Moving Toward a Message That Motivates Voters

The 2022 midterm elections were a gift to the Democratic party.  I've never believed Republicans ever represented the mainstream of America, since I consider myself in the mainstream, and I have little in common with the GOP, less now than ever before.  But I think the narrative heading into 2024 is being written as we speak, and I think that there are some personalities within the Democratic party who are picking up the themes and crafting them into what I believe will be an overwhelming advantage for Democrats running for anything in 2024.  

This is my list of things that need to be in the narrative, so to speak, not necessarily prioritized, but which, by observing trends, polls, listening and reading, lead me to conclude that they are vote getters and winning issues.  Democrats always get accused of being too much on the side of policy, less on the side of feeling.  But these issues all seem to be producing a lot of feeling, and they're moving forward pretty rapidly.  

All Things Trump

This is the largest gift-wrapped package under the tree.  The presence of Donald J. Trump as a candidate for President is enough to tilt the Presidential election back to Biden by at least as much as he won the last time.  This time around, the independent voters have dwindled and melted away, below the 30% favorability threshold, and Republicans who are not likely to vote for the orange headed buffoon are in double digits.  If he manages to get all the way through the nomination process and into the election, I would find that very concerning, even more so that he would get votes.  But it won't be enough, not by a mile.  

An even better scenario would be that he gets the GOP nomination and then picks a raving lunatic nut job for a running mate out of those popular with his base.  Then, he winds up getting convicted of seditious conspiracy and is no longer eligible to run.  I don't think he's smart enough to pick a Republican who might actually be able to win.  He'll grab one of the extremists vying for his attention and really weaken the ticket.  

His 2016 win was an electoral college accident that won't be repeated.  Instead of focusing hours of news coverage on his orange head, focusing it on his lack of a comprehensive agenda of any kind will do the trick.  And while it may seem anecdotal, among the extremists I know who have been his biggest flag wavers, the enthusiasm is pretty low.  Maybe his supporters just naturally get beaten down by the atmosphere in a state like Illinois, but there's not nearly the kind of enthusiasm about him running as there has been the past two cycles.  

Tennessee is Providing a Gun-Control, Racism Double Punch

Another gift that has been given to Democrats by hard line Republicans aiming to control state legislatures without the constitutional protection provided for minority viewpoints has come through Tennessee.  In their zeal to smack down a couple of younger, African American legislators to show their own bigness, they made a gigantic mistake.  They gave them a national platform.  They also made themselves look a lot less potent than they intended.  Justin Jones was reinstated by the legislative body that had the authority to do so, unanimously, I might add.  It looks like Justin Pearson will also be reinstated.  

The attention that has been drawn to the Tennessee legislature, and its locked-down Republican majority has been damaging to the far right extremists who run it.  Several years ago, a political reporter for the Nashville daily newpaper, The Tennessean, said it would take a major political awakening in Tennessee among moderate to liberal voters who have been lulled into inaction by Republican dominance, to turn things around.  This looks very much like that's happening.  

There will be more interest from the far right in curbing unrestricted assault weapon acquisition with this particular shooting, which took place on their turf, in a conservative, Evangelical Christian school in an affluent, white neighborhood.  Democrats will, of course, be out in front on this issue, and may actually experience some success.  People are tired of school shootings committed by insane people with assault weapons.  The poll numbers are great for those who want to take action and put a stop to this madness.  That would be the Democrats, by the way.

We will see how tired they are of the same old white supremacy rearing its ugly head.  Every African American, Latino and Asian adult over 18 who lives in Tennessee should be registered to vote and ready to wait in line, along with whites who are tired of watching economic opportunity go elsewhere because the state's racism is so repulsive to businessmen and women of color.  Who in the world thought that it would be a good idea to expel three legislators for participating in a protest?  That was bad enough, but it really turned into a major mess when the one white legislator who was part of the protest was spared expulsion while the two youngest members of the legislature, who happened to be African American males, were kicked out.  I don't think the effect of that horrible move can be effectively measured in terms of political damage done to the GOP, especially in Tennessee, as a result of that mistake.  

The Dobbs Decision is the Gift that Keeps on Giving

Didn't we know that, in the wake of any court ruling that overturned either part or all of Roe v. Wade, there would be idiocy and stupidity on the right that would boggle the mind?  We did, but I don't think anyone really imagined that it would turn out to be as bad as it is.  In their zeal to force their will on everyone else, the right is simply helping to set the table for the return of Roe more quickly than they imagined it would happen if it ever were repealed. 

I concur with most of the commentators and pundits on the left, that the Dobbs decision was the single most important factor in turning back what could have been a disastrous mid-term election.  But the plunge into confusion and disarray (one of my favorite words) that has overtaken the Republican party in the aftermath of the election has turned into a political advantage that may only come around once in a century.  It's been heartwarming to see how Democratic politicians have responded to this.  The Republican party, the Republican-led Congress and the Supreme Court are all under water in a flood of political contempt.  

The polling data on this keeps widening as various legislatures do their thing.  I even have some good words to say about the media on this.  They were pointed to Idaho as an example of where the Dobbs decision and the overturning of Roe would be the most extreme, and do the most damage.  I think MSNBC got the ball rolling but other networks have followed up on the story.  Women in an entire state are losing access to maternity care, because their state legislature has been so extreme when it comes to the follow up on Roe.  What kind of political thinking leads to putting women at risk by making some of them drive up to six or seven hours to find a hospital that will treat them if they are pregnant?  

A Simple Message That Motivates Voters

Modern Presidential politics has come down to a numbers game.  Assess the situation, collect the money and put it in places where there's almost a guarantee of shoring up the numbers and preserving the status quo.  Win where it's a sure thing, minimize the risk in marginal elections and let the rest of it go.  And that is exactly why Democrats find themselves gerrymandered out of legislative control in states where they have a 50-50 split, or even a slight majority.

That's not good enough.  Red counties, or congressional districts, or legislative districts, also contain Democratic voters.  And they also have a number of adults who are eligible to vote but who don't register because of the apathy created by years of single party domination.  They may be sympathetic to Democrats, but they've become apathetic about voting.  Those people, along with independent voters, are the kind of people Democrats need to reach with what is clearly a successful and winning narrative involving the protection of individual rights guaranteed under the constitution.  

Tennessee has some of the lowest voter turnout in the nation.  It remains to be seen how these events, including the shock of a school shooting and the expulsion of two young black men from the legislature, will affect voters but in the few days since these things have transpired, it has put literally thousands of people in the streets of the Tennessee capital city, making their voices heard and their opinions known.  In the wake of the Dobbs decision, legislative houses in seven states flipped to the Democrats in a mid-term year when they are the party in power in the White House, an unheard-of occurrence.  

