What Trump’s post as a Jesus‑like figure tells us about political messianism

Trump the Messiah

Austin Sarat, Amherst College

Donald Trump sparked immediate outcry on April 12, 2026, when he posted an image of himself as a Jesus-like figure. The post, which Trump later said was supposed to depict him as a doctor, came shortly after he criticized Pope Leo XIV as “weak” and “terrible.”

Three days later, Trump posted an image depicting Jesus with his left hand on his shoulder. Referring to that post, Trump observed, “Radical Left Lunatics might not like this, but I think it is quite nice!!!”

These posts help illustrate the political messianism that Trump has brought to the Oval Office.

Political messianism is a style of leadership that places great faith in a single leader who is endowed with godlike attributes. It does not welcome dissent, and it portrays politics as a struggle between good and evil.

Eric Voegelin, a 20th-century political thinker, warned that political messianism often fuels authoritarian rule. It divides society, with a messianic leader’s supporters seeing him as a savior who will deliver their country into a golden age, while opponents foresee a coming apocalypse.

Democratic politics thrive when leaders and followers act with modesty and humility, when no one sees themselves as infallible or indispensable. As someone who teaches and writes about U.S. democracy, I don’t think it can thrive, or even survive, when its leaders see themselves as godlike and when the citizenry is divided into true believers and heretics.

Trump’s messianic vision

The image depicting Trump as a Jesus-like figure is the latest evidence of Trump's messiah complex.

At the Republican National Convention in 2016, he boasted that “I alone can fix it,” referring to a system that was responsible for what he would later call “American carnage.”

In a 2019 speech, Trump referred to himself as “the chosen one.”

In 2023, he described what he had done in his first term this way: “I think you would have a nuclear war if I weren’t elected.” As president, “I was very busy. I consider this the most important job in the world, saving millions of lives.”

And in a Jan. 8, 2026, interview with The New York Times, Trump said, “I don’t need international law,” since his actions as commander in chief were guided only by “my own morality. My own mind.”

The president is not alone in believing in his messiah status, or in comparing himself to Christ. On April 2, 2026, at a White House Easter celebration, Paula White-Cain, one of his spiritual advisers, used Jesus’ death and resurrection to explain what had happened to Trump.

“Jesus taught so many lessons through his death, burial, and resurrection,” she said. “He showed us great leadership, great transformation requires great sacrifice. And Mr. President … you were betrayed and arrested and falsely accused. It’s a familiar pattern that our lord and savior showed us.”

Why do Americans hate each other while Canadians love each other?

Could it have something to do with our politics? With the sociopath in the Oval?

Robert Reich

A survey released on March 5 by the Pew Research Center finds that 53 percent of American adults describe the morality and ethics of our fellow citizens as “bad” (ranging from “somewhat bad” to “very bad”).

This puts Americans way out front of other nations on the we-hate-our-compatriots scale. In the 24 other countries polled by Pew, most people called their fellow citizens somewhat good or very good.

At the opposite end of the spectrum from the United States is Canada, where 92 percent say their fellow Canadians are good, while just 7 percent say they’re bad.

Why are we so down on our fellow citizens? It may have something to do with our politics.

Some 30 years ago, my dear friend the late Republican Senator Alan Simpson told me Democrats viewed Republicans as stupid and Republicans viewed Democrats as evil. “I’d rather be in the stupid party,” he chuckled.

I asked him why Republicans saw Democrats as evil.

He took a deep breath. “Religion.”

I said I didn’t understand.

“It’s the Christian right,” he said, as if talking to a five-year-old. “Since Reagan, my party has been a magnet for religious conservatives and Christian fundamentalists, where it’s all about good and evil. Too bad, pal. You’re on the evil side.”

That was 30 years ago. Since then, the divide has only sharpened.

In 2012, Mitt Romney told supporters that “47 percent” of Americans would vote for Obama no matter what because they’re “dependent upon government ... believe that they are victims ... believe the government has a responsibility to care for them ... [and] pay no income tax.”

Insulting 47 percent of Americans was no way to win an election. It was also no way to unite the country.

Then in 2016, Hillary Clinton described half of Trump’s supporters as a “basket of deplorables.” Also no way to win or to foster mutual trust.

Once Trump took office, dislike of our fellow citizens soared.

Before he entered the White House, 47 percent of Republicans and 35 percent of Democrats said people in the opposing party were “immoral.”

By 2022, after years of Trump’s venom: 72 percent of Republicans and 63 percent of Democrats called people in the opposing party “immoral.”

