Bartlet's BS: How to Argue Mo' Better.

This is making the rounds again, with a new caption:


Before you get all self-congratulatory about what you perceive as the brilliance of this rebuttal, know that it's bullshit. It's intended to shame, not to convince; and it does so with a bogus interpretation of Christianity that is easily dismissed by Christians who recognize its flaws when Atheists do not. (And stick with me here, because whatever side you're on, I'm probably not going where you expect.)

Since the Atheists have decided to engage in a little Sunday School lesson, here's one[1]. I often find myself having say something like the following when speaking with not just Atheists, but Fundamentalists as well. A quote from Deuteronomy chapter 5:

"And Moses called unto all Israel, and said unto them, Hear, O Israel, the statutes and the ordinances which I speak in your ears this day, that ye may learn them, and observe to do them. The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day.  The LORD talked with you face to face in the mount out of the midst of the fire, (I stood between the LORD and you at that time, to shew you the word of the LORD: for ye were afraid by reason of the fire, and went not up into the mount;) saying, I am the LORD thy God..." [followed by the "Ten Commandments"]

There were a few sequels. [2]

Pay attention, please: "In your ears". "This day". "With us". "Not... our fathers", "With us", "Even us". "Here". "Alive this day". "With you", "Face to face".

Who do you think that message is meant for? The Bible certainly has a lot of subtexts and allegorical messages with multiple meanings. THIS ISN'T ONE OF THEM. Moses bent over backwards to make this point so excruciatingly plain that I think you have to be either completely blind to the existence of the verse, or actually trying to fail in order to get it wrong.

This Covenant and the Law... of which there are 613 laws... are intended for the people present at that place and moment of time and their descendents. Uncle Yusuf's not here? He's out.

There is no stigma to being "out" of this deal. Jews don't think that Gentiles are horrible people for not keeping the Sabbath because they know that Gentiles don't have to. They don't think non-Jews can't get into Heaven. The LORD is the LORD, and he can take whoever he jolly well pleases without your permission or approval. This verse is why Jews don't proselytize. It's not for YOU.[3]

Pointing this out isn't confrontational; it's informational. If you think that Christians must follow a law simply because it's written in the Old Testament, you're mistaken. If you think that Christians are hypocrites simply because they don't follow this or that Old Testament law, then you're likewise mistaken, and every argument you make based on that presumption fails.

Jesus brought a different simpler message for the rest of us:

"...The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these." (Mark 12:29-31. Also stated in Matthew 22:36-40)

For sure, He does start with "Hear, O Israel", as He is following the formulation called Shema Yisrael... this is the heart of Judaism, and He was talking to a Jew. But that audience is expanded when He commands his followers to go out to all nations, "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen." (Matthew 28:20). And that's what we should do. Teach, not enforce (Matthew 13).

--==//oOo\\==--

The problem with the President's rebuttal in the clip is that it perpetuates the myth that any of the levitical laws are tenets of the Christian religion, simply ignored by hypocritical followers out of personal choice or convenience. To be sure, there are ignorant hypocrites out there. But the argument fails when applied to actual Christianity rather than the "straw man Christianity" of a Hollywood screenwriter. It is based on a false assumption. As all but a few Christians immediately see the false premise, the only thing it convincingly does is portray Bartlet as a braying jackass. The sound is quite appealing within that species, but to few other creatures.

Now, if the President wanted to actually make his point and not just make an enemy, then he'd have pointed to Leviticus 5 as I just did, AND to Mark or Matthew. Then he might say something like this:

"Although you may view homosexuality as a sin, nowhere did Jesus give you the right to persecute those that commit that sin. You are, in fact, commanded to love those people anyway. God will judge them Himself when the time comes, and He will be merciful or not as He desires. But you're wasting your time worrying about their sins and not your own. Read Matthew 7:5, because it speaks to all of us on this subject:

"You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." 

--==//oOo\\==--

Personally, I see it as this: the Christian institute of marriage is between men and women. Jesus confirms it. As such, marriages are performed before God for His blessing. But a secular marriage, even one between a man and woman, isn't a marriage in that sense. My church will consecrate those marriages that are marriages conforming to our beliefs. But my church is not in the habit of denouncing marriages that are performed in other churches, in accordance with other beliefs.[4] If their license may be denied on one point of faith, why not any other? Why not to a Hindu who has many gods? Why not to an Atheist, who has none? On what basis should we selectively pick and choose which Biblical precepts to apply? And if those who do the picking and choosing are not me, then why should they not deny that license to me? This is the argument which President Bartlet so ineptly attempts to make.