So the narrative works to motivate voters.  Now is the time to be smart, to take advantage of the gains, to keep this at the forefront of the news cycle, minimizing the "Trump did this or that today" message and emphasizing the fact that Democrats are fighting for individual rights.  Read some of the news stories coming out of Tennessee this week.  Democrats in the state are as energized and positive as they have been since the days of Al Gore.  The Republican governor, who, up to this point, has been one of the biggest obstacles to any kind of movement on gun control, is sending signals that show the pressure has been turned up and he is worried that the party's control may be in danger.  

Let's keep it simple, Democrats.  Take advantage of every gift, especially as indictments come down on Trump.  The 2024 election season is shaping up to be the party's best moment of the new century.  Be generous with financial support and vote in every election.  

 

Answering a Few Questions on the Third Anniversary of The Signal Press

Wednesday, April 13 will be the third anniversary of the Signal Press.  The product of an educator who also happens to be an amateur journalist with some professional reporting and editorial experience, my intention was to bring ideas to religious and political discussions, where those intersections occur, from a much different perspective than they usually come from, that of a Christian who is a self-identified progressive Democrat who has concluded that joining the Democratic party was the only consistent political expression with my Christian faith.  From the email responses I get, and some of the comments that I get, I will say that I have succeeded in doing what I intended to do.  

Being connected to other blogs, including links to several similar, like-minded political or Christian, or both, sites has helped boost the readership as much as, I hope, the content has done.  The counter says that 31,772 readers have hit this site this year so far, a number almost equal to the first two years of its existence.  I can tell, from emails I get, that some conservatives read it, and I hope that it causes them to think things through when they do.  A few responses I've received indicate that might be the case.  I also get responses from like-minded individuals who point things out I might not have mentioned, or taken into consideration, or didn't think about when I was writing.  I appreciate those, too, it makes me a better writer.  

As a way of marking this third anniversary of The Signal Press, I've pulled out a few of the most common questions I get, and the answer that I gave in response.  Perhaps that will help define my mission and purpose here a little better.  

How can you reconcile your Christian beliefs with your political perspective?  There are some things that go hand in hand with conservative religious convictions and conservative politics, so how do you reconcile the two?  

The very core of the Christian gospel is the belief that God created human beings in his own image.  The writers of the four gospel accounts of the life and teachings of Jesus capture this belief in recording his words.  In the narrative known as the Sermon on the Mount, which is likely a collection of multiple messages taught by Jesus, he defines this freedom in spiritual terms.  He doesn't lay out a system of following rules in exchange for blessings, he describes the practice of virtues that are character traits which have inherent value because of the way they touch the lives of other people.  

According to Jesus, humans have a free will choice to make a spiritual covenant with God through what we call conversion, or salvation, which brings freedom from the sin that separates us from God  When humans use their free will to respond to spiritual conviction, they are empowered to live a life that exhibits these spiritually-generated values, things that Matthew outlines in his gospel, Chapter 5:3-11.  For me, personally, the way I choose to express my Christian faith is similar to Quakerism, which places a high priority on the reliable and trustworthy living according to a set of specifically identified values, including simplicity, peace, integrity, community, equality and stewardship.  Being Christian is more about living by its values than pointing out where other people fall short. 

Jesus made it pretty clear that the way Christians treat other people, which he defined as "loving your neighbor as yourself," was, next to honoring and worshipping God, the single most important identifying characteristic of his followers.  He clarified exactly what he meant by "neighbor" in a parable, in which the character who set the right example and did the right thing was part of a minority religious, ethnic and social minority despised by the Jewish establishment.  

And I find that this is far more compatible politically with a partisan perspective that values individual freedom of conscience and which creates an atmosphere in which people can follow their own convictions and make their own choices within the broader scope of what has been agreed on when it comes to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  A law can restrict or direct behavior, but it cannot enforce integrity or stewardship or peace or produce actions motivated by love.  Christian theology is very clear in connecting morality to individual choice motivated by the spiritual freedom experienced through genuine Christian conversion.  It loses its spiritual character and quality when it is enforced by law and is not a real choice.  

America's founders did not create a nation for the purpose of enforcing Christian moral principles by law. They created a nation for the purpose of giving all people, including Christians, the freedom to live according to their own conscience and by their own beliefs and values.  James Madison, one of the primary authors of the constitution, observed that making any branch of Christianity a "state church" hindered its progress, and that setting it free from the control, regulation, and political manipulation of the state was for its own benefit, enabling it to function as an independent, free church in a free state. 

My Christian faith, expressed through living out its values, is very consistent with my belief in individual liberty that is a core Democratic party value.  So a political position that supports the constitutional democracy under which we live, and defines the moral parameters which guarantee life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is one that is consistent with my Christian faith.  Democrats are committed to preserving and protecting democracy, which supports individual rights and that is to the benefit of American Christianity, which has no restrictions placed on its freedom anywhere, for any reason.  

It is a fallacy to equate conservative Christianity with conservative politics.  The two things aren't the same, though I would have to say, at this point, that my Christianity defies being defined by any adjective.  It is also a fallacy to claim that conservative politics are informed and driven by conservative Christianity.  The religious beliefs that currently drive conservative politics, including "Christian" nationalism, along with the mix of false conspiracy theories, are not Christian, by their doctrine, theology or practice.  

"Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit," said the Apostle Paul, " but in humility regard others as better than yourselves.  Let each of you look not to your own interests, but to the interests of others."  Philippians 2:3-4, NRSV  

How can you call yourself a Christian, but support politicians who are "baby killers" and who give sexual deviants and perverts the opportunity to spread their lies?  

I don't support "baby killers" and I don't support sexual deviants and perverts.  

First of all, making politicians who support abortion rights for women responsible for the decisions made by those women who seek an abortion by calling them "baby killers" is no different than holding politicians who refuse to pass meaningful and effective gun control accountable for every death in a school shooting, and calling them "child killers."  The American Constitution protects individual rights and makes individuals accountable for their own decisions.  So does the Bible.  

The constitution guarantees the religious liberty of every American, including liberty from being required to practice any kind of religion, or to follow any religious creed, doctrine or theology in order to enjoy any benefit of being an American.  That means that I can believe that the Bible provides support for the belief that life begins at conception.  It also means that, even though I may believe that, I do not have the right to impose that belief on someone who believes differently, and it also means that lawmakers, responsible to the people who elect them, also do not have the ability to use government to impose what is an inherently religious belief.  

