Impeachment follies - the slow beginning

I expect bigger impeachment fireworks in the future, but the recent developments deserve note. The House voted largely on party lines to impeach Trump for extorting Ukraine and contempt of Congress for mostly stonewalling their investigation.

I support the investigation, and I support the impeachment (see revised opinion here). I personally wouldn't vote to remove him from office for these infractions unless there was a repeat of the kind of behavior as happened to Ukraine. Make no mistake, though. This was a serious infraction, and deserves a full investigation and a huge load of criticism. It's much worse than Bill Clinton lying during a deposition about his sexual activities.

Even though the House voted to impeach, Nancy Pelosi isn't moving ahead to the Senate trial because it looks like Mitch McConnell intends to run a joke of a trial there. It's not clear that the House advocates (officially called 'managers') will be allowed to call witnesses to testify at the Senate. It would be like a trial with no rights allowed for the prosecutor to make a case. So basically a sham, and not in accordance with the historical practice.

Pelosi is not wrong to hold up the impeachment and shine a light on this attempt to suborn the process. In the meantime, the GOP is running its propaganda machine and trying as hard as possible to avoid the process. They don't seem to care what precedents they break, but McConnell was like that when it came time to replace a dead Supreme Court justice with a live one. Precedents only matter when they help you, not when they might prevent you from maximizing your party's power.

Letter from Trump to Pelosi

The letter was authored by Trump and some advisers who provided phrases that sounded more intelligent than 'you stink.' It's not at all a legal opinion, but a kitchen sink overflowing with lame talking points and complaints. Trump is obviously not planning to fight the impeachment as a legal question, but more like a political campaign--where you praise yourself and blast your opponent and the niceties of accuracy are shoved aside. It's also clear that Mitch McConnell isn't going to enforce decorum or a fair process.

The letter was grist for a critique on logic--one of my favorite topics. I could go on much longer than the critique does, but it's still a rare, and therefore valuable instance of actually examining some arguments that are made.

Backlash against a Christian ethical viewpoint

The editor of a moderately popular Christian newsletter bit the bullet and argued that Trump is unfit for office and should be removed. Cue an amazing amount of outrage, as though the editor hadn't pointed out the obvious. In fact, the editorial didn't criticize Trump until its fifth paragraph--that's how much of a preamble they felt they needed before biting that bullet and saying clearly that Trump abused his power and therefore is unfit.

Most of the counterarguments don't dispute the facts, but make the expedient argument that Christianity will suffer without all the support Trump has given. Trump-- a bad man, maybe, but OUR bad man.

I'm under the impression that Christian ethics are supposed to be more ethical than that. Christianity Today was trying to make the argument that character matters. Most of Trump's Christian supporters have to deny that or delude themselves and adopt an ends-justify-the-means mindset. Not what Jesus preached.

The follow-up to the editorial moderated quite a bit. There was some aspects about the Trump administration to be celebrated, but also much that was unethical, like his race-baiting, cruelty to immigrants, and greed. The follow-up doesn't mention that Trump is unfit by his actions and his character, but seems to focus more on Trump being bad PR for American evangelicals. Ummm, is this expedience creeping in? I had much more respect when Christianity Today was willing to give witness to the specific acts were wrong, and that Trump was "morally unable to lead." Maybe it's hard to be as blunt when your fellow Christians have leveled a barrage of stones at your head.

Image: pinterest.com

Update 1/9/20. There have been a series of developments all concerning how the impeachment trial in the Senate will be run. McConnell indicated that he wasn't going to do a standard trial with witnesses being called and testifying about the charges. There were suggestions that McConnell wouldn't allow any witnesses called, and maybe have speeches by senators followed by a pre-ordained acquittal or dismissal of charges. Pelosi and those in the House want much more of a show than that, so Pelosi still hasn't handed the impeachment charges to the Senate.

Pelosi may have to fold eventually. She doesn't seem to have the power or the public support to force the Senate GOP to call witnesses. The country seems complacent about it, and it's hard to blame them. It is a foregone conclusion that Trump will be acquitted. So what is the point now? It seems to be to show how partisan the Senate GOP is. No surprise there. They've been hyper-partisan for over two decades, and it's only gotten worse. So a sham impeachment trial - NO SURPRISE THERE!!!! Remember, these are the folks who wouldn't replace a dead Supreme Court justice with a live one, so they'll certainly have a sham impeachment trial.

