The article in support of the label “Christian conservative” had some major logical gaps which, given the author’s editorial history, come at no surprise. Quoting Tocqueville in order to prove that this is indeed a Christian nation is akin to assuming that all hats contain rabbits after observing a magician. One man cannot hope to define a nation, and neither can a single French thinker. Surely there must be better arguments to be made.
As for his position on marriage, how convenient his ability of selective amnesia, since only moments ago he quoted Jesus as ordering his followers to act as individuals and therefore securing and justifying an economic system that would not reflect his teachings. Granted, Jesus said nothing of same-sex marriage, but is Jesus not God? Is it not God himself who is commanding them to act as individuals? Why the exception to the definition of marriage, medical research and many other issues, all in which they gladly and actively support government involvement? I do not pretend to be a scholar on this matter, but what a fortunate and malleable foundation they have for their arguments.
Finally, his support for “traditional marriage” falls flat. He should be reminded perhaps, that not so long ago, a traditional marriage involved only people of the same race, class or nationality. I am grateful, as we should all be, that they take God’s word only at face value in the case of marriage, and not say, when considering slavery, proper treatment of a woman or the punishments one might face from his fellow man.
Ultimately, I should add that I have no kinder words for the writer on the other side of this argument, but I find this non sequitur to be of a more menacing nature, given the overall perceived tendency in this campus and community to fall under this category.
I mean to offend no one, and I am sure that there is a strong and reasonable case for the Christian conservative. But this is not it.
The only thing I learned from Mike Boylan’s article on Christianity is that he has an extreme anti-Christian bias. The article is a series of claims that create more heat than light. His arguments range from the non sequitur to the factually incorrect. His opinions are, at best, the result of sandbox scholarship and misinformation. For example, Mike reduces Christ’s resurrection to a “notion.” Even the History Channel, a secular organization, trusts the accuracy of the gospel accounts concerning the crucifixion of Jesus. People who doubt this are well outside of the mainstream scholarship. Countless theories trying to disprove Jesus’ resurrection have been repeatedly and soundly refuted.
More importantly, Jesus appeared after his death to many witnesses on different occasions. The apostle Paul, shortly after the crucifixion, challenged skeptics to talk with those who had seen the risen Christ. There is not a competing hypothesis that better explains the rise of the early Christian church apart from the resurrection of Jesus.
In order to explore the issue more thoroughly, I would like Mike to accept my invitation to debate him on the facts concerning Jesus and the resurrection. This will provide us the opportunity to share our beliefs in an environment that does not shelter us from “scrutiny and accountability” for our beliefs. As an incentive, I will give Mike my main arguments before the debate. If he is truly confident with his position, I’m sure he will gladly accept the opportunity to show how ignorant Christians are.