Lizzie Marbach, a former Ohio GOP official and currently director of communications at Ohio Right to Life, tweeted ,
This upset Rep. Max Miller (R-Ohio), who is Jewish, so he tweeted, twice,
Ugh.
Ethics Observations:
- This is why I advise lawyers and public officials to stay off Twitter. Exept for carefully prepared and vetted statements its a trap: you dash off something on the fly, and it reveals things about yourself that undermine your job, reputation, and trustworthiness.
- Is there any way to explain to devout Christians that their efforts to make abortion a religious issue plays right into the clutches of abortion activists? The argument that unborn human lives should not be ended at a whim in a nation built on the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness does not rely on faith. But put in the context of Chrtistian morality, anti-abortion advocacy can be cast as “imposing religious beliefs.”
- Nothing in Marbach’s tweet is bigoted. Proclaiming one’s religious beliefs, which is all she did, is just an expression of an opinion. It certainly doesn’t amount to an attack on “religious freedom.”
- Miller appears to be a dolt. These are the kinds of saber-sharp minds we have representing us and making laws in Congress. Naturally, the guy was endorsed by Donald Trump.
- The exchange is as good an example as I’ve seen recently why religion should be meticulously kept out of politics, which means playing the God/Jesus/Bible cards for any reason is obnoxious, divisive, and inappropriate.
- The two tweets got Miller flamed from the Left and the Right, even inspiring a rational statement from Rep. Omar. “No! Stating the core beliefs or principles of your faith isn’t bigoted as Lizzie did, its religious freedom and no one should be scolded for that,” she tweeted. “It’s also wrong to speak about religious freedom while simultaneously harassing people who freely express their beliefs.” Can’t argue with that…
- So, predictably, Miller issued the equivalent of the Pazuzu Excuse, implying that he tweeted something he never believed for some reason. “I posted something earlier that conveyed a message I did not intend,” he said in a post. “I will not try to hide my mistake or run from it. I sincerely apologize to Lizzie and to everyone who read my post.” So now we know that Miller is prone to saying things he doesn’t really believe, or, in the alternative, will declare he doesn’t mean what he said if he gets criticized for it.
Good to know!
[Notice of Correction: Somehow I got Marbach and Miller all confused in the bullet points above. I think it’s fixed now. My apologies. I proofed for my usual typos, and missed the forest for the trees…]
Ethics Alarms 
If you knew every thought that passed through my head, you might think I was a particularly depraved person. Then again, if you knew EVERY thought that pass through my head, you’d also hear the internal dialogue saying things like, “No, that’s wrong”, “Why would you even think that?”, “Silence, devil!”, or “That’s a great line for a villain, better write that down.”
Even better news is that I voted this guy last fall. I’ll blame being new to Ohio and trying to rapidly catch up on local politics, but hey, now I’m armed moving forward.
This makes me feel like I’ve helped a teeny bit. Thanks.
It annoys the hell out of me when people wear their religion prominently on their shoulders and act like pompous ass bigots because of it. In my opinion, by definition, what Lizzie Marbach wrote is a form of bigotry based solely on her religious beliefs. Marbach is welcome to her opinion on that topic but voicing it publicly in the way she did earned some public scorn.
That said, in my opinion, Rep. Max Miller’s comments were an overreaction.
Both Marbach and Miller could learn a little from this…
A gentle push back. Based on your definition and her tweet, what prejudice did she display? Or are you assuming thoughts on her part not expressed in the tweet?
The Shadow asked, “A gentle push back. Based on your definition and her tweet, what prejudice did she display?”
That’s a fair question.
This should help you think this one through on your own…
Prejudice: preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.
Again, I honestly don’t see it. I don’t see a prejudice (or preconceived opinion) against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group. To me, bigotry carries a connotation that the prejudice against others is negative – the bigot thinks less of others due to the bigotry. I don’t see that negativity in her tweet, but that may be due to different assumptions or interpretations of what she is saying.