The defense of the president has varied:

1. He didn't do any real harm because the money was released.
2. It's not a crime on the lawbooks, folks! 
3. Biden definitely needs to be investigated.
4. No quid pro quo! (maybe that's a variant of not a crime, folks!).
5. The Dems never quit with the complaints and plans to impeach Trump. 
6. The economy is great, so leave the prez alone!
7. It's just bunch of State Department whiners who are angry that Trump bypassed them.
8. No, there wasn't any personal advantage to Trump. None at all.

I imagine all of these defenses, and maybe a few others, will be floated at the trial. McConnell is hinting that it will happen soon even if he has to break a couple more precedents. Well, I shouldn't be surprised by that. 

Extras. The Defense Department tried to figure out what to do as the funds were on hold and it wasn't clear why. Disgraced Rod Blagojevich claims (from prison) that the current Dems are such scum that they'd even impeach Lincoln. What is sickening kiss-up, but then he is in prison.

Update 1/15/20. The House released new information. Not surprisingly, it centers on human hand grenade Giuliani. Yes, he seems even scummier, but not by much.

Update 1/19/20. More new information. Giuliani associate Parnas was also working closely with an aide to Nunes (that incredibly honest fellow). The impeachment articles were passed to the Senate on 1/16/20. The trial will start on 1/21/20. Trump added four more attorneys to his team including Ken Starr (probably still an attack dog) and Alan Dershowitz who has just become legal and publicity whore of epic proportions. Dershowitz won't vote for him, but will go on TV for him and spin incredible legal fairytales. I'll have to watch for the fireworks. Here is a surprisingly sober and not at all boring analysis of Trump's strategy. Basically he'll energize his base, and it's working.

Analysis by the Wall Street Journal, by way of Politico: "The stark tribalism [in the GOP] has led those who want long-term futures in the party to get in line behind the president and those who have had enough to retire quietly without risking a noisy and disruptive exit. Twenty-six House Republicans have announced they are leaving the House since the 2018 midterm elections, when the party’s moderate wing took major casualties as Democrats won the majority. Not one of those retirees, including several moderates, voted against the party line on impeachment."

Update 1/20/20. Another article about Parnas trying to set up meetings and influence. This guy is quite the headache for Trump and Giuliani because their deniability is nil. He definitely seems to have been working with Giuliani in Ukraine. 

Surviving the same-sex marriage decision Part 2

First Things had a convenient round-up of reactions to the ruling.

As expected, we had the 'Oh-no-they-didn't' talk about five justices trampling the Constitution. They also trampled the truth about marriage and what's good for society. (Per Ryan Anderson--boy wonder proponent for traditional marriage, now raking in the money as one of the few millennials who's against marriage equality. Save your money, Ryan. That gravy train isn't going to last till retirement.)

Do Something!!!!!!! 

The next writer complained that Anthony Kennedy thinks opponents of gay marriage are motivated by "irrational" animus. If 'irrational' includes religious dogma that you want exempted from rational, non-religious-based scrutiny, then I guess Kennedy is right. The objections to same-sex marriage don't seem to pass the test of secular rationality.

But quick, before someone notices, change the subject to ensuring that plural marriages can be prevented. But will that be effective if you use the same approaches that just failed to protect traditional marriage? Will a Defense of Monogamous Marriage Act work where DOMA failed? Hadley Arkes isn't asking these obvious questions. He's in 'Do something' mode.

Oh, the humanity!

Patrick Deneen:

"What has been most striking all along is not the division, the passion, at times the vitriol. What has been most remarkable is the insistence by same-sex marriage proponents that all dissent be silenced—whether through threats of economic destruction, legal bludgeoning, and now, increasingly by appeal to the raw power of the State. The firing of Brendan Eich was a bellwether for what has now become a commonplace: the fanatical insistence that all opposition be squelched, and more—that even belief in an alternative view of marriage be eradicated."

