Letter to a Christian Friend

The argument for gay marriage belongs, mostly, in the realm of equality before the law. But in the interest of dialog, I have also recently argued about matters of faith with someone from the "other side." This is taken, with some very light editing, from a private correspondence with a Christian friend who does not support gay marriage. Having spent some significant time on it, I'd like to think it might make a few points of general interest. I have not edited it for grammar, as I typically do an "official" blog post, please excuse any sloppy grammar...

So, I am pretty sure I have alluded to this previously, but I will lay it out here in more explicit detail. I happen to agree that the question of moral imperatives and absolutes is the real question that might challenge an atheist or skeptic. There are certainly other reasons that many people are religious, but I cannot give much consideration to them. My desire to feel comfort, or to be reassured, or to feel that I have some eternal existence beyond this physical body, are all things that can sympathize and empathize with as a person with feelings, but none of those hold up as any sort of reason to actually believe anything. Any sort of faith based on that strikes me as nothing more than wishful thinking. As much as I might like to believe for those reasons, I cannot given them any real weight. I also wish I was stronger and smarter and didn't have so much gray hair, but oh well...

No, but the question of morals does hit home. Now, quite frankly, that too, could, in principle, just be more wishful thinking. It is most certainly possible, from a logical, empirical standpoint, that we are just on our own, morally speaking as well. Might makes right, or whatever you want to do goes... But it doesn't have to be so, in a Godless universe. Quite simply, I say God is "an" answer to the metaphysical question, but not necessarily "the" answer.

I have proposed that the basic moral laws can simply "be," just as the physical laws of the universe can simply "be." If someone else (you, perhaps) wants to say that God made them, or perhaps that God IS them, it is both impossible and undesirable for me to quarrel with you. This is a "lawgiver God," and I am explicitly indicating both moral law and physical law, and I have no problem with this conception. I imagine we're cool so far, yes?

Then, I expect, we get not so cool rather immediately after this. Terms, please: yes, in spite of my apparent "agnostic" concession in the above regard, I nevertheless would use the term "atheist" because my understanding of the "theistic" God is that the concept goes well beyond the "lawgiver God" that I designate above. A God that actively intervenes in the world, takes note of individual behavior, passes judgment on us, helps or fails to help us (or even when he's not answering our prayers, it is all according to some inscrutable "plan")??? I think this is all extremely unlikely. In my view, this is all NOT merely abstract metaphysical reasoning, I think the notion of an activist, interventionist, and benevolent God is actually subject to empirical analysis, and that that conception of God does not survive the encounter with facts in very good shape.

But let me not make the general case here. This has been my own preamble to an assault on the specific notions about sexual "sin." Is it really your contention that the creator of the universe concerns him/herself with how and with whom we rub body parts together? Apparently so, and the rather obvious proximate source for this belief appears to be these ancient texts, purporting to represent God's revelation to humanity. Really? That's where you're going to hang your hat!? You've already acknowledged, then, how you have no scriptural basis for condemning polygamy. How about stoning as punishment for adultery or fornication? How about slavery, explicitly endorsed in Leviticus? How about the genocide of the Israelites against the Canaanites?

OK, on those last two, I'm slipping back into the general case, but I think they remain rather difficult questions, to say the least... back to the main. Why, WHY would God make these rules!!?? Even more to the point, why would he make them, and then turn around and make people who, profoundly and deeply in their very nature, passionately want to break them!!?? I really think this God, if he existed, would be a real sick bastard. Having heard both directly and indirectly the stories of a good many gay people, almost all the stories I have heard indicate that there were signs from a VERY early age. And this is no surprise to me. Although I knew nothing of sex until much later, I do know that by 5 or 6 years old, I was interested in girls. And I was not just modeling adult behavior (although it was partly that, no doubt). I mean I was intrinsically fascinated by girls and women in some way that my fellow boys simply did not interest me. And as I have said, the stories of gay people I have heard are just the same, only it was the same and not the opposite sex that caught their eye in this way. If you think God made people (and I don't, but you do), then God made gay people. He made them, and then told them they could not act on their deepest sexual desires. While I guess I feel fortunate to not have been given that particular curse, I would have to call Him a bastard for cursing so many in this way.

