Connect with us

Texas GOP Governor Abbott Hypocritically Tramples On Religious Freedom

Published

on

Greg Abbott Orders Faith-Based Nonprofits To Stop Resettling Syrians

Texas GOP Gov. Greg Abbott is all about protecting religious liberty — except when he’s not. 

If the issue is same-sex marriage, for example, Abbott supports allowing government employees like Kentucky clerk Kim Davis to opt out of doing their jobs if they have religious objections. 

“Texans of all faiths must be absolutely secure in the knowledge that their religious freedom is beyond the reach of government,” Abbott said in a statement responding to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges. “The government must never pressure a person to abandon or violate his or her sincerely held religious beliefs regarding a topic such as marriage.”

Likewise, if the issue is reproductive rights, Abbott believes employers should be allowed to opt out providing health coverage to women. In 2012, then-Attorney General Abbott joined five other states in filing a lawsuit against the federal government over the contraceptive mandate in the Affordable Care Act. 

“Obamacare’s latest mandate tramples the First Amendment’s freedom of religion and compels people of faith to act contrary to their convictions,” Abbott said at the time. “The very first amendment to our Constitution was intended to protect against this sort of government intrusion into our religious convictions.”

But now that the issue is Syrian refugees, Abbott appears perfectly willing to trample on the First Amendment rights of faith-based nonprofits. Under Abbott’s direction, the executive commissioner of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission penned a letter to nonprofit agencies last week demanding that they comply with the governor’s efforts to block Syrian refugees. 

“If you have any active plans to resettle Syrian refugees in Texas, please discontinue those plans immediately,” Commissioner Chris Traylor wrote.  

Some agencies, including Catholic Charities of Dallas, have indicated they won’t go along with the directive from the governor (who happens to be Catholic). 

“Catholic Charities believes in a compassionate response to those who are fleeing violence and persecution around the world. We are called by the Gospel to reach out to all those in need,” Catholic Charities said in a statement.

Bee Moorhead, executive director of Texas Impact, a faith organization that works closely with refugee aid agencies, expressed shock and dismay at Abbott’s letter.

“We are deeply concerned that the Governor’s letter directs those agencies to interfere with the religious freedom of faith-based humanitarian agencies working in Texas,” Moorhead wrote. “As we read the Governor’s letter, he appears to be directing state agencies to pressure faith-based organizations to violate the sincerely held beliefs of their religious traditions.

“The vicious and inhuman acts perpetrated in Paris, Beirut, and around the world on unsuspecting civilians by terrorists appall people of all faiths,” she added. “However, Governor Abbott’s fearful response now threatens to provide precisely the reaction terrorists hope to achieve-scapegoating of entire national and religious groups, and division among religious communities. Additionally, it runs roughshod over the freedom of religious humanitarian organizations in Texas to practice their faith.” 

Abbott, of course, is one of more than two dozen governors who’ve said they’ll stop accepting Syrian refugees in the wake of the Paris terror attacks, even though they apparently lack the legal authority to turn them away. But Abbott has gone a step beyond most others. In addition to impinging on the religious liberties of nonprofit agencies, Abbott has violated Syrian refugees’ civil rights by ordering the Department of Public Safety to track those already in Texas. 

In an effort to justify his ridiculous actions, Abbott recently claimed eight Syrian refugees had been “caught” crossing the Texas border in Laredo. As it turned out, two Syrian families had actually turned themselves in, prompting Politifact to rate Abbott’s claim as “mostly false.” 

By Monday, Abbott had begun raising money based on his opposition to resettling Syrian refugees: 

Worst of all, Abbott’s rhetoric may be fanning the already fervent flames of anti-Islamic hatred among right-wingers in Texas. Over the weekend, protesters staged an armed rally outside a mosque in Irving, wearing bandanas over their faces and carrying long guns. 

“They’re mostly for self-defense or protection,” one protester with a 12-gauge rifle told The Dallas Morning News. “But I’m not going to lie. We do want to show force. … It would be ridiculous to protest Islam without defending ourselves.”

Fortunately, not all elected officials in Texas are as crazy as Abbott. Among those who showed up at the protest was Irving City Councilman Chris Palmer. 