I'm not sure whether this is correct or not. Same-sex marriage has been a heated political issue largely because traditionalists didn't want to compromise. They have fought reasonable compromises, sponsoring referenda to undo compromise, and now they complain about how passionate it's become. Well, it didn't have to be this way. In fact, I don't know of anyone who's been outed in Massachusetts because they gave money years ago, or voted the wrong way. It was a quiet, fairly peaceful transition. But if you want to turn it into a drag-out fight, then there will be casualties. But you don't get to foist all the blame on the other side when you put on boxing gloves.

Pleasant surprises: A bit of empathy, a bit of realism

Not all the writers were hellfire over the ruling. A nice surprise came from Wesley Hill:

"In countless sermons, songs, Bible studies, and informal pew-side conversations, I heard that message like the peal of a gong: singleness equals alienation, marriage means home. (It’s no wonder, given this theology, that whole ministries sprung up to try to rescue gay people from promiscuity and point them toward “traditional” heterosexual marriage.)"

Unfortunately, Hill thinks the answer is celibacy and spiritual friendships and callings. But he gets part of reason why gays want to marry. Most of the authors don't give a hoot about the deep personal reasons for wanting a spouse.

The realism was from Peter Leithart:

"We should stop acting like an exiled Tsar, hoping for the coup to put us back in the Winter Palace... Culture war continues because, in response to our displacement, we’ve tried to politick our values back on top. We failed...  Attending to our own house is now our best strategy... It’s also the way of peace, perhaps the only way of peace remaining."

Yes, I hope there will be peace. I'm not counting on it, because the resistance to change, compromise, and other people's needs has inflamed a lot of passion and a lot of warriors. And warriors tend to keep on fighting.

Rights for me, not for thee.

Image: inquisitr.com

Extras from the same round-up of opinions:

• We should have unleashed Bork on them: "Incidentally, today’s ruling demonstrates again how important the 1987 defeat of Robert Bork was, and how much Senate Democrats gained in putting up such a fight against him. It was the defeat of Bork that led to the nomination of Anthony Kennedy."
• It's all due to those bad, bad Christians who wanted to have sex: "Marriage would not now be hymned as a realm of personal discovery and individual autonomy if Christians had not denigrated celibacy, embraced divorce, and popped the Pill." 

Conservative Christians picked the wrong fight

Conservative Christian values have been losing ground for my entire lifetime, so I'm probably not the best person to write about it. I don't know what's good about this set of values--I only know what's passable and what's hypocritical.

It seems to me that conservative Christians made their first mistake vilifying those who pushed for some latitude on sexual issues. Christians stuck to the maxim that "good girls don't" even in the face of a lot of good girls doing it. These good girls didn't turn into sluts, prostitutes, or broken people, and that was a clear, scientific repudiation of what the conservative Christians warned.

Did the conservative Christians admit they were wrong? No. For many, their belief in the inerrancy of the bible or of their catechism doesn't allow them to admit the scientific evidence, so they are completely stuck. Their rules have been shown to be incorrect, but they can't do anything about it. They can't amend the rules and they can't admit they're wrong. So maybe they're quiet about the case where good people don't follow the rules, and noisy about the next topic on the agenda.

What was next on the agenda? Maybe divorce, which they mischaracterized first as a moral failing and then as a whim. However, too many conservative Christians found themselves divorced at some point, so they let that slide too.

Being against homosexuality had and continues to have more staying power as an issue because it's less common than straight pre-marital sex or divorce. However, as more gay people come out to their religious parents or to neighbors or coworkers, the general public is finding it harder to see homosexuality as scary, evil deviance.

I remember Anita Bryant warning about the scourge of homosexual teachers in our schools. That worked for a while, until we found out that many sexual predators had a front as regular, married guys.

Ok, so maybe homosexuals weren't particularly predators, there was still the 'abomination' factor, where abomination is the biblical term for 'icky.' But restrictions based on ancient biblical rules don't fly when so much of society is modern and educated, not to mention the many who have tried sushi and realized that 'icky' doesn't always pan out. Just as sushi turns out not to be icky, other forms of sex often turn out not to be icky either.

So the biblical restrictions against pre-marital sex, divorce, and homosexuality fell apart in our modern era. Why do conservative Christians cling to their outdated viewpoint on homosexuality so much more tightly than they did to the biblical view of pre-marital sex or divorce? I really don't know why they keep fighting this one. Unfortunately, I don't currently have any close friends  who are religious and hold this view, so I have no one to ask this sincere question. I wonder whether it's the desperation from so many losses that makes them fight this one with all the energy they have left.