Since he’s been back in the Oval, it’s gotten even worse. 

A golden calf speaks at the National Prayer Breakfast

Go figure: Evangelicals love a lying, accused child-rapist, convicted felon, narcissist who doesn't go to church, doesn't know the Bible and spreads racism and hate

Sabrina Haake

On February 5, Trump addressed the 2026 National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, D.C., a tradition President Dwight Eisenhower began in 1953 to solemnify the confluence of faith, gratitude, and public service. At Eisenhower’s ceremony, after he swore the oath of office, he delivered an unscripted and spontaneous prayer of humility, calling on God to “make full and complete our dedication to the service of the people.”

Seventy-odd years later at this year’s national prayer breakfast, Trump met Eisenhower’s prayer of humility and raised him one.

Thanks for reading The Haake Take! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Instead of somber reflection or words to soothe an anxious nation, Trump used the national prayer to deliver a blasphemous meditation on Trump: 77 minutes of self-indulgence, grievance and hatred.

Using national prayer to promote violence

Trump opened his remarks by maligning the press, complaining that he never gets “a fair break from the fake news, which is (points dismissively) back there.”

Then, only three sentences in, he started referring to himself referentially as “Sir” while calling everyone else by their first name.

Forgetting the prayer theme of the breakfast, Trump joked about murdering people in Venezuela like it was locker room talk. “I was just talking to a great leader from El Salvador and he said, man, that was some attack, I’ve never seen anything like that one. Right? Right?” Continuing his banter with the murderous Bukele across the room, Trump laughed, “That (violent attack) was good even by your high standard, right? That was a hell of an attack.”

Only ghouls or morons would think that was funny. In a rule of law world, Trump would be hauled into the ICC on multiple charges of murder.

Some powerful Christmas messages

Holiday greetings from alternate universes

And then, there's this

After all the noise, the Westerly School Committee does the right thing

Westerly School Committee votes down anti-transgender student athlete policy

Steve Ahlquist

Westerly is ready to compete

On a 6 to 1 vote, the Westerly School Committee voted down an Athletic Eligibility Policy that would be in violation of state law and discriminate against transgender, gender diverse, and transitioning students. School Committee member Lori Wycall had requested that Westerly Superintendent present a policy for consideration that would mandate that “boys stay in boys sports teams and stay on girls sports teams.”

Asked for his professional opinion, the School Committee Attorney, William Nardone, was unequivocal in his opposition: “…one of my roles in this position, probably my most important role, is to keep you out of trouble as opposed to getting you out once you get yourselves in. This is a perfect example of my opportunity to attempt to keep you from getting into some trouble.”

The effort to discriminate against transgender, gender diverse, and transitioning students seems to be led by a small group of bigoted Christian Nationalists, with the support of Committee member Wycall, who seems desperate to pass something that will somehow fit into Rhode Island’s strong laws protecting the rights of LGBTQIA+ students, while also discriminating against them. Unfortunately for Committee member Wycall, there is no squaring this circle. Any effort to pass and enforce such a policy would be bigoted, discriminatory, and against the law.

The Westerly School Committee has been wrestling with this right-wing manufactured “controversy” for months, even years. Even after the policy’s definitive rejection in last night’s meeting, proponents of discrimination promised to keep taking shots at it.

Here’s the relevant video from Wednesday’s Westerly School Committee meeting: Westerly School Committee - December 17, 2025

The Westerly School Committee is caught in a bigoted, Christian nationalist time loop

A small number of loud bigots (and at least one school committee member) pound away at the rights of transgender, gender-diverse, and transitioning students.

Steve Ahlquist

From the amount of time I spend attending and covering the Westerly School Committee and hearing the nonstop anti-transgender rhetoric, one might think that this is somehow a major issue in the town. The best I can tell? It’s not. 

Instead, a small number of Christian nationalist bigots, chief among them Westerly resident Robert Chiaradio, cycle through the same litany of imagined grievances like a skipping record. Chiaradio, I think, gets so much airplay because one of the members of the Westerly School Committee, Lori Wycall, keeps adding agenda items to the meeting with the intent of somehow circumventing Rhode Island state law and opening the door to abusing the rights of transgender students.

To understand what follows, you need to know that at the November 19 Westerly School Committee meeting, the minutes of the November 5 meeting were amended so that quotation marks were placed around the term “biological males” as used by Robert Chiaradio during his comments. This was done because the term is demeaning to trans people and has no scientific meaning. [See this footnote.¹] Chiaradio opposed the quotation marks.

