With so many warning signs of rising theocracy being ignored, what’s one more?
Metaphorically speaking, in terms of U.S. religion and politics, we might pass off our “shortness of breath” over politicians’ chronic dishonesty as our just being out of shape. The “chest pain” of attempted insurrection could be indigestion. A “lump” of blind support for partisanship all could be benign. Thus, we ignore wanton misbehavior.
Brad Bull
On the other extreme are theo-political hypochondriacs who see problems where they don’t exist. They get up in arms about a routine solar eclipse or a Black woman playing the Little Mermaid, and they start yelling about the end of times. Of course, given the rate of the melting of the “doomsday glacier,” they might be right about the end of the world but for the wrong reasons.
Sometimes we are so overwhelmed or preoccupied, we ignore signs. Other times we misinterpret signs.
On May 6, a story broke in secular media. Many secular commentators — especially lawyers — sounded alarms. I was in the middle of major projects and assumed this issue was so flagrant someone else would address it. Three weeks later, I haven’t seen it addressed in any Christian outlets I follow. Call me an alarmist, but where there’s smoke there’s fire, and the smoke I see isn’t a backyard barbecue.
“Call me an alarmist, but where there’s smoke there’s fire, and the smoke I see isn’t a backyard barbecue.”
The expression “canary in the coal mine” refers to the way these small birds were used to warn miners about carbon monoxide — the colorless, odorless and deadly gas. Up until the 1980s when modern detectors emerged, miners carried the birds in small cages. The birds’ physiology caused them to keel over very quickly when exposed to carbon monoxide — alerting the miners to clear out. Because the miners cared for and depended on their feathered augurs of danger, they developed special glass cages with doors that could be shut, and an attached small oxygen tank would be opened into the cage to revive the bird as the miner escaped. Failing to notice an unconscious canary could lead to death of not just the bird but the miners.
University protests
In recent weeks, there has been much news about university students protesting the way Israel is prosecuting its war against Hamas by killing tens of thousands of Palestinians and decimating their homes, businesses, hospitals and land. Particular attention has been given to the protests at Columbia University in New York.
No. Despite what many voices are saying, campus protests about Israel’s policies are not the canary in the coal mine any more than college students’ sit-ins for civil rights or objection to the Vietnam War marked a threat to a country that started with the dumping of British tea in the Boson Harbor. However, this should not be read as an endorsement of vandalism. The fainted canary we seem to be missing is not campus protests regarding Israel but the response of 13 federal judges to the protests.
13 federal judges
According to a Reuters report May 6, these 13 federal judges sent a letter to both the president of Columbia University in New York and to the dean of its law school. The judges announced an action they would take because, in their view, the university had inadequately tried to curtail “antisemitism,” had not distinguished legal free speech from illegal trespass and violence and had become an “incubator of bigotry.”
Clearly, we can applaud opposition to bigotry and violence in general and antisemitism in particular. However, the judges’ manner of opposing it undermines the face value of their claimed purpose. Even if some of the protesters have endorsed the despicable and heinous acts of Hamas on Oct. 7, 2023, the judges contribute to the false equivalency that to oppose Israel’s disproportionate slaughter of Palestinians is the same as supporting Hamas. In an interview, one of the letter’s signatories, Matthew Solomson, repeatedly referred to the protesters as “pro-Hamas” and “anti-American.” Like the original letter, his comments offer a hodge podge of logical fallacies.
For instance, Solomson uses an appeal to emotion by describing that he and the other signatories traveled to Israel, where they watched a horrifying 47-minute video showing the Oct. 7 atrocities committed by Hamas. He said the experience gave him “further perspective on just how antisemitic the anti-Israel cause is.”
Thus, he not only attempts to use an emotional appeal to make it seem like those horrified by Israeli atrocities are not horrified by those committed by Hamas, he makes a false equivalency that to oppose abusive Israeli policies is to be guilty of bigotry. I’m sure any of these judges who are parents would not say they hate their children when they oppose their misbehavior.
“He makes a false equivalency that to oppose abusive Israeli policies is to be guilty of bigotry.”
At the end of their letter, the judges claimed a precedent for their action, stating: “Justice William Brennan refused to hire law clerks from Harvard Law School because he disliked criticisms of the Supreme Court by some of its faculty. The objective of our boycott is different — it is not to hamper academic freedom, but to restore it at Columbia University.” Thus, they use the logical fallacy of appeal to authority.
In court, judges rely on legal precedent. In this case, they are not citing the reason for a prior decision, they merely cite an action a famous authority took. They even hint they don’t agree with why and how he took his course of action. They simply cite that an authority boycotted a school and use this as a rationale for them doing the same.
However, it’s probable none of these judges would agree with the morality of abortion just because the Supreme Court ruled it legal in Roe v. Wade. So, these jurists should know better than to sound like fifth grade boys telling their mother, “Well, Dad cusses.” Dad’s behavior is not an indication it is appropriate behavior.