The same constitution gives every Christian the right and the freedom to spread their own faith and convictions.  If conversion is the answer to the world's problems, then you have the right to preach your message and work toward converting as many people as will willingly listen and respond to it.  Someone else might think you're just spreading your own lies, and they have the right, in this country, to think that.  But they don't have the right to stop you from living according to your conscience and speaking about it.  You have that right because those who hold a different religious belief, or who do not have a religious belief, also have the same right when it comes to their conscience.  

I consider myself educated and informed.  If I'm being honest, then I must admit that I don't really understand all that is involved with sexual orientation or gender identity.  I know that being gay or lesbian or transgender doesn't mean those persons are sexual perverts or deviants and that few, if any, gay, lesbian or transgendered persons would accept that this is a choice they have made.  Regardless of what you, or I, believe our Christian faith teaches us about this issue, it is irrelevant when it comes to the rights of persons in this country who are lesbian, gay or transgender, because they, like us, can live according to their own conscience which does not have to conform to any religious doctrine or theology.  And their choosing to do so neither, as Thomas Jefferson said, "break my leg nor picks my pocket."  

I would be in favor of government, at the local, state and national level, working to find real solutions to the underlying problems that cause most women to choose an abortion over giving birth, other than the medical complications of a pregnancy, which are personal decisions belonging to the women and their doctors.  We have seen abortion numbers in this country decline, during both the Clinton and Obama administrations, because there were some programs in place that helped alleviate the poverty and hopelessness that are the major cause of abortion choices beyond medical necessity.  When education is available that simply informs young people how pregnancy occurs and how to prevent it, the abortion numbers go down significantly.  

According to the Christian gospel, supported by the Bible's writers, it is not our responsibility or business to judge the spiritual character of anyone else, but only that of ourselves.  We are not perfect, and we live in an imperfect world.  We are accountable for ourselves before a holy God.  We are taught, by at least two of the apostles, and by Christ himself, not to judge others because we are imperfect and subject to judgment ourselves.  Fighting a culture war with these issues at the very front of the battle not only diminishes the effectiveness of the Christian witness and testimony, but it fights against the equality that is a core value of American demoecracy.  

I'd just like to know how it is possible for you to be a free thinker, well educated and observant, and still believe in the Bible, and in the existence of God, which can't be scientifically proven.  

That's a fair question. 

Much of that has to do with the way I was raised, though both of my parents were raised in churches that they left, and did not return until shortly after I was born.  When they did go back, they rejected the superstitions and the "folk religion" that describes what they had been raised in, and chose a Baptist church with a succession of pastors who believed in soul freedom, a core Baptist principle, the belief that one must, as the scripture says in Philippians 2:12, "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling."  

Neither my parents, nor our pastors, nor my Sunday school teachers and other church leaders ever taught faith by obligation and coercion.  They lived what they taught, by choice, made mistakes, acknowledged them, sought forgiveness, and didn't dwell on them.  I saw something in their lives that gave them joy and a sense of real peace.  Maybe there are those who will say that's just what they were used to, what they were raised with so they attributed it to God and the indwelling presence of his Holy Spirit.  But it was a faith which, in practice, involved much more living by a set of values than it did doing a lot of talking about it without backing it up the words.  

Is that proof of the existence of God?  Is it that the existence of God can't be scientifically proven, or that science has not yet conclusively proven that God does not exist and that is something it will never prove?  

It was during college, at a Baptist-related university, that I began to read and follow a group of pastors within the Southern Baptist Convention who really centered on the "four freedoms" which they believed were supported by the core teaching of the New Testament.  You can google Walter Shurden's book, The Baptist Identity: Four Fragile Freedoms, and get a good idea of this particular theological principle.  It's in that particular theological "camp" where my beliefs are centered.  

My faith is also heavily influenced by several Quaker writers and teachers, whose theology and faith practice run in a very similar vein.  Phillip Gulley, a Quaker minister, wrote a book more than a decade ago with the title, If the Church Were Christian:  Rediscovering the Values of Jesus, which still sits on my bookshelf as a reference for my writing and speaking engagements.  Quakers see God as an inner light, "that of God in everybody," and believe we are guided by this inner light which manifests itself in our lives as a set of values.  There are people who live their lives in such a way that makes it difficult to deny the existence of God as the spirit guiding their conscience.  

The values of the faith give it meaning and purpose.  And I do believe that there is the spirit of God behind it, a spirit who has inspired people, at different points of human history, to point the world back toward how humans are capable of living, as intelligent beings with a free will, on this planet and in the universe.  I don't think the purpose of Jesus, in the gospel narrative that he initiated and inspired, intended to have that used as a wedge to divide, or a standard by which to judge.  I think, as he said, and his disciple, later Apostle John, recorded, "I have not come to condemn the world, but to save it."  

So yes, I do believe God exists, and that Jesus fulfilled his divine purpose as the Christ.  You can call that religious superstition or presupposition based on my upbringing.  I call it faith.  

So, exactly what is it that you're trying to do here? 

I'm trying to point out, with plenty of evidence and a heavy dose of opinion, that the right turn taken by some branches of American politics is based on modern philosophy aimed at separating us from the idealism that our founding fathers put in place when they started this experiment in democracy.  They showed the world that this works, that people live up to the best expectations when they have the freedom to determine the course of their own life, and that peace and prosperity exist side by side with pure democracy and freedom of conscience.  

The old world ideas, that "nations" are put together and held together by common ancestry and culture, were shattered by America, where people from everywhere came together and put in place the potential to create the most diverse society in the world.  It is a place where, if you believe in God and have some theological perspective, the way he intended the world to be.  And if you're not there, then the use of the intelligence and reasoning capacity we have should inspire us to higher standards.  We've shown the world how a constitutional democracy works, and it's caught on.  Not everywhere, but in enough places that there's a chance we can share this planet without allowing personal ambition to destroy it.  

If this country is ever to live up to its potential, we need to make the democracy work as well as we can.  That means living according to values that take us to a higher standard than selfishness would achieve.  So I'm trying to promote the values and inspire the readers and encourage participation and get people to vote so that we can continue to exist as a free country where individual liberty is always an ideal to achieve.  

That's what I'm trying to do.  So thanks for reading long enough to ask the question. 

Here's a great post I'd love to share with you. 

Robert Kennedy, Baptist News Global: Why Such a Need for Literalism? 

