Trump is reported as having claimed in his inaugural address, that the splitting of the atom was a great American achievement. A lie: as enny fule kno, this feat was achieved bt Ernest Rutherford, a New Zealander, at the Rutherford Laboratory in England, UK. The mayor of Nelson, Rutherford's birthplace, has already protested.
Trump is incorrect but I don't think many people know much more about it than he does. It was Cockcroft and Walton, not Rutherford, who conducted this work in Cambridge in 1932 and won Nobel prizes for it. It was the first deliberately induced nuclear reaction, bombarding lithium with accelerated protons. Rutherford was a great pioneer of nuclear physics (and the director of the Cavendish lab at the time) but I do not think one can say he was the first to split the nucleus.
I completely get why people avoided watching anything to do with the inauguration—that was certainly what I did to cope yesterday.
But there does seem to be a certain irony in all the posts where people report that they read or heard Trump said something or did something or didn’t do something, without apparently being able up say whether what they read or heard was accurate.
Turns out McKinley was a very corrupt president. He was friends with the Robber Barons of his day. The Teapot Dome scandal was during his administration.
Correction: Teapot Dome was under Warren Harding in the 1920s.
If you consider "splitting the atom" to relate to neutron induced fission then the name you want if Enrico Fermi (and "The Via Panisperna Boys", as the group of young scientists he lead were known), working at the Sapienza University of Rome. They determined that slow neutrons are more effective at inducing nuclear reactions than fast neutrons, and used these to transmute many elements including uranium, which produced the first demonstration on fission in 1934 (although it was a German scientist, Ida Noddack, who noticed the production of light elements).
Fermi and the rest of the Via Panisperna Boys became deeply distrusted by the Italian Fascist government, some of them were Jewish as was Laura Fermi nee Capon, and several lost their jobs and faced severe restrictions on their movements. When Fermi was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1938 the Italian government couldn't stop him and his family travelling to Stockholm to receive the prize ... and Fermi used the opportunity to escape from Italy to the US, where he got a job in Chicago where he continued his work on fission to produce the first nuclear reactor.
So, Trump's not only wrong about "splitting the atom" being an American achievement he also needs to face the fact that if his rhetoric about stopping refugees coming to the US had been policy in the late 1930s then the scientist who had first caused fission in uranium wouldn't have found refuge in the US.
A cop who got assaulted by nine rioters on 1/6 has now received nine calls on his cell, each notifying him that one of his assailants has been released.
@Alan Cresswell : streaming services do know how many hits or downloads or whatever they're getting, but they don't have to share the info. And they don't have good household demographic info. So how many people in total stream a live event is hard to know when there are multiple streams going like there are for something like a presidential inauguration.
Wouldn't you need to be participating in one of the viewer diary (or newer monitoring systems) for your choice to affect ratings?
I wonder if anyone really knows the full audience for things like the inauguration where there are multiple ways to see it. The broadcast networks will all be measured, but increasing numbers of people don't watch TV that way - we stream almost everything at home, including some live events. For instance, we watched the Democratic National Convention on the DNC's YouTube channel. There will be multiple YouTube channels streaming the inauguration, networks streaming, and regular broadcasts.
Please don't go to the White House website. It is garish. Makes Trump look like a Ceasar. I had to go to it to get the information about the executive order concerning gender. I posted that elsewhere.
Wouldn't you need to be participating in one of the viewer diary (or newer monitoring systems) for your choice to affect ratings?
I wonder if anyone really knows the full audience for things like the inauguration where there are multiple ways to see it. The broadcast networks will all be measured, but increasing numbers of people don't watch TV that way - we stream almost everything at home, including some live events. For instance, we watched the Democratic National Convention on the DNC's YouTube channel. There will be multiple YouTube channels streaming the inauguration, networks streaming, and regular broadcasts.
Have Nielsen adjusted to this new world?
Sure, but they can't know things the streaming services don't want to tell them.
You never can tell. There are idolaters in MAGA who are also self declared Christians. Who no doubt believe God has been merciful to them. A Bishop pleading for mercy is hardly attacking either Trump or the office of President.
