Late July links

Manafort's trial will bare Putin's methods. Excellent article that clarifies the issues and the importance of Manafort's trial. It will reveal how Putin buys influence. See it with Manafort and multiply by hundreds.

Russian trolls still active. Facebook uncovers some. Same sort of tricks. No, it's not a hoax perpetrated by the deep state. Details here--screen after screen after screen.

Russia timeline. I'm parking the link because I may want to look at this again. Seems fairly complete, but I didn't look all that closely.

Socialists in the Dems. What they want now and in the future. Their hopes for the future include an end to capitalism. Yep, they are communists and want to nationalize the oil companies. Maybe communists-lite. Like Venezuela.

Scary loners. A detailed look at online groups for men angry that they aren't getting laid. They blame women, blame society, blame other men, and fantasize about horrific actions. These men are called 'incels' for involuntary celibates. Portrait of a scare loner/mass shooter. The Las Vegas police released their report on their invetigation into the man who killed 58 people using his arsenal in a hotel room. This is good, readable summary. In his case, there weren't enough warning signs.

Yet another conspiracy group. Yawn. This one is called QAnon. I'm not going to waste my time on a summary, but again Dems are running pedophile rings.

How to assess Trump. Ignore him, ignore what he says. Look only at what gets done. I kind of agree with this. Trump is trying to capture attention, but it's pretty useless to look at what he says. So I agree. Ignore him. Stay educated about what he's saying, but put no stock in it. Ignore the distraction and home in on what actually happens. A good read, and solid advice... for now.

Journalist survives her tweets. A controversial hire by the New York Times won't be fired even though she lashed out at white people. Good. Context is important, and so is putting the matter into perspective.

Image: pinterest.com

No natural law

I never studied  the concept of natural law, and was familiar with it mostly from conservative writings. Natural law justified discrimination against gay sex, and maybe many of the ideas against equal rights for women and against contraception. Ugh.

Recently, I read this fascinating article about natural law, ethics, and evolution. Finally, a clear explanation of the concept of natural law:

Step one: look at what happens ‘always or for the most part’ in nature to determine its laws. That investigation will reveal the natural and proper ‘functions’ of organs and activities: those that Nature, so to speak, ‘intended’. (If Nature is just another name for God, then the talk of ‘intent’ can even be taken literally.) Step two: use the resulting observations to determine what we ought to do – and especially what we ought not to do – according to whether it was found to be ‘natural’ or ‘unnatural’ in step one.

So natural law told us to look at nature, see what 'normal' was by function, and also identify what varied from 'normal.' Oh dear, it looks bad for gay sex.

However, the article moves along and points out that variation is not only normal in nature, it has also been instrumental in the evolution of all living things. Variation itself is not abnormal, but necessary and (can we say this) good:

If no abnormalities had occurred in the past 4 billion years, you and I would still be bacteria. 

That's pretty convincing, at least to me. I'm not a fan of ethical systems that demonize gay sex. I'm happy to see huge gaping holes shot into natural law. I'm not sure the rest of the article hangs together as well, but I definitely enjoyed the beating it gave to natural law. (Take that, Clarence Thomas!)

Image: heartcom.org

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

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.

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.

Values and judgment: Judging Scalia, judging tradition

Antonin Scalia is in trouble again with liberals and the media over his viewpoints. This happens fairly often, but with little effect on the offender or the offending behavior. Scalia, with a lifetime appointment to the US Supreme Court, doesn't have to change. No amount of anger, demonstration, fury, or criticism will dislodge him if he doesn't want to go. Besides, he seems to love the attention and the fight.

This is the latest fracas: on Monday, Scalia spoke at Princeton. Unsurprisingly, he defended his support of laws against sodomy. He defended his comparison of laws against sodomy to laws against murder. That's expected. However, he unnecessarily twisted the knife when he added:

"I'm surprised you weren't persuaded."

Hey, Justice Scalia, a lot of people have opinions that differ from yours. That doesn't make them stupid or contemptible, so don't treat them that way.

Many people dissent

Image: amazon.com

Tradition vs. Change

Aside from Scalia's atrocious manners (and he's not alone--there are way too many nasty, screeching liberals too), there is a huge question on how we respond to our traditional moral teachings. To gain some perspective, let's look at a case of conflict between tradition and change.

The Christian Example

Christianity had a major problem back in the first century. Did adherents have to follow all the laws of Judaism? On one hand, the laws had made the Jewish people keenly aware of right and wrong, and they endeavored to live in ways that were deeply virtuous. On the other hand, the laws were crazy in their extent. Not only was there circumcision with prayers, etc., but there was a huge number of dietary laws, marriage laws, maybe just about any law you could imagine. This was offputting to people who were interested in living virtuously as God intended, because it strained belief that God intended so many strictures for everyone, not just for the high priests.

St. Paul probably saved Christianity by giving adherents a pass on the old laws, which he deemed to be superseded by the new laws, which were a new covenant with God.

