While questions on the role of religion in American politics never go completely away, there’s an ebb and flow to the public conversation. The election of US Mike Johnson (R-LA) as Speaker of the House of US Representatives looks like a “high tide” moment.

Johnson’s an unabashed Christian nationalist who’s pro-life, anti-LGBTQ, pro-Israel on “biblical prophecy” grounds, and opposes the “so-called” constitutional/Jeffersonian principle of separation of church and state: “The founders wanted to protect the church from an encroaching state,” he says, “not the other way around.”

Not unexpectedly, he’s experiencing pushback from various corners, including more than 12,000 Christians who’ve signed a petition denouncing him as a “false prophet” who “doesn’t speak for” them.

I’m a fan of keeping the state separate from pretty much everything, especially religion. There’s pretty strong historical grounding for believing that’s what the people who created the system we live in intended. In addition to Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists, in which he posited a “wall of separation,” the 1796 Treaty of Tripoli is clear: “[T]the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”

On the other hand, if we’re going to allow the federal government to exist at all, I’m with those guys, who also ordered that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

I’m not concerned with Johnson’s beliefs. In fact, since he’s a politician, I consider it foolish to assume that they bear any resemblance to his claims. For all I know he’s a closet Muslim, a secret atheist, or, most likely, a narcissist who sees God in the mirror when he shaves each morning.

His actions, however, are a different story.

When Johnson came to Congress, he swore an oath (in defiance of biblical command, by the way — Matthew 5:33-37) to “support and defend the Constitution.”

That oath obligates him to certain things even if the Constitution contradicts his interpretation of scripture.

If it’s impossible to be true to both, he needs to pick one.

If he can’t bring himself to do the job as he swore to do it, he should resign rather than betray his oath, and certainly rather than seek and accept the position of Speaker.

Unfortunately, he seems to have missed 1st Corinthians 10:21: “Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils.”

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

On November 3, Special Counsel Jack Smith filed  the “United States’ Opposition to Applications to Broadcast the Criminal Trial of United States v. Trump” with the US District Court for the District of Columbia.

A “coalition of media organizations” has petitioned the court to allow recording and broadcasting of former president Donald Trump’s federal trial on charges of conspiracy to defraud the United States, obstructing an official proceeding (and conspiring to do so), and conspiracy against rights.

Granting that request seems like a no-brainer. The Sixth Amendment guarantees the accused the right to a “public” trial, and it’s clearly in the public’s interest to be able to follow judicial proceedings in real time.

Unfortunately, federal courts respect neither that right nor that interest. “The relief the Applicants seek,” Smith argues, “is clearly foreclosed under rule 53 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and Local Criminal Rule 53.1.1.”

The latter being a more detailed version of the former, I’ll quote from it:

“The taking of photographs and operation of tape recorders inside the United States Courthouse and radio and television broadcasting from inside the courthouse during progress of or in connection with judicial proceedings, including proceedings before a United States Magistrate Judge, whether or not court is actually in session, are prohibited.”

In theory, you or I could personally attend Trump’s trial.

In reality, unless we’re members of a select club or can camp outside the courthouse for days in advance, our chances of getting in approach zero. The courtroom will be packed, and those who can’t get in will be limited to hearing about the proceedings from those who CAN get in.

In an age of inexpensive and unintrusive audio and video broadcasting, that’s the exact opposite of “public.” There’s no good excuse for limiting the public to hearing at second hand about a public proceeding that we could, if allowed to, easily watch in real time or in recorded format.

A footnote to Smith’s filing claims that “Counsel for former President Trump has requested that government counsel convey that he takes no position with respect to these Applications.”

He SHOULD take a position — the position that the Sixth Amendment trumps (pun intended) the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. And he should direct his lawyers to actively pursue broadcast of his trial by supporting the petition and joining any appeal of its denial, all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

Like most people, I’m a sucker for click bait, and one of my favorite variations of the genre is the feel-good big-tip story. For example, rapper Post Malone leaving a $3,000 tip above and beyond the $500-plus “gratuity” charge on a large restaurant bill. Nice guy by virtually all accounts, and the server was grateful for the unexpected pocketbook boost.

Not everyone tips so well, of course. Some people don’t tip at all, and not all restaurants tack on the “gratuity” charge. Anyone who works in a “tipped” service role can relate stories of demanding customers who stiffed them on tips.

I try to tip generously, with bigger tips for outstanding service However, the movement to eliminate tipping and replace it with a minimum wage (usually coupled with a proposal to increase the minimum wage) is a bad thing all around.

In trying to make the case for such changes, The New Republic‘s Elena Soderblom inadvertently exposes the scam involved by lying, then admitting she’s lying in the very next paragraph, in the apparent hope that no one will notice.

The lie: “Many are unaware of the subminimum wage that allows a tipped employee to be paid as little as $2.13 per hour.”

The admission of the lie: “[E]mployers are not required to pay minimum wages as long as customers make up the difference.”

By law, employers are required to ensure that employees receive AT LEAST the legally mandated minimum wage (I oppose minimum wage laws, by the way, but they do exist).

The idea of replacing tipping with a minimum wage doesn’t provide a “floor” to the employee’s earnings — that “floor” is already there. Rather, it creates an artificial “ceiling” to those earnings.

If the minimum wage is $15 an hour, the un-tipped employee makes $15 an hour and not a penny more unless the boss decides to offer a raise. With tipping, someone who provides good service to grateful customers may average $20 or $30 or more per hour … but still gets that $15 per hour, bare minimum, regardless.

The only real explanation for the effort to get rid of tipping is that proponents want to corral service employees — at their own expense — into political pushes for higher minimum wages, and perhaps unionization efforts.

Some service workers resist these efforts, for good reason. The District of Columbia’s bartenders and wait staff  opposed a 2022 tipping law that drove up bar and restaurant menu prices by requiring the full $16.10 minimum wage. With tipping, they were accustomed to making $36-40 per hour.

If you live in an area with such counter-productive rules, don’t blame your waiter or bartender for the higher prices. Blame the politicians who imposed those higher prices. And if you can, please tip generously anyway.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY