Page 3 of 4

Good Friday and the Problem of Suffering

April 2, 2021 / rampinelli

“If there is a god, and this god is good, why is there so much evil in the world?” This may be the strongest argument against the existence of God. Christians believe God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, that is, all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving. So, why is there so much suffering?

There’s certainly plenty of it in the world. A baby dies of a birth defect. A young child dies of leukemia. Children are swept away in a tsunami. Innocent people die in an earthquake. And then there’s the cruelty of war and conflict: in Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, South Sudan, and many places throughout the world. If God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, why does he allow this evil to exist? Christian and non-Christian philosophers have wrestled with this question for ages, and it remains as perhaps our greatest problem in apologetics.

My answer is not fully formed, but I’ll give my thoughts anyway.

Free will in a dynamic world

Imagine an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God who loves His creation and loves His creatures, especially humanity, whom He made in his image. He creates a universe and an earthly home and prepares it for humanity over billions of years through physical processes and evolution, intervening as needed to prepare the way for us (including a meteor strike that wiped out the dinosaurs). He even put oil and coal in the ground – through natural processes – to power our industry and machines until we are ready to use solar, wind and other renewable energies.

When the earth was ready, God brought forth humanity, endowed with the needed physical attributes – upright walk, articulating thumb to hold tools, a large brain – and reason and consciousness so we could help develop the home God created for us. As our loving father, God wants us to participate creatively in the development process. God wants us to grow – spiritually, of course, and also morally, and intellectually. Growth requires challenge, so God gave us a world that would provide these challenges: a world of great beauty that operates according to natural laws, where food grows to nourish us, and bacteria and viruses can harm or kill us. This suffering is painful and certainly does not make God happy, but it does challenge us and cause us to grow.

God also gave us a free will, which we could use for good (moral growth) or evil. We have done both: evil when focused on our own selfish desires, such as greed and the lust for power, good when focused on making things whole. The world we see, with war, crime, and inadequate response to hunger, poverty, disease, is the world we humans have developed.

And if we’re honest, we know that not all is right with us. We’d prefer to blame others for their wicked acts, but we fail, too. For that reason, religions throughout history have used sacrifices – sometimes of food, sometimes of animals, sometimes of humans – to manipulate and appease an angry god or gods.

God shares our suffering

But God did not leave us alone. He inspired the Hebrew prophets to tell of Him, to give laws for our behavior, to convict us of our errors – sin – and announce God’s forgiveness. God also used great Greek philosophers, such as Plato and Aristotle, to prepare the way intellectually for His next great move. In the political realm, great empires arose, allowing ideas to spread from land to land and peoples to peoples. Alexander the Great’s conquests, bloody as they were, created a Hellenistic civilization and established a common language in much of the Near East. The Roman Empire then expanded this realm where trade, people, and ideas could flow.

When this was prepared, God took the ultimate step: the incarnation. God the Son Himself, the Logos, became human, taking on our nature completely and experiencing the joys and pains of His fellow humans. When He was ready, Jesus began his ministry, traveling through a small area of Galilee and Judea, preaching God’s reign. His message was one of love and forgiveness, healing and reconciliation. He also proclaimed that we were children of a loving God and citizens of His Kingdom, which would one day reign throughout the world. In doing so, he gave us strength and knowledge to grow spiritually, morally, and intellectually to more resemble what God wants us to be.

But Jesus posed a threat to the religious leaders, who were convinced He opposed the truth. Moreover, He was a blasphemer, claiming he had authority to forgive sins. His miracles caused many to believe He was the promised Messiah. The religious leaders were not convinced and thought He was a false Messiah, who threatened their positions and could bring the wrath of Rome down on all of them. So they decided to get rid of Him and turned him over to the Roman occupiers for execution as a seditionist.

Jesus, both God and human, now suffered greatly at the hands of the people he made. He was betrayed by a follower and friend, Judas, a person he loved. Another follower and friend, Peter, got scared and denied Him. His other followers and friends ran away. Having come to fulfill God’s covenant with the Jewish people, He was brought before their leaders, who owed Him worship, and they struck Him and shamed Him. As he stood before the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, the crowd rejected Him as well, so Pilate ordered him painfully and shamefully scourged. The soldiers mocked Him. Then they brutally led him to Golgotha, where He was crucified between two criminals, a painful and shameful execution.