The only rational basis for these proscriptions that I know of (and I use "rational" a bit loosely, here) is the purely teleological theory of sexual desire: God made sex in order to ensure the propagation of the species, and any other sexual expression is therefore a perversion of His design. Whew. Uh-oh. Guess I am cursed after all. Everything I have ever done in this regard, which was not specifically intended to at least theoretically produce a baby, was ALSO a perversion, right? Which was your point, in saying that we are all sinners... Well then, here is where I will call you on a different inconsistency then, why pick one perversion and single it out for moral (or legal) distinction? Either non-sanctioned sexual practices (anything other than married vaginal intercourse, apparently) are a "big deal" kind of sin, or a "little deal" kind of sin. If it's no big deal, then let the gays alone, let them do what they will, just as many of us do. If it IS a "big deal" kind of sin, then let's get right on in there and make sure all us heteros aren't doing any non-reproductive rubbing...

And consider, yes, the animals. In particular the dolphins and the bonobos, who are both observed to engage in non-reproductive, same-sex pairings. I think, in this instance (as with myriad other instances, in fact all instances I know of), evolution makes a whole lot more sense than some sort of divine design. Our brains evolved to enable all sorts of complex, social behaviors, which, in the aggregate, have enormous payoffs in survival and success. Sex has become, in part, one of those many forms of complex, social behavior, and it has, in many contexts at least, been divorced from its direct link to reproduction. A byproduct of our big, creative, adaptive brains. Not, I argue vehemently, a sick joke by a cruel God.

I will close out with more high-level theological musings. Do I assault your Christianity, per se? Well, I don't know, you may feel that I have, and perhaps it's true. But I really, truly do NOT object to the "lawgiver God." Not at all. But what I believe we should strive for, in talking about those laws, is to look for the deep structure laws, the ones that get at the core principles of what it means to be moral. I think worrying about where people put their genitals is WAY off track. It's there (in the Bible) because the people who wrote that book were quite concerned about it, for reasons that are not always clear (though I have my theories), but have nothing to do, in my view, with the will of a benevolent God.

I would take a cue from Jesus, in fact. He swept away all the arcane, Old Testament Jewish proscriptions about food in single sentence (I paraphrase from memory): "A man is not made unclean by what goes into his mouth, but by what comes out."

I would take his phrasing and suggest a reformulation for this context: A man or woman should not be judged by the places they put their sexual organs, but by the love that flows from their heart.


Sincerely, and with much regard,
Ronald

Hold On Tight to Your Burgers, or At Least Chew Fast

William Saletan is on the case in the new "War On Junk Food". I'd like to point out that, while I was aiming at humor with Cheeseburger in Purgatory (and note that the pictured food in Saletan's article is a cheeseburer), my tone was light, but the substance was heavy. That is, I was really serious about the threat. Given their druthers, the nanny-staters will ban junk food, and the comparison to drugs will fuel the fire. At least some of the folks over at Reason are fairly sanguine about all this (Nick Gillespie, I believe, among them). Their point being that this will amount to overreach, i.e. people will revolt when they come for our cheeseburgers. I hope they are right, but I am personally a bit more antsy. In spite of ample evidence that marijuana is no worse than, and quite likely more benign than, alcohol, it remains banned and people are being locked up every day for possession. If evidence doesn't really matter, then even specious evidence, such as some of this speculation about "food addiction" can be a powerful weapon in the hands of the demagogues.

European "Tolerance" and "Pluralism"

Christopher Hitchens is spot on with his latest biting critique of the sorry state of European liberalism, by which I mean "classical liberalism" or the Enlightenment idea that human rights are universal and non-negotiable. It is difficult for me to express the contempt I have for this particular notion of "tolerance" and "pluralism."

