Why no one should ever accept 'never argue' as an answer

Happy New Year, dear readers. I hope you've all enjoyed your time off, if you had any, and are positive for 2011.

As you may of may not be aware, we will be facing the rapture this year, so that's a good reason to start buying on credit.

I'll tell you one thing about this coming rapture: I'm certainly not going to argue with anyone who accepts it. Never ever! I mean, what's the point, right? Why should anyone ever assert an opinion? Let's all just be accommodationists to any idea, right? For instance, people who worship a false god ought to be put to death, according to some. Who am I to tell them they're wrong?

At least, that's how I'd be talking if I listened to the advice of Rev. Candace Chellew-Hodge. Chellew-Hodge is an openly homosexual UCC pastor who makes her money doling out reinterpretations of Christianity designed to make homosexuals feel welcomed in the church. More specifically, it instructs its readers how to argue in favor of staying in a church that condemns their existence. I haven't read her book, but I wouldn't be all that shocked to see an argument in favor of The United Church of Christ.

Reform churches like the UCC are but the morphine to a 'traditional' church's heroin. Its socially liberal views are designed to attract people like Rev. Chellew-Hodge, but are based in nothing but societal values. In other words, because American society today doesn't see homosexuals as lepers, these reformed churches have molded their teachings to fit what is acceptable. This of course begs the question: Do the parishioners of these churches get their morals from religion or do they organize their religion in a way that matches the values they obtained elsewhere? If it's the latter, why bother adding the religion at all? We atheist bloggers often condemn people who use their religion to justify terrible things, but the same logical flaws exist when they use their religion to justify positive things. What's being taught through these churches is that these moral decisions can't be arrived at on one's own. You need an institution to tell you that a divine power has approved the decision.

In traditional churches, the approval of decisions by a divine power is usually the conclusion of studying a religious text. But not for Rev. Chellew-Hodge. She prefers a 'make-it-up-as-you-go-along' approach. Just look at her recent article in The Huffington Post.

It's called "Why gays and lesbians should never argue scripture." Oh, really, Reverend? Never EVER!?

The article title itself perfectly describes the harm caused these reformed, liberal churches, they seek to silence dissent through pacification.

Her article begins:

"When are you going to talk about scripture that condemns homosexuality?"

The question came from a young woman who attended a workshop based on my book Bulletproof Faith: A Spiritual Survival Guide for Gay and Lesbian Christians. This particular workshop was held a couple of years ago on a college campus and attracted a cross-section of students who were both supporters and detractors of homosexuality.

This question is usually asked by a pro-gay person who wants to know how to answer challengers who quote scripture. This woman was different -- she had come for an argument and intended to challenge me with anti-gay interpretations of scripture.

"We're not going to talk about those passages specifically," I told her. "Instead, part of this workshop is on why we should never argue scripture with anyone ever again."

I'm going to jump in here: If you're not going to talk about passages specifically, what the hell are you basing your Christianity on? If you're just culling together a collection of moral opinions I'm not sure it's fair to call it "Christianity." Even if, according to her, accepting homosexuals is 'in the spirit of Christianity.' I mean, if Charles Manson said to love your parents It wouldn't really make sense for me to attribute loving your parents to 'Mansonism,' and it'd be even less fair for me to them jump ahead and assume that he also meant to love your siblings. As if I can just claim that in an effort to define morality 'in the spirit' of Charles Manson.

Here's another thing: I'm much more offended by the pastor who tells me not to argue than the one who will argue with me on twitter for an hour telling me I'm evil and going to hell. At least those who talk to me and disagree allow me the courtesy of my opinion. At least I'm allowed to express a view with someone who will tell me those views will lead me to eternal damnation. What Rev. Chellew-Hodge does is much worse. She denies me my view. She tells me before hand whatever I say doesn't matter. She seeks to marginalize anyone who thinks their moral system may, in fact, be their own. And she says so, explicitly:

There are several reasons that gays and lesbians should never argue scripture. First, it's pointless and nobody wins. Those who are anti-gay have their authorities and scriptural interpretations and so do pro-gay people. No one wins a "they said, they said" argument because no one will believe the scholars from either side no matter what argument anyone makes.

Secondly, arguing over scripture just hardens the opinions of both sides. Neither side is willing to give an inch. This is not a true dialogue, it's simply a contest of who can argue the longest, and usually the loudest. No one is convinced, and everyone leaves further entrenched in their own ideas, and usually angry. No education happens, and little, if any, compassion ever happens.

You know what, Reverend? You're just plain wrong about this. Of course someone wins a 'they said, they said argument.' If you happen to surround yourself with people so intellectually dishonest that they can't acknowledge that what they're saying doesn't make sense or is inaccurate, that's a shame, but a persons refusal to acknowledge defeat doesn't make the argument a draw.

To suggest that people only believe what they already agree with is presumptuous and condescending. It suggests people don't grow or learn or change. Well, I changed, ma'am. I went to church and I believed in Christianity and everything that went alone with it. But as I grew I started to notice that the values of compassion, of equality, freedom and justice are inconsistent with what I'd learned in the church. Arguments about scripture are what brought me there and it wasn't even arguments against scripture. More often, arguments in favor of scripture drove me to reassess with whom I ally my morals. And I'm not alone. Many atheists went through this process, including Atheist Experience host and president of the Atheist Community of Austin in Texas Matt Dillahunty often talks about his time studying to become a pastor and learning the arguments in support of the religion only to discover that they held no water.

It's not about who argues the longest or the loudest: it's about who is the most logical. Logic needs not be loud or long, in fact, it's usually pretty simple.

Her argument goes on to make a lot of assumptions about people without any basis. She doesn't even give anecdotal reasons for her armchair psychology like the one she started out with, but that's a typical slight-of-hand practiced by pastors, preachers, priests and Imams. You can't ask for evidence that people don't change, or that their morals are as malleable as reform churches suggest or that there exists any evidence of their particular god.

You just have to take everything they say on faith or else face the terrifying prospect of thinking on your own.