This intellectual contortionism, rooted in the judges’ own political bias, is embarrassing coming from these highly educated men who have been deservedly honored for their service at their alma maters and in their communities. However, their sloppy argumentation in and of itself is an omen of disaster if things don’t change.
Refusal to hire
Here’s the sentence that has drawn alarms from lawyers and other secular commentators but for which I have found no condemnation in the Christian community: “Considering recent events, and absent extraordinary change, we will not hire anyone who joins the Columbia University community — whether as undergraduates or law students — beginning with the entering class of 2024.”
Wait, what?
Yes, you read that right. These 13 federal judges are upset with Columbia University and are going to penalize students who go there even if the students might disagree wholeheartedly with the premise and manner of the protests. Asked about potential harm to innocent students, Solomson replied, “It’s not like our purpose is to punish well-behaved students; rather, any such undesired outcome is just a necessary byproduct of the very nature of a boycott.”
“This is the exact same reasoning terrorists use in justifying the killing of civilians.”
Notice Solomson didn’t even bother himself to say “the unfortunate byproduct.” He said hurting the innocent was a necessary byproduct of a boycott. This is the exact same reasoning terrorists use in justifying the killing of civilians.
Thus, federal jurists have taken “innocent until proven guilty” and perverted it to “guilty by association.” A fellow Christian once told me he didn’t find the premise of The Handmaid’s Tale to be plausible. I wondered if he ever watched the news.
This event in the news marks another example of the eroding tide of religo-political perversion dressed in graduated-with-honors gowns. (“Blessed be the fruit.”) When U.S. federal judges are using the logic of terrorists and flaunting basic tenets of morality and justice, we better notice the canary named Liberty passed out on Ellis Island. We must staunch this tide and revive liberty by turning on better air.
Illegal and unethical
Furthermore, these judges are promoting a type of boycott that is “theoretically illegal” and certainly unethical at best.
As a college student, I went to a town hall meeting about a paper company’s wanton pollution of a local river. Organizers called for a boycott of the company. One of the organizers explained to me that while a primary boycott is legal, a secondary boycott is not.
“For instance,” he said, “we can ask a restaurant chain not to buy their paper products from this company. But we cannot organize a boycott against the restaurant because they have to buy their milk cartons from that company.” Right; that wouldn’t be fair. The restaurant might not have a choice about where they buy their milk cartons. And a student — maybe even a Jewish student these judges claim they are trying to protect — might go to the only school to offer them a scholarship — or the closest school that enables them to care for a sickly family member.
What’s the big deal? How is the judges’ boycott a “canary in the mine” that Americans in general and Christians in particular need to heed?
“We can see from history what happens when politics become more driven by religious groups’ drive for political power rather than spiritual nurture.”
First, we can see from history what happens when politics become more driven by religious groups’ drive for political power rather than spiritual nurture. Let’s just nod to the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition and the Salem witch trials and let that suffice. You may be wondering, however, what 13 federal judges have to do with religious folk seeking to impose political power.
Good question. Here is the answer:
Seven of the 13 judges are in Texas. One is in Georgia. That most assuredly translates to “Christian.” Here’s a summary of the Wikipedia pages (or similar) of the seven judges from Texas (in the order of their signatures on the letter to Columbia):
- Matthew Kacsmaryk “worked for the conservative Christian legal organization First Liberty Institute from 2014 to 2019.”
- Brantley Starr graduated summa cum laude from Abilene Christian University. “He is the nephew of former solicitor general, appellate judge, and special counsel Ken Starr,” who also served as special prosecutor against President Bill Clinton.
- James Hendrix on a technicality related to quorum during the COVID-19 pandemic, blocked the implementation in Texas of the federal Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.
- Alan Albright has been criticized for recruiting patent cases to his district and showing a bias for patent holders.
- David Counts on Sept. 19, 2022, “declared that felony defendants (people who are under felony indictment) have a right to buy guns, striking down a federal law that stipulated the opposite.”
- Jeremy Kernodle exemplifies a judge not bereft of fairness. When Texas U.S. Rep. Louie Gohmert sued to try to force Vice President Mike Pence to overturn the 2020 presidential election, “Kernodle dismissed the suit on January 1, 2021, ruling that Gohmert and the other plaintiffs lacked standing, and that Gohmert ‘suffered no legally recognizable injury.’”
- Drew Tipton was the subject of an Aug. 24, 2023, Christianity Today article titled “In Federal Court, a Baptist Judge Weighs the Future of US Immigration.” The article identified him as the son of a Texas Baptist pastor and reported “at his Senate confirmation, he thanked his church, Second Baptist of Houston, for ‘praying and supporting me throughout this process.’”