Tortured Logic, and the Outlaw Administration Rides On

We've addressed the nauseating semantic games about "waterboarding," also known as "drowning," here before, but there is also an opportunity to deal with legal precedent. The game, apparently, is to treat the status of this procedure as somehow "ambiguous" and "unsettled" as a point of law, or a matter of individual (and apparently partisan) opinion, at least in the hands of people such as right honorable Senator Orin Hatch, when discussing our (apparently) new attorney general.

Bullshit.

The technique (and a number of closely related procedures) have all been defined in American courts as torture. This is not partisan or political; it is about as firmly established as law gets. Former J.A.G. Evan Wallach gives a brief history in the Washington Post. If you are up for a longer read, check out Wallach's journal article (in draft form) heavily laden with citations.

We include some relevant quotes here. These are taken from the "Judgement of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East", which was convened in the aftermath of WWII to try Japanese war criminals.

The practice of torturing prisoners of war and civilian internees prevailed at practically all places occupied by Japanese troops... Methods of torture were employed in all areas so uniformly as to indicate policy in both training and execution. Among these tortures were the water treatment...
...
There were two forms of water torture. In the first, the victim was tied or held down on his back and cloth held over his nose and mouth. Water was then poured on the cloth... As he opened his mouth to breathe or to answer questions, water went down his throat until he could hold no more...
...
In the second, the victim was tied lengthways on a ladder, face upwards, with a rung of the ladder across his throat and head below the latter. In this position he was slid first into a tub of water and kept there until almost drowned. After being revived, interrogation proceeded and he would be reimmersed.

The practices map precisely with those described in our current discourse as "waterboarding." I guess the modern penchant for euphemism knows no bounds. So, as explicitly as possible: we tried and convicted Japanese soldiers for torture, for using these techniques on American soldiers, as well as civilian internees.

Any questions?

The Democratic "leadership" has, once again, proven itself worthless and spineless. Dahlia Lithwick efficiently eviscerates Feinstein's "elegant" compromise, which is really nothing but a sham, a cave-in being spun as a compromise. Those feelings I have--where I am inclined to vote for Dems because they are, in all their awfulness, still the lesser evil--are going fainter every day...

Waterboarding is Drowning, Not "Simulated Drowning"

I find myself, again, getting viscerally angry as we play semantic games about torture. I don't want to repeat all the arguments in detail. I understand there are those who make arguments about the moral acceptability of torture in certain circumstances, and I do not accept those arguments.

If you have thought seriously and deeply about the issue and disagree, I can respect that, even if I believe you are profoundly and dangerously wrong. But let's not obfuscate the issue with contrived rhetorical dodges--if you support torture, you should say so and defend your position. Waterboarding is a form of controlled drowning, not "simulated drowning." (Follow the link, it is compelling stuff, and please note the source, this is no liberal-pinko-commie pansy, this is a U.S. soldier whose job was training soldiers to withstand torture. Think about it.)

The Bush administration wins yet another victory over a compliant press corps as long as they are permitted this phony distinction. Torture is torture. Are you up for it?

Girl Scout Death Squads

Another front in the war to ensure you eat virtuously: Girl Scout Cookies. As the author, Katherine Mangu-Ward, points out, at least this particular campaign isn't advocating a government ban--yet. But the same puritanical impulse drives this as the trans fat ban, and this sounds like busybody meddling to me. I hope the Girl Scouts resist the pressure. I think I'll buy an extra box or two this year.

More IATF RFC

Kling follows up and, among other things, defends the link between libertarians and "conservatives" by arguing that the Left is "religiously" worse than the Right. I'd say he's right about the Left's ideological religiosity, but wrong that it is worse than the Right's. As long as placating the Republican base means visiting Bob Jones University and paying respects to the likes of Falwell, Robertson, and Dobson, the GOP can never really be the party of liberty.