Robert Chiaradio: A speaker asked this body to amend the minutes of the November 5 meeting by placing quotation marks around the term “biological male” as I used it at that meeting to describe males who are confused about their sexual identities. The speaker deemed the term derogatory.

I ask anyone in this room with a modicum of common sense, what is derogatory about this term - “biological male” - as used in reference to the above-mentioned population?

Is it unpopular with some people? Yes, it is.

Does it describe the group in a manner in which it doesn’t wish to be described, or those who support it don’t wish it to be described? Yes.

Does it belittle, diminish, or disparage anyone in the group, or show a critical or disrespectful attitude toward anyone in this group? No, it does not.

The term is truthful, honest, and sincere to all populations. I submit to you that calling males identifying as females, “females,” belittles and diminishes real, honest-to-goodness females and disrespects them. That’s what gets lost in all of this. And your desire to minimize and manipulate the truth. Not only are people like myself (who, like it or not, are truth-tellers) disparaged, lied about, threatened, et cetera (which I don’t care about), but our real females, Westerly’s real girls, are diminished and marginalized, as was the case in 2024 … where a “biological male” played against Westerly’s girls - an incident that this superintendent and many in power continue to deny.

Later in the minutes of the November 19 meeting, during the consent agenda, Mr. Killam, in true gutless fashion, I might add, made a motion to amend the November 5 minutes to, as the speaker requested, place quotation marks around the term “biological male.” Without Mrs. Wycall and Mr. Jackson, the motion passed five-to-nothing.

Ms. Dunn even said, We will do our best not to reinforce negative language.” Negative language? I ask you, what is negative, Ms. Dunn, about the term “biological male” being used to describe males who are confused with their sexual identities? Is it better to affirm a lie and call them females? There is only one way to describe them, and that is the truthful way, but the majority of this committee and its superintendent have an aversion to truth, and have for at least the last five plus years. To you, it’s not the truth that matters. It’s not the law that matters. It’s your agenda that matters. I’m not surprised at Ms. Goathals or Ms. Dunn or even Mr. Ober, but Mr. Nero, you’re just a flat-out disappointment who’s afraid to do the right thing.

Mr. Killam, I cannot figure you out. I think your heart is in the right place, but you lack courage. You’re a pleaser. You’re not a leader. You actually amended the minutes because you didn’t want this committee associated with a truthful term. What is derogatory about the truth? Truth is not subjective; it is not malleable. Truth is not debatable. Truth is absolute. It is objective. It is immutable and irrefutable. It’s not my truth or your truth, but the truth. If you people up there on the dais care about the population being discussed here, you will stop affirming this lie and help them get the mental health counseling they need, like I am doing. You know what the truth is, but the truth finishes a distant third with this crew, behind agenda fulfillment and cowardice. Shame on those of you who perpetuate this lie. Thank you.

Committee Chair Leslie Dunn: Is there anyone else who would like to address the committee? Seeing none, I will ask if committee members wish to respond.

Committeemember Timothy Killam: Okay, so first of all, let’s talk a couple things... I made the motion to [put the term] in quotes because it was [Robert Chiaradio’s] statement - that’s what the discussion was.

If you’re going to ask me if I feel that the term “biological male” or “biological female” is derogatory, my answer is “No, it is not.” And if you actually dig deeper, as I did today, you kind of end up in a rabbit hole. I went to the Rhode Island Department of Education (RIDE)’s guidance on transgender and gender nonconforming students - I know that’s a whole other battle - but in numerous places, RIDE lists students as “biological male” or “biological female.” It’s just a term our department of ed uses, so I don’t think it’s derogatory.

It may be used in a derogatory manner in some instances, but the overall term “biological male or female,” no, I do not feel that it is that.

I want to make it clear that this is not why I changed the minutes, not at all. I changed them because it wasn’t clear what the statement meant. But I can tell you that maybe I was wrong, because you could have just watched the video and seen it for yourself. Very simple. Maybe that’s what we need to do: start scaling back our minutes. [For example,] tonight, “Mr. Chiaradio spoke, discussion ensued.” That’s all [the minutes] need to say. You can watch it on video if you want to.

Feeling bad about not getting raptured yesterday?