One odd thing--conservative Christians have had one moderately successful fight--the fight against abortion. Why is the abortion fight still going, while all these others are basically lost? Conservative Christians should be asking themselves that.

Scare Tactics

Image: anabaptistredux.com

What a relief!

Image: bibleexplainer.blogspot.com

Extras. Conservatives complaining the liberals were just pretending to care about marriage, but really they don't. Of course, in this view, all liberals are a single massive blob of wrongheadedness, not individuals, some of whom dislike marriage while others strongly support it. Me, I'm a big fan, in case you forgot.

Do you have to read the post after seeing this graphic? I did.

Image: biblicalgenderroles.com

Difficult choice of conscience

We've had pizza shop owners, with video running, say that they wouldn't cater a same-sex wedding because they're Christians. I have my doubts that this was a carefully considered statement.

In contrast, here is a Christian photographer trying to work through the issue:

"I've been asked to photograph a same-sex wedding service (legal in my state), and I’ve said no. I wonder if I did the right thing. After all, this is a business, providing a service. Would it be right for me to refuse to serve a gay couple if I owned a restaurant? I don’t think so... Moreover, I’m not sure that photographing an event is an endorsement of that event. I have photographed weddings of people who were divorced (and I didn’t investigate the background), people who were probably cohabiting, people who were most likely unequally yoked to one another, and so on. 

So I’m kind of caught. My conscience bothers me because I turned this couple down, and my conscience will bother me if I photograph this wedding."

Here, thank God, is a person who sees the different sides of the issue. Is it fair to hold same-sex people as worse and different from the other sinners he photographs--though note that he doesn't 'investigate' the details of his clients' sins. He seems to take a reasonable, business-like approach that their sins aren't really his concern. That was probably how Christian photographers, bakers, and caterers handled divorced, cohabiting, and all the others who weren't holding off on sex until marriage. Perhaps most of these Christian businesspeople didn't even think of these couples as sinful. 

I personally don't believe the biblical sexual rules are correct or are the commandments of God. I'm not sure what sexual rules are correct, or how much it's a matter of morality (this is right, that is wrong) rather than a matter of risk (don't have sex until you know the person fairly well). 

As for the commandments of God, I have no sense of that at all, except that we should do good and not waste our lives. I don't believe, as my parents did, that sex before marriage is wrong, and God says so. In fact, I find that idea either absurd or a cultural/historical artifact.

So I think anti-gay bias is another cultural/historical artifact, and a lot of Americans seem to agree with that.

Christian conscience, Christian doubt

The Christian photographer raising the question of conscience wasn't sure. The minister answering wasn't sure either. What is sad is that the minister doesn't grapple with the issue of why it's moral to serve gay patrons at a restaurant, but not at their wedding. The minister's decision comes down to the problem of giving mixed messages to those around you as to whether same-sex marriage is OK or not. This seems odd to me that the issue comes down to not wanting to confuse other people--that doesn't seem typical for moral issues, that you don't do X because it might confuse people. I have to wonder whether the minister couldn't come up with a better reason, and had to settle for this weak one--since he wasn't going to go the hate/abomination route. 

Strict Christians will be grappling with these issues, but they've done it before, as sexual mores have changed. Courts have told Christians that they couldn't deny rentals to unmarried, cohabiting couples. I don't recall a major backlash over that. Perhaps it seemed too much like not renting to black couples or interracial couples, so the Christian landlords didn't want to go there. 

Perhaps it's an issue for more Christians this time because they can play the underdog against the powerful liberal tide. Gay couples have helped their underdog status by suing them even when the same services from other vendors are readily available. But whether in suing or in refusing, conscience rarely (but occasionally) seems to be the main concern.

Image: cartoonmovement.com

Extras. NY farm owners stopped doing weddings (but not receptions) I hope they found their comfort zone. Julian Sanchez doesn't know where to draw the line either. A list of objectors--a mixed bag.

These Christians seem to think that they're the sole possessors of rigorous thinking. They are also the stalwarts who "refuse to call what is good evil, and what is evil, good." They imagine that they have a monopoly on right thinking, and I intensely dislike monopolies.