Her words cannot be unsaid. Nor the gentle way she said them. We’ll see what future they have.
By the way, there are probably about half a million people in the USA who were born intersex. Their chromosomes are neither XX nor XY. So they do not fit into binary male female categories. Have they just been declared to be non citizens?
There are going to be some interesting legal cases arising from Trump’s introduction of a gender caste system.
Another point. Trump supporters have been referring to Bishop Mariann as a lesbian, which in their thought world is an insult. The truth is that she is married to Paul, has two children she gave birth to, and also a number of grandchildren. Others have asserted that she cannot be a bishop because she is a woman.
My friend from sixth form,:who lives in Atlanta, is married to a non-binary person. She was originally from India but is now a naturalised American citizen. I am worried for them both
We're right, morally, enlightenedly, inclusively right in our own highly liberally educated, privileged eyes, but the pendulum has swung 4.4% back on the long arc of progress, with a grievance's vengeance. Morality never trumps economics. And is never forgiven. As Thatcher said, "There is no way in which one can buck the market." As Reeves is finding. Paving the way for Johnson's return.
That small pendulum swing will cause untold pain and misery for the over 3% of the population's non-binary and intersex, and the over 3% of its 'aliens'.
The people have spoken. And they marginally don't care about the pain of others. Yet.
The reality is yet to bite. What is remarkable is that 50% of C20th-C21st elections returned relative social progressives. The pendulum will swing. But it cannot swing too far, it cannot swing based on morality alone.
You may be discounting the mind shaping power of global social media. That’s a new factor. That’s the genie which is out of the bottle and cannot be got back in.
I hope you are right about the pendulum swinging back.
By the way, the figure I’ remembered for those born neither XX nor XY is a bit more than one in a thousand, hence my ballpark estimate of about half a million in the USA. I’ll check it out.
You may be discounting the mind shaping power of global social media. That’s a new factor. That’s the genie which is out of the bottle and cannot be got back in.
I hope you are right about the pendulum swinging back.
By the way, the figure I’ remembered for those born neither XX nor XY is a bit more than one in a thousand, hence my ballpark estimate of about half a million in the USA. I’ll check it out.
Sorry, my querying cyberspace needs some fine tuning:
Anne Fausto-Sterling and her book co-authors claim the prevalence of "nondimorphic sexual development" in humans might be as high as 1.7%. However, a response published by Leonard Sax reports this figure includes conditions such as late onset congenital adrenal hyperplasia and Klinefelter syndrome, which most clinicians do not recognize as intersex; Sax states, "if the term intersex is to retain any meaning, the term should be restricted to those conditions in which chromosomal sex is inconsistent with phenotypic sex, or in which the phenotype is not classifiable as either male or female", stating the prevalence of intersex is about 0.018% (one in 5,500 births), about 100 times less than Fausto-Sterling's estimate.
So, conservatively, it's nearly 2 : 10,000 and liberally, it's 2 : 100.
As for non-binary:
United States
According to a 2021 study by the Williams Institute, an estimated 1.2 million American adults aged between 18 and 60 identify as non-binary, making up 11% of the LGBTQ population in that age bracket.
[1.1 / 333.29, million a third of a percent]
A 2020 survey by The Trevor Project found that 26% of LGBTQ youth (ages 13–24) in the U.S. identify as non-binary.
According to The Report of the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey, 35% of the nearly 28,000 transgender respondents to the anonymous online survey identified as non-binary.
And to your first point, aye, the mob's got instantaneous globalization. An ill omen. I fear it means that progressive forces can only achieve power after reactionary government accumulates demerits, as usual, but not with any policies that redistribute income.
It's reassuring I'm not the only one not watching or listening to any news outlets. As for the comfort of Scripture, Sunday's psalm was (as has been pointed out on this thread earlier) 36.
Most apposite.
To our prayers ....
When I read your last line I immediately thought of Adam West and Burt Ward saying "To the Batcave!" I suppose there is a parallel.
If a president can pardon can the next one unpardon?
Wow! Am I out of date! Understanding has moved on a lot re the genetics of sex determination. And there are vast differences in estimates of the incidence of intersex depending on the definitional starting point!