 

Westerly MAGAs go nuts over trans kids and...chalk

Westerly School Committee discusses transgender student policy and the dangers of chalk rainbows

Steve Ahlquist

At the September 3 Westerly School Committee meeting, committee members once again took up the school system’s Transgender, Gender Non-Conforming, and Transitioning Students protocol. This policy, legally mandated by state law, is meant to protect children from bullying and abuse, while allowing them to be their best and authentic selves. Committee member Lori Wycall had asked to discuss this policy at the last meeting, over concerns she had about the effect of Donald Trump’s Executive Orders regarding transgender rights and Title IX, a federal law that prohibits sex-based discrimination in any school or education program that receives funding from the federal government.

“I had a two-hour-long conversation with our Superintendent [Marc Garceau] and one of our attorneys who was helping us rewrite our Title IX policy for the district,” said Committee Member Wycall by way of explanation. “When we went through every regulation, because I went through and looked up every regulation that [the lawyer] was referencing as to why we needed to make the changes, there was a Title 11 and a Title 34 specifically that she referenced. When I looked at them, no state regulation says we have to change the definition of sex in our Title IX policy to include sexual identity, so we left that out of our Title IX policy for the district, which [means] we are now in compliance with both the state and the federal Title IX law.”

Later, Committee Member Wycall expanded on her comments. “I’ll repeat what I said [earlier]. Based on the reasons that I mentioned, A. we’re not in compliance with Title IX, and B. we’re not technically following the details of the protocol. I want to make a motion that we task the superintendent with drafting a policy to codify what he has been doing in our district that has been working, and give us a chance to review that.”

In essence, Committee Member Wycall was asking that the current policy be scrapped, and a new policy, based on what the Westerly School District has been doing, be created. A big problem with this idea is that, according to Superintendent Garceau, the district follows the current policy, the policy works, and no changes are needed.

Orlando, FL where Trump wannabe Ron Desantis
keeps ordering rainbow chalk crossroads to be wiped out

Committee Member Angela Goethals: The problem I see with throwing out a document that has been vetted by our [State] Department of Education and using individual incidents during which this protocol has been activated to craft a new one is that it seems like we’re going to be chasing our tails. How many times has this protocol been utilized? What was the outcome? How did it look? And then, how do you build something based on a few students and their experience that’s meant to apply to everyone?

Committee Member Michael Ober: Dr. Garceau, regarding the current protocol, are you having any problems implementing or following it?

Superintendent Garceau: No, we’ve had the same protocol in place since 2017, and we’ve had no issues.

Committee Member Ober: Do you think there are any changes you need to make to the protocol or how we’re following the protocol?

Superintendent Garceau: I don’t see that there’s any need for changes based on what we’ve experienced. No.

Committee Member Peter Nero: I’m hearing Lori loud and clear, but the policy book is loaded with a whole bunch of stuff and all kinds of student discipline things, and sometimes things aren’t followed by certain teachers and students… if the superintendent is saying that it works well right now, let’s keep it that way.

Committee Chair Leslie Dunn: My concern is similar to what Angela was saying. If the protocol is there and it’s doing what it’s supposed to be doing. It can be enacted in the right way, asking our administration to go back and start over again, when I would feel confident in saying we’ll probably end up back in the same space.

It’s working, together with students, families, and the district, to make sure that students are supported. I don’t feel there’s a space where handing it back to the superintendent will be productive for us to move forward, solidify our students, and say, “We see you, we want you here, and we have something to support you.”

The motion failed on a 5-2 vote. Committee Members Wycall and Joseph Jackson were the only ones to vote in the affirmative.

Near the end of the meeting, Committee member Wycall said, “I’ve never been more embarrassed by the votes that were taken at this meeting tonight. I can’t believe the things that were voted on at this meeting. And Dr. Garceau, I wish you had spoken up the way you did when you and I were having a conversation yesterday, and were more clear about what we are actually doing and what we are not actually doing with that protocol.”

Now Christian Nationalists within the Trump regime are questioning women's right to vote

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth leads the pack

By Mariel Padilla, Grace Panetta, Mel Leonor Barclay

“In my ideal society, we would vote as households,” a pastor tells CNN. “And I would ordinarily be the one that would cast the vote, but I would cast the vote having discussed it with my household.”

Another agrees, saying he’d back an end to a woman’s right to vote: “I would support that, and I’d support it on the basis that the atomization that comes with our current system is not good for humans.” 

The discussion of 19th Amendment rights was part of a news segment focused on Doug Wilson — a self-proclaimed Christian nationalist pastor based in Idaho — that was reposted to X by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. The secretary is among Wilson’s supporters, and his involvement with Wilson’s denomination highlights how a fringe conservative evangelical Christian belief system that questions women’s right to vote is gaining more traction in the Republican Party. 