 

The Major Differences Between January 6th and the Student Gun Control Protest in Tennessee

The speaker of the Tennessee House of Representatives, in his move to expel two Democratic representatives for their participation in a demonstration on behalf of gun control legislation compared this protest to January 6, 2021 in the nation's capital in justifying his actions to expel the two members.  My response to that, after reading about the whole incident, initially, is rage.  He's venting partisan anger at the fact that his party resorted to violence on January 6th, against first responders, and is being held accountable for it.  So this is tit for tat, so to speak, aimed at more than just the protest.  

He can be a partisan bully in Tennessee, a Republican majority state with a totally gerrymandered legislature that gives them a two-thirds super-majority to squelch any minority initiative.  I'm sure he thought he was being a good Republican, with a little bit of a racial edge.  But there are some potential pitfalls in what the Republicans did, and especially in his comments equating the event with January 6th. 

There are some big differences, huge, that a 6th grader can see, especially one that just survived a shooting in their school.  

The dead in Nashville, six of them, including three students, a school administrator, a substitute teacher and a custodian, were killed at the school that was peppered with assault rifle ammunition.  No one died at the state capitol, no law enforcement officers were injured, no one defecated or urinated on the floor, no one shouted out threats to hang anyone, no one jabbed anyone with sharpened flagpoles bearing political slogans.  They came, they protested, they were heard, they got some publicity and that made the speaker angry.  

There's an Image Problem Here

The protests were prompted by a shooting in a private school, operated by an Evangelical church, a mostly-white school in a white neighborhood.  In spite of attempts to label the shooting as an attack perpetrated by the culture war, an angry transgender person taking out their anger on a Christian school, it was not that at all.  In fact, this fit the pattern of most school shootings, involving a shooter familiar with the school as a former student, not as a culture warrior attacking a perceived enemy.  This wasn't an attack on a secular, public school, too liberal to have people with gun-carry permits on campus, where a student went crazy because of circumstances related to the school's lack of discipline.  This was a former student whose psychological problems that led to the shooting developed on conservative, Evangelical Christian, Republican political turf.  

And that has to have put some pressure on legislators who are always monitoring public opinion after events like this to see how it affects their position.  The protests, which have brought this issue right into the legislature, have also served to put pressure on the legislators.  So, the speaker took unprecedented, and in my opinion, completely unwarranted action against three Democratic legislators.  And the January 6th rhetoric he spewed is an intentional distraction.  

I doubt very many of the compliant, rubber-stamping Republicans in the Tennessee house gave any thought at all to potential implications that would come as a result of the rhetoric, their actions, and from the shooting and protest itself when they were casting their ballots.  But there's been an awful lot of attention drawn to their actions, on a national scale, especially when their votes expelled the two black male members, but did not reach the necessary threshold to expel the white, female member.  That got jumped on right away, not only in the media, but among those who have the power to demand accountability for something that appears to be racially motivated.  

The comparison to January 6th wasn't a good public relations move either, especially since it is obvious, even to many Republicans and most independents in Tennessee, that there was nothing to compare.  

An Open Question

All of this happening within a couple of short weeks has made for quite a story.  The Tennessee legislature's lack of action on gun control and regulation led to the very preventable deaths of six Tennesseans, in a school operated by an Evangelical Christian church, on heavily Republican turf.  The have no one else to blame for this one, and public opinion is moving to hold them accountable for this.  So of course the GOP speaker is going to find as many distractions, and "whatabouts" as he can to try and justify their failure to protect the state's citizens from gun violence.  

Getting back to the question at hand, exactly what, Mr. Speaker, is your legislature going to do to prevent another such shooting in Nashville, or Memphis, or Jackson or Chattanooga or Gallatin for that matter?  Because it doesn't look like expelling two black, male, Democratic members of the house is going to be an effective deterrent.   

Are the Republicans in the Tennessee Legislature Lighting the Fires of Support for Major Gun Control?

 NPR: Tennessee Votes to Expel Legislator for Protesting

To say that this is not going to "play well nationally" is an understatement.  

Frankly, I don't think this is going to play well in Tennessee, either.  Joining in what was a popular protest to send a message to the state legislature after a high profile shooting in a private, Christian school where Evangelical Republicans are the obvious constituency, three Democrats in the Tennessee legislature faced expulsion for their participation.  As of this writing, Representative Justin Jones, of Nashville, and Representative Justin Pearson, of Memphis have been expelled while Representative Gloria Johnson, of Knoxville, was not expelled.  All three were involved in a protest on the floor of the legislature in the wake of the murders of six people in a Nashville public school.  

This Looks Bad

What's really not going to play well is the fact that while all three representatives participated in the protest, and shared the responsibility for their involvement in it, the two black, male representatives were expelled.  The white female was not. And I don't really know what to say about that.   

It's not that the Tennessee legislature can be expected to be a model of democracy.  It would be majority Republican, even if the districts were not heavily gerrymandered to purposefully dilute Democratic votes, and more specifically, to dilute the black vote.  Racism runs thick in Tennessee, as bad as it is in Mississippi or Alabama, or, the new racist model of America, Florida.  The fact that this is what the state's legislature is doing, in the wake of a school shooting, speaks volumes about the leadership.  They might as well put a banner up over the legislative chamber declaring that it has been sold out to the gun lobby.  

We're just a week and a half away from a devastating and shocking school shooting in an affluent, white neighborhood of Nashville, in an affluent, white, Evangelical Christian school.  This wasn't some public school where they could attribute the atmosphere that fostered the shooting to bullying, or a dysfunctional social community in the school.  This shooting was in an Evangelical Christian school in the heart of the Bible belt, in a school where staff members, including two of the three who were murdered, had personal connections to the governor and to Senator Blackburn, who is a member of the church considered the "mother congregation" of Covenant Presbyterian, and which helped with the establishment of The Covenant School.  

This was in their backyard.  And still, all we get from either of them is more thoughts and prayers.  If they're not going to do it for their own, then I think that's a sign that they don't give a damn.  

Is There Enough Frustration to Demand Action? 

There's enough frustration to demand action, but getting it, from a legislature bought and paid for by the gun lobby, like Tennessee, is another story.  People have a tendency to fall asleep, politically, and don't pay attention to the implications that become realities when voters don't show up, until there's a crisis.  Then, in some cases, the damage has been done, the way state constitutions are written make it virtually impossible to make changes and there's so much polarization that it is almost impossible to motivate enough people to overcome the imbalance with an election.  

We are watching an ex-president flaunt the law, threaten politicians, judges, district attorneys, anyone who gets in his way, incite his followers to commit violence to subvert the law and avoid behind held accountable, and get away with it.  Any ordinary American who had threatened a judge about to hear their case, and pose, on social media, with a baseball bat aimed at the head of the district attorney would have been held in jail without bail until the trial, as a consequence of those threats.  The ex-president flies home to dinner in his hotel home in Florida and immediately breathes out more threats.  