We cannot prevent the marriage of those outside our religion, nor should we be allowed to in a country that recognizes our natural right to freedom of religion. The County Courthouse is not my church. The Clerk of Court is not my priest. The licenses that are issued there are now and always have been for secular contracts called marriage, not marriage as defined by any particular religion.

And while we as individuals are free to exercise our religion, our GOVERNMENT is not. In the pursuit of her duties, a Clerk of Court is not acting on her own behalf in accordance with her own beliefs. She is acting as an agent of that government, which is stringently prohibited from interfering in religious matters. Thus, even if one does not accept the valid argument that government-issued marriage licenses represent secular contracts; one must allow that as a religious matter, agents of the government cannot interfere. Remember, we're not talking about just you... If I were in the position where my religion prevented me from acting as a properly impartial agent of the government; if the the free exercise of my religion denied the very same freedom for many, many applicants; then it would be obvious to me that the only ethical resolution between my conflicting responsibilities to God and the State would require that I remove myself from the State and devote myself to God.

--==//oOo\\==--

By the way, this is why I think that the government shouldn't be in the business of marriage at all. "License" means "permission", and I see no reason on this green Earth why as a free human being I should have to beg for the permission of the State to marry. I do not seek the legalization of gay marriage for the same reason that I do not favor the legalization of any marriage. In defense of my own religious freedom, I do not recognize the right of the government to "define" what marriage is or is not. I believe the very concept is prohibited by the First Amendment, and that the practice represents one of the first of many erosions of our liberty. Further, it presumes that a thing should be illegal unless permitted, and that is a grave error of judgement, contrary to the concept of a Free Society. I want the State out of marriage completely.

---

[1] Obviously my theology may differ from yours. Even among Christians, views vary widely. But when faced with a conundrum I've found it most useful to go with a plain reading of the text. Edicts, canons, councils, and interpretations have often done as much to confuse a topic as to explain it, and often creates dogma where none exists in the Biblical text. If, for instance, you are a Christian who argues that you are still bound by Mosaic law, I believe you are at an argumentative disadvantage, as you are now required to explain why you hold that view when the scripture explicitly states that you are not.

[2] Illustration of Moses from More Good Foundation via Flickr. 

[3] Acts 15:19-29 expresses the minimum requirements for Christians: "that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.." Clearly, the whole of Mosaic law is not contained in that short sentence, which limits itself to those things which not only honor God and do not exceed the teaching they were commissioned to spread, but which make it possible for those Jewish believers in the early Church to interact with them

[4] Indeed, as a matter of course, Christians honor the validity of marriages outside their faith. Law or no, it's not OK to covet a pagan's wife. Despite it not being a "Christian marriage" it is always treated as a valid one. If you choose to think this attitude is demeaning rather than respectful, I invite you to imagine a world in which the contrary is true; where someone of another faith does not recognize your marriage and deems it OK to rape the women of infidels. You really don't have to imagine it, as this is expressly allowed in Islam. Here's the verse. Here's the clerical ruling. Here's the hadith (historical context). And do make sure you check several translation boxes for that verse. Muslims often chide Christians for having multiple translations, but so do they, and some of them are quite deliberately obscure. The clerical ruling, however, never is. 

On the Subject of Marriage

I'm from what is commonly termed a "broken home", though at the time I wouldn't have known what you were talking about if you used the phrase. My father was abusive and my mother left him, with us, when I was six years old. She re-married a couple of years later. The ceremony was performed by a Justice of the Peace on a Christmas Eve. Neither I nor my brothers were there, but we woke up Christmas morning to a new father and a new home. Now, my mother re-married because she believed that we needed a father. She married this particular man because he agreed with her on a great many things regarding family, religion, and politics. They respected each other and found each other reasonably attractive. My stepfather had been likewise married before, and thus was "once bitten, twice shy". Knowing much more about marriage than they did before, they were very careful about the arrangement. They were introduced by the man who had been our neighbor, who told my mother that his cousin was "a good man... he'll treat you well."

I think you might have noticed that 'Love' wasn't way up on that list of reasons. Rather, they focused on those things that enable a partnership to work independently of emotion, and trusted that God would provide them with Love... which He did. When they entered into a marriage contract, they each decided to turn over their lives to the task of providing for the happiness of the other. What is Love if not caring for someone else more than you care for yourself? In retrospect, it's pretty obvious that Love is a thing you may choose.