Kristin Du Mez, a professor of history at Calvin University and author of “Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation,” said Wilson’s broader vision of Christian nationalism has gotten more attention over the past several years, alongside President Donald Trump’s rise to power.

“He was a fairly fringe figure, but this moment was really his moment,” she said. “And then as part of that, also, I think he signaled and gave permission to others that they didn't need to hide some of their more controversial views, such as, should women have the vote? And that's something that you didn't hear proudly promoted from very many spaces, even just a handful of years ago.”

In the CNN interview, Wilson said he’d like to see the United States become a Christian and patriarchal country. He advocates for a society where sodomy is criminalized and women submit to their husbands and shouldn’t serve in combat roles in the military — a belief Hegseth has also publicly shared in the past though walked back during his confirmation hearings. 

Hegseth appeared to support the nearly seven-minute interview with the caption, “All of Christ for All of Life.” Wilson has built an evangelical empire over the past 50 years that is centered in Moscow, Idaho, and now spans more than 150 congregations across four continents — including a new church in Washington, D.C. 

What history’s witch hunts have in common with today’s misinformation crisis

History provides insight into the MAGA mind 

Julie Walsh, Wellesley College

An illustration from ‘The History of Witches and Wizards,’
published in 1720, depicting witches offering
wax dolls to the devil. Wellcome Collection/Wikimedia Commons

Between 1400 and 1780, an estimated 100,000 people, mostly women, were prosecuted for witchcraft in Europe. About half that number were executed – killings motivated by a constellation of beliefs about women, truth, evil and magic.

But the witch hunts could not have had the reach they did without the media machinery that made them possible: an industry of printed manuals that taught readers how to find and exterminate witches.

I regularly teach a class on philosophy and witchcraft, where we discuss the religious, social, economic and philosophical contexts of early modern witch hunts in Europe and colonial America. I also teach and research the ethics of digital technologies.

These fields aren’t as different as they seem. The parallels between the spread of false information in the witch-hunting era and in today’s online information ecosystem are striking – and instructive.

Trump's great poll numbers

Trump's Magnet of Malevolence

Trump's inner circle egg him on

Robert Reich

The conventional explanation for why Trump’s second term is far more extreme than his first (which was extreme enough) is that the guardrails are now gone.

The people who occupied significant roles in the White House and Cabinet during his first administration — who talked him out of (or subverted) his illegal and unconstitutional cravings — are no longer there. In their places are loyalists who will do whatever he wants.

But this conventional view overlooks a more important explanation.

He’s more extreme this time because he’s attracted people around him who are also extreme and pushing him to new levels of malevolence.

I’ve served under three presidents and advised a fourth. In every case, I’ve seen the same pattern: A president acts as a magnet, drawing into the highest levels of his administration people who not only share his values but amplify them.

When a president wants to do a decent job — at the least, respecting democracy, the Constitution, and the rule of law — the magnet produces an administration of people who respect our institutions of self-government.

But when a president is malevolent, those drawn to him are among the most fanatical and dangerous in the land.

Sexual abuse of children is built in to the Republican brand

Behind MAGA's noise over the "Epstein List" is a history of support for laws and policies that protect child abusers and punish children

Jesse Mackinnon for Common Dreams

EDITOR'S NOTE: This is a long article, far longer than the usual we run. However, it is well worth reading. MacKinnon offers an extraordinary historical picture of laws and practices promoted by Republican politicians that essentially legalize child rape, force raped children to carry babies to term, protects child abusers and guts support systems for rape victims. In gripping fashion, MacKinnon puts the Epstein list into a context that, in my opinion, warrants your attention.   - Will Collette

By the time the U.S. Justice Department released its memo in July 2025, the faithful were already starting to turn. There was no “client list,” no smoking gun, no perverted cabal of global elites laid bare for public vengeance.

What they got instead was a cold government document and a half-mumbled shrug from Donald Trump, who barely remembered the man everyone else had turned into a folk demon. “Are people still talking about this guy, this creep?” he asked, blinking like he’d just wandered out of a golf simulator.

The betrayal was almost elegant. For years, Trump’s people had promised the black book. Attorney General Pam Bondi said it was on her desk. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director Kash Patel practically branded his political future with it. Counselor to the President of the United Staes Alina Habba promised flight logs and names.

And then the punchline: nothing. Or rather, a truckload of documents scrubbed clean and a memo telling the public to move on. The frenzy turned inward. MAGA loyalists melted down on camera. Laura Loomer called for a special counsel. Deputy FBI Director Dan Bongino stopped showing up for work. Right-wing media turned on itself like rats in a pressure cooker.