“My initial impression was they were using them for intimidation,” Palmer told The Dallas Morning News, referring to protesters’ guns. “I doubt that they’d be happy if some of the Muslim churchgoers here showed up at their Christian church, their Baptist church, their Methodist church tomorrow morning with rifles slung over their shoulders.”

Meanwhile, Austin Mayor Steve Adler and Dallas Mayor Mike Rawlings have publicly rejected misleading, reactionary, xenophobic rhetoric from the likes of Abbott. Rawlings told MSNBC on Saturday that such rhetoric only plays into the hands of ISIS.

“ISIS wants us to be divided on this issue. ISIS wants us to demonize these Syrian refugees, wants us to alienate these children,” Rawlings said. “ISIS is no more Islamic than the Nazi senior staff was Christian, so we’ve got to differentiate between those. … I am more fearful of large gatherings of white men that come into schools, theaters and shoot people up, but we don’t isolate young white men on this issue.”

 

Image by Gage Skidmore via Flickr and a CC license

 

There's a reason 10,000 people subscribe to NCRM. You can get the news before it breaks just by subscribing, plus you can learn something new every day.
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

Republicans Are Using a Secret Super PAC to Pour $1 Million Into Democratic Primaries

Published

on

Super PACs with ties to Republicans are spending money to promote weaker, left-wing candidates in Democratic primaries, in an apparent effort to help Republicans retain control of the House, The New York Times reports.

“They’re going into Democratic primaries and literally trying to boost the most extreme candidates and oppose the Blue Dog-endorsed candidates that, if they win, are going to beat the Republicans in the general,” U.S. Rep. Adam Gray (D-CA) said in an interview with the Times. The Blue Dogs are more centrist Democrats.

One “new mystery super PAC with ties to Republicans has spent more than $1 million meddling in at least three Democratic congressional primaries to select preferred opponents,” the Times reports. That group is spending money to promote “a left-wing sex therapist in Texas who has been accused of bigotry and antisemitism by leaders in both parties.”

It is also running ads in Democratic primaries in Pennsylvania and Nebraska.

In some of these races the spending is an effort to disrupt Democratic candidates “who are part of the Democratic Party’s ‘red to blue’ program, a special designation for top recruits in key races that could determine control of the House.”

READ MORE: Republicans Moving to Give Trump Something He’s Wanted Since 2019

The Times calls these “interventions in the opposing party’s primaries,” and reports that they are “apparently to elevate Democrats viewed as weaker candidates,” suggesting that “the race for control of the House has entered an intensive new phase in which both parties are vying for every imaginable edge.”

“Some Republicans privately believe the party’s best chance to hold power this year is to cast Democrats as extremists,” the Times reports.

Another super PAC formally aligned with Republicans is promoting a progressive Democrat in California.

Maureen Galindo is running for a Democratic seat from Texas. Party leaders are backing Johnny Garcia, who has worked in the local sheriff’s office. Despite having raised less than $10,000, Galindo finished first in the primary, advancing to a May runoff.

“In a text message,” the Times reports, “Ms. Galindo suggested the money for the mailer had come from ‘a billionaire zionist who made the pac to sabotage candidates,’ using the type of language that has previously prompted charges of antisemitism, including from Senator Jacky Rosen, Democrat of Nevada, and Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, who called her ‘openly bigoted.'”

Galindo told the Times, “Dems and Republicans uniting against me in the same week with the same message is evidence that theyre [sic] working together for the zionist billionaires that control our government and tax money.”

There are more races that Democratic strategists expect Republicans to meddle in, including in California, Michigan and Colorado.

READ MORE: ‘Bad All Around’: Republicans Privately Fear Backing Trump Request Sends Tone-Deaf Message

 

Image via Shutterstock

Continue Reading

News

Fetterman Says He ‘Fully’ Understands Why a Pennsylvania Judge Left the Democratic Party

Published

on

A longtime Pennsylvania judge who ran as a Democrat is dropping his affiliation with the Democratic Party over what he sees as antisemitism, and U.S. Senator John Fetterman (D-PA) is weighing in.

Justice David Wecht “said in a statement he is switching his party affiliation to independent due to an ‘acquiescence to Jew-hatred’ becoming ‘disturbingly common among activists, leaders and even many elected officials in the Democratic Party,'” Politico reported.

“I can no longer abide this. So, I won’t,” said Wecht, who once served as vice chair of the state Democratic Party. “I am no longer registered within any political party.”