Yes, we live in a world with both good and evil. Our mission is to respond to evil, to overcome it as best we can, and so to grow. God showed us the way by coming to us and suffering with us. But His suffering also fulfilled a greater plan. Through His sufferings, the creator of the universe paid the penalty for our shortcomings, and so He can accept us freely. There is no need for sacrifices on our part to appease an angry God: We simply have to accept God’s free gift of reconciliation. And we should also grow spiritually, morally, and intellectually, and do our best to overcome evil and promote good.

The sufferings of Jesus that we commemorate on Good Friday have a happy ending, which we will celebrate this Sunday. Our sufferings will also ultimately have a happy ending as well.

Book Review – Divided We Fall: America’s Secession Threat and How to Restore our Nation

March 4, 2021 / rampinelli

By David French 2020, St. Martin’s Press, New York

David French is a lawyer and conservative columnist, formerly for the National Review, and now senior editor of The Dispatch. Before becoming a political commentator, he worked as a religious rights attorney at the American Center for Law and Justice and the Alliance Defending Freedom. He also served as president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), which defended freedom of speech and conscience of students and professors at mostly liberal universities. He served in the U.S. Army in Iraq in 2007 and was awarded the Bronze Star. Unlike most other evangelical Christians, he has consistently opposed Donald Trump.

Two scenarios

Imagine the United States in the near future under a Republican president. Reacting to a mass shooting at a school, the California legislature bans private ownership of most guns. Gun owners appeal through the courts, and finally the U.S. Supreme Court declares the California law unconsitutional. The state government, with strong support of its citizens, defies the ruling and continues to confiscate semi-automatic weapons. The federal government tries to enforce the ruling, and the situation escalates. Finally, California declares its independence. Oregon and Washington quickly join their West Coast neighbor. Northeastern states follow suit and likewise secede, joining together into their own new country. What was once the United States of America is now three separate countries.

Or another scenario: The U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, and the abortion issue is returned to the states. Many Republican-dominated states already have laws on their books banning abortion, and these become effective. Democrats take control of the White House and both houses of Congress. Democratic Senators end the filibuster, pass a strong gun control bill, and expand the Supreme Court from 9 to 15 justices. Democrats then pass single-payer health care and a civil rights law that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity while eliminating all religious freedom objections. Finally, they pass a law that makes abortion legal throughout the country, from conception to birth. Republican-dominated states object vehemently, and the situation quickly spirals out of control. After a series of escalations, Texas declares its independence. It is quickly joined by other southern and western states.

In both cases, the result is the same. The United States falls into a deep economic depression as economic ties are sundered. And the U.S. pulls back from the world stage, which emboldens Russia, China, and other actors to pursue their goals through force. Russia takes over the Baltic states and eastern Ukraine. China threatens Taiwan, which allies itself with Japan. War in the Pacific follows. The era of relative peace and stability, established since World War II and upheld by American military power, is over.

These scenarios, described with a novelist’s skill, were published in this book before the election. If they might have seemed farfetched then, they certainly don’t now, especially after January 6.

The problem

French argues that America is in danger of dissolution. We are politically and culturally divided, and this division follows geography. Most states are solidly Republican or Democrat. Moreover, the solidly Republican states are geographically contiguous, dominating the south and much of the west and extending into the upper midwest. The solidly Democratic states are clustered on the west coast and in the northeast. These regions are large enough and prosperous enough that they could be viable and economically powerful countries. Red states (Republican) differ from blue states (Democrat) not only by politics, but also by culture. In blue states, religion is still especially important and dominated by conservative or evangelical churches. In red states, religion is widely considered a personal matter that should not intrude on public life. Fewer people go to church, and those who do often join more liberal, mainstream churches. Guns are another difference: People in red states value the “right to bear arms”, so they can protect themselves and their families. People in blue states want gun control to prevent further mass shootings.

Geographically based political and cultural division aren’t enough to tear the country apart, according to French: two more elements are needed. A third element is the belief that one’s culture and essential liberties are under threat by those who “hate us”. Conservatives point to progressive corporations’ decisions to “sanction states that protect religious liberty or pass pro-life laws”. French argues, quite correctly, that conservatives see these as “expressions of hatred”. Progressives, on the other hand, see conservatives’ opposition to any restrictions on gun ownership as a threat to their safety and view religious liberty laws as permitting unjustified discrimination against LGBTQ citizens.

Finally, a fourth element is the conviction that the other side threatens our lives and property. We’ve always had politically motivated violence in America, but it seems to have spiked in the Trump years. White nationalists have recently attacked and murdered Jewish worshippers in synagogues and African American churchgoers in Bible studies. On the left, a Sanders supporter opened fire on Republican members of Congress practicing for a baseball game. This past summer, after the book was published, widespread protests against police brutality often degenerated into riots. In French’s words, both the left and the right conclude about their opponents that “they” are violent, “they” are dangerous, and “we” are innocent.