The term "social engineering" is often used sneeringly by "conservatives" to dismiss "liberal" programs aimed at, say, ending poverty. But "engineering" really just refers to a teleological enterprise, i.e. trying to shape or build a structure (or other artifact) with a specific goal or vision in mind, and this can be accomplished by proscriptions as well as prescriptions. What are prohibitions against all manner of individual choices, such as with whom we may enter into life partner relationships, and what sort of chemicals win intake in private, if not "social engineering?" Maybe we don't see these restrictions as such because we are accustomed to them, but those sorts of limits are certainly designed to make our society "better" by constraining our individual choices. Just because something is traditional doesn't make it right. Like Kling and his "liberal" friends, I myself lead a pretty traditional or "conservative" lifestyle, but living conservatively either brings its own rewards or it doesn't. If it does (and I find that it does), then the government need not enforce it; if it does not, then government sanction is unjustified and counterproductive.

In proving my libertarian bona fides, let me take just a moment to vent at the Left again. Just as Kling decries how the GOP Right has betrayed small government conservatives in the arena of fiscal responsibility, so to has the Democratic Left stomped all over small government ideals in the domain of personal liberty. Just to cite a couple of examples, they want to essentially expand the drug war to include tobacco, and they also seem hell-bent on legislating the foods we are allowed to purchase and eat. And there are at least a couple of dimensions to these prohibitionist impulses. One of their big justifications is that because society is on the hook for medical expenses incurred by poor lifestyle choices, society is thereby empowered to prohibit those choices. This is, indeed, Hayek's road to serfdom in spades, look no further. If the government is daddy when it's time to pay the bills, then you have to live by daddy's rules… But while fiscal responsibility is the enabling tool for government expansion in this scheme, it is hardly the ultimate impetus; the driving force of the Left's vision of the nanny state is plain old unadulterated Puritanism. Junk food and tobacco simply do not fit into the moral standards of today's so-called "progressives," and they are going to take them from you by force, if need be.

No, I cannot abide the Right's Bible-thumping moralizing, but I can only occasionally barely tolerate the Left's preachy paternalism—just long enough to vote for divided government, which I did. Principled non-voting increasingly looks like my preferred approach, in general, with a vote for the Democrats if divided government is at stake.

Thatcher, the IRA, Gitmo, and Torture: Not the Same

An article by Peter Cuthbertson at TCSDaily discussing Margaret Thatcher's legacy, and whether Hillary Clinton can (or should, or really intends to) claim it, makes a decent point or two, but also engages in some fairly deplorable rhetorical sleight-of-hand, as does Thatcher herself, apparently. While I have mellowed a little on Ronald Reagan, I still don't think much of him, and it is at least in part because, as I have argued here before, he wasn't really a small government conservative. All talk and no walk. (Or two be more precise, he actually enlarged government, so it's really backwards walk.) Thatcher, on the other hand, actually did take on and reduce some of the sclerotic welfare state she inherited (and was widely reviled by the left for it, even more so than Reagan), and I believe probably does deserve some credit for rejuvenating the British economy. More significantly, I have come around to the view that the staunch moral stance that both leaders took against totalitarian communism was, in fact, both important and the right thing to do, and they are to be commended for it. I think they were, indeed, vindicated by history, although mainly because of Reagan and Gorbachev's historic Reykjavik summit and subsequent treaties, not because "they won" the cold war. (I think the continued pressure at the very end of the Soviet Empire helped push it over the cliff, but it was clearly the inherent flaws in its system, combined with the 40-something years of the Cold War, that really did it in, of course.)

But Mrs. Thatcher and Mr. Cuthbertson really go beyond the pale when trying to equate Thatcher's strong anti-terrorism stance against the IRA with the current "war on terror." Cuthbertson admires Thatcher's strong stance against leniency or special treatment of IRA terrorists, and rightly so. But then, we fast forward to modern times and, as Cuthbertson writes:

In prosecuting the war on terror, she would make little time for those whose chief cause is to prevent the rendition of terrorist suspects or improve conditions in Guantanamo Bay. Instead, her response to court rulings favorable to terrorists has been the exhortation that "Conservatives everywhere must go on the counter-offensive against the New Left human rights brigade."