Judge Wecht said that antisemitism used to be found more often on the far right, but since the Pittsburgh Tree of Life synagogue shooting in 2018, he said, “that same hatred has grown on the left.”

“Increasingly, it has moved from the fringe to the mainstream. It is the duty of all good people to fight this virus, and to do so before it is too late,” he said.

READ MORE: Republicans Moving to Give Trump Something He’s Wanted Since 2019

Lamenting that the Democratic Party has “changed,” Wecht said that “hateful anti-Jewish invective and actions are minimized, ignored, and even coddled.”

Senator Fetterman, whose own intention to stay affiliated with the Democratic Party has been questioned, knows Judge Wecht, according to Fox News.

“I know David and his legendary father, Cyril,” Fetterman wrote in a post on X. “As I’ve affirmed, I’m not changing my party — but I fully understand David’s personal choice.”

Fetterman also appeared to agree with Wecht, saying that the “Democratic Party must confront its own rising antisemitism problem.”

Pittsburgh’s NPR station WESA reports that Fetterman, “like Wecht a Pennsylvania Democrat, has also criticized the party, particularly in recent days as Democrats in Maine seem all but certain to nominate Graham Platner, who had a Nazi tattoo, as their candidate to challenge Republican Susan Collins for her Senate seat.”

READ MORE: ‘Bad All Around’: Republicans Privately Fear Backing Trump Request Sends Tone-Deaf Message

 

Image via Reuters 

Continue Reading

News

America’s ‘Winner-Take-Everything’ War Has Already Begun: Columnist

Published

on

Republican efforts to wipe Democrats off the face of their states’ congressional maps — the redistricting wars — are not the end of a “winner-take-everything” political “cold civil war,” but merely the beginning, argues Jonathan V. Last at The Bulwark.

President Donald Trump started the redistricting war when he demanded Texas redistrict mid-decade to gain five Republican seats in the House of Representatives. GOP-led states have followed suit, but in some, like America just saw in Louisiana, Republicans are now pushing to send only Republicans to the House. They are redrawing their maps to get rid of districts that voted for Democrats.

Pointing to journalists and analysts, Last argues that that will become a problem some day for Republican states that have no Democratic members of Congress. Because one day there will be a Democrat in the White House, and it will be disadvantageous for there to be no Democrats for those red states to help get their voice out to the new administration.

Last also notes that in this “winner-take-everything” political world that America may be entering, what President Joe Biden did for red states proved to be unhelpful for Democrats, and helped voters push him out.

READ MORE: Republicans Moving to Give Trump Something He’s Wanted Since 2019

“Joe Biden was, famously, a president for all of America,” Last writes. “He pumped hundreds of billions of dollars in federal credits and investments into red states. Biden didn’t just give red states their fair share—he gave them much more.”

Biden’s theory, Last argues, was that “the way to leach the poison of Trumpism out of America was to forgive Republicans and shower them with goodies to prove that he was on their side, too.”

“The notion was that, in exchange, they would reward him politically, or at least be less hostile in their overall political outlook.”

That did not work.

“Instead of conveying to Republicans that the cycle of recriminations could be broken, Biden inadvertently conveyed a different message: That Democrats did not believe in recriminations,” he writes. In other words, the message was that for all of the GOP’s bad faith actions, there would be no political price to pay.

“What message would it send to Republicans if, in 2029, President Raphael Warnock passed an infrastructure package that, just to pick an example, shoveled money for battery factories into Tennessee, after Tennessee gerrymandered its lone Democratic district out of existence?” he posits.

“Democratic deterrence didn’t work,” Last writes.

He points to Democratic states that moved to redistrict after Texas, and notes that the two sides were coming up about even.

But then, Florida moved to redistrict, with Republican Governor Ron DeSantis “doing an end run around the law” to get more GOP seats.

And then, the Supreme Court “rushed to insert itself into the fight by pushing out the Callais decision in time for Southern states to get rid of a bunch of black congressional districts.”

At this point, for Democrats to take back majority control of the House, they will need to “win the national popular vote by more than 4 percentage points.”

This status quo, says Last, is “not sustainable.”

READ MORE: ‘Bad All Around’: Republicans Privately Fear Backing Trump Request Sends Tone-Deaf Message

 

Image: Public Domain by Architect of the Capitol via Flickr

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2026 AlterNet Media.