Hegemonic sore losers

I think Christianity used to have quite a lock on most of the world, even if they didn't have a plurality of the population by religion. Christian countries were the most powerful. The white Europeans, their stock, and their religion seemed supreme.

But not so fast. There were a fair number of revolutions against this domination, even in the heart of Europe. The reformation was full of murder and mayhem in the name of one Christian sect or other. Anti-Christian feeling moved in a different direction in the 1700's through now, with political and moral philosophers building the foundations for public life that didn't depend on religion.

Religion as necessity?

Perhaps this was possible because religion isn't a necessity for quite a few people. They live largely without religion affecting them much. They manage to earn a living, raise families, get along with their neighbors, and defend their countries without religion playing a big role in any of these necessary parts of life.

So what happens when you realize you don't need religion to grow your crops or make a living? If you don't need it in raising your family? Or in teaching morality and how to live with others?

Well, religion may seem superfluous. But even more so, it may seem like a con game. If your religion requires you to follow strict food rules, strict rules on when you can work, strict taxes on pain of terrible punishment or exile, you might want to throw off that religion.

Rebelling against that old religion

Of course that is what most early Christians did. They jettisoned the accretion of rules that happened to Judaism, and the streamlined the religion quite a bit.

The same instinct is at work today. I look at traditional Judeo-Christian rules, and I see areas where the rules don't make sense. Is there a religious or moral reason that I have to wait until marriage (in my 20's or 30's) to have sex? Is there a religious or moral reason sexual relations between two men is wrong? And remind me what's wrong with occasional masturbation?

This isn't the only area where Christian teaching have been questioned. Christians haven't generally given away everything they owned, as Jesus told his followers to do. They started lending money with interest at some point. I can't think of a single person who has balked at buying a house because they had religious qualms about the mortgage interest.

To me, the sexual rules aren't sacrosanct, and modern life has eliminated some of the practical reasons for those rules. We can now easily have sex without the worry of unintended pregnancy. We know that masturbation doesn't cause blindness or schizophrenia. We know that same-sex attraction is usually a life-long preference, not a temporary surrender to temptation.

Can't let go

Somehow, letting go of these sexual rules has been very hard for some Christians, even the ones who have mortgages. I don't really know why, and I wish I could find out.

In particular, I'm thinking of Rod Dreher. He had an epiphany at some point and realized it was terrible to treat gays badly. However, this epiphany only included beating up gays, denouncing them, and throwing them out of jobs. His understanding didn't extend to realizing that they have the right to marry too. So Dreher, like many conservative or Orthodox Christians, has been very loud in protest against marriage equality.

Now Dreher doesn't understand how anyone can label him a bigot, or be angry with him. After all, he realized that Jesus commands him to have love in his heart, and he does. Isn't that enough? He's not against gays because he hates them, but because his religion commands him to see them as sinners.

Wake up, Rod. You're living in a world where the sexual condemnation you cling to has been largely discredited. You're likely to be dumped on your keister when you try to tell people that God has ordained these rules. That doesn't fly anymore with a large number of people. You can whine about the loss of 'truth' or 'morality,' but my suspicions is that you miss the power to make people follow these rules.

Dreher writes about his own experience of disobedience and conformance, and how that helped in his life. That's fine, but others have vastly different experience, and they take the lessons they learned to heart also. Why Dreher thinks he can get on his high horse and lecture people based on personal luck (sexual continence worked for him AND it's biblical too!!) is beyond me. Yet he never hesitates to do that.

Short-lived amends 

He may have apologized for his formerly hateful ways and statements, but he falls back on the same behavior so readily. Here's an exchange:

Lee says:

The issue you lament came about as a reaction (and inevitably in some cases overreaction) to conservative Christians using their religion as license to dehumanize and mistreat others. If conservative Christians want to complain that they are now being mistreated, they must first own up to their own sin. Unfortunately, one does not need to look far to see self-proclaimed Christians still spouting hate today. Christiantity’s failure to own up to and deal with its own hate-mongers makes its claims of victimhood ring very hollow indeed.

[Rod's reply: It is useful to know that this is all about vengeance for folks like you. There is no amount of apology -- none -- that will satisfy you. It's important for Christians to know this, so we suffer no illusions that those who seek to destroy us personally and take our livelihoods can be appeased. You can't be. I do wish you would quit lying to yourselves about what you want, though, and why you want it. -- RD]

Compare that to this exchange at a religious conference:

Lyons apologized to Andrew on behalf of Christians for vicious treatment of homosexuals. “I know many people did what they thought was right in the name of Jesus,” Lyons said. “I ask for your forgiveness as well.”

