Former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft will speak at SBU graduation
Former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft will speak at both of the spring commencement ceremonies for Southwest Baptist University.
The ceremonies are at 11 a.m. and 4 p.m. May 9 at the Jane and Ken Meyer Wellness Center on the Bolivar campus.
'For nearly a century and a half, Southwest Baptist University has a legacy of preparing leaders who have shaped our culture and ministered in the State of Missouri and all around the globe, instilling Christian values that honor God and enrich communities,' Ashcroft said in a Thursday news release.
'It is humbling for me to participate in the graduation celebration of another class from this unapologetically Christ-centered institution.'
The Missouri native served as the 79th U.S. attorney general from 2001-05 under President George W. Bush, playing a key role in shaping national security policy in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks.
Ashcroft served as the governor of Missouri from 1985-93, a U.S. senator representing Missouri from 1995 to 2001, and as the state's attorney general from 1977-85.
More: MSU breaks ground on alumni center, a 'front door' to campus named for Clif Smart
'His lifelong dedication to public service, his leadership at both the state and national levels, and his commitment to faith and integrity make him an inspiring figure for our graduates as they embark on their next journeys," SBU President Rick Melson said in the release.
Ashcroft left public office two decades ago but, as founder of the Ashcroft Law Group, he continues to influence legal and public policy matters. He has also served as a professor at institutions including Regent University.
This article originally appeared on Springfield News-Leader: Former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft to speak at SBU graduation
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
5 takeaways from a major new report on religion around the world
This article was first published in the State of Faith newsletter. Sign up to receive the newsletter in your inbox each Monday night. When people hear that researching religion is part of my job, they often ask me very specific questions about faith-related issues that have been in the news. After I disappoint them by not immediately knowing the answers, I turn to Google for help. My job has made me a search engine expert, not a religion expert. The questions that still trip me up even when I've got a strong internet connection are about the religious makeup of faraway countries. It's hard for me to quickly find info about religious life in the Czech Republic or New Zealand and then talk about what that info means for the athlete or politician who's grabbing headlines in the U.S. But now, I've got an exciting new tool in my trivia tool belt. On Monday, Pew Research Center released an interactive website that shows the religious makeup of nearly every country in the world in a single (very large) table. Once you're on the page, it takes only a few seconds to confirm that New Zealand was 40.3% Christian in 2020 or that the Czech Republic is dominated by religious 'nones.' Pew's interactive table was released alongside a new report discussing how the global religious landscape changed from 2010 to 2020. Based on more than 2,700 censuses and surveys, the report provides an in-depth look at 201 countries and territories — and plenty of fodder for conversations with your friends. Here are five key takeaways from Pew's new analysis of the global religious landscape. Christianity is the world's largest faith group, but it's not keeping pace with global population growth. In 2010, 30.6% of the world identified as Christian. By 2020, that figure had fallen to 28.8%. Islam is the fastest growing religious group. 'The number of Muslims increased by 347 million (from 2010 to 2020) — more than all other religions combined,' researchers wrote. Sub-Saharan Africa is now the region of the world where most Christians live. In 2010, Europe held that title. As of 2020, the United States has the second-largest number of religiously unaffiliated residents. China has the most. The growth of Islam from 2010 to 2020 was mostly due to natural population growth, while the decline of Christianity stemmed, in large part, from religious switching. 'Religious 'switching' — especially people shedding their religious identity after having been raised as Christians — explains much of the unaffiliated population's growth between 2010 and 2020," Pew reported. Americans are divided over religious freedom. The Supreme Court? Not as much How 'Jeopardy!' can save us all, according to Ken Jennings The Supreme Court's surprising decision day This top running back says he believes in God, not the so-called 'Madden curse' A religious school is facing pushback for its partnership with U.S. Customs and Border Protection Hidden Christianity is a unique form of Christianity practiced on some of Japan's rural islands. It gets its name from the fact that its earliest practitioners really were hiding their faith to avoid persecution. 'Hidden Christians were forced to hide all visible signs of their religion after the 1614 ban on Christianity and the expulsion of foreign missionaries. Households took turns hiding precious ritual objects and hosting the secret services that celebrated both faith and persistence,' according to The Associated Press. Early practitioners disguised their Christian icons by making them appear to be Buddhist. Even after it was safe to be openly Christian again, many families continued these secretive practices, in part because they wanted to honor loved ones who'd risked their lives and in part because they didn't fit in with mainstream Christians, the AP reported. 'Many Hidden Christians rejected Catholicism after the persecution ended because Catholic priests refused to recognize them as real Christians unless they agreed to be rebaptized and abandon the Buddhist altars that their ancestors used,' the article said. Hidden Christianity may soon be just a memory in Japan, since most current practitioners are quite old and most young people who grew up with the traditions have moved to cities and either don't want to or can't access the gatherings. A controversial research project featuring faith leaders using psychedelic drugs was released last month after a long delay. The report showed that nearly all of the members of the clergy who took part described their experiences with psilocybin as some of the most spiritually significant of their lives, but health and religion experts don't agree on what type of additional research or policy proposals that finding should inspire, according to Religion News Service. Which groups face the most discrimination in the United States? Pew Research Center recently asked Americans to weigh in, and the survey report offers an in-depth look at how people's political views influence their thoughts about discrimination. My Deseret News colleague Krysyan Edler recently wrote about the inspiring life of Caroline Klein, the chief communications officer for Smith Entertainment Group. After being diagnosed with cancer in her thirties, Klein committed to living every day like there might not be a tomorrow. 'Nothing about my situation is sad to me, but I want to make sure that when I'm gone, I've left people with a lot of great memories that bring them joy, too,' she said. After years of daydreaming about getting back into tennis, I finally started a summer tennis class on Saturday. It felt so good! Take this as the nudge you need to do that thing you've been dreaming about.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Members of the MAGA Elite Have a New Favorite Slur for Each Other. It's Tearing Them Apart.