But on the other side, three Tennessee legislators who joined in a protest on the floor of the house, as advocates for the control of assault weapons are immediately kicked out of the legislature, or, at least, the ones who were racial minorities were kicked out.  Why?  Because, for more than a decade, Republicans plotted ways to extend their majority to the point where it has no restraints, because it exceeds the constitutional two-thirds threshold required to override any restraints. Because they can.  And because, at the heart of the issue, the two Democrats who were expelled from the Tennessee House represent constituencies that are opposed to the Republican agenda in almost every other way.  

Have we had enough yet?  They are showing us how we should be treating the failed ex-president.  Swift action, follow the rules that are allowed, and put a gag order on him, shutting up his pie hole or incarcerating him until his trial.  

Are we tired of having schools and churches shot up by gunmen who don't even have to sign a registration slip to buy multiple weapons, attacking children they don't even know indiscriminately, because they have lost their mind?   

I get it, that in a state like Tennessee, it is hard for someone who supports progressive democracy to get motivated enough to vote in an election that seems already stacked in favor of the extremists.  Voter registration in Tennessee, among Republicans and independents, has remained at about the same level for the past three election cycles.  Democratic voter registration has declined slightly, but turnout in more heavily Democratic precincts has dropped considerably.  Just about half of Tennessee adults over 18 eligible to vote are registered.  It's less than half in most of the state's precincts where the majority of the voters cast ballots for Democrats.  So I get it, that trying to get things done through the ballot box is not going to yield results any time soon, though these kinds of events do help erode independent support for Republican politicians. 

But the size and scope of the protest at the state capitol got their attention.  If people feel strongly enough to show up and protest, peacefully, not in the way that Trump expects his protesters to behave, it does have a way of visibly showing legislators that the status quo is shifting and their secure district might be seeing a shift in numbers as a result of the effect of frustration, over the Dobbs decision and now, over gun control.  These kinds of issues are the sparks that motivate voter registration and turnout, things Democrats need to happen in several places right now.  

Gun control advocates just gained two highly visible spokesmen tonight.  Their visibility and influence will likely be more effective outside the legislature now, after this event, than it would have been inside.  If nothing else, there is now even more pressure on the Tennessee legislature, and on its governor, about controlling assault weapons, than existed before either the school shooting or this strange, undemocratic, racist response to a protest.  

This has also drawn attention to the fact that racism is still alive and well in the state of Tennessee.  I'll be disappointed if that's not part of the narrative, because it seems to be quite obvious.  And I hope this incident will be a catalyst in bringing about some real change to the Tennessee legislature, as well as to others around the country where the same thing goes on.  This can't be ignored.  

Democrats are Not Pedophiles, and Other Myths, Fallacies, Conspiracy Theories and False Perspectives

Giving in to the temptation to watch a video of Leslie Stahl's interview with Marjorie Taylor Greene on 60 minutes last week, I was amazed at how deeply the Georgia congresswoman is immersed in a world of her own creation.  Certain questions seem to trigger monologues and replays of pre-recorded messages rather than getting a straight answer.   Even a veteran journalist like Stahl couldn't get a straight answer from her that deviated from her pre-planned narrative and talking points.  Facts didn't matter, as Stahl pointed out several times but were completely ignored in the response.  

It was exactly what I expected.  Initially, after watching it, I thought it made Greene look like the backward, cliche-spouting, conspiracy theory-chasing, white supremacist that she is.  And if the intended result was to make more people on a national scale aware of just how extreme she is, and point out that Kevin McCarthy has elevated her status in Congress to some influential committees, especially the oversight committee, it achieved that.  At least, I certainly hope that it did, at least, for a clear majority of voters.  

What I would like to see from 60 Minutes now, in response, is someone who will wrap all of that up for the American people and properly categorize it as dangerous ignorance that needs to be rooted out of the government.  Taylor Greene does not understand the constitution, the way a democratic republic works, or that democracy gives everyone in the country equal rights and an equal voice, at least in theory.  But it is her false accusations, the twists in the language and perspective she attempts to create, that bother me more than anything.  60 Minutes needs to set the record straight, and so will the Signal Press.  

Democrats are not Pedophiles

Greene kept insisting that support for sex-change operations for minors makes Democrats pedophiles.  That probably plays well in some of the more ignorant corners of her Georgia congressional district, but her logic is flawed.  It's political rhetoric, but when challenged on it, or asked to explain her position, it simply becomes her assertion.  

The issues surrounding gender identity and gender dysphoria are complicated.  I admit that I don't really have an understanding of the causes, the feelings, or the circumstances that cause transgender persons to have such a strong sense of gender identity different from their physical gender, or of the complications that cause gender dysphoria.  And since I don't understand it, there's no way I can stand in judgement of people who do, or claim that their feelings aren't real, or tell them that if they pray hard enough or believe hard enough, this will just go away.  I understand enough to know that this has to do with brain development, neural pathways and the chemical and hormonal balances that affect the brain's function.  And I understand that the feelings they have about their gender identity are as much a part of who they are, and would be as impossible to change, as mine are.  

The few transgender persons I've met are not sexual deviants or pedophiles, they are human beings with physical, mental and emotional circumstances beyond their control that have affected their identity.  They have the same right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that all of the rest of us do, and they have the right to consult with the professionals in the psychology and medical fields who they believe will help them relieve their anxiety and enjoy life.  They have the right, if they choose, to pray to God for help through spiritual transformation.  And they have the right to reject that if they choose.  

Supporting the rights of these people to get the psychological and medical help they choose on their own does not make one a pedophile.  There's no pedophilia involved here, even if those seeking the help are adolescents.  They are human beings, trying to understand something that most of us will never have to face.  Supporting their right to make their own life choices doesn't have anything to do with pedophilia.  

Democrats are not "Baby Killers" 

Isn't it ironic that Christians, who claim to believe in the inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible, and who claim to implicitly follow the gospel of Jesus, come up with some of the most caustic, abusive, derogatory names for their political opponents, in spite of Jesus saying to "love your enemies," and one of the church's apostles, John, telling a church to whom he preached that "Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love."  (I John 4:8)  Any Evangelical politician or political leader, or pastor for that matter, using the term "baby killer" is not exhibiting any Christian character and lacks values to support their claim to be Christian.  