“You have it,” said Andrew.

Apologies and pleas for forgiveness don't last long when it's someone else pointing out Dreher's errors. I guess Dreher only believes in making apologies as noblesse oblige, not as an equal. He's got a lot to learn about not being on top. I'll have to see if he changes his tune in a few years.

Image: wgs160.wordpress.com

Extras. Read the whole long post by Dreher. Notice how readily he circles the wagons to defend his tribe. How quickly he forgets the log in his eye.

Creating his own religion

I'm reading the long set of responses to a question posted by Rod Dreher, an orthodox Christian. He wants to know how people have lost their faith, and he wants to hear the individual stories.

One of the responses was so full of human truth. The writer, as a young child, pretended to be saved so a crazy lady preacher wouldn't hurt him. Then Grandpa (a deacon) made sure the crazy lady never preached there again. Even for a deacon, some of it is tooooo crazy!

This writer has developed his own set of simple religious beliefs:

Only One God. Only One Humanity. Only One Rule ('do unto others…') Only One Time (NOW is our only point of contact with Eternity...) Only One Destiny (either Everybody goes to heaven – after healing – or Nobody does.)

Then he wrote this:

I really don’t much care anymore what the Answer is. It doesn't make a difference on my behavior, or on the behavior of anyone I know. The good people keep on being good, regardless of their religion, and the selfish bastards keep on being selfish, regardless of Their religion.

I love this simplicity, and it feels more truthful than all the wild stories in many religions. Are we supposed to take those seriously? But that's what some people need--a  complex set of myths sold as the gospel truth that happened exactly that way.

Image: pinterest.com

The delicious irony of Christians in the closet

I absolutely hate when bloggers send volleys back and forth, but this one may be worth following, if only in hopes of seeing a few well-placed shots.

Rod Dreher is whining about how Christians can't say that they disagree with same-sex marriage out of fear of losing their jobs, or just being ostracized. Now, if a Christian worker were to say that he thinks homosexuals are disgusting and subhuman, that might deserve the reaction of dismissal, and certainly would deserve some measure of social exile. But Christians aren't saying anything as crude as that. Instead, they're trying to deny them the civil right of marriage.

There is an easy solution to this: stop denying civil rights to gays, and understand that includes all civil rights, including the right to marry. If you're going to parse which human rights a fellow human should have, you're not fully accepting the humanity of that person.

And don't act so surprised and offended that people are angry with you when you don't want them to have the full complement of civil rights. The message you send when you deny rights is: you aren't as human as me. Would you take away voting rights from gays? The right to own property? The right to shop in the markets? The right of burial? No, most Christians wouldn't take away these rights. So notice that the right to marriage is just as important, and don't stand in the way of it happening.

I've written before that I understand the deeply held religious beliefs, but religious people, like all people, must learn how to behave in a diverse society. That includes tempering your statements or paying the consequences. Rod Dreher knows that gay people were forced to hide their beliefs for a very long time:

"Christians and other traditionalists were wrong to have demonized gay people in the past, and forced them to live in the closet for fear of their careers."

Yes, and Christians are still wrong if they think they have to power or the right to choose which rights are granted to gays. The whole idea of rights "being granted" is wrong, as though gays were inferior, but their superiors deigned to pretend otherwise to a certain extent.

Rod Dreher again:

"Gay rights activists did a lot of good work to end this climate of fear, and to wake the rest of us up to the humanity of our gay brothers and sisters, and to increase tolerance for them."

Rod, finish waking up, and see that gays have the same right to marriage as you do, as Jews do, as Christians do, as Muslims do, as all people do. You don't have to support it, like it, celebrate it, but just get out of the way. And if you want to stand in the way of others' civil rights, stop whining that traffic is coming your way.

Image: memegenerator.net

Extra. Andrew Sullivan's reply. There are no doubt other posts as well, but I'm not going to chase them down.

