Pence is mistaken — as usual

The Vox piece is headlined, "Pence tells graduating Christans to be ready for attacks on their faith".

In his remarks, he warned students of the attacks they’d face just for being religious. Often, he said, they’d be asked to not only tolerate but also endorse values that go against their beliefs. He added that those who tout tolerance are often the least tolerant of traditional Christian values.

What traditional Christian values might trigger such intolerance?

Karen Pence, who sat in the crowd during the speech, received “harsh attacks” in January after she returned to teach art at a Christian school that bans LGBTQ teachers and students, Pence said in his speech. He characterized the incident as an “un-American” attack on Christian education and vowed to protect the First Amendment, which upholds freedom of religion.

Mike Pence is okay with Christians who will not tolerate the presence of LGBTQ teachers or students. He is not okay with those who object to that intolerance of LGBTQ people.

And what's the justification for calling the latter "un-American"?

Why, the fact that freedom of religion is enshrined in the Constitution.

Now, I thoroughly approve of the First Amendment's prohibition against the government supporting or opposing religion. However, I have deep misgivings about how far freedom of religion has been taken.

Too many religious adherents would like that freedom to extend further than it should: they celebrate idiocies like Indiana's stupendously misguided 2015 legislation prohibiting state and local laws that "substantially burden" people following their religious beliefs. Such laws provide cover for anything that a believer claims is required by his religion — including a religious business owner denying service to whomever he likes. Hello, colossally wrongheaded Hobby Lobby decision (which I've discussed at some length elsewhere: see the above link for the citations).

Answer me this, Mike Pence: why is your religious intolerance of non-heterosexuals just fine and dandy, but my thorough dislike and condemnation of bigoted Christians like you not okay? Why is the latter, in fact, positively un-American in your eyes?

Let me help you. The reason you can throw around the loaded expression "un-American" is that the Founders were wary of religious oppression by the government. They did not, however, mean to let the likes of you oppress others in the name of your religion. Your characterizing of criticism of your faith as "un-American" is nothing more or less than a grotesque misreading of the First Amendment.

In fact, the harm your wife suffered from criticism does not compare to the harm inflicted by you and your LGBTQ-hating ilk on a still-marginalized minority, harm inflicted by laws like the aforementioned 2015 one you tried to enact when you were governor of Indiana. You tried to elevate the privileges of religious adherents above that of everyone else. Talk about "un-American"!

You are so blinkered by your faith that you can't see your hypocrisy.

You also are so hung up on writ that you have lost sight of the fundamental decency that religion is supposed to inculcate. You dare to condemn people you don't know based on what they do with other consenting adults in the privacy of their bedrooms?

You're telling the world you think non-heterosexuals are evil: that is, after all, the only excuse your wife's school can have for banning them. I can guarantee you, though, that that school has employed, and admitted as students, people whose hearts are less pure than some of those it has refused to employ or to admit as students over the years. That's just the way life is. Being heterosexual doesn't make you purer, hard as it is for you to see that, Mike.

This post will not change your mind, Mike, I know that. You will continue to fear and loathe non-heterosexuals for as long as you draw breath.

However, you need to know that those of us not in the thrall of religious blindness see through your literally holier-than-thou bullshit.

Don't try waving the Constitution at us and bleating that loathing and reviling your bigotry is "un-American".

The rest of us are upholding this country's ideals by rejecting your intolerant principles.

The White House doesn't want election security

It's hardly a surprise, but now we (or at least I) have on-the-record quotations from a White House spokesperson confirming that the White House killed election-security legislation last year in the Senate.

The Rules Committee planned to advance the legislation last August but postponed it after criticism from the White House and some state officials.

White House spokeswoman Lindsay Walters said at the time that if Congress wished to continue pursuing the Secure Elections Act, it should not “violate the principles of federalism.”

“We cannot support legislation with inappropriate mandates or that moves power or funding from the states to Washington for the planning and operation of elections,” she said.

Heaven forbid that states be required to have minimum security standards for little things like our elections.

The White House simply is not a credible voice when it comes to ... well, anything these days, but particularly not when it comes to anything related to our elections. Our domestic Dear Leader is apparently so touchy about the continuing furor over Russian interference in the 2016 election that Cabinet members can't even bring the subject up in the context of protecting the next election.

The trouble is, the only one Donnie's obstinacy and indifference to electoral integrity benefits is him. The rest of us? We get him for another four years, along with who can guess what other bizarre and untrustworthy results.

Look, I know that if you support him it feels like the rest of us are out to get him come hell or high water. You think we'll say anything to boot him from office, fairly or otherwise.

But get this straight: Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election.

If the Russians had jumped in on Hillary's side, you would have broken out the pitchforks and the torches. You would have called on the rest of us to join you because you would have been enraged that a foreign country messed with our decision. You would have done that even if Hillary had lost, in spite of their support.

Does that give you a better idea of how the rest of us feel, knowing that the Russians interfered on Trump's behalf?

The bottom line is, the Russians have no fucking business messing with our, or anybody else's, election.

We are overdue to harden our elections against them (and other bad actors). Yet the White House killed Congress' prior attempt to respond, rather than working with Congress to fix the bill.

Even if you love Trump, you can't let him leave our elections open to interference. That would betray the entire country.