I grew up believing that human life begins at conception.  This belief is based on several places in the Bible that indicate the presence of human identity in a child in the womb, not yet born, though there is not a direct statement indicating that this happens at conception.  That's a conclusion drawn by inference from the Bible writers' narratives about marriage and human sexuality.  I still believe that sexual intimacy and marital fidelity are core concepts that go a long way toward making a marriage last "until death do you part."  And I still think that human beings have the intelligence, knowledge and wisdom it takes to prevent an unwanted pregnancy.  And because of that, I believe that abortion, used as birth control, is an avoidable act of irresponsibility.  

However, that is an inherently religious perspective.  The secular world does not necessarily accept the premise that life begins at conception.  Noting that abortions are sometimes medically necessary to save the life of the mother, or that they are sometimes emotionally and psychologically necessary, as in the case of rape or incest, means that there are different lines drawn in answer to the question as to what point in the course of a human pregnancy an abortion would be taking a viable human life.  Not all religions or Christian denominations agree on circumstances that would make an abortion acceptable.  The rights of all of those who hold a different perspective on this issue, including those who rely on the word of available medical science, must be considered in making a decision about when an abortion can be performed legally, and when it would involve taking the life of another human being. 

Having an abortion is a personal decision and it is as ridiculous to assign accountability for any guilt that may be involved to Democratic politicians who supported a woman's right to choose to have one by calling them "baby killers" as it would be to assign guilt for deaths in mass school shootings to Republicans who refuse to support reasonable gun control legislation.  Politicians who pass laws protecting a woman's right to make her own medical decisions can't be held accountable for someone's  personal decisions.  Blaming Democrats for abortions but not blaming Republicans for mass shootings is hypocritical.  

Any state laws that have been passed, or which were triggered when Roe v. Wade was overturned, to ban abortions are in violation of the constitution's establishment clause.  The position that life begins at conception and that abortion should be illegal is primarily based on religious teaching, specifically Christian teaching.  The rights of others who have a different perspective on when a fetus becomes a viable human being must also be taken into consideration equally.  The Dobbs decision is a serious violation of the establishment clause and religious liberty and is an indication of a Supreme Court ruling in a purely partisan manner, on a specifically religious basis.  

No Religious Liberty is Violated by Guaranteeing the Rights of the Non-Religious 

In his Notes on the State of Virginia, Thomas Jefferson said, "But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god.  It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."  

The extension of personal, constitutionally-guaranteed liberty to LGBTQ persons, including those who are transgender, as well as to those who hold no specific religious belief and who do not believe that life begins at conception doesn't pick anyone else's pocket, or break anyone else's leg.  It doesn't interfere with anyone's individual rights.  No one else is accountable for the decisions that individuals make when it comes to their own personal identity, or their own health.  

The claim that there is "grooming" going on, aimed at recruiting children and youth to adopt a transgender preference or to change their sexual orientation is as false as the Q-Anon allegation that Democratic politicians are involved in sex trafficking.  Gender identity and sexual orientation are not things into which someone who does not have those kind of feelings can be groomed or recruited and the assertion indicates a measure of ignorance about the behavioral and psychological scientific research that is being done in this area.  

There is an effort, in some places, to educate people and make them aware of the issues and what's involved, in order to help reduce the bigotry and social rejection people experience because they are different.  I'm not sure how well that works.  But I would also note that people are free to take whatever steps they feel are necessary to recruit people to their own religious beliefs.  There's no restriction on that in this country.  None.  

It works this way for everyone.  Those of us who have a more progressive perspective on constitutional rights and freedoms have just as much of a right to express our views, and vote for whom we choose.  Likewise, even the most extreme conservatives have the same right.  That's how democracy works.  

 

The Enemy of Democracy is Ignorance That Produces Lawlessness; It's Already Stolen Part of the American Church

Jesus and John Wayne by Kristin Kobes Du Mez

The book has been out since 2019, but it is an excellent "revisionist" history of the political plunge taken by Evangelical Christians in the United States since Reagan embraced them while running against a true Evangelical,  Jimmy Carter, in 1980.  Carter, a Georgia Southern Baptist whose doctrine and theology reflected the core values of the Christian gospel, and influenced his politics, unlike Reagan, who was very secular in his personal life.  And when I say "influenced his politics," I mean that Carter always took the path of compassion, putting the needs of people ahead of his own personal preferences when it came to practicing "righteousness," and he believed that when Jesus said "love your neighbor as yourself," he meant it.  

The political brand of Evangelical Christianity that has emerged from the influence of a core group of powerful Christian "leaders" as diverse as Jerry Falwell, Sr., Pat Robertson, James Dobson and Franklin Graham has abandoned Christian theology and doctrine in exchange for the ability to get things done using political power instead of the Holy Spirit's power, and to fight a "culture war" rather than fulfill an evangelistic mission and purpose.  It is a cult, by Evangelicalism's own definition, a sinister religion with a set of religious practices that may be drawn from Christian tradition, but which deny the core beliefs of Christianity.  Rather than choosing sincere and committed Christians, for whom the gospel's values and practices lead to protecting the rights of all people equally, they chose leaders who push agendas, and who rely on personality and charisma for leadership, who are either nominally connected to religious tradition or, like their later choices, are completely worldly and immoral.   

Du Mez says that the attraction of those within American Evangelicalism to Trump, whose personal lifestyle and values are the immoral opposite of Christ's gospel, something he openly proclaims and on which he builds his own worldly identity, is because the "culture war" agenda that includes misogyny, white supremacy and anti-Semitism, opposition to LGBTQ rights and abortion rights, and the use of political power to advance an agenda was already part of the culture and substance of politically engaged, white Evangelicals before Trump came along.  They didn't hit it off at first, because Trump was so worldly, so openly immoral and lacking in values.  But, having no real convictions himself, he was able to make promises to deliver on things he cared nothing about, specifically abortion and the anti-LGBTQ agenda.  

Trump takes any position that will get him what he wants.  Once he saw that the things political Evangelicals wanted him to do wouldn't harm his main agenda, he was all in.  They saw in Trump the chance to achieve their agenda with political power and were willing to turn their backs on the morality and values of Christ's gospel in order to get their political agenda accomplished.  They were willing to dump the morals and values of Jesus in exchange for the political power of a man whose life exemplifies the polar opposite of Christian morality.  

They abandoned the evangelistic mission that identifies them within the broader scope of Christianity, and the spiritual power they once believed led to their success in exchange for a political "deal with the devil," and reliance on political power.  They couldn't manipulate God in to achieving their agenda, so they turned to someone else.