I assume you are focusing on the “not based on reason or actual experience” part; I apologize if that is a straw man (discussions are harder on message boards). The likes of Alvin Plantinga, CS Lewis, William Lane Craig, and others would claim certain religious beliefs are based on reason. I don’t want to head down a long rabbit trail of religious philosophy other than to say what some call unreasonable others might call completely reasonable.
The Shadow,
Here is the pertinent information in one spot…
Marbach pigeonholed absolutely everyone that’s outside of her faith in Jesus Christ group, which rhetorically creates a group of non-believing outsiders, and then says that that group of outsiders has “no hope”. That is a preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience making her written statement an obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction; in particular, prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.
I stand by my statement that “what Lizzie Marbach wrote is a form of bigotry based solely on her religious beliefs”.
Point of Fact 1: I am a Christian that attends church regularly.
Point of Fact 2: It annoys the hell out of me when people wear their religion prominently on their shoulders and act like pompous ass bigots because of it.
I’ve supported my position, disagree if you like.
To be fair, Marbach’s tweet was also ambiguous and inarticulate, so it’s unclear to me what she meant exactly. “Have no hope” can either mean you either follow her religion or you are doomed—a rather common position of most religions, or without Jesus, they have no reason to have hope themselves, which is an unsupportable conclusion and more than a little presumptuous. “You may think you have reason for hope, but you don’t really.”
That she did not state her reason and actual experience does not negate them.
And, stating no hope but Jesus is hardly antagonist against anyone…
Rather, if true, her statement is putting forth good news freely of free mercy unbigottedly on a free access platform.
But, perhaps bigotry ‘s application has expanded like that of racism.
A one liner shared with me by my Jewish, tax lawyer partner: “If the Jews are the chosen people, why isn’t there any oil in Israel?”
A couple of variations on that joke appears in “Fiddler on the Roof.”
If that’s one of the most bigoted tweets Rep. Miller has ever seen, he needs his eyes checked…badly.
And his reading comprehension skills are substandard at best. Ms. Marbach didn’t opine that there was no hope for Jews apart from Jesus, she wrote there was no hope for anyone…Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Atheist, Catholic, Protestant…anyone.
That’s her opinion and she’s entitled to it. People may disagree with her, but her statement wasn’t bigoted. Or maybe it was bigoted against everyone equally, which also makes it not bigoted.
Rep. Miller needs more exposure to the Squad…and some glasses.
My apologies, Jack. I read the tweets and responded before fully reading your comments, which basically covered mine. I should have read the entire piece first. Or maybe I need new glasses, too.
Well, it would have been easier if I hadn’t gotten “Miller” and “Marbach” confused…
He apologized…
Yup, that was an echo of what Jack wrote, I completely forgot that he wrote it.
Bad, bad Steve. 😦
Right. I fixed the mixed up surnames. I’m having trouble with names beginning with “M” today.
Is there any way to explain to devout Christians that their efforts to make abortion a religious issue plays right into the clutches of abortion activists?
Nope. This is one of those things where the religious are so convinced of their moral authority and righteousness that they cannot help themselves.
This post makes me itch. Good grief, can’t people have faith without demonstrating the truth of the apocryphal quote most often ascribed to Abraham Lincoln; “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.”
Faith is a wonderful thing, but for the love of God, quit using him as a crutch for political opinions.
For the religious, it isn’t a political opinion. They believe that aborting the unborn is murder and ,thus, wrong. It’s no more a political opinion to them than believing that stealing or cheating is wrong.
While that is true, when debating the abortion question in public, a Christian should be able to make a reasoned defense of his position. When it comes to matters of law covering a multicultural society, the argument really needs to occur where there is common understanding. It does no good for a Catholic to argue against abortion by citing how the Catholic Church has consistently stated that abortion is a grave evil, when the target audience is atheist or Muslim or even Protestant. It can help when there are Catholics out there who misrepresent or outright flaunt Church teaching, but not for people who aren’t Catholic.
