The Rev. Dr. Mary Susan Gast will speak at Community Congregational Church on Sunday, October 26, at 4:00 pm on the topic of Christian Nationalism, its roots and impact.
She states, “In the late 1970’s a movement began to emerge in the U.S. that we now recognize as Christian Nationalism. ‘Christian Nationalism’ is not simply being Christian and being American. It is the fusion of one particular take on Christianity with a vision of the United States as the birthright of the descendants of white Christian European settlers.
Bishop William Barber has observed that the adherents of Christian Nationalism believe that Christianity ‘calls on us to be anti-gay, against people who may have had an abortion, against immigrants, and against the poor. But what the Scriptures actually say is that God loves all people.’”
Her presentation on October 26th will examine the Biblical and historical bases for these diverse understandings of the application of Christian teaching, along with the effects of Christian Nationalism on our democracy and civil society.
Dr. Gast notes that the affirmation of Christian Nationalism among many current national leaders raises questions for many regarding the effects of that ideology on government policy.
“In August this year, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth released a video on social media. It featured two pastors of Hegseth’s fellowship of faith asserting that women should not have the right to vote. Doug Wilson, one of the pastors on the video, later affirmed to the Associated Press that he believes the 19th Amendment granting women the right to vote ‘was a bad idea.’
In early September many members of the current administration attended the National Conservatism Conference. Speakers at the event included:
Heritage Foundation president Kevin Roberts endorsing ‘the righteous anger young men feel when our elites say they can be replaced by immigrants or machines’
Charlie Haywood, who has called for the ‘total denigration of ‘career’ as the main goal of women’
and U.S. Senator Eric Schmitt who declared America belongs to ‘us’. . . ‘the sons and daughters of the Christian pilgrims that poured out from Europe’s shores to baptize a new world.’
Gast is a Liberation theologian with advanced academic degrees from Michigan State University and the Chicago Theological Seminary. Over the past 50 years she has made presentations in the U.S., South Africa, and China addressing the ways in which patriarchal and colonialist interpretations have distorted Christian teachings to the detriment of women and others regarded as not-quite-human.
By Stephen Golub, Benicia resident and author. October 26, 2025. [First published in the Benicia Herald on 10/26/25.]
This really is important: On Wednesday, October 29, the Bay Area Air District is holding a 5:30-7 pm Zoom meeting (Webinar) to discuss draft guidelines for use of penalty/settlement funds for air pollution violations. As a result of the $82 million Air District fine for Valero’s 15 years of undisclosed toxic emissions, Benicia is by far the greatest potential beneficiary so far: $54 million (plus possible interest) is supposed to be set aside for Benicia-specific projects.
But there’s potentially big trouble in paradise, which is why Benicians’ Zoom participation in the October 29 meeting is crucial. The devil is in the details of how the Air District’s new Local Community Investment Fund’s (LCIF) grants will be awarded for Benicia and other communities, starting next year. If the guidelines impose a bureaucratic, restrictive process, Benicia will have considerable trouble weathering the financial storm that will lash us (also starting next year) as Valero’s contributions to the city coffers come to an end.
I don’t want to jump to conclusions or urge others to do so. But I fear that the restrictive approach could be the direction the Air District takes. I hope that I’m wrong.
We’re talking about $54 million or more that could and should mainly be decided on by Benicia, rather than the staff of the Community Investments Office (CIO), which administers the Fund.
A restrictive, top-down approach dominated by CIO staff rather than driven by Benicia and other communities may also limit our ability to best grapple with the very challenges the CIO’s site says the Fund aims to address: “Funding will support community-driven solutions that reduce or mitigate air pollution, improve public health, and build economic resilience for a just transition.”
Along with serving other purposes, the Fund can and should contribute to budget support that will help close the city’s post-Valero financial gap for a number of years. This will strengthen Benicia’s “economic resilience for a just transition.”
I emphasize this because there’s another Benicia-specific factor at play here. The Air District failed to uncover Valero’s egregious toxic emissions for over 15 years. It certainly fell short by waiting over three additional years to inform Benicia after it found out.
Had this information come to light far sooner, might it have helped cut down on Benicia cancer rates that are far higher than state and county levels (including nearly double California’s breast cancer incidence)? That’s hard to say.
Furthermore, it might be counterproductive to press this point on the Air District, or to do so in any but the most diplomatic ways.
Finally, to the Air District’s great credit, it installed new, vigorous leadership after this fiasco came to light in 2022. But this all weighs in favor of the Air District awarding the LCIF grants flexibly to Benicia.