Suffice to say that there are significant numbers of USA people who do not fit into the binary model.
Wow! Am I out of date! Understanding has moved on a lot re the genetics of sex determination. And there are vast differences in estimates of the incidence of intersex depending on the definitional starting point!
Suffice to say that there are significant numbers of USA people who do not fit into the binary model.
Absolutely. Millions of people will be negatively affected in the US. The those minorities and those who love them. And society is measured by that above all.
It's reassuring I'm not the only one not watching or listening to any news outlets. As for the comfort of Scripture, Sunday's psalm was (as has been pointed out on this thread earlier) 36.
Most apposite.
To our prayers ....
When I read your last line I immediately thought of Adam West and Burt Ward saying "To the Batcave!" I suppose there is a parallel.
Holy Bat Signal, Batman, me too!
If a president can pardon can the next one unpardon?
You never can tell. There are idolaters in MAGA who are also self declared Christians. Who no doubt believe God has been merciful to them. A Bishop pleading for mercy is hardly attacking either Trump or the office of President.
Her words cannot be unsaid. Nor the gentle way she said them. We’ll see what future they have.
The vast majority of Christians in MAGA will assume that she's attacking Trump, and that anyone who attacks Trump isn't really a Christian in the first place.
I have been trying to avoid anything to do with trump this week, but the bishop's sermon is arriving here from every direction. My guess is that two things are likely to happen: trump will look for ways to wreak revenge on her, and we can expect an executive order removing the tax exemption for churches.
I have been trying to avoid anything to do with trump this week, but the bishop's sermon is arriving here from every direction. My guess is that two things are likely to happen: trump will look for ways to wreak revenge on her, and we can expect an executive order removing the tax exemption for churches.
That would upset is MAGA Church base. About all he can do is sign an executive order that no longer recognizes the bishop's seat as a National Cathedral.
The thing is Donny can just say nothing. He is fee to totally ignore her. He can just carry on as if nothing was said. I think he should listen to her but he won’t
I have been trying to avoid anything to do with trump this week, but the bishop's sermon is arriving here from every direction. My guess is that two things are likely to happen: trump will look for ways to wreak revenge on her, and we can expect an executive order removing the tax exemption for churches.
I have been trying to avoid anything to do with trump this week, but the bishop's sermon is arriving here from every direction. My guess is that two things are likely to happen: trump will look for ways to wreak revenge on her, and we can expect an executive order removing the tax exemption for churches.
That would upset is MAGA Church base. About all he can do is sign an executive order that no longer recognizes the bishop's seat as a National Cathedral.
Only Congress can revoke the tax exemption of churches. And Congress chartered the Washington National Cathedral.
Trump may think he can issue Executive Orders doing these things, but both would clearly exceed the authority of the executive. Not that he thinks there are any limits on his power.
About all he can do is sign an executive order that no longer recognizes the bishop's seat as a National Cathedral.
That would be a pretty safe course of action, if he were inclined to keep milking this controversy. Very few people even know that the National Cathedral is officially chartered, much less care whether it stays that way, and the ACLU and the bible-thumpers would both support its de-elevation, albeit for different reasons.
Only problem would be finding another shack to hold funerals for DC bigwigs, though I'm sure they could work something out.
I have been trying to avoid anything to do with trump this week, but the bishop's sermon is arriving here from every direction. My guess is that two things are likely to happen: trump will look for ways to wreak revenge on her, and we can expect an executive order removing the tax exemption for churches.
I have been trying to avoid anything to do with trump this week, but the bishop's sermon is arriving here from every direction. My guess is that two things are likely to happen: trump will look for ways to wreak revenge on her, and we can expect an executive order removing the tax exemption for churches.
That would upset is MAGA Church base. About all he can do is sign an executive order that no longer recognizes the bishop's seat as a National Cathedral.
Only Congress can revoke the tax exemption of churches. And Congress chartered the Washington National Cathedral.
Trump may think he can issue Executive Orders doing these things, but both would clearly exceed the authority of the executive. Not that he thinks there are any limits on his power.