But the Epstein file was never the point. The real story was not buried in a locked safe or hidden by the FBI. It was out in the open. It is still out in the open. The political movement that once pledged to drain the swamp has spent its second tour of duty building a legal and bureaucratic fortress around some of the oldest crimes in the book. Modern conservatism has come to rely not just on outrage but on inertia, and nowhere is that more visible than in its handling of child sexual abuse.

We are not talking about a secret ring or coded pizza menus. We are talking about a system that tolerates child marriage in over half the states. A system that forces raped minors to carry pregnancies to term. A system that slashes funding for shelters and trauma counseling. A system that lets rape kits pile up in warehouse back rooms while politicians pose in front of billboards about protecting kids.

This is not a moral failure or a bureaucratic oversight. It is an architecture. It is built from votes, funded by budgets, signed into law by men who say they fear God but fear losing donors more. The Epstein affair may have collapsed in a cloud of whimpering and spin, but what it revealed is far more corrosive than any one man’s crimes. The question is not why they hid the list. The question is why they need it at all when the ledger is already written in their laws.

Legalized Child Marriage as Institutional Abuse

As of mid-2025, child marriage remains legal in 37 U.S. states. In most of these jurisdictions, statutory exceptions allow minors to marry with parental consent or judicial approval. Some states permit marriage for individuals as young as 15. Others lack any explicit minimum age when certain conditions are met. These legal frameworks persist despite growing evidence of their links to coercion, abuse, and lifelong harm.

Missouri serves as a prominent example. Until recently, it permitted minors aged 15 to marry with parental consent. Testimony from survivors has revealed how this legal permission facilitated predatory relationships cloaked in legitimacy. In one case, a girl was married off to a man nearly a decade older, and the marriage became a vehicle for sustained sexual and psychological abuse. Former child brides in Missouri have since called for a statutory minimum age of 18 with no exceptions. Legislative efforts to enact such reforms have repeatedly stalled.

Tennessee offers a more recent and pointed illustration. In 2022, Republican lawmakers introduced legislation that would have created a new category of marriage not subject to age restrictions. The bill failed under public pressure, but it signaled a continued willingness by some conservative legislators to bypass modern child protection norms. Even when confronted with documentation of exploitation, physical violence, and long-term trauma, these lawmakers often frame the issue around religious liberty and parental authority.

The prevailing rhetoric in these debates centers on traditional family values. Proponents argue that restricting child marriage infringes on the rights of families to make decisions without state interference. 

In some cases, advocates for maintaining the status quo invoke Christian theological justifications or present marriage as a preferable alternative to state custody. These arguments shift the legal focus away from the vulnerability of the minor and toward the autonomy of adults, particularly parents and religious leaders.

This legal tolerance undermines the enforcement of statutory rape laws. When marriage can be used as a legal shield, older adults who would otherwise face criminal prosecution gain immunity by securing parental consent or exploiting permissive judicial channels.

In practice, the marriage license functions as retroactive permission for sexual contact with a minor. Law enforcement agencies are often reluctant to investigate allegations within a legally recognized marriage, even when age discrepancies raise clear concerns.

The persistence of child marriage statutes in conservative-controlled states is not simply a relic of outdated law. It reflects a policy choice. The choice is to preserve adult control over minors, particularly in contexts that reinforce patriarchal and religious hierarchies.

In doing so, the state becomes an active participant in the erasure of consent. Legal recognition of these unions confers legitimacy on relationships that, in other contexts, would be subject to prosecution. The result is a bifurcated legal system where a child’s age and rights are contingent on the adult interests surrounding her.

A racial slur exposes the deep divisions in Westerly's political culture

Culture war divides Town Council

Steve Ahlquist

Town Council, left to right: William Aiello, Michael Niemeyer, Alexandra Healy, Council President Christopher Duhamel, Council Vice President Mary Scialabba, Dylan LaPietra, and Rose Van Dover.

During a one-on-one interview for her reappointment to Westerly’s Multicultural Committee, April Dinwoodie was asked inappropriate questions about her race, and then referred to “using a term rooted in slavery and racial classification” by Town Councilor Rose Van Dover. (The Town Council established the Multicultural Committee to promote diversity and link the many different cultures in the town.) Though there is apparently no recording of the conversation, Dinwoodie and Van Dover agree that this happened, and Councilor Van Dover apologized.