Most evil: Atheists vs. Christians

I saved an article in National Review for reading post-Christmas, when I would have lots of time to mull it over. The thesis of the article has slipped from my steel-trap mind while reading the 900+ comments, but it was something about the West being post-Christian.

The real fascinating issues are debated in the comments. On one side you have the self-proclaimed Christians claiming that humanist/atheists/liberals are the scourge of humanity, and Christianity brought us the best society in the world--the American constitutional nation. According to the Christians: [my selection]

1. It's Christian belief in the sacredness of the individual that brought about the Enlightenment and our constitution.
2. Humanists are not part of the Enlightenment.
3. Humanists wrongly believe that they can perfect mankind, and they perform all sorts of nastiness in their misguided attempts to do that. That nastiness includes genocide, bureaucracy, thought control, mass killings, and purges.
4. Christians might have done these things too, but not when they were acting as true Christians. [See below for my quick responses to these assertions.]

Those contentions got an atheist really angry, and he must have written over 200 comments on the thread. I'm not sure who started the argument over whether the murders by Stalin/Hitler/Mao go into "the Atheists caused it" column or "the Christians caused it" column, but that was the largest point of contention. The atheist, named Heathen philosopher, claimed communism is an outgrowth of Christianity, as was fascism, so the huge 20th century death toll would go on the Christian column. Of course the Christians blame the atheists/humanists.

Heathen philosopher  (I'll call him the Atheist) makes the better arguments generally. He argues that the Christians aren't as clean as they claim since they have a shitload of massacres clearly in their column. He also does a decent job of refuting the contention that atheists/humanists deserve the demerits for the Stalin/Hitler massacres, since these occurred in cultures that were steeped in Christianity. He points out that Stalin and Hitler just followed from earlier models that flourished in explicitly Christian times.

The Atheist also avoids the pitfalls of labeling everything Christian as evil, noting a few merits of Christianity and demerits of some atheists too. It's not hard to avoid the pitfall of wildly exaggerating the evil of your opponent, yet so many commenters make this mistake.

The Christians put themselves in a poor position by not acknowledging the violent history of Christian countries. They also claim that all the improvements in societies since the 18th century were due to the West being steeped in Christianity, when not explicitly Christian. So the Christian side both rejects the "steepage" argument and uses it when convenient.

Who can claim the Enlightenment?

The Atheist also raises the issue of classical Greek philosophy and its contribution to the Enlightenment and our constitution. I'm a strong advocate of the Greek philosophers, particularly the Socratic method, so I don't need much convincing. The Christians don't address this issue much, perhaps because it ruins their dichotomy of the Christian vs. atheist/humanist.

The Christians try to defeat the arguments of the Atheist by imputing the worst of humanism onto him. According to them, he's a humanist so he believes the central humanist tenets that man is the measure of all things and is perfectable, rather than being fallen by nature and needing the ministrations of a merciful God. The Atheist denies believing that man is perfectable, as well he should because all evidence runs strongly against that belief.

Unfortunately, this argument doesn't settle a question that is more important than "who's the worst?" That question is "who's responsible for the Enlightenment and the constitution?" My first stab at this would be to guess that it's classical Greek philosophy, but I have to wonder what role Christianity played. The Greek philosophy seemed to need to percolate through centuries of Christianity before it bubbled up as the Enlightenment.

Utility/Futility

There is a futility in the blame game that each side plays, especially if you're only doing a body count. The blame game doesn't include any honest analysis of why the death toll was so high and how to prevent the violence. It's really about trying to score points, especially on the Christians' side. Perhaps that's a large part of the reason why their arguments fail--they aren't searching for truth, they're looking for a superficial win on points.

The big loser in the arguments, besides fair and honest discussion, is the idea that we can perfect our societies. Theocracies have a terrible record--the more they try to purge, the higher the death count goes with no real progress made to the perfect earthly society. Communist and fascist countries have major death tolls also. We in the US can't sit too high on our laurels either since there was plenty of genocide in our Indian wars, slavery, and racial and ethnic discrimination and killing, which hopefully we aren't still practicing. The hope of a society to purge its way to improvement is demonstrated as bloody awful and misguided many times over in history. Perhaps we (I) should be remembering that was we try to fight Islamic terrorists.