Given the current kerfuffle over the bishop's comments, I suspect Trump could probably get Congress to de-charter the National Cathedral if he really wanted to. Though it would mostly just be a publicity stunt, and one that could give rise to the logistical problems I mentioned above.
Trump de-charters the National Cathedral, and transfers its charter to some prosperity mega-barn, complete with giant American flags everywhere and God Bless The USA Bibles. The families of all deceased Republican politicians are pressured to hold their funerals in its august environs.
About all he can do is sign an executive order that no longer recognizes the bishop's seat as a National Cathedral.
That would be a pretty safe course of action, if he were inclined to keep milking this controversy. Very few people even know that the National Cathedral is officially chartered, much less care whether it stays that way, and the ACLU and the bible-thumpers would both support its de-elevation, albeit for different reasons.
Again, only Congress can revoke the cathedral’s charter, which is largely symbolic anyway.
Only problem would be finding another shack to hold funerals for DC bigwigs, though I'm sure they could work something out.
Holding state funerals at the Washington National Cathedral is nothing more than a matter of tradition—a relatively recent tradition that only goes back to the death of Ronald Reagan. (Eisenhower’s state funeral took place there, but Kennedy’s, Johnson’s and Nixon’s did not.) Sandra Day O’Connor’s funeral took place there not because funerals for SCOTUS justices are usually held there, but because she was an Episcopalian and very active in the life of the cathedral.
Really, there just isn’t much official revocation to happen here.
Trump de-charters the National Cathedral, and transfers its charter to some prosperity mega-barn, complete with giant American flags everywhere and God Bless The USA Bibles. The families of all deceased Republican politicians are pressured to hold their funerals in its august environs.
Not just nightmare, but a complete misunderstanding of How Things Work. Among other things, transferring a charter—which isn’t really a thing; you revoke one charter and issue another, but you have to be Congress to do it—doesn’t transfer title to property to the new holder of a charter.
And state funerals happen there because the families of the deceased president or other official ask for them to be held there, not because of any charter.
Holding state funerals at the Washington National Cathedral is nothing more than a matter of tradition—a relatively recent tradition that only goes back to the death of Ronald Reagan. (Eisenhower’s state funeral took place there, but Kennedy’s, Johnson’s and Nixon’s did not.) Sandra Day O’Connor’s funeral took place there not because funerals for SCOTUS justices are usually held there, but because she was an Episcopalian and very active in the life of the cathedral.
Thanks. Yeah, I knew it was just optional whether a funeral gets held at the NC, but what was the purpose of chartering it in the first place, if not to hold such ceremonies? Seeing as how the US government does nothing else to promote Episcopalianism.
Not just nightmare, but a complete misunderstanding of How Things Work. Among other things, transferring a charter—which isn’t really a thing; you revoke one charter and issue another, but you have to be Congress to do it—doesn’t transfer title to property to the new holder of a charter.
Yeah. My wording was incorrect. I just meant "Decharter the National Cathedral, and then grant a separate charter to some MAGA-friendly megachurch somewhere." It's honestly something I would see as pretty do-able, if Trump wanted to.
A Congressional charter is nothing more than an act of Congress amounting to articles of incorporation that form a corporation under federal law. It doesn’t indicate any federal or governmental purpose or mission at all. Any federal “imprimatur” is completely symbolic.
In this case, the relevant act was “An act to incorporate the Protestant Episcopal Cathedral Foundation of the District of Columbia,” which can be read here. Relevant to this discussion, the act, which is two-thirds of a page long, provides:
Said corporation is hereby empowered to establish and maintain within the District of Columbia a cathedral and institutions of learning for the promotion of religion and education and charity. The said corporation shall have power to grant and confer diplomas and the usual college and university degrees and honorary degrees; and also such other powers as may be necessary fully to carry out and execute the general purposes of the said corporation as herein appearing.
So, nothing about state funerals or the like,
The cathedral itself, meanwhile, describes its role as that of being “a house of prayer for all people.”
And Trump's defense? She is a "nasty" person. She and her church owes an apology to the American people.
Apparently, Trump described her as a radical leftist Trump-hater.
