The US religious right's use and abuse of Dietrich Bonhoeffer's legacy

You have probably never heard of Dietrich Bonhoeffer so a quick biography is in order (Dietrich Bonhoeffer on Wikipedia is as good a place as any to start if you want a more detailed biography).

Bonhoeffer was a Christian pastor in Germany before and during the Second World War. He found the Nazis and their acts to be so offensive that he participated in the German Resistance. He was imprisoned by the Nazis in April of 1943 where he remained until he was tried and executed/murdered on 9 April 1945 for his association with participants of the 20 July 1944 plot to assassinate Hitler (the same one that the relatively recent movie Valkyrie staring Tom Cruise popularized).

Bonhoeffer studied and taught at the Union Theological Seminary in New York in the early 1930s. He found the progressive institution's stance less than satisfying, once stating "There is no theology here". His views on the US fundamentalist Christian theology of the era were not exactly flattering either as he accused the Southern Baptists of preaching “the crassest orthodoxy…an unrelenting harshness in holding on to one’s possessions, possessions either of this or of the other world.”

The US religious right has recently been invoking the name of Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Their claim is essentially that Bonhoeffer's decision to risk death by participating in the German resistance is an exemplar which justifies the use of deadly force to resist the "imposition" of gay marriage on the US Christian community.

Bonhoeffer died resisting the Nazi regime which was not only responsible for launching the deadliest war in human history but also embarked on a program of industrialized murder to "deal with" their opponents and anyone else that they happened to not like (see Nazi concentration camp badges for more info).

That the US religious right could somehow create a parallel between their strong opposition to gay marriage and Bonhoeffer' decision to participate in the German Resistance during the Second World War truly boggles the mind. Then again, there is little that the US religious right does these days which doesn't boggle the mind . . .

Some sources and references are probably in order:

• Dietrich Bonhoeffer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietrich_Bonhoeffer
• Nazi concentration camp badges  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_concentration_camp_badges
• Why This Pastor Who Tried To Assassinate Hitler Has Become A Hero To The Anti-LGBT Movement http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/04/14/3646532/conservatives-comparing-anti-lgbt-crusade-pastors-attempt-assassinate-hitler/

Why the Crown has invoked Justin Bieber in the Mike Duffy trial

The Justin Bieber reference was used by the Crown to make an important point. The Canadian Constitution requires that Senators meet certain qualifications including that they be at least 30 years old and residents of the province that they are appointed to represent. The witness was recently retired Senate law clerk Mark Audcent (a recognized expert in Canadian constitutional law as it applies to the Senate). Crown attorney Mark Holmes asked Mr. Audcent the following question:

“If the Governor-General, acting on the advice of the Prime Minister, appointed Justin Bieber to the Senate tomorrow, would he become 30?”

Mr. Audcent replied "Of course not". The implication being that someone does not "magically" become a resident of a province just because the Governor-General, acting on the advice of the Prime Minister, appoints that person to the Senate as a representative of said province. Mr. Holmes is obviously building a case for the proposition that Mike Duffy was not qualified to represent PEI as a Senator because his appointment to the Senate as a representative of PEI violated the Canadian Constitution.

The Prime Minister who appointed Mike Duffy would, of course, be none other than the Right Honourable Stephen Harper. Based on the above testimony and other testimony by Mr. Audcent over the past couple of days, Mr. Holmes would seem to be well on his way towards establishing this point.

According to Wikipedia, Stephen Harper made the following solemn oath when he was sworn in as Prime Minister:

"I, (name), do solemnly and sincerely promise and swear (or declare) that I will truly and faithfully, and to the best of my skill and knowledge, execute the powers and trust reposed in me as Prime Minister, so help me God."

I have a feeling that this will not be the last time during this trial that Prime Minister Harper is revealed to have at least arguably if not actually violated his oath of office (pay particular attention to the word "trust" in the above oath).

Sidebar: It is true that people have been appointed to the Senate to represent various far flung provinces even though the Senate appointees have lived for many many years outside of their home provinces. The difference between what happened with Mike Duffy and what happened with Pamela Wallin vs these appointments from the past is that those being considered for appointment to the Senate in the past for provinces that they were no longer residents of were apparently told to move back to their home provinces and live there long enough to establish residency. Once residency had been established, the Prime Minister of the day would advise the Governor-General to appoint them to the Senate. In other words, these other Prime Ministers understood that they were bound by the Constitution - an understanding that Prime Minister Harper apparently does not share with his predecessors.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/crown-invokes-justin-bieber-in-mike-duffy-trial/article23882827/