Sign up for the Slatest to get the most insightful analysis, criticism, and advice out there, delivered to your inbox daily. Last week, while the Republican Party reeled from a bitter and loud falling-out between the two most powerful men in U.S. politics, a much quieter dispute was playing out among the intellectual leaders of the right. This feud would have been easy to miss, even without the Trump–Musk showdown overshadowing everything else. It involved impenetrable jargon, long-winded blog posts, hard-to-parse political factions, and a set of characters known more for quoting philosophers than for authoring the kinds of punchy, lib-owning posts that typify the right's most popular internet figures. But those inside that world who followed the conversation witnessed something significant: a sign that some of the intellectual leaders of the modern MAGA movement are becoming disturbed by parts of the movement they created. The controversy began on Sunday, when the prominent conservative writer Rod Dreher, a close friend of J.D. Vance's, published an essay in the Free Press, the publication founded by Bari Weiss, titled 'The Woke Right Is Coming for Your Sons.' In the essay, Dreher argued that many on the right were displaying what he believed to be ugly qualities that define the modern left: language policing (see: Trump's renaming the Gulf of Mexico to the 'Gulf of America'); rewriting history (see: a MAGA podcaster's description of Winston Churchill as the 'chief villain' of World War II); and, above all, identity-based politics. Dreher wrote that he saw white Christian men feeling disempowered and advocating for their own racial, gender, and religious interests; he was most disturbed by how often this form of 'identity politics' seemed to manifest as aggressive antisemitism. This essay infuriated some people on the right, who complained that Dreher was slandering normal conservatives by calling them 'woke.' His mistake had been in using a term that some more-centrist conservatives have invoked to describe people such as Christopher Rufo, the man often credited with driving the campaign against 'critical race theory' in schools. Worse, the terminology seemed to imply that there was a power equivalence between the 'woke left' and 'woke right,' when, conservatives argued, the 'woke left' was much more powerful than whatever its right-wing counterpart was. The next day, Dreher published an apology to his readers. In a 4,700-word blog post (Dreher is always prolix), he admitted that he had erred by not being 'online enough.' The term 'woke right' was excised from the piece, and the headline was changed to warn of the dangers of 'the radical right.' The incident was not the first time the term had been the center of controversy in debates around modern conservative politics. But the episode marks a particularly heated moment for the digital elites of the MAGA movement, as Dreher's miscalculation comes at a time when the right, wielding greater political power than it has held in years, has begun to show fractures in its coalition. The term 'woke right' has been circulating for a few years now; one of the first significant uses was in 2022, in a critical essay from a Reformed Presbyterian pastor reviewing a Christian nationalist book. The review, titled 'The Rise of Right-Wing Wokeism,' argued that the Christian nationalist book was 'woke' because it argued that 'oppression is everywhere, extreme measures are necessary, and the regime must be overthrown.' Since then, some conservatives have used the term to describe right-wing victimhood complexes (as when supposed 'woke' right-wingers characterize the Jan. 6 defendants as martyrs) and disruptive, burn-down-the-system ideologies. Tucker Carlson and Matt Walsh are often pointed to as leading figures of this 'woke right.' But the discussion of the term has grown in the past couple of months. In late March, the Quillette podcast hosted a guest to discuss how 'the enemies of wokeness have created their own cultish ideology, complete with right-wing purity spirals and mobbings.' On May 12, the Christian Post published an op-ed arguing that 'woke right' social media users were complaining that 'straight white men are oppressed'; 'society is ruled by women'; ' 'normies' are blind to this reality'; and 'the only solution is a Protestant Franco or a Christian prince.' The term has yet to develop a consensus definition. The psychologist Jordan Peterson, who was one of the main figures popularizing the term, told Joe Rogan in April that the 'woke right' was really a matter of 'psychopaths' on social media who care mostly about being inflammatory and publicly antisemitic and only pretend to care about the conservative movement. Peterson and those like him see this phenomenon as the bile of the internet, rather than a matter for real political analysis. That differs from the views of James Lindsay, the term's biggest enthusiast. Lindsay is a provocateur known for a 2018 stunt in which he successfully published a number of ridiculous papers in 'grievance studies' in peer-reviewed academic journals. For people who knew Lindsay only for that episode, his current actions would seem surprising: He is now on a crusade against certain elements of