To be clear, the Bishop of Washington stood in the pulpit and preached the Gospel. I'm glad that Trump recognizes this as radical - the incarnation is pretty radical. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Jesus could have come to Earth in all the power and majesty of God, and strode around telling people what to do, and demanding obeisance because He is God. But he became one of us, born in to a family of no particular status or eminence, in order to show us what to do. Be like him.
That's pretty radical.
As for being "leftist" - well, if Trump wishes to declare himself and his movement as opposed to Christian charity - as opposed to viewing other people as the image of God that they are - then I can't say that I'm exactly surprised.
The Bishop of Washington told Trump that people were scared. People who, regardless of whether they are present in the country with valid paperwork or not, regardless of who they love, regardless of how they see themselves and what gender means to them, are first and foremost people. They are our neighbors. They are Trump's neighbor, and they are hurt at the side of the road. The duty of a Christian is clear - you stop and help them. Trump wants to put the boot in a bit more. A Bishop who admonishes him for this is doing precisely her job.
Another point. Trump supporters have been referring to Bishop Mariann as a lesbian, which in their thought world is an insult.
I suspect there are a significant number of people in the MAGA camp who are firmly of the belief that short hair = lesbian.
Also any woman in a position of relative power - they accuse H R Clinton of being a lesbian, Michelle Obama of being trans (so they can do a twofer of calling Barack gay). Same types over hear claim Nicola Sturgeon is a lesbian too. It's pathetic.
Thanks. But why was Congress in 1893 so concerned about incorporating an Episcopalian cathedral to do educational and charity work?
Because that’s what those seeking to form a corporation said their purpose was. That’s almost boilerplate language—articles of incorporation state what the purpose of the corporation is, and that’s based on the purpose stated by those who will make up the corporation.
You’re reading way too much into it when you say they were “so concerned” to incorporate an Episcopal foundation. Congress was asked by various people to charter the foundation, and they did so.
Perhaps it’s worth noting that Georgetown University, George Washington University, Howard University, Gallaudet University and American University are all established by congressional charter. Until not long before the Protestant Episcopal Cathedral Foundation was chartered, congressional charter was the only way to form a corporation in the District of Columbia, and it continued to be a fairly common way to form corporations in DC well into the 20th Century.
Thanks. But why was Congress in 1893 so concerned about incorporating an Episcopalian cathedral to do educational and charity work?
Because that’s what those seeking to form a corporation said their purpose was. That’s almost boilerplate language—articles of incorporation state what the purpose of the corporation is, and that’s based on the purpose stated by those who will make up the corporation.
You’re reading way too much into it when you say they were “so concerned” to incorporate an Episcopal foundation. Congress was asked by various people to charter the foundation, and they did so.
Perhaps it’s worth noting that Georgetown University, George Washington University, Howard University, Gallaudet University and American University are all established by congressional charter. Until not long before the Protestant Episcopal Cathedral Foundation was chartered, congressional charter was the only way to form a corporation in the District of Columbia, and it continued to be a fairly common way to form corporations in DC well into the 20th Century.
Okay, thanks. I think I had misunderstood the purpose of a charter in these circumstances. So, basically, in those days, someone who wanted to charter something asks congress to do so, and congress says yes, assuming they agree.
Thanks. But why was Congress in 1893 so concerned about incorporating an Episcopalian cathedral to do educational and charity work?
Because that’s what those seeking to form a corporation said their purpose was. That’s almost boilerplate language—articles of incorporation state what the purpose of the corporation is, and that’s based on the purpose stated by those who will make up the corporation.
You’re reading way too much into it when you say they were “so concerned” to incorporate an Episcopal foundation. Congress was asked by various people to charter the foundation, and they did so.
Perhaps it’s worth noting that Georgetown University, George Washington University, Howard University, Gallaudet University and American University are all established by congressional charter. Until not long before the Protestant Episcopal Cathedral Foundation was chartered, congressional charter was the only way to form a corporation in the District of Columbia, and it continued to be a fairly common way to form corporations in DC well into the 20th Century.
Okay, thanks. I think I had misunderstood the purpose of a charter in these circumstances. So, basically, in those days, someone who wanted to charter something asks congress to do so, and congress says yes, assuming they agree.