In other words, the four elements that made the American Civil War possible in 1860 are with us again. The extreme polarization of recent years, promoted by social media and both right-wing and left-wing media, but also by homogeneous churches, universities, and housing patterns, has broken the emotional bonds that held us together as a country. My group against your group. We are good, they are evil. And now the polarization is also geographical. Secession and disintegration are possible.

Pluralism, tolerance, federalism

David French argues that we need three related practices to avoid a break-up: pluralism, tolerance, and federalism.

Pluralism means more than just diversity, which we already have. French defines it as defending the rights of others to do what you would like to do yourself – even when they are your opponents. You should also defend the rights of communities to govern themselves according to their values and beliefs as long as they don’t violate the fundamental rights of dissenting members. For example, progressives should defend the right of conservatives to speak on college campuses, which has often not been the case. Conservatives, on the other hand, should defend the right of football players to take a knee in protest during the national anthem.

Tolerance is like pluralism but goes beyond it. It means showing respect and kindness toward people who are out of your group. An example of tolerance is the friendship between Ellen DeGeneris, a politically progressive lesbian, and George W. Bush, a conservative evangelical who opposed gay marriage.

Finally, French argues for federalism – less federal government influence and more local control, so communities can live as they wish. This would make Washington less important in people’s lives and move many of our current political battles to the state level, where cultures and values are more uniform. For example, most conservatives oppose single-payer health care, while most progressives support it. If California could use its share of federal health care funding to introduce single-payer health care in the state, this would not hurt conservatives living elsewhere and would, presumably, make most Californians happier. On the other hand, America’s shoddy history with civil rights for African-Americans shows that federalism must have limits. French argues that essential civil liberties, written into the Bill of Rights, must be guaranteed throughout the country.

This would require politicians and judges to refrain voluntarily from using the power of the federal government to impose their preferred solution on the entire country. It would require pluralism and tolerance.

But problems remain

But a problem remains: We don’t agree on what constitutes fundamental civil rights, especially on the three major issues of abortion, religious freedom, and guns.

For pro-choice progressives, the right of a woman to choose what goes on inside her body, including the right to have an abortion, is a fundamental human right that should not be infringed. Hence, any laws restricting abortion violate this fundamental human right. Pro-life conservatives, in contrast, argue that the unborn child’s human right to live must take precedence over the mother’s right to choose, except to preserve the life and health of the mother.

Religious freedom is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution, but it can conflict with the rights of minorities, especially LGBTQ Americans, to be free from discrimination. The Masterpiece Cakeshop case illustrates the conflict. The evangelical owner of the bakery believes that gay marriage is sinful, even though legal, and so did not want to participate in it by baking a cake for a wedding. For him, it was a matter of conscience. The gay couple argued that they were being discriminated against. For them, it was a matter of fundamental civil rights. Progressives come down on the side of the gay couple, while conservatives supported the baker.

Finally, we have guns. The Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms but can be interpreted differently. Conservatives argue that this right is essentially absolute. Hence, people have a right to own assault weapons with large magazines. Progressives, on the other hand, disagree, and point out the cases of mass casualty shootings in which semi-automatic weapons with large magazines were used. For conservatives, the right to own guns without restriction is a fundamental human right. For progressives, the right to live without fear of dying in a mass casualty event is the true human right.

So, federalism alone won’t save us. We must return to pluralism and tolerance. If we truly accept the rights of people to think differently, perhaps we can find a way forward.

Roger Fisher and William Ury of the Harvard Negotiation Project published Getting to Yes in 1981. It quickly became a classic. They argue that negotiators should follow four principles: separate people from the problem; focus on interests, not positions; invent options for mutual gain; insist on using objective criteria.

If we separate people from the problem, we accept that our opponents are people with legitimate concerns, and we should build a good relationship with them. This is the essence of pluralism and tolerance. Focusing on interests, not positions, means understanding what’s most important for the other side as well as for yours. If you do that, you might be able to options for mutual gain, finding a solution in which both sides get what they fundamentally need, even if it’s not everything they want. Using objective criteria may be difficult, but at a minimum it means taking reality into account. The purpose is to have both sides follow agreed-on principles and accept objective facts rather than use power to force the other side to accede. When these four principles are followed – if they can be followed – no side loses.