But the exchange exposed the deep rifts in Westerly on issues of race, DEI, and the current polarized political climate rooted in Christian Nationalism. People on both sides of the issue packed the Town Council chamber to express their support for Dinwoodie and/or Van Dover. This raises the question: Why are there two sides to this issue?

The issue above was not the only thing occupying the town council’s attention on Monday. They were also dealing with shoreline access, Westerly Police assisting ICE, and the possibility that short-term rentals are making home ownership increasingly impossible. The Town Council took no action on any of these issues.

The transcript has been edited for clarity:

April Dinwoodie: I recently served as the Chair of the Multicultural Committee. A couple of weeks ago, I was interviewed for reappointment to the Multicultural Committee. At the beginning of that conversation, I was asked about my racial identity and referred to using a term rooted in slavery and racial classification. It had no place in an interview for public service. 

Questions about the actual work of the committee came only after I had to explain why the term used was problematic and after unsolicited reflections about the racial identities of students this councilor grew up with, as well as her family structure and Christian values. I felt this was disconnected from the role and responsibilities of serving with the Multicultural Committee, and it raised concerns about what interviews are conducted, who gets asked what, and the power of elected officials.

After sharing what occurred in the interview with the Town Council, I received a message from Councilor Rose Van Dover that read, in part, “I did not know the word I used was offensive, and I appreciate you bringing it to my attention. Your explanation made me think about my grandchildren who are multiracial. I will do better in the future.” I appreciate that Town Councilor Van Dover responded, but from apology must also come accountability, and from accountability, action.

Putting the word aside, it was about the interview’s structure, tone, and content. Only after Councillor Van Dover repeatedly asked or said, “I don’t want any of that..."

Councilor William Aiello: Point of order, Mr. President. The only thing listed on the agenda is a review of appointments, not the content of one-on-one conversations or emails about the appointments. I think this is a bridge too far. This could align with the second citizen comments, but not the first, for agenda items only.

Council President Christopher Duhamel: I’ll defer to our solicitor. The Item concerns the liaison appointments and how they are conducted.

Attorney William Connelly: It’s up to the chair to rule on the point of order, and it can be challenged, as always, and put to a vote.

Council President Duhamel: The chair votes that this is part of the agenda. The agenda set the meeting to allow this incident to be discussed, so the chair votes not in favor of the point.

Councillor Aiello: I appeal that decision because what you discussed in the agenda-setting meeting is not what’s on the agenda. The agenda is a review of liaison appointments. I’m not saying Ms. Dinwoodie can’t speak, or anybody else can’t speak, but at the second citizen’s comments section, where it’s open to more things.

Council President Duhamel: Understood. I already ruled on this. Did you want to appeal it?

Councilor Aiello: Yeah.

Councilor Dylan LaPietra: I second it, and I want to discuss it. As usual, you don’t have a clue how to write an agenda, but putting your incompetence aside, why don’t we get this out of the way, rather than have everybody sit around and wait for the second citizen’s comment section?

Council President Duhamel: Mr. LaPietra, you don’t have to be insulting. I know you’re good at it, but you don’t have to be insulting.

There's a certain symmetry to this

Donald Trump's niece says his only god is himself

Faith, hypocrisy, and the dangers of following a false prophet

From The Good in Us by Mary L. Trump | Mary L Trump | Substack

Donald has been even more erratic than usual lately, which is saying something, launching us into an illegal, unconstitutional, and unauthorized conflict with Iran and leaving everyone, including his own allies, waiting for his next move. But now he's invoking a new power in order to excuse his behavior — a God he does not believe in. Donald shocked the world by dropping bombs on Iran on Saturday after claiming two days earlier that he'd take two weeks to think about how to proceed. In his speech after launching the unprovoked attack, he invoked God multiple times:

“I want to just thank everybody, and in particular, God. I want to just say we love you, God, and we love our great military. Protect them. God bless the Middle East. God bless Israel. And God bless America. Thank you very much. Thank you.”

The backlash was swift. First of all, invoking religion to justify any bombing is offensive, but in the context of bombing a Middle Eastern country it smacks of the Crusades. 

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, took it one step further when, at the end of his remarks, he said “We give glory to God for His providence and continue to ask for His protection.” Whether Hegseth is a genuinely religious person I do not know, and I would prefer government officials not to speak in such terms about missile strikes. But Donald, despite his occasional attempts to pretend otherwise, is not religious at all.

Only $99 but if you want one with his signature
on a label, it's $1,000!

