Thursday's episode of Morning Joe managed to promote virtually every liberal talking point in a single broadcast. Before the show was over, the audience learned that the Religious Freedom Restoration Acts (RFRAs) come from "a dark place," that there is "a time lag than between where elements of the [Republican] Party are and where the country is," and that Morning Joe is a place of "respectful conversation" rather than a spectacle "where everyone talks past each other, [and] has their minds made up."
Joe Scarborough kicked off the show with a discussion about the division among Republicans over Indiana and Arkansas’ RFRA laws, by noting that, "the Democrats are all on one side. But...it's Republican against Republican." This prompted co-host Mika Brzezinski to opine that this division within the Republican Party will decide "whether or not the Party will sort of find its way into the future."
Richard Haass of the Council on Foreign Relations also contributed to the narrative that Republicans are out of step with the rest of the nation. "This country moved in warp speed on this issue. I'm hard-pressed to think of any other issue that moved this fast." He further contended that there is "a time lag than between where elements of the [Republican] Party are and where the country is."
So in the world of Morning Joe, the Democrats are relevant and are of one mind on this issue, while the Republicans are antiquated and scatterbrained. Perhaps if Morning Joe and the other media outlets probed the Democrats with the same aggression they do Republicans, this illusion might fade.
Shortly thereafter, Jeremy Peters of the New York Times was asked about the difference between the Indiana RFRA law as it was written and as it stood now. Peters decided to unveil the bigger issue with the RFRA laws themselves: "these laws look as if they're coming from a dark place. They are designed in many cases to express a disapproval about gay relationships. And that's what's so upsetting to people about this."
Putting aside the fact that RFRA laws have been around since 1993, long before gay rights became an issue, Peters has said more than he realizes. This is not about equal rights for homosexuals. It is about the eradication of a judgment value. The very expression of "disapproval" of gay relationships is an intrinsic evil originating from a "dark place[s]."
This raises the question, if laws that are "designed to express a disapproval about gay relationships" are things that "come from a dark place" then why are laws "designed to express a disapproval" of religious freedom not treated with the same contempt?
Rather than strain their brains asking substantive follow up questions like this, the Morning Joe crew decided to pat themselves on the back for their coverage of the topic. Willie Geist began this exercise by noting that the Indiana RFRA controversy "also exposed, I think, putting the issue aside for a minute, the sort of ugliness of the debate that goes on, where everyone talks past each other, everyone has their minds made up. There’s no, it's hard to find a place, this table notwithstanding, where you can have a real respectful conversation about issues like this. If you go on Twitter, on social media, on cable news, it's just people firing shots."
Apparently Geist missed the prior broadcast in which Brzezinski called every sincere Christian, Jew, and Muslim a bigot because they disagreed with her position on gay marriage.
David Axelrod piled on the Democratic momentum chat on Morning Joe, chest beating with this:
"There's also a tension between politicians who want to play to passions and score political points and politicians who want to solve problems...In Indiana, I feel, and in the Arkansas legislature, they were playing to passion instead of thoughtfully addressing the issue."
Joe Scarborough called him out on the issue: "But the President played to those passions. He wouldn't admit he was for gay marriage until he didn’t have to face another election."
Axelrod stumbled in reply: "He navigated-uh-he navigated those wa- What he would say and he said it in response to my book. He said that he, that there was a gap between what his personal position was and the public position he took because the public position was, he thought, was what he thought the market would bear which was civil unions."
Naturally, Scarborough never pressed Axelrod as to why Obama lying about his position on gay marriage to get votes from religious people is called "navigat[ing]," while Governors Mike Pence and Asa Hutchinson signing bills to protect religious freedom is labeled "playing to passion."
Scarborough did, however, continue to press the issue of Obama’s reluctance to touch the topic before he was immune to electoral opinion. "President Obama was afraid to come out and support of gay marriage until after he didn't face the electorate again."
However, he was soon jumped by Axelrod and Washington Post editorialist Jonathan Capehart, who were quick to argue that Obama declared his position in the 2012 campaign. Joe quickly dropped the subject after that, "And this isn't about President Obama. This is about the market that he was saying it would bear."
Scarborough concluded this discussion by giving a theology lesson to his audience just in time for Easter:
SCARBOROUGH: Jesus...talked more about divorce and other things...if you look at the red letters in the bible than he talked about homosexuality....And I've been curious my entire life whether it's been such an obsession in the church over this issue that Jesus himself was silent on.
You hear that folks? Only the red letters in the Bible are important. God just inspired people to write the rest of the sixty-plus books for fluff and padding.