So there's a precedent for looking at your laws (moral rules), and chucking them when they don't make sense anymore. It certainly didn't turn Christianity into a shameless, vile religion that led people into evil ways. Christianity has generally been a force for benevolence to mankind, just as Judaism was and is.

 Image: todayinheritagehistory.wordpress.com

America questions

Now we in the US are in a similar process of questioning some of our traditional morals. Specifically, are homosexual relationships immoral? Can we, like the early Christian founders, examine the laws and judge their merits?

I think we can and should. There are a lot of sources for our moral laws, and many of them are specific customs. The permission of a father or brother used to be required to get married. Was it really a moral necessity, or just a custom? How do you answer such a question? Furthermore, what are the implications of asking such a question?

There are typically two ways to answer the question. One way is to appeal to an established authority, such as custom, religion, or an authority figure. Another is to test the action in a moral system such as the Golden Rule or Kant's categorical imperative.

The Advantages and Problems with a Moral Authority

It's interesting that there is a method other than appealing to authority. For many people, the authority is the final word, and the only safeguard from a moral free-for-all. However, the problem there is that people strenuously disagree on who or what is an accepted authority. Having an acceptable alternative, such as a test by way of a moral system, solves this problem to a certain extent, but many find it an affront to the authority they deeply respect.

Based on what I know of the American founders (admittedly just high school history), they were probably more comfortable with testing within a moral system. Political philosophers such as Locke were developing ideas of government based not on authoritarian justifications, but on consent of the governed. John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant are the two philosophers who have tried to develop systems for testing moral precepts that didn't depend on a moral authority. They haven't been completely successful, but that's true for all the other moral philosophies too.

I don't think we'll ever have a perfect moral system. I prefer a non-religiously-based moral system, but that is a preference that reflects my values, not a demonstrably superior position. As I've written before, there aren't absolutes when it comes to values, judgment, and morals.

 Image: irregulartimes.com

Extra. An earlier gotcha moment for Scalia.

The Catholic Mistake

Although I'm an agnostic, I'm fairly supportive of religion. I appreciate the sense of a higher mission and the way it inspires so many people. So when I speak against a religious precept, it's with a heavy heart.

I love people, but I love all living things more. Life is the most precious gift in the world, but I don't limit my love to human life. My soul soars at the sight of a majestic tree and I chuckle at the odd shapes of lichens.

Out of respect for all living things, I'm firmly against the Catholic Church's teachings on abortion, and especially on birth control:

Contraception is wrong because it's a deliberate violation of the design God built into the human race, often referred to as "natural law." The natural law purpose of sex is procreation. The pleasure that sexual intercourse provides is an additional blessing from God, intended to offer the possibility of new life while strengthening the bond of intimacy, respect, and love between husband and wife. . . God’s gift of the sex act, along with its pleasure and intimacy, must not be abused by deliberately frustrating its natural end—procreation.

For most of our lives, the procreative aspects of sex are superfluous or unwanted. I disagree with Catholic Church philosophy on this point. I place more emphasis on the scientific viewpoint than on odd conceptions of "Natural Law," which we break all the time with lighting, air conditioning, refrigeration, and the many benefits of modern medicine.

Another scientific point is that the world is already supporting a vast number of humans, and there definite benefits to limiting the surging growth. Countries with unrestrained growth due to religious and cultural teachings against birth control include Egypt, Haiti, and the Philippines. These can be horrendous places to live, especially if you're poor. I think the religious teaching against contraception are largely to blame.

Other lesser arguments are:

•  Contraception allows people to be unfaithful.  (So I can't use it because cheaters might? Thanks a bunch.)
• Loose sexual behavior will pervade society as a result. (True, but that is an individual choice.)
• Men will view women as sex objects if there's birth control. (I believe this can happen with or without contraception, so it's a wash.)

Another argument that the Catholic Church makes:

... it harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in the transmission of human life.

Excuse me, but I don't accept that God is the sole entity that should determine whether or not I become pregnant. I'd like to have a huge role in that decision.

One of the most egregious arguments against contraception dates from 307A.D.:

... Some "complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power . . . or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife."

Spare me the pontificating about the sovereignty of God and how God will provide (if He wants). I want the responsibility for my children, and I want to raise them well. Just don't tell me how many to have. Don't tell me that if I don't want a child at this particular time, I should keep an aspirin between my knees. I'm not a monk or nun, and I want the modern conveniences, including contraception.

So, I believe, by all means, subtract the procreative aspects from the sex act. You're not hurting the world or yourself or God.

Every sperm is sacred: All male panel testifies about contraception.

Thanks to Viable Opposition for the link to Catholic doctrine.

Addendum 6/14/2012. I can't believe I didn't say this before. I have no doubt, that if God were still writing and/or editing the Bible, that the message on procreation wouldn't be "Be fruitful and multiply." Instead, it would be "You've done enough multiplying. Now leave plenty of space for the other creatures of this earth."

Addendum 9/7/2014. I finally wrote a full post on why there are 1) too many workers, and 2) too many people in the world. I declare that I'm for a birthrate below replacement rate. If your religion has a hard time with this, too bad. My view is based on logic that is probably bullet-proof.