I will say that any confusion I or others may have had about the status of the National Cathedral is likely abetted by the fact that someone decided to give it that particular name.
Thanks. But why was Congress in 1893 so concerned about incorporating an Episcopalian cathedral to do educational and charity work?
Because that’s what those seeking to form a corporation said their purpose was. That’s almost boilerplate language—articles of incorporation state what the purpose of the corporation is, and that’s based on the purpose stated by those who will make up the corporation.
You’re reading way too much into it when you say they were “so concerned” to incorporate an Episcopal foundation. Congress was asked by various people to charter the foundation, and they did so.
Perhaps it’s worth noting that Georgetown University, George Washington University, Howard University, Gallaudet University and American University are all established by congressional charter. Until not long before the Protestant Episcopal Cathedral Foundation was chartered, congressional charter was the only way to form a corporation in the District of Columbia, and it continued to be a fairly common way to form corporations in DC well into the 20th Century.
Okay, thanks. I think I had misunderstood the purpose of a charter in these circumstances. So, basically, in those days, someone who wanted to charter something asks congress to do so, and congress says yes, assuming they agree.
Anyone wishing to charter a corporation in the District of Columbia, or perhaps anyone wishing to establish a corporation with national reach, like the Boy Scouts.
[I will say that any confusion I or others may have had about the status of the National Cathedral is likely abetted by the fact that someone decided to give it that particular name.
Well, technically the name is “the Cathedral Church of Saint Peter and Saint Paul in the City and Diocese of Washington.” “Washington National Cathedral” is sort of an everyday handle; it reflects that the cathedral is the seat of the Presiding Bishop and Primate of the Episcopal Church as much as it reflects any civic role.
Washington also has National Presbyterian Church, National United Methodist Church, National Baptist Church, the National Islamic Center and probably other “National” places of worship I can’t think of right now. Ohev Sholom Congregation bills itself as the National Synagogue.
And, of course, there are the Washington Nationals baseball team.
Seriously, Washington National Cathedral has certainly positioned itself as the national church for national occasions, at least to the extent that can be done within the framework of separation of church and state. There is no doubt that those involved in planning it looked at the role Westminster Abbey plays in British public life and sought something similar.
But to the degree the cathedral has any civic status as the national church for national occasions, that status relies on nothing more than acting that way and being treated that way. It has no official status at all.
Comments
Trump is incorrect but I don't think many people know much more about it than he does. It was Cockcroft and Walton, not Rutherford, who conducted this work in Cambridge in 1932 and won Nobel prizes for it. It was the first deliberately induced nuclear reaction, bombarding lithium with accelerated protons. Rutherford was a great pioneer of nuclear physics (and the director of the Cavendish lab at the time) but I do not think one can say he was the first to split the nucleus.
[Apologies I retract: here's the work by Rutherford at Manchester]
But there does seem to be a certain irony in all the posts where people report that they read or heard Trump said something or did something or didn’t do something, without apparently being able up say whether what they read or heard was accurate.
Correction: Teapot Dome was under Warren Harding in the 1920s.
Fermi and the rest of the Via Panisperna Boys became deeply distrusted by the Italian Fascist government, some of them were Jewish as was Laura Fermi nee Capon, and several lost their jobs and faced severe restrictions on their movements. When Fermi was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1938 the Italian government couldn't stop him and his family travelling to Stockholm to receive the prize ... and Fermi used the opportunity to escape from Italy to the US, where he got a job in Chicago where he continued his work on fission to produce the first nuclear reactor.
So, Trump's not only wrong about "splitting the atom" being an American achievement he also needs to face the fact that if his rhetoric about stopping refugees coming to the US had been policy in the late 1930s then the scientist who had first caused fission in uranium wouldn't have found refuge in the US.
Have Nielsen adjusted to this new world?
Please don't go to the White House website. It is garish. Makes Trump look like a Ceasar. I had to go to it to get the information about the executive order concerning gender. I posted that elsewhere.
She is simply awesome.
The full service can be seen here and the bulletin for the service can be found here.
Speaking truth to power.
And what's with that military type salute from the Orange One?
And what's with the playing of the national anthem at the service?