Another factor that weighs in terms of the flexible approach is Benicia’s nearly unprecedented situation: Refineries don’t close every day, to put it mildly. From financial recovery to environmental clean-up (complicated by Valero land previously being used for military ordinance testing), our challenges are daunting – even as the opportunities for our community’s quality of life, public health and economic prosperity (such as through tourism development) are inspiring. A just transition requires that the Air District take a just approach to partnership with Benicia.
Thus, if the CIO finalizes the guidelines in ways that allow our city appropriate flexibility in the use of the funds, it will be a boon to Benicia. But the benefits extend beyond Benicia; similar flexibility will be best for other Bay Area communities regarding other Air District fines.
The 90-minute October 29 Webinar is our only chance to hear about and weigh in on the draft guidelines via a public forum (with perhaps two minutes per public comment). Let’s not let it slide by. Even if you don’t want to comment during the meeting, simply showing up (albeit via Zoom) can show that we care.
There’s already cause for concern, in that the draft guidelines won’t be released until tomorrow, October 27, just two days before the meeting. That’s precious little time for the public to review them. But let’s try.
When you reach that link, please scroll down to the “Meetings and Events” section. Click the “Pre-register” box there and fill in the required information.
Once you get the CIO confirmation email, scroll down to a blue box that says, “Join Webinar.” (While that link is functional, of course it won’t actually become active until the October 29 meeting.)
If you wish to weigh in before or after the meeting – and perhaps to receive the guidelines as soon as they are issued on October 27 – you can email you comments, questions and guidelines request to communityinvestments@baaqmd.gov. (The comments deadline is less than a month later, on November 25.)
If you do decide to participate, be it via Zoom or email, I’m sure you’ll have your own ideas on what to prioritize. But for what it’s worth, to my mind the most basic message is that Benicia and other beneficiary communities standing to benefit from the Local Community Investment Fund should have as much leeway as possible in utilizing the settlements/penalties they each receive, as long as they broadly fit within the Air District funding parameters I’ve flagged: “support community-driven solutions that reduce or mitigate air pollution, improve public health, and build economic resilience for a just transition.” This is consistent with and in fact mandated by the Air District’s emphasis on partnering with rather than dictating to Bay Area communities.
I’m harping on all this not just because of the impact on Benicia, but because most of my career involved advising funding agencies on the best foci and approaches for awarding grants for community-oriented, environmental and other projects. I worked for and with the Asia, Ford and Open Societies Foundations, as well as the American, British and Danish aid agencies and numerous other funders.
The single biggest lesson I took away from those 35+ years of work was this: Grants work best when they are as simple as possible and provide as much leeway as possible to responsible local governments or community groups that receive them, as long as sensible financial auditing is in place.
If the CIO goes down this flexible road, it will be best for Benicia (and the Bay Area) in terms of advancing clean air, public health, economic resilience and the post-Valero transition. It also will ensure the most efficient use of funds.
To be clear, I’m not saying that the Air District, via the CIO, should simply turn over the $54 million or more to Benicia; though that might make sense, I don’t believe that Air District rules allow this. I also don’t doubt the sincerity and dedication of the CIO staff who will administer the Fund.
But the finalized guidelines should provide the necessary flexibility for Benicia and other communities to decide how to use the funds within the broad parameters the CIO has already set. It’s our future that’s on the line.
Perfect sign and symbol of MAGA disregard for democracy and the rule of law
Work begins on the demolition of a part of the East Wing of the White House, Monday, Oct. 20, 2025, in Washington, before construction of a new ballroom. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)
Donald Trump initiated the demolition of the White House East Wing to construct a US$300 million ballroom, funded by private donors, bypassing traditional congressional oversight.
Historians and preservationists criticised the move, viewing it as emblematic of Mr Trump’s disregard for national norms and prioritisation of personal legacy-building, like a “Trump Tower”.
Mr Trump’s team defends the project as a visionary addition, while critics highlight his exploitation of loopholes to exercise expansive executive power with minimal public consultation.
WASHINGTON – When President Donald Trump met with donors for his new ballroom at the White House earlier this month, he relayed a story that thrilled his real estate mogul heart.
“I said, ‘How long will it take me?’ ‘Sir, you can start tonight, you have no approvals,’” Mr Trump said on Oct 15, describing a conversation he’d had about the project.
“I said, ‘You gotta be kidding.’ They said, ‘Sir, this is the White House, you’re the president of the United States, you can do anything you want.’”
