https://newslit.org/
Before you go on, an article in the May 8 & May 22 issue of Science News ran with a cover "Awash in Deception: How science can help us avoid being duped by misinformation." In the lead article titled: "The Battle Against Fake News," Alexandra Witze presents five suggestions on how to debunk bad information. They come from the News Literacy Project (see the above link).
How to Debunk:
1. Arm yourself with media literacy skills, at sites such as the News Literacy Project (newslit.org), to better understand how to spot hoax videos and stories.
2. Don't stigmatize people for holding inaccurate beliefs. Show empathy and respect, or you're more likely to alienate your audience than successfully share accurate information.
3. Translate complicated but true ideas into simple messages that are easy to grasp. Videos, graphics and other visual aids can help.
4. When possible, once you provide a factual alternative to the misinformation, explain the underlying fallacies (such as cherry- picking information, a common tactic of climate change deniers.
5. Mobilize when you see misinformation being shared on social media as soon as possible. If you see something, say something.
"Misinformation is any information that is incorrect, whether due to error or fake news.
"Disinformation is deliberately intended to deceive."
"Propaganda is disinformation with a political agenda."
Sander van der Linden
Social Psychologist
University of Cambridge
Source: Science News/May 8, 2021 & May 22, 2021
Democracy
Boy, I think I bit off a bigger bite than I can effectively process here, but I feel the need to try. My thesis for this opinion is that Christianity can (and has) functioned under U.S.A. -style democracy but can democracy survive under a Christian state?
In a guest essay to the NewYork Times, Linda Greenhouse wrote “Alito’s Call to Arms to Secure Religious Liberty.”
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito spoke at a University of Notre Dame Law School Religious Liberty Summit in Rome after the Dobbs. v. Jackson decision and made this analogy of a courtroom rule:
Attorney A wears a Packers green and gold cap;
Attorney B is an Orthodox Jew who wears a skullcap (yarmulke);
Attorney C is a Muslim Woman in a hijab or any other head covering
"If A can't wear his Packers hat, is it still possible to accomodate B and C?
Alito answers his question by saying: “Well for me, the Constitution of the United States provides a clear answer. Some. of my colleagues are not so sure. But, for me, the text. tells the story. The Constitution protects the free exercise of religion. It does not protect the free exercise of support for the Packers.”
Try telling the football fans of Green Bay that the Packers aren’t a religion!
I have real concerns about this. Why is an active Supreme Court justice doing speaking out on religious liberty, in Rome no less, after overturning established law in the Dobbs case? When Justice Alito refers to the Constitution, I’m assuming that he is referring to the First Amendment to the Constitution, the one that reads:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of people to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Is this the part of the Constitution that Justice Alito is referring to?
I think it is, but I guess the First Amendment that I read only covers the Congress not making any laws regarding the free exercise of religion, speech, the Press and assembly and doesn’t apply to the Supreme Court’s ability to alter the law through judicial proceedings.
“The Cultural Revolution did its best to destroy religion, but it was not successful. It could not extinguish the religious impulse,” he said. “Our hearts are restless until we rest in God. And, therefore, the champions of religious liberty who go out as wise as serpents and as harmless as doves can expect to find hearts that are open to their message.”
By religion, Alito appears to be referring to this same First Amendment in making this statement. Congress is already forbidden by the Constitution to pass any law that would prohibit the free exercise of religion. But no such Constitutional constraints are placed on the nation’s highest court.
What is to keep the Supreme Court from passing or creating laws in the area of religious freedom? None, of course. Because under the Constitution the job of making laws is the job of the Legislative Branch aka Congress. Thomas Jefferson and the Constitutional Congress apparently did not anticipate that there would ever be such an egregious effort to sidestep the will of the American people by allowing the Judicial branch to actually make the law all by itself.
I digress a bit. I mean to address the thesis of whether or not Democracy can survive in a Christian state.
Religious freedom protection is already guaranteed by the Constitution. The only problem is that this protection doesn’t include a judicial branch that is functioning in an unconstitutional manner.
Those of us in religious communities don’t need to worry about our religious liberty under the Constitution as it is currently written. What we do need to worry about is our liberty period.
The Dobbs decision was only the start of the erosion of our liberty protection under the Constitution. When the courts bypass us and make the claim that they are acting to preserve the Constitution, be even more vigilant than usual. The people that are telling you that they are defending the flag and the Constitution are doing neither.
I’m trying to be as non-partisan as I can, so I am not going to call out any groups by name. But I will say that the same people who are talking about saving your religious liberty are the ones poised to take it away. Your religious liberty will erode away along your personal liberties if any religious group is allowed to directly insert itself in the political sphere. If that group gets political power, the religious liberties of other religious groups will fade and ultimately disappear.
If you value democracy and religious liberty, choose your votes wisely. Oh, and the answer to my thesis question is “No.” I think we’ve seen enough from states run by a single religion and it ‘aint pretty.