French ends his book by citing Micah 6:8, which he calls humankind’s purpose: do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with God. Progressives and conservatives both want to do justice, but they differ on what this means. If they love mercy, they will have tolerance for their opponents, even if they believe they are wrong. Finally, walking humbly with God means being humble enough to understand that our side might be wrong, and the other side might be right. If we follow these principles, perhaps we can hold our country together.

The High-Water Mark of Trump’s Insurgency

January 16, 2021 / rampinelli

Trump’s Capitol insurgency on January 6, 2021, has some things in common with Pickett’s Charge at Gettysburg on July 3, 1863. Both failed.

Germany, January 13, 2021

It was July 1863. The American Civil War, launched by the Confederacy at Fort Sumter, South Carolina, had been going on for over two years. While the Union’s General Grant was attacking Vicksburg, Mississippi, in the west, Confederate General Robert E. Lee had been marching his Army of Northern Virginia toward Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, in his second invasion of the North. His goal was to seize Harrisburg, Pennsylvania’s capital, then move on to Philadelphia or Washington D.C., in the hopes of destroying the Union Army of the Potomac and forcing the North to accept peace on the South’s terms.

When word came that Lee had marched his army through the Shenandoah Valley into Maryland and Pennsylvania, the Union’s Army of the Potomac marched north to meet it. Elements of the two armies met near Gettysburg on July 1. After hard-fought battles, Union forces abandoned the town and established defensive positions on Cemetary Ridge, just to the south. The second day of battle was bloody but inconclusive, with Lee’s army trying in vain to take the Union flanks and roll them up. On the third day, July 3, General Lee decided to make one more massive attempt to destroy the Union forces by attacking their center, which he assumed was now weaker.

At 1:00 p.m. Confederate General Longstreet launched a massive artillery assault on Union positions on Cemetary Ridge. At 3:00 p.m. his troops, including Major General Pickett’s division, began to march across open territory for about a mile toward the Union lines. This assault is now called “Pickett’s Charge”. They were met with massive artillery fire and Union musket fire. Some of the troops reached the Union lines and broke through at the “Angle”, but a Union counterattack repulsed them. The furthest Confederate advance is called the “High-water mark of the Confederacy”. Longstreet’s forces failed to achieve their objectives, and when they returned to their lines, about two-thirds of the 12,500 soldiers were missing. Lee withdrew to higher ground on July 4, Independence Day, and then marched the survivors back south to Virginia. To the west, Vicksburg surrendered on July 4, giving General Grant control of the Mississippi River and splitting the Confederacy.

The war would continue for almost two more bloody years, ending when General Lee surrendered at Appamatox Courthouse on April 9, 1865.

It is now January 2021. Two months ago, Democratic candidate Joe Biden defeated Republican President Donald Trump by a large margin: 306 electoral votes to 232. The popular vote, which doesn’t determine the winner, was also lopsided: Biden received 7 million more votes nationwide than Trump. Unwilling to accept defeat, Trump claimed the election was stolen through widespread voter fraud. His only evidence was some affidavits from supporters, who complained about apparent irregularities. His campaign filed 60 lawsuits: it won only one, a judgement to let poll watchers get closer to poll workers counting ballots. The U.S. Supreme Court rejected out of hand the two suits it received. But Trump persisted, repeating his false claims of fraud. And many of his followers believed him.

The electors cast their votes in the states on December 14, with the results as expected: 306 for Biden, 232 for Trump. The only remaining step in the process was scheduled for January 6, when both houses of Congress would meet to certify the results. This was normally a formality, although Representatives and Senators could object to results from individual states. Trump saw this as his last chance and, through Twitter, called on supporters to come to Washington D.C. on that day: “Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!”

Heeding the call, thousands of Trump supporters gathered in Washington on January 6. Trump gave a speech at the Ellipse in the National Mall, in which he repeated his claim that the election was stolen. He called on supporters to march to the Capitol, which many of them did. The first clashes between police and Trump supporters started at about 1:00 p.m. The police were prepared for a peaceful demonstration but not a violent assault. They gave way. At about 2:00 p.m., Trump supporters broke into the Capitol building itself. Police whisked Senators and Representatives from their chambers and offices to safe places in or near the Capitol, while the mob roamed through the building, vandalizing offices, stealing and smashing objects, smearing excrement and urinating. Five people died, including two police officers. Reinforcements from the D.C. Metropolitan police, federal law enforcement agencies, and National Guard troops finally arrived and pushed the intruders out of the building and off the Capitol grounds.