Glad somebody said it. Glad a Christian minister said it, It won’t be heard. Yet. But it is a line in the sand. People will remember it later.
I think most people who are potential Trump voters will just mentally file Reverend Budde into the same general category as Taylor Swift.
No doubt. That's not the point. She has a literal bully pulpit and she used it well.
Sure, but they can't know things the streaming services don't want to tell them.
Her words cannot be unsaid. Nor the gentle way she said them. We’ll see what future they have.
By the way, there are probably about half a million people in the USA who were born intersex. Their chromosomes are neither XX nor XY. So they do not fit into binary male female categories. Have they just been declared to be non citizens?
There are going to be some interesting legal cases arising from Trump’s introduction of a gender caste system.
That small pendulum swing will cause untold pain and misery for the over 3% of the population's non-binary and intersex, and the over 3% of its 'aliens'.
The people have spoken. And they marginally don't care about the pain of others. Yet.
The reality is yet to bite. What is remarkable is that 50% of C20th-C21st elections returned relative social progressives. The pendulum will swing. But it cannot swing too far, it cannot swing based on morality alone.
I hope you are right about the pendulum swinging back.
By the way, the figure I’ remembered for those born neither XX nor XY is a bit more than one in a thousand, hence my ballpark estimate of about half a million in the USA. I’ll check it out.
Sorry, my querying cyberspace needs some fine tuning:
Intersex
So, conservatively, it's nearly 2 : 10,000 and liberally, it's 2 : 100.
As for non-binary:
And to your first point, aye, the mob's got instantaneous globalization. An ill omen. I fear it means that progressive forces can only achieve power after reactionary government accumulates demerits, as usual, but not with any policies that redistribute income.
When I read your last line I immediately thought of Adam West and Burt Ward saying "To the Batcave!" I suppose there is a parallel.
If a president can pardon can the next one unpardon?
Suffice to say that there are significant numbers of USA people who do not fit into the binary model.
Absolutely. Millions of people will be negatively affected in the US. The those minorities and those who love them. And society is measured by that above all.
No.
Stetson replied:
The vast majority of Christians in MAGA will assume that she's attacking Trump, and that anyone who attacks Trump isn't really a Christian in the first place.
What effect, if any, her words have on Trump and his worshippers remains to be seen.
That would upset is MAGA Church base. About all he can do is sign an executive order that no longer recognizes the bishop's seat as a National Cathedral.
Trump may think he can issue Executive Orders doing these things, but both would clearly exceed the authority of the executive. Not that he thinks there are any limits on his power.
That would be a pretty safe course of action, if he were inclined to keep milking this controversy. Very few people even know that the National Cathedral is officially chartered, much less care whether it stays that way, and the ACLU and the bible-thumpers would both support its de-elevation, albeit for different reasons.
Only problem would be finding another shack to hold funerals for DC bigwigs, though I'm sure they could work something out.
Given the current kerfuffle over the bishop's comments, I suspect Trump could probably get Congress to de-charter the National Cathedral if he really wanted to. Though it would mostly just be a publicity stunt, and one that could give rise to the logistical problems I mentioned above.
Trump de-charters the National Cathedral, and transfers its charter to some prosperity mega-barn, complete with giant American flags everywhere and God Bless The USA Bibles. The families of all deceased Republican politicians are pressured to hold their funerals in its august environs.
Holding state funerals at the Washington National Cathedral is nothing more than a matter of tradition—a relatively recent tradition that only goes back to the death of Ronald Reagan. (Eisenhower’s state funeral took place there, but Kennedy’s, Johnson’s and Nixon’s did not.) Sandra Day O’Connor’s funeral took place there not because funerals for SCOTUS justices are usually held there, but because she was an Episcopalian and very active in the life of the cathedral.
Really, there just isn’t much official revocation to happen here.
Not just nightmare, but a complete misunderstanding of How Things Work. Among other things, transferring a charter—which isn’t really a thing; you revoke one charter and issue another, but you have to be Congress to do it—doesn’t transfer title to property to the new holder of a charter.
And state funerals happen there because the families of the deceased president or other official ask for them to be held there, not because of any charter.