Well, gosh, I guess maybe the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo and rendition of suspects to foreign governments really is just the same as Britain's treatment of IRA bombers… Except… something is tickling at the back of my mind, some nagging little detail… what was that? Oh yeah, now I remember-it's called the rule of law.

The IRA prisoners, with whom Thatcher refused to negotiate or show clemency, or to capitulate to when some (in)famously went on hunger strike, were all convicted criminals. They had been duly tried, convicted, and sentenced in accordance with the laws of the United Kingdom. They were also incarcerated in actual prisons under humane conditions, in accordance with the law and modern standards of criminal justice. On the other hand, the Guantanamo detainees have persisted in a legal nether-world, their status invisible, and their jailers unaccountable to anyone outside of the direct chain of command back to the White House. Yes, of course all freedom- and life-loving people want terrorists locked up or dead, but how do we know they're terrorists? Because Dick Cheney says so? Why have most of the Guantanamo detainees been quietly released since the administration was told (by the Supreme Court, not some "liberal" human rights groups) that it had to actually take steps to prove that the detainees are actually guilty? The questions answer themselves. And as for "rendition," i.e. the outsourcing of torture to unscrupulous foreign governments, one would hope such a practice would be considered despicable in its own right, but the fact that completely innocent people have been tortured at our behest should shame even the most hard-core Bush defender. Should, but apparently doesn't. Disgusting. It shames me as an American, even though I didn't vote for Bush.

It seems like those who support this illegal behavior must be taking the old saw "break some eggs to make an omelet" to heart. While this expression apparently did not originate with Stalin, it is widely attributed to him, and rightly so, I'd say. I reject the hyperbolic rhetorical overreach of saying that Bush is "just as bad" as bin Laden, or the more general version that the U.S. is "just as bad" as the terrorists. I also don't have any particular problem with Bush's (in)famous use of the term "evildoers." But I do think that when we torture, solicit torture, and trash our proud heritage of freedom AND the rule of law--truly the envy of the world, or at least it used to be--by disregarding the Constitution, then at some point that "evildoers" finger does begin to turn back at us.

The Nutrition Nannys March On

As the drums of the food police beat on, the Reason website remains an island of sanity. Be prepared to fight for you cheeseburgers, or cheese doodles, or whatever gustatory indulgences you prefer. Please note how Dr. Lustig explicitly advocates government intervention and "de-emphasis of the concept of personal responsibility." This is, of course, necessary to protect--wait for it--the children. Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children! They ARE coming to save you from yourself, and if you prefer not to be treated as a helpless child, be prepared to speak up!

One Year On, and the Outlaw Administration Rolls On...

A year after I began posting here, writing about the outlaw administration, our esteemed leader shows no greater respect for the law, other than that which he makes up as he goes along.

Dahlia Lithwick has a handy recap on the Bush administration's continued progress into unchecked, illegal, extra-legal, and post-legal governance. Just for the record, we have not only exported "terror suspects" for torture by "friendly" governments, we have exported innocent people for torture, at least twice. Oops. And we have clearly tortured Jose Padilla as well, at this point. This includes sleep deprivation, isolation, sensory deprivation, stress positions and extreme cold. (If your going to argue about whether this is torture or not, go have a nice argument with Bill Clinton about what constitutes sex. The rest of us understand torture when we see it.) As to whether Jose Padilla is actually guilty of anything, well we may never get to know. After successfully keeping him out of the legal system for years, the administration may or may not actually prove its case in a real court someday. Surely it wouldn't just drop the charges and release an allegedly dangerous terrorist. Of course not, that could never happen here!

Happy New Year!