I think that's one of the more important lessons that I've ever learned. Love isn't some magical, mystical force that drives people together and causes them to cleave (that's "cleave" in both senses... Love is commonly credited with bringing families together and tearing them apart). Now, our ancestors knew this, and they knew that the hormonal infatuation that children label "love" causes those children to disregard pretty much all of those things that must be considered to make a marriage work, in favor of the one thing that they would have had anyway. I think it can be rightly argued that infatuation -- pop-culture-love -- makes you temporarily insane. So our ancestors deemed it a very good idea to arrange those marriages on behalf of their children. It was very smart, and it worked very well... still does, as a matter of fact. Did you know that while the divorce rate in the US is almost 53%, the worldwide divorce rate for arranged marriages is only 6%?

Obviously, on the average, we're not doing it right.

I bring this up because most of those arranged marriages are not Christian, and yet they last and are productive and successful. My parents' re-marriage was very much an arranged thing. Though they did the arranging themselves, they did it with a very strong "business sense". As I said, it was a civil ceremony, and there was no mention of God among any of the formalities and legalities required by the State. They simply signed a contract and filed it with the Clerk of Court. But God was there in that He was present in them. And in their last years, when my stepfather was infirm and diabetic; and my mother had contracted lymphoma; she prayed daily that she would out-live him so that he wouldn't have to suffer without her to care for him. He died first, and within months of his death she followed him. In the end, the Love they chose for themselves was stronger than any human bond I have ever witnessed. I would readily say that though they did not have a Christian ceremony, my parents assuredly had a Christian marriage. Based on the stats, many people who have Christian ceremonies do not have Christian marriages. The Christian sacrament of marriage and the civil contract of marriage are two completely different things.

Though I came from a broken home, I didn't grow up in one.

Now, I've said all of this to make my conclusions clear: I'm against any legislation of marriage whatsoever. A State marriage has nothing to do with any religion; it is merely a contract. It is YOU who chooses to bring God into your marriage (or not). Furthermore, non-Christians are no less successful at marriage than Christians. In the absence of religious bigotry, there is no legal or Constitutional principle by which it is even remotely possible to successfully argue in favor of imposing Christian ideals on the civil state of matrimony. Rather, Christians are free to marry in the body of Christ of their own accord, just as Atheists are free to simply love without acknowledging Christ. The State is not allowed to distinguish between them.

In addition, it's none of our business who someone chooses to love. I love a great many people, both women and men, and I wouldn't marry most of them. While arranged marriages work, I think they work because the people who submit to them are raised in a culture where they're taught what the marriage is about. They don't have false expectations. This is a very practical education, as opposed to our idealized "happily-ever-after" fantasies against which reality always falls short. People in arranged marriages choose to follow a system that works, and I will not say that they either can't or must follow a different one.

Furthermore, many marriages are barren. Many couples are incapable of having children at all. Though I have two brothers, one sister, two step-brothers, and two step-sisters. But my mother and step-father never had children together. They united not for the purpose of procreation -- that was over and done with -- but mutual support. It isn't remotely possible to argue on natural grounds that a marriage must be contingent on the potential for procreation.

And frankly, I don't want the State to have any say in the religious sacrament of marriage, so I refuse to give them permission to violate the First Amendment, even a little bit.

For all of these reasons, I would repeal the "Defense of Marriage Act". I find it un-Constitutional, as it establishes a particular religious position within legislation, precisely where Congress is clearly required to "make no law".

Am I in favor of gay marriage? No, not at all... I demonstrated that by not marrying a guy. But homosexuals exist, and nobody appointed me to be the bully in charge of making them miserable. Am I in favor of Christian marriage? Well, yeah, I'm a Christian, so I obviously think the benefits of bringing Christian Love into your marriage cannot be understated. But that doesn't give me the right to force you to act like a Christian even when you're not. It does not give me the right to fantasize that a civil contract requiring only signature and a filing fee is the same as a "Christian sacrament". That both cheapens the sacrament and lies about the civil contract. And I recognize that marriage is strengthened by merely agreeing on religion no matter what that religion actually is.

Bottom Line: It's none of my business who someone else chooses as a partner, or why, and it's none of your business either. Rather than spinning in a control-freak frenzy over whether someone else might be happy doing something you didn't personally pre-authorize, spend your time working on your own happiness. Instead of worrying that someone else's marriage might demean yours, work on the meaning of yours. Elevate what you have; don't denigrate what they have.  And get over it. 

link to Some Political Opinions

---

Postscript: Many people are in favor of "civil unions", touting them as a marriage in everything but name, and thus seek to "preserve the sanctity" of male-female marriages. With all due respect... bollocks.  It's not up to you to label someone else's relationship. If they say they're married, then they're married. You can, however, exercise that control for yourself. Instead of saying that what they have isn't "marriage" (even though you've already allowed that it is for atheists), say that yours is a consecrated marriage. There. Problem solved.