the modern GOP, including techno-fascists, Christian nationalists, and national conservatives. Last year, in a sign of that pivot, he tricked a conservative Christian publication into running portions of The Communist Manifesto. It's his use that has made the term most controversial. Lindsay's version of the 'woke right' is defined by identity-based politics in which everything can be viewed through the lens of power dynamics. The 'woke right' seeks to destroy the left to order society by its cultural values—through any necessary means. In other words, while Dreher and Peterson used the word woke to describe, essentially, expressions of aggressive racism, antisemitism, and misogyny, Lindsay uses it to describe a larger political faction with fascist-leaning politics that he believes is taking over the elites of the MAGA movement. He is using the term against the New Right. He has even used it against Vance. It's easy to feel lost when trying to wade through this discussion, in large part because members of the right-wing online commentariat speak their own insular language. (The term longhouse, for example, often surfaces in this debate. That one term, which, to boil it down, refers to 'female' styles of governance, warrants its own separate explainer.) But it's not necessary to understand the nuanced differences between the uses of the 'woke right' to see the underlying friction. It's clear, from all this, that some on the right are becoming so uneasy about the more militant elements of their new coalition that they are feeling the need to speak up, knowing they will give ammunition to their enemies on the left. 'I am now witnessing the deep inroads, in such a short period, that right-wing totalitarianism, expressed most often as antisemitism, has made, especially among a growing segment of right-wing males,' Dreher wrote in his essay. Dreher is no moderate centrist. He opposes gay marriage, has been vocally critical of Islam, and has described immigration from nonwhite countries as undermining Western civilization. He is so enthusiastic about the authoritarian president of Hungary that he moved to the country to enjoy what he believes to be its postwoke society. So it's notable that, in his essay, he describes being disturbed by the amount of white nationalism, Holocaust denial, and conspiracy theories, as well as other forms of extremism he has observed among young white conservative men. And it's even more notable that he rejects the notion that it was only fringe. 'When popular online figures offering crackpot takes … find their way onto mainstream podcasts like Joe Rogan's and Tucker Carlson's, you know something massive is happening,' he wrote. Dreher did not go so far as to equate the left and the right. He was insistent that the 'woke right' had only a fraction of the power the 'woke left' wielded. (He broke hard from Lindsay here, accusing him in his apology blog post of 'vile slander' and speculating that Lindsay was autistic.) He also expressed some empathy for the budding fascists. 'So many young men like him—white, heterosexual, and Christian—have grown up in a culture that has told them they are the source of most of the world's evils, simply by virtue of their unchosen identity,' he wrote in the original essay. 'Right-wing radicalism, including antisemitism, because some of their perceived persecutors are Jewish intellectual and cultural figures, speaks to their anger and trauma, and validates their rage.' Still, as cautious as the critique may seem, it pointed to some fundamental tensions in the right's coalition. He wasn't alone in expressing his anxiety about extremism either. The writer Robby Soave disagreed with Dreher's use of the term but wrote on X that the 'underlying phenomenon (increased anti-Semitism, tribalism, Tate-ism etc. in some corners of the young, male online right) is real.' Rufo, similarly, wrote that 'what you're describing is a real phenomenon that needs to be dealt with,' offering that he substitute 'antisemitism, right-wing racialism, etc.,' for the word woke. The term 'woke right' may or may not survive as a political insult past this moment. It's possible that some will continue to use it to label the group that many have, at other times, called the 'dissident right' or 'alt-right' or any number of terms to describe ugly, racist, and provocative nationalist conservatism. It's also possible it will fade away. But this small conflict, played out mostly among a tiny group of right-wing elites, reveals the natural inward turn that comes from cultural and political dominance. The right has routed the left; its individual factions do not, at this moment, need their allies as they once did. The time is right instead for them to advocate for their own political projects. The Musk–Trump feud made it clear that the tech right doesn't always fit well within the populist MAGA movement. Nor can the libertarians, the Christian nationalists, the bigoted edgelords, the Israel hawks, the MAHA antivaxxers, and the doomsday conspiracists all be expected to get along. But with the 'woke right' fight, we saw a different kind of splintering, even among those who share political end goals: one between those who are concerned about the radicalization of young white men, and those who see it as an asset. 