If anyone is interested, Trent Horn of Catholic Answers debated Destiny of Whatever Podcast. Destiny is an atheist and argues that a human being is not a person until it actually achieves some minimal level of cognition, which cannot happen until roughly 24 weeks into gestation. Trent, I feel, gave a good example of how to argue without reliance on the Bible or other religious authority.
I think I can understand Marbach’s statement. Ohio has gone red for the time being, with the governorship and legislature held by the Republicans. When Roe v. Wade was overturned, they wrote into law a very strict anti-abortion bill, and the Democrats were furious. Since Ohio only requires a 50%+1 vote from the people to amend its constitution, the Democrats crafted an amendment to enshrine abortion (and gender-altering surgery) into the Ohio Constitution. In response, the Ohio pro-life organization rallied to get a special vote on another constitutional amendment that would raise the bar to pass amendments to 60%. That measure failed, 57-43, and now the pro-life organization is terrified the pro-abortion amendment will pass in November, undoing all the legislative work that had been done to restrict abortions.
In times like these, we do have to step back and take a breather and remember that our hope is in God, and that all things are in his hands. As Mother Theresa said, loosely, we not called to succeed, merely to try. I think Marbach’s tweet ultimately is about reaffirming that trust, especially in that we don’t find salvation in any political party. I would have quoted Psalm 146, as I have done here several times before: “Put not your trust in princes, in the sons of men in whom there is no salvation.” That I think is a little more ecumenical.
And I agree with you wholeheartedly. Thank you for that.
Many Christians do agree that to be effective, the abortion argument needs to be a non-religious one. Look up the SLED test; this line of argumentation against abortion relies on overall general moral consensus. It’s a more refined version of “if it’s not OK to kill a 6 month old child, why is it OK 6 months old in the womb”
Great thoughts, Ryan. My Christianity drives my life – well, it’s supposed to drive my life…I fail all too often – but as Jack and others have mentioned (and I have mentioned before), appeals to authority, especially divine authority, are fraught with peril. For many, that has as much swaying power as “…it’s true because my mom said!”
In a Christian’s mind, that backstop of “God ordained it and the Bible records it” is always there. But very strong arguments can be made on many topics, including abortion, that don’t require me to lead with “well, the Bible says…” or with any truly faith-based evidence.
I’m afraid I don’t agree. Christian belief certainly informs the opinion, but it is an opinion, and a political one, nonetheless.
A congressman who has legislative power chiding a staffer of the same party for an religious expression is abhorrent.
However, the congressman is a follower of the Jewish faith. He apparently resents Christianity for inheriting and overriding his religious texts, and probably more so for calling that process “fulfillment”. He’s also not aware of Messianic Jewish people, who he excludes in exactly the same type of bigotry he exhibited with such a degree of tilting at windmills. (four sentences to one! Boy that pissed him off!)
Lizzie never intended the parroting of a common sentiment of her faith as anti-Semitic. It’s definitely not on its plain face, but understandable with some empathy… In the same vein are other phrases that other ethnic groups might be hyper sensitive to like “it’s OK to be white”, “All lives matter”, and “Better to die standing, than to live on your knees”.
Lizzie probably ought to keep a separate work account and personal Twitter account.
Marbach apologized to Lizzie? Or Miller? I think there are some Marbach/Miller missteps in there that need cleaning up.
Let me check….
Yikes. Yup, Marbach and Miller were all mixed up. Sorry. That should have been fixed long ago, but I was called away. Fixed.
You know you’ve hit the political and social skids when your folly can be be corrected by an Omar.
On another front I see Florida’s Ron DeSantis getting politically mired in race and abortion muck. Or if he’s not mired, his detractors would have him be, so in every spare moment when they’re not attacking Trump, they’ll fire off a few lame shots at the Governor. Back to this exchange and Jack: What is more distracting than race and abortion, and wanders farther from today’s relevant .. to America’s leadership .. issues? Religion.