However, we are not left to merely assume that since the seven judges are from Texas they have a conservative Christian axe to wield (not just grind). They connect the dots in their letter when they say: “If Columbia had been faced with a campus uprising of religious conservatives upset because they view abortion as a tragic genocide, we have no doubt that the university’s response would have been profoundly different.”
Abuse of power
Indeed, we must take seriously the legitimate fear of the left abusing power. Tolkien taught us that the Ring of Power seduces all of us. The issue here is a concerted effort by people with tremendous power who are abusing it by ignoring the principle of “innocent until proven guilty,” by going a step further to see hurting the innocent as “necessary,” and by using their power to attempt to suppress a legitimate free-speech protest by lumping all voices opposed to their position into the category of un-American and antisemitic.
I recently had a conversation with someone who asserted worry about Christian nationalism is unnecessary hand wringing. This person said there are too many constitutional safeguards to allow Christian nationalism to truly take hold. That assumes Christian nationalists would follow the law. You know (sarcasm alert): Like when Christian nationalists in 1930s Germany legally took control of the government after using reasoned persuasion to win a majority of voters. No, a minority abused power and lured and then captured the masses who wanted to affiliate with “winners” just like Johnny-come-latelies buying jerseys of the current Super Bowl champions.
The action by these judges is not merely a slippery slope, though. The boycott is, on its face, an abuse of power that threatens democracy.
The cause of Christ
That brings us to the second reason it is a canary in the mine. The behavior of Christians impacts the cause of Christ. When non-Christians see leaders who are Christians behaving this way, it has a two-fold effect: It creates a stumbling block to non-Christians. Furthermore, such actions dig the hole deeper by giving other Christians a sense that this is acceptable behavior.
Now let’s merge the political impact and the spiritual impact.
In the early 1990s, a professor friend of mine took a group of college students to Ireland. Upon return, we were discussing the ongoing violence that came to be known as The Troubles that spanned from the 1960s to the 1990s. Notably, the Wikipedia article on this conflict states: “The conflict was primarily political and nationalistic, fueled by historical events. It also had an ethnic or sectarian dimension but despite use of the terms Protestant and Catholic to refer to the two sides, it was not a religious conflict.” Thus, power in the political arena spilled into the religious arena.
My friend said an Irish national explained a factor perpetuating the violence was the economic instability created by jobs being withheld based on assumptions rooted in where applicants went to school.
Matthew 16 reports Jesus saying to the Pharisees and Sadducees: “When it is evening, you say, ‘It will be fair weather, for the sky is red.’ And in the morning, ‘It will be stormy today, for the sky is red and threatening.’ You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times.
What does it mean for us to heed the signs of Christians playing fast and loose with their power? How do we respond to these ominous signs?
We need to object to it. It needs to frighten us what these judges could do with their power if allowed to continue on the course their action portends. If we are silent, the bandwagon is more likely to grow.
In conversations on social media, a simple “I don’t like this abuse of power” can go a long way to snapping folks out of the social coma. Solomson said he was getting emails affirming the judges’ letter and boycott. He and the others need to get messages that confront the inappropriateness of their action. And when we have social contacts with such people, we need to “put a bug in their ear.”
What’s another approach?
The judges, in the echo chamber of Americhristianity, feel they are snapping the liberal academia echo chamber. In defense of the boycott, Solomson said, “No one has suggested another viable approach and, indeed, it is no different than that taken by many big donors … who have pulled their money from Columbia.”
First, it’s very different for private donors to withhold their donations from an organization they want to influence than for federal judges to use their publicly drawn power to isolate innocent parties who are guilty only by association.
Second, it’s frightening that these intelligent and apparently devout men would not be able to come up with a more Christlike much less civil response. Thus, apparently one thing we can do is suggest an answer to “What would Jesus do?”
Let’s take a worst-case scenario and accept the premise that the administration at Columbia is oppressing Jews. That would make them like Romans. How did Jesus address Romans? He healed their servants and children and said to carry their equipment an extra mile.
No, Your Honors. Another viable approach has been suggested. If you want to be salt and light, that is the example to follow rather than that of another one of your secular tribe. And to you, my fellow American Christians: We will do well to remember that Jesus was not being antisemitic or anti-nation when he called the Pharisees a “brood of vipers,” “hypocrites and whitewashed tombs.” He was being anti-abuse-of-power and warning the community to beware the yeast that gives rise to bad religion and destructive politics.
Brad Bull holds a master of divinity degree in pastoral counseling and a Ph.D. in child and family studies. He has served as a hospital chaplain, a pastor, a university professor and private-practice therapist. He is a descendant of John Bull, the gunsmith who founded Bulls Gap, Tenn., just after the Revolutionary War.
Related articles:
We have a teachable moment, and we’re blowing it | Opinion by Susan Shaw
From the Protestant Reformation to Columbia University, some thoughts on protests | Opinion by Patrick Wilson
Holy Week and Pentecost at UT Arlington’s Palestinian protest | Opinion by Madison Boboltz