'Imagine you're stuck in LA today, facing certain death from the Hamas Marxist army,' one major right-wing account wrote on X on Saturday. 'Who do you want fighting next to you, the people crying about 'woke right' or the people who have been called 'woke right.' Everyone knows the answer.' The answer, of course, was the group known for its anger and resentment. Thanks to the changes Musk has made to X, it's easier than ever to observe the swamp of far-right hatred on social media. Dreher and the others saw it themselves: Any of the posts discussing the problem of 'wokeism' in MAGA will be flooded with comments about Jews. Now that the right has room to breathe, MAGA leaders can finally turn to the issues in their own movement. And some of them are starting to become disturbed by what they've created.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
TN trans care ban: AG said defending case to SCOTUS, expected to rule soon, was God's will
DALLAS — Potentially days before the U.S. Supreme Court rules in a landmark case on a ban on transgender youth receiving certain medical care, Tennessee's attorney general told a room of Southern Baptists he believes it was God's providence that he argued before the land's highest court. "I'm in the middle of things that are so much bigger than I have any business being in the middle of. But I'm there for a reason," Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti said during a June 10 panel discussion at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas. 'So, I just try to remember it's not about me and that God puts his people where he needs them, where he wants them." Skrmetti's office is defending Tennessee's ban on gender transition treatments for transgender minors, which a Nashville family with a transgender teenager is challenging. The Supreme Court may decide on the case as early as June 12, and a majority of justices have signaled a friendly disposition toward upholding Tennessee's law that took effect in June 2023. The June 10 event was organized by the Nashville-based SBC's public policy arm, the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. Skrmetti and another panelist, Alliance Defending Freedom senior vice president Ryan Bangert, said the case is about science and the degree to which courts can decide public policy. But Skrmetti and Bangert, whose law firm is helping represent Tennessee in U.S. v. Skrmetti, acknowledged faith is another key component of this story and will potentially be a resounding victory for conservative Christians. More: Meet the Tennessee family behind the US Supreme Court's major transgender health care case 'I would be ready to have good conversations with your congregants, good conversations with your fellow church members about what this case means not just from a legal perspective. But from a broader cultural perspective,' Bangert said at the June 10 panel. 'I would be ready to have that conversation: 'God willing, the law has been upheld. What do we do know?'' Alliance Defending Freedom has been a decisive force in several recent U.S. Supreme Court cases that have reversed precedent in favor of conservative Christian ideals. Examples include Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization that overturned Roe v. Wade, Kennedy v. Bremerton dealing with public prayer on a high school sports field, and 303 Creative v. Elenis about a Christian web designer's refusal to work with same-sex couples. The Southern Baptist Convention is the nation's largest Protestant denomination. The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission stated its opposition to transition treatment for transgender people in resolutions at past SBC annual meetings and has been a vocal proponent of bans in Tennessee and other states. Bangert said at the June 10 panel there are 26 states with bans like Tennessee's and the decision in U.S. v. Skrmetti could affect those other laws. The ERLC filed an amicus brief in U.S. v. Skrmetti, for which the SBC-affiliated agency hired a Southern Baptist lawyer to carefully and forcefully assert the Southern Baptists' position on the issue. Skrmetti praised the ERLC's amicus brief during the June 10 panel, saying it provided a theological rationale for Tennessee's law. Skrmetti's office cannot make that theological argument in its defense before the Supreme Court because an establishment clause requires the state to approach the case from a religiously neutral perspective. Skrmetti, who attends a Church of Christ congregation in Nashville, said at the June 10 panel in his capacity at Tennessee's attorney general that his religion is not a factor in how he approaches the case. But personally, he told the crowd of Southern Baptists in Dallas that the outcome will be meaningful as a person of faith. 'Pray for my team that all of us that if we win, win gracefully in a way that reinforces both shining God's light into the world,' Skrmetti said. Liam Adams covers religion for The Tennessean, part of the USA TODAY Network. Reach him at ladams@ or on social media @liamsadams. This article originally appeared on Nashville Tennessean: Skrmetti cites God's will to his role in SCOTUS trans care case at SBC