The Definition of "Evangelical" has Changed

I'm a Christian, and at one point in my life identified as an Evangelical, because I believe that set of doctrines and that interpretation of theology, revealing the person of God through the gospel of Jesus Christ, is consistent with a historical and contextual study of and interpretation of the Bible, specifically the New Testament.  What that has become for me, in my life and in the living out of my faith, is similar to that of the doctrine and theology of Jimmy Carter, combined with a heavy dose of Quakerism, specifically, the conviction that being Christian involves repentance, spiritual transformation or conversion, and then living out a specific set of values taught by Jesus, whose words were recorded by the apostles who also commented and instructed at length on how to live by those values.  

I no longer identify as an Evangelical, mainly because of the secular political implications of the use of the term.  But my church upbringing, supplemented by my own reading and study, along with three years of intense biblical studies in a seminary, have given me the ability to interpret what the scriptures have to say about Christian faith, and the discernment to see that there are major differences between the Christian gospel of Jesus Christ, and the religion practiced by those who have merged their faith with their secular politics.  It's been easy for Trumpism, and its worldliness and immorality, to intrude into white, Evangelical churches and denominations because so many members of churches have no knowledge of any real doctrine or theology, and depend on emotions and a set of so-called "leaders" who are celebrities within their own ranks to tell them what to believe.   

What the Typical Christian in the Church Pew Believes, or Doesn't Believe, is the Key to Understanding What's Happened to Evangelical Christianity

In illustrating how Southern Baptists transitioned from their claim of being a solidly biblical faith to developing an agenda-driven perspective, in this particular example, patriarchy, De Mez quotes the President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Dr. Al Mohler, who lays this out perfectly, based on his personal experience.  

"Mr. and Mrs. Baptist may not be able to understand or adjudicate the issue of Biblical inerrancy when it comes down to nuances and language and terminology," he said.  "But if you believe abortion...homosexual marriage...should be legal, that's all they need to know."  

That's quite an acknowledgement, from the president of the flagship, and largest seminary of the largest Evangelical denomination, that the average member of its churches have no idea what they really believe when it comes to biblical doctrine and theology, and living according to the values of the Christian gospel, taught by and modeled by Jesus.  No wonder a false cult has been able to develop inside this particular branch of Christianity and wrap itself around the power of politics to achieve its goals, rather than the power of the Holy Spirit, and the gospel of Jesus Christ, both of whom they have abandoned. 

They Didn't Believe in it, Either

For certain intruders have stolen in among you, people who long ago were designated for this condemnation as ungodly, who pervert the grace of our Lord into licentiousness and deny our only master and Lord, Jesus Christ. Jude, v. 4

These words, from the Apostle Jude, are both prophetic and descriptive of what has happened among white, Evangelical Christians in America.  Jude warns the church of an infiltration of falsehoods aimed at perverting the mission and purpose of the church.  He attributes their ability to do this on ignorance, that these infiltrators are able to get a platform and a hearing for their false message because the Christians in the church do not know how to defend what they claim to believe.  

He uses three Old Testament examples of error and falsehood that infiltrated the worship of God in Israel to describe what was happening in the Christian church, describes the infiltrators as "waterless clouds," "autumn trees without fruit," "wild waves of the sea," and "wandering stars."  

These are grumblers and malcontents; they indulge their own lusts; they are bombastic in speech, flattering people to their own advantage."  Jude v. 16.

What an absolutely accurate description of the turn toward reliance on secular political power to achieve its ends, which has been happening among white Evangelical Christians in this country since Ronald Reagan, during a speech at a religious roundtable gathering in Dallas prior to the 1980 election, made his scripted remark, suggested by Evangelist James Robison, "I know you can't endorse me, but I endorse you."  

The abandonment of evangelistic outreach in exchange for the use of political power to achieve its ends among those prominent Evangelical leaders, many of whom supported Reagan and in so doing, which occurred among this particular group that De Mez names in her book, is the point at which this particular group of Evangelicals ceased being a Christian church, and became a de-facto part of the Republican party.  It turned its back on the use of evangelistic outreach and the Holy Spirit's transformation to change the world, and it's convictions and values were already abandoned when Trump came along, making it easy for them to ignore his worldliness and his denial of the core principles of the Christian gospel.  They didn't believe in it, either.  

There is no Partnership Between Righteousness and Lawlessness

There's a clear separation between Christianity that rests its doctrine, theology and practice of faith on the values and principles of the Christian gospel, taught by Christ and outlined by the apostolic authors of the New Testament, and the religion that white, American Evangelicals have developed by wrapping doctrine and theology in a cloak of politics.  De Mez documents the dividing lines in her book.  Trumpism has added the element of lawlessness to the mix, which, as far as I am concerned, is what characterizes its complete separation from true Christianity.  

The Apostle Paul is actually the one who draws the line that separates any kind of lawlessness from the Christian faith.  

"Do not be mismatched with unbelievers.  For what partnership is there between righteousness and lawlessness?  Or what fellowship is there between light and darkness? What agreement does Christ have with Beliar?  Or what does a believer share with an unbeliever?  What agreement has the temple of God with idols?  II Corinthians 6:14-16a, NRSV 

The boundary line between the religious political extreme and evangelistic Christianity began to be defined following the full emergence of the religious right in 1980.  Falwell and the "Moral Majority," Ralph Reed and "Right to Life," James Dobson and his media empire, Marlon Maddoux and his "Point of View" radio program, political activists inside some Evangelical denominations, such as Paige Patterson and Texas appeals court justice Paul Pressler, who led a political takeover of the Southern Baptist Convention, along with several noted evangelists, including Franklin Graham and James Robison, have been the preachers of the political gospel that abandoned traditional evangelistic outreach in favor of winning converts to far right Republican politics.  

On the political side, media personalities have been largely responsible for formulating the doctrine that helps conservative Evangelicals move past their personal convictions to elevate their desire for political power over spiritual transformation and evangelistic outreach, including the master propagandist himself, Rush Limbaugh.  Limbaugh never said he was a Christian, and never gave any indication that he shared their spiritual convictions, but he recognized their importance to Republican success, and courted and flattered them so that they would let him shape their thinking, or do it for them.  Limbaugh, and others in extremist conservative radio, were the propagandists that separated political Evangelicals from the Christian gospel.  

Trumpism brings lawlessness right into the middle of it all.  It is the presence of this lawlessness, along with immorality and worldliness that is Trump's personal brand.  It's who he is and how he wants to be known. He makes living above the law and bragging about getting away with it his personal achievement.  It is this lawlessness that separates what I call the "confessional Christian community" that remains among Evangelicals, those who still practice the Christian gospel and exhibit its valies, and those who turn churches into political action committees and make preachers into political propagandists.  The influence of white, Christian nationalism and Trumpism defines them as a cult and separates them from true Christian faith and practice.