When he was a kid in the 1950s, Norman Vincent Peale was hugely popular. Peale was pastor of Marble Collegiate Church in midtown Manhattan and his shallow message of self-sufficiency appealed enormously to my grandfather, Fred. Peale was a charlatan, but he was a charlatan who headed up a rich and powerful church in New York City and he had a message to sell. 

My grandfather was not a reader, but it was impossible not to know about Peale’s bestseller, The Power of Positive Thinking. The title alone was enough for Fred, and he decided to join Marble Collegiate Church. He and his family rarely attended, but Fred already had a positive attitude and unbounded faith in his abilities to succeed. He didn't really need to read “the power of positive thinking” in order to co-opt, for his own purposes, the most superficial and self-serving aspect of Peale’s message.

Peale anticipated the prosperity gospel and his doctrine proclaimed that one need only have self-confidence in order to prosper in the way God wants one to. He wrote, “Obstacles are simply not permitted to destroy your happiness and well-being. You need to be defeated only if you are willing to be.”

Peale’s view neatly confirmed what my grandfather already thought: he was rich because he deserved to be. 

The Trump Coalition Wants to End Democracy as We Know It

Breakdown of four groups who want a few billionaires and certain religious zealots to consolidate their political power.

Peter Montague for Common Dreams

The Trump coalition includes four groups of people:

1. The MAGA (“make America great again”) base, mostly rural white men and women;
2. A group of Silicon Valley billionaires known as the PayPal Mafia;
3. A separate political movement called “religious nationalists”; and
4. The Trump crime family itself.

All four groups share one basic aim: to degrade our one-person-one-vote election system so a few billionaires and certain religious zealots can consolidate their political power to eliminate free and fair elections to become even more controlling and richer than they already are.

Here are brief descriptions of the four groups.

1: The MAGA Base: Who Are They?

The hardcore, mostly rural MAGA base can be understood as an echo of the Confederacy. Philosophically, many of them are the same people who tried to destroy the United States to preserve slavery via the Civil War (1861-1865). In their view, the basic ideas that inspired the founding of the U.S. (1776-1788) are wrong: All humans are not created equal and should not have equal rights under law. In 2022, MAGA believers included about 15% of the U.S. adult population, or about 39 million out of 258 million adults.

DISCLOSURE: Peter is a valued old friend. We collaborated often when I was organizing director at the organization now known as the Center for Health and Environmental Justice especially on issues that involving fighting corporate crime.

Westerly Town Council unanimously issues a Pride Month Proclamation

Solid vote for respect and inclusion

Steve Ahlquist

On May 5, the Westerly Town Council issued five proclamations, which are statements signed by the council members setting aside days, weeks, and months in honor of various people and causes. The second week of May was declared Lung Cancer Action Week, May 18 was declared “Neighbor Day,” and May 8 was declared “Victory in Europe Day.” Police were honored with a proclamation that wasn’t on the agenda, and June was proclaimed Pride Month.

These are the ordinary actions of municipal governments across the country, and arouse little pushback or debate. But I was alerted by some Westerly residents that there was pushback against Pride Month in some online forums. In response, over a dozen people filled the council chamber supporting Pride Month. Only two or three people were in the room in opposition.

Council President Christopher Duhamel explained that the proclamation was introduced to him and Town Manager Shawn Lacey by First Selectman Danielle Chesebrough in neighboring Stonington, CT.

“I felt it was worth the Town of Westerly participating,” said President Duhamel.

Councilmember Michael Niemeyer read the proclamation into the record. It reads:

The Westerly Town Council proclaims June 2025 as Pride Month

In the Town of Westerly, a friendly and welcoming community that celebrates and promotes diversity and inclusion and recognizes the importance of equality and freedom for all residents.

Westerly recognizes the contributions of LGBTQIA+ residents, students, employees, business owners, and visitors to the cultural and civic fabric of the town and remains committed to protecting their civil rights in our unified effort to forge a more open and just society.

Westerly joins many towns and cities across the United States in recognizing and celebrating June as LGBTQIA+ Pride Month as a commitment to standing in solidarity with all LGBTQIA+ Americans.

The Westerly Town Council hereby proclaims the month of June 2025 as Pride Month in support of the LGBTQIA+ community and encourages everyone to reflect on ways we can all live and work together with commitment to mutual respect and understanding.

In witness whereof, we have hereby set our hands and caused the seal of the Town of Westerly to be hereunto affixed this 5th day of May 2025.

In witness whereof, we have hereby set our hands and caused the Seal of the Town of Westerly to be here unto affixed this fifth day of May, 2025, signed by all counselors.

The council members received a standing ovation in response.