on the part of transgender individuals, and no legal name change, no surgery or hormone treatment, just a person’s self-assessment. The act recognizes no religious belief or conduct. The Equality Act specifically cites the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, indicating it cannot be used as a defense if people are charged with discrimination under this act.
SCOTUS’s Bostock ruling also will create enormous problems for sports, and specifically also for women’s rights. Since the Women’s Liberation Movement of the 1970s the US has attempted to improve women’s access to social activities, most especially athletics. Now, how will women maintain their status if a man saying he is a woman can participate in women’s sports?
I’m waiting for more feminists and women athletes, like Martina Navratilova has already done, to point out that this trend is harming/destroying women’s sports, i.e. it’s hurting women unfairly, which was the essence of feminism. If this irrationality is about equity and non-discrimination, what about women and girls?
It is impossible to protect sex as a category, i.e. women, and also advance gender identity as a protected category. Same for women’s research in universities. If “binary” sexuality is no longer valid, then women’s studies is essentially defunct.
If biological sexuality is just a preference, just some social construct, isn’t the same true for the 58 Facebook sexuality categories now available? What makes one subject to change and the other inviolable?
American culture is confused, celebrating irrationality, and doing what’s right in its own eyes. Since politics is downstream of culture, SCOTUS did not lead but followed.
© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2020
*This blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact me or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com/, or connect with me at www.linkedin.com/in/rexmrogers.
Is it possible to feel safe in an unsafe world?
Years ago, political activist Ralph Nader wrote a bestseller about the auto industry called Unsafe At Any Speed. The book put Nader on the map and was the subject of controversy for years.
Most of us care about safety. We want our family to enjoy life but be safe in the process. Yet we live in what the Scripture calls a “fallen world.”
Sin affects everything in God’s beautiful creation. Criminal behavior, disease, conflict and wars, not to mention bad weather, all confront us.
So how do we stay safe in an unsafe world?
In Psalm 142, King David is hiding from his enemies in a cave. He says, “I cry aloud.” “I pour out my complaint.” “No one is concerned for me.” “I am in desperate need.”
Then he refocuses on what he knows to be true: “O Lord, you are my refuge, my portion in the land of the living.”
When the seas of life seem ready to overwhelm us, the surest way to steady the ship is to trust in our heavenly Father.
© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2020
*This blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact me or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com/, or connect with me at www.linkedin.com/in/rexmrogers.