Days later, demolition crews bulldozed the East Wing of the White House, reducing decades of history at one of the country’s most famous landmarks to a pile of rubble and drawing outrage from historians, preservationists, Democrats and the public.
Mr Trump had gotten what he wanted: a clean slate for his new US$300 million (S$390 million) ballroom. It was an action that seemed to symbolise, in physical form, a presidency that has taken a wrecking ball to national norms, international institutions and the world order itself.
Historians, largely aghast at the move, saw the thinking of a developer at work rather than the keeper of a sacred trust.
Donald Trump holding a rendering of the new White House ballroom during an Oct 22 White House meeting with Nato Secretary-General Mark Rutte. PHOTO: DOUG MILLS/NYTIMES
“I think this is the developer’s mentality again of building something big that has your name on it and that everyone remembers you for. A Trump Tower,” said Professor Jeremi Suri, a University of Texas historian. “He’s building a tower for himself. This is a ballroom tower.”
Indeed, Mr Trump himself, at the dinner with executives from Apple, Amazon, Lockheed Martin and Meta Platforms, all of whom the White House says have pledged to help fund the ballroom, marvelled at the opportunity the project presented.
“It’s exciting as a person in real estate, ‘cause you’ll never get a location like this again,” he said.
As a businessman, Mr Trump put his name on buildings, steaks and ties. Mr Trump’s press secretary, Ms Karoline Leavitt, said on Oct 23 the ballroom would be named, too, but declined to say what it would be.
Mr Trump told reporters late on Oct 24 that he did not plan to name it after himself. But the 90,000 sq ft structure will be forever associated with him.
“Everybody’s going to look at it, and they’re going to see now an edifice that overshadows the executive mansion, and that edifice has one man’s name on it,” said Dr Edward Lengel, a former chief historian at the White House Historical Association.
“I believe that’s intentional.”
East Wing White House demolition 2025-10-23 | Reuters
Well before the ballroom project became a reality, Mr Trump had made his mark on the White House with gold decorations in the Oval Office, a paved-over Rose Garden reminiscent of his Florida Mar-a-Lago club, portraits of himself throughout the property and giant American flags on new flagpoles on the north and south lawns.
The Republican president has also sought to remake Washington, DC, taking over control of the Kennedy Centre and planning an Arc de Triomphe-style monument to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the United States in 2026.
Mr Taylor Budowich, a former senior adviser to the president, said Mr Trump was the nation’s “greatest builder” with a vision for the White House and beyond.
“The president is a visionary, whether it be in politics, business or life. He is able to see things not just for what they are, but for what they could be,” he said.
“This is just another wonderful example of Trump being Trump.”
‘Little public disclosure, consultation’
Mr Trump’s team and allies have dismissed criticism of the ballroom project as manufactured outrage.
“All of his properties are first class. And he doesn’t spare expenses, and he has an eye for it. This will be a wonderful addition,” said Mr Armand Grossman, a Florida-based real estate investor who worked for Mr Trump for four years, about the ballroom. “It will be around for a long time for many generations to enjoy.”
A 1906 photo of the East Entrance, as it was then known, of the White House. PHOTO: LIBRARY OF CONGRESS/NYTIMES
The president followed his own unique style and belief in expansive executive power in making the ballroom project happen. While previous renovations were funded and approved by Congress, this one will be paid for by private donors, reducing oversight restrictions.
And while the White House says it plans to submit designs for the ballroom to the National Capital Planning Commission, it says that body only oversees construction, not demolition.
“I think it’s very clear that the administration studied those weaknesses and, with much greater care than they’re letting on, that they then very ruthlessly exploited those weaknesses,” Dr Lengel said.
My opinion is that having Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans in charge is a very, very bad thing for our country and our world.
If you agree with me on that, then I hope you will also agree with me on this: Vote FOR prop 50. Support it with your work, dollars, yard signs, etc. It is now California’s best hope to have a voice and to help rein in this reckless and cruel regime.
Most of us agree that gerrymandering is a bad idea in general. But when we have a possibility of taking back our House of Representatives for pro-democracy and pro-rule-of-law forces, and when the MAGA Republicans are pushing gerrymandering to its limits in the red states to maintain their control ~ effectively rigging elections against the majority ~ then unfortunately we need to gerrymander California as well. If we lose this election, we will have virtually no chance of winning back the House.
It’s a temporary measure, it will expire in 2030.
Please ignore all the slick marketing materials coming from the MAGA crowd, and make sure you vote yes on prop 50.
You must be logged in to post a comment.