Image: continental-philosophy.org

Here are some of the highlights of the discussion for those who are interested but less dogged than me in reading all the comments:

• Comments on whether the Enlightenment was good or not starting here.
• Non-christian and non-religious systems of morality.
• An unexpected in-depth discussion of Russian history starting here.
• Sophie, a commenter, starts by saying all collectivism is left-wing, but eventually drops that to agree with the Atheist that humans aren't perfect.
• Communists societies were atheist and evil, therefore atheism is evil. Not so fast.
• One of the worst exchanges. The Atheist talks about being in foster care/orphan/ward of the state, and God didn't help him. An idiot replies that this young boy hated God and that's why God didn't come. Ugh.
• A complaint that there are no Protestants on the Supreme Court without any acknowledgement of the reasons. (The reason is polarization. Dem presidents have chosen reliable sympathic ethnic judges that are Jewish or Catholic. GOP presidents have chosen Catholics as a proxy for being anti-abortion.)

My reply to these pro-Christian assertions at the beginning of the post are:

1. It's Christian belief in the sacredness of the individual that brought about the Enlightenment and our constitution. Plausible.
2. Humanists are not part of the Enlightenment. Wrong. Humanists seem to be at the forefront of the Enlightenment. 
3. Humanists wrongly believe that they can perfect mankind, and they perform all sorts of nastiness in their misguided attempts to do that. That nastiness includes genocide, bureaucracy, thought control, mass killings, and purges. This is a caricature of humanists by people with a grudge.
4. Christians might have done these things too [genocide, purges], but not when they were acting as true Christians. This is a 'no true Scotsman' fallacy.

Sincerely against same-sex marriage

I've been lucky to have had diversity in friends during my life. And by 'friends,' I don't mean casual acquaintances of a few months or years, but people that I will never forget. Several of these friends have been devout born-again Christians.

I'm not in touch with them now, but I wonder what our conversations about marriage equality would be like. Many fundamentalists follow the dictum "Love the sinner, hate the sin." They may have immense caring and compassion for gay individuals, but they don't accept same-sex relationships as good. (Others are less scrupulous about loving the sinner, and their entire reaction is tilted toward hate.)

I'm not going to discuss the biblical justifications for being for or against same-sex relationships. These arguments have thoroughly hashed out, so I'm sure everyone is familiar with them. No repetition here is required.

When I think of some fundamentalists I've known, I can't predict which doctrine they would follow--against homosexuality per tradition or accepting of homosexuality in God's loving nature. I've certainly seen some friends torn between the harsh judgments of their religious and the love that is also preached and practiced there.

For example, one coworker and I shared many stories about our faiths and families. We also shared a strong work ethic and a serious, responsible attitude to life, so we built up a lot of mutual respect. She knew that I wasn't a saved Christian and didn't believe in an afterlife. I still remember the tears in her eyes as I departed from that job and from her life as an unsaved soul. Her final wish was that someday I would believe in heaven. Not because I was just another soul that was lost, but because I was someone about whom she cared deeply.

So I won't condemn this kind of Christian for being an anti-gay bigot because in her heart there wasn't bigotry or hatred. That doesn't mean I give this kind of Christian a pass. I have pushed some of my born-again friends very hard on abortion, and even harder on doctrine of eternal damnation.

I want them to question some of the received dogmas of their religion, but in doing so, I'm asking for a lot. In effect, I'm saying "Because I'm someone you respect and like, I want you to question the religions ideals that you've held for decades." What right do I have to do that? Only the right of the free exchange of ideas between people who love and respect one another. So I can't condemn them if they decide to stick to the traditional interpretation of the Bible, because I've learned to love and respect them even though we disagree on some fundamental questions. For anyone who'll take the time to really listen, really think, and most of all, really care, I have immense respect.

I don't expect everyone to feel the same way. I won't tell my gay friends to give these Christians a pass. But regarding the ones I've gotten to know well, maybe I'd explain how I can still be friends with anti-marriage-equality advocates. It's something like 'Love the sinner, hate the sin.' On many days I'm the sinner, or the person who's wrong, so I remember not to hate.

Image:  pinterest.com

Extras.

1. Love the sinner: origin of the phrase.
2. Love the sinner and deny communion.
3. Love the sinner, rapture the sinner.
4. Love the sinner irks this pastor.
5. Love the sinner or lose the sinner (long).
6. Love the sinner and don't stand in the way.