And when I say separates, I mean separates.  The Apostle Peter says, "Above all, have fervent and unfailing love for one another, because love covers a multitude of sins." (I Peter 4:8).  And the Apostle John says, "Those who say, 'I love God', and hate their brothers and sisters are liars, for those who do not love their brothers and sisters, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen." (I John 4:20, NRSV 

The political religious right is missing the virtue of love, in multiple ways, especially in its "end times" views and its white, Christian nationalism.  And that is what makes them a pseudo-Christian cult, and separates them from true Christianity and the gospel of Jesus Christ.  The "No true Scotsman Fallacy" doesn't work on this comparison.  Christianity is defined by the biblical record of the life and teachings of Jesus.  The religion that has emerged from the merging of extremist MAGA politics with American Evangelicalism is not Christianity.   

You can be one or the other.  It is not possible to be both.   

I Shall Not be Moved!

There's an old Christian hymn which emerged from revivalist camp meetings among slaves in the Deep South that's done a dual purpose of expressing deep faith in God that is immovable, and was also used as a protest song of the civil rights movement, and as a union song.  It was copyrighted as a hymn in 1908.  It's been recorded by a number of artists, as varied as Mississippi John Hurt and Johnny Cash.  It was planted in my memory during my younger days when my parents would take me to a monthly gospel singing.  The chorus goes like this: 

I shall not be, I shall not be moved, I shall not be, I shall not be moved, just like a tree that's planted by the water, I shall not be moved.

Pretty simple.  

Right Wing Politicians Are Singing the Chorus, "I WILL NOT BE MOVED!"

It popped into my mind as I watched news reports this week as politicians, including some of Tennessee's Senate and Congressional delegation, put on sad faces, clicked their tongues at the awful attack on The Covenant School, a private Christian school in Nashville where six people, including three students and three staff members, died as a result of gun violence perpetrated by a shooter who owned seven military-style assault weapons, and then determined that they would not be moved to do anything to stop gun violence in schools by supporting meaningful and effective gun control legislation.  

They will not be moved. 

Not moved, even by six deaths, three of them children, in a school where it's not hard to figure out that most of the parents of the students are politically like-minded, conservative Republicans.  Not moved, not even Senator Marsha Blackburn, who happens to be a member of Christ Presbyterian Church, just down the road from Covenant, its "mother" congregation, from which Covenant Presbyterian Church was formed and its school, started by parents from the school operated by Blackburn's church.  You'd think that a shooting in a school where she very likely knows some of the parents, and staff members, most of whom would be supportive constituents, and with whom she would share her specific Christian values and perspective, would move her.  And it did, but no further than "thoughts and prayers."   

And did she really pray, sincerely, for the families of the victims?  They always say that, but if she were moved to prayer, she should have been moved to do something to stop this from happening, especially after it hit so close to home.  And that's not being too hard or judgmental.  She is a public figure after all, and it is inconsistent to be sympathetic to the victims of gun violence when she's had the power all along to make a difference, and wouldn't.  

And as far as I am concerned, that should tell Tennessee voters that she is not qualified to serve as a United States Senator.  What we got from Blackburn was a resolution in Congress honoring the victims.  What we should have got from her was sponsorship of a bill banning assault weapons and unqualified support for it.  That's what a real senator with the people's interest at heart would have done, especially after something like this.  

The Governor doesn't seem to be moved beyond thoughts and prayers, either.  Substitute teacher Cynthia Peak, one of the first to be murdered, was a personal friend of the governor's wife, Maria.  Maria Lee was a teacher at Christ Presbyterian Academy, the school belonging to Covenant's mother church, located just a few miles to the south, in Williamson County.  She very likely knew some of the parents and some of the staff members at Covenant, perhaps worked with some of them, since several teachers from Christ Presbyterian were also on staff at Covenant.  No mention, from her or her husband the governor, of any real solution to end this, even though it happened, literally, in their back yard.  Governor Lee's home is just a few miles away.  

It's A Familiar Chorus, So Frequent Now, That it is Hard to be Moved 

It's been a week, now, and, except for the Nashville area, the news of this school shooting is fading fast.  I don't really remember how long the Columbine shooting stayed in the news cycle, but it took a long time to get over the shock of that event.  Now, unless it's in the immediate area, the news coverage moves on.  

But there are a few things that have come out since the shooting that should put to rest some conservative myths about protecting schools, public or private.  It was reported, in the 911 call from the school, by an employee taking refuge under a desk, that some employees of the school had carry permits and were armed.  If that was the case, then this will be an example of how it would be complete folly to claim that "arming the teachers" would be an effective weapon against a heavily armed gunman using military style assault weapons.  

I don't think arming employees would ever be a good idea, nor does it have any potential at all for increasing the security of a facility, especially not a school, even if assault weapons are banned, because precipitating a running gun battle in a school building has the potential to be disastrous.  Aside from that, it only makes it easier for a disgruntled or angry student to have access to something more effective than bad language and fists to express a flash of rage in the moment.  

More Than Any Issue, This is a Symptom of a Bought-and-paid-for-Government

Money talks, and the gun lobby throws theirs around in large amounts, to politicians like Bill Lee and Marsha Blackburn, and the disgusting congressman who I will not mention whose family posed for a Christmas portrait sporting assault rifles.  These people do not represent us, they represent the highest bidder who has paid for their vote.  And now, because of their lack of leadership, the plague has invaded their own turf, and the cost now includes six lives lost in the corridor of an evangelical, Christian school, among those who implicitly believed they were under God's protection and their politicians did the right thing.  

And as long as there is no ban on these weapons, the chances of more deaths in another Christian school of similar, conservative Evangelical perspective being added to the cost is very likely.  It's not because Christians are under some kind of persecution or attack, this is just the second such shooting in a Christian school, the other being the 2006 murders in an Amish school in rural Nickles Mines, Pennsylvania.  But students in Christian schools are not immune from the emotional and mental breakdowns that led to this former student deciding to leave the world by committing suicide in a familiar place.  

This Was Not a Symptom of "Attacks on Christianity" 

Was this an attack on Christianity?  In the shooter's mind, perhaps.  Across the country, don't be ridiculous.  Far more people in this country commit murder and violence against those who they see as culturally incompatible with their Christian beliefs than those who attack or persecute Christians for their beliefs.  Look at January 6th, at how many police officers were threatened, beaten, jabbed with sharpened flagpoles, sprayed with chemicals and one murdered, by born again combatants wearing "Jesus Saves" t-shirts.  That says it all, that, and the "thoughts and prayers" of weaklings like Bill Lee and Marsha Blackburn, who "shall not be moved."