Thanks. Yeah, I knew it was just optional whether a funeral gets held at the NC, but what was the purpose of chartering it in the first place, if not to hold such ceremonies? Seeing as how the US government does nothing else to promote Episcopalianism.
Yeah. My wording was incorrect. I just meant "Decharter the National Cathedral, and then grant a separate charter to some MAGA-friendly megachurch somewhere." It's honestly something I would see as pretty do-able, if Trump wanted to.
In this case, the relevant act was “An act to incorporate the Protestant Episcopal Cathedral Foundation of the District of Columbia,” which can be read here. Relevant to this discussion, the act, which is two-thirds of a page long, provides: So, nothing about state funerals or the like,
The cathedral itself, meanwhile, describes its role as that of being “a house of prayer for all people.”
Apparently, Trump described her as a radical leftist Trump-hater.
To be clear, the Bishop of Washington stood in the pulpit and preached the Gospel. I'm glad that Trump recognizes this as radical - the incarnation is pretty radical. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Jesus could have come to Earth in all the power and majesty of God, and strode around telling people what to do, and demanding obeisance because He is God. But he became one of us, born in to a family of no particular status or eminence, in order to show us what to do. Be like him.
That's pretty radical.
As for being "leftist" - well, if Trump wishes to declare himself and his movement as opposed to Christian charity - as opposed to viewing other people as the image of God that they are - then I can't say that I'm exactly surprised.
The Bishop of Washington told Trump that people were scared. People who, regardless of whether they are present in the country with valid paperwork or not, regardless of who they love, regardless of how they see themselves and what gender means to them, are first and foremost people. They are our neighbors. They are Trump's neighbor, and they are hurt at the side of the road. The duty of a Christian is clear - you stop and help them. Trump wants to put the boot in a bit more. A Bishop who admonishes him for this is doing precisely her job.
I suspect there are a significant number of people in the MAGA camp who are firmly of the belief that short hair = lesbian.
Also any woman in a position of relative power - they accuse H R Clinton of being a lesbian, Michelle Obama of being trans (so they can do a twofer of calling Barack gay). Same types over hear claim Nicola Sturgeon is a lesbian too. It's pathetic.
Toddlers do not like being rebuked, even gently.
You’re reading way too much into it when you say they were “so concerned” to incorporate an Episcopal foundation. Congress was asked by various people to charter the foundation, and they did so.
Perhaps it’s worth noting that Georgetown University, George Washington University, Howard University, Gallaudet University and American University are all established by congressional charter. Until not long before the Protestant Episcopal Cathedral Foundation was chartered, congressional charter was the only way to form a corporation in the District of Columbia, and it continued to be a fairly common way to form corporations in DC well into the 20th Century.
Okay, thanks. I think I had misunderstood the purpose of a charter in these circumstances. So, basically, in those days, someone who wanted to charter something asks congress to do so, and congress says yes, assuming they agree.
The bishop is a woman. It is his customary response to any woman who dares to stand up to him.
I will say that any confusion I or others may have had about the status of the National Cathedral is likely abetted by the fact that someone decided to give it that particular name.
Well, technically the name is “the Cathedral Church of Saint Peter and Saint Paul in the City and Diocese of Washington.” “Washington National Cathedral” is sort of an everyday handle; it reflects that the cathedral is the seat of the Presiding Bishop and Primate of the Episcopal Church as much as it reflects any civic role.
Washington also has National Presbyterian Church, National United Methodist Church, National Baptist Church, the National Islamic Center and probably other “National” places of worship I can’t think of right now. Ohev Sholom Congregation bills itself as the National Synagogue.
And, of course, there are the Washington Nationals baseball team.
Seriously, Washington National Cathedral has certainly positioned itself as the national church for national occasions, at least to the extent that can be done within the framework of separation of church and state. There is no doubt that those involved in planning it looked at the role Westminster Abbey plays in British public life and sought something similar.
But to the degree the cathedral has any civic status as the national church for national occasions, that status relies on nothing more than acting that way and being treated that way. It has no official status at all.
I think that if Mr Trump said that about me I would consider it a badge of honour.