With Pickett’s Charge, General Lee failed to dislodge Union forces and suffered heavy casualties, which forced him to retreat. The insurrection at the Capitol disrupted the vote to certify the results, but it continued after the mob retreated, and Joe Biden was certified the winner. Donald Trump finally admitted that there would be a transition to a new administration on January 20. He has now been impached by the House and will be tried by the Senate, although the date for that is uncertain.

Trump’s attempts to overturn the election, accurately called an insurrection, peaked in the storming of the Capitol. This was its high-water mark. The consequences of the storming of the Capitol will become clearer as time goes on, but one thing is already apparent: Like Pickett’s Charge, it was a strategic defeat for Trump and his supporters.

Lee’s army, though defeated, remained dangerous and fought on for almost two years, even threatening Washington D.C. in 1864. Trump’s ragtag mob, including QAnon conspiracy theorists, white supremacists, Christian nationalists, and others, also remains dangerous. New riots are planned for January 17 and again on January 20, Inauguration Day.

The analogy between Pickett’s Charge and the storming of the Capitol is striking in many ways, but it’s not perfect. The Confederate soldiers fought for white supremacy, as do many of Trump’s followers. But when the Confederates attacked, they did it as disciplined soldiers who knew they would pay an awful price. Trump’s mob was anything but disciplined, and its members believed they wouldn’t have to pay a high price. Let’s see if they’re right.

By Jan Fidler from Prague, Czech Republic - Prague New Year 2016 fireworks. Happy New Year!, CC BY 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=46100832

Welcome, 2021!

January 1, 2021 / rampinelli

Germany, New Years Day, 2021

Earlier today, people throughout the world celebrated the end of 2020, which many describe as a terrible year. History will remember it as the year of the pandemic, in which societies throughout the world practiced social distancing, throttled back their economies, and even introduced curfews and lockdowns. The human toll from Covid-19 has been enormous, with deaths worldwide approaching two million.

But for some, 2020 was a good year: Couples got married, students graduated from school or college, children were born. And for many people, 2020 ended on a positive note: President Trump lost his reelection bid, and Joe Biden will replace him on January 20. But storm clouds are gathering for the world’s oldest democracy: Many Republicans believe that Trump lost due to voter fraud, even though there is no evidence for it, and before the election polls had predicted he would lose by an even greater margin. Some Republican members of Congress have announced they will vote to reject the results of the electoral college. If they somehow succeeded, which is unthinkable, it would spell the end of the American constitutional order and possibly lead to civil war.

The situation in the American church in America is not much better. Christians are bitterly divided between left and right, with white evangelicals still supporting Trump. Franklin Graham, Billy Graham’s son, persists with the disproved argument that Biden won through fraud, simply because he believes Trump. He predicts disaster for the country if Democrats win the Senate on January 6, because they will immediately pass the Equality Act. This would “change our nation at its very foundation,” Graham argued in a Facebook post.

The Equality Act would prohibit discrimination against people based on their sexual orientation or gender orientation (i.e. LGBTQs). Whether the Equality Act as proposed is a good idea or not is a legitimate question. Given the case of the baker in Colorado who was sued for refusing to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding, I can understand the concern about religious liberty. But can Christians really support discrimination?

Evangelicals should negotiate with progressives to find a reasonable solution that protects people from discrimination but protects religious liberty and freedom of conscience. Instead, both sides demonize each other and predict the end of the country if the other side wins. Consequently, many on the right, including evangelicals, refuse to accept the results of the presidential election. When the evidence-free fraud argument is brushed aside, they are clearly ready to jettison democracy to keep the other side from gaining power. And while most on the left aren’t yet ready to go that far, intolerance is growing among them as well. Each side sees the other as the enemy, and how can we compromise with evil?

The cliché says that the night is darkest before the dawn. In Matthew 16, Jesus says the gates of Hell will not prevail against his church. He doesn’t say we won’t have conflict – the history of Christianity proves otherwise. But regardless of how bleak things look, God’s purposes will ultimately prevail.

We have reason to hope that 2021 will be better than 2020. And if it’s not, we can still be sure that things will turn out well in the end. Jesus promises that.

Joy to the World

December 25, 2020 / rampinelli

Germany, Christmas 2020

This Christmas is unlike any in recent memory. With the Covid-19 pandemic raging in a second wave throughout Europe and America, public life has been stifled. There were no Christmas markets in Germany this year. Churches, while still open, remain empty. Families and friends, who in years past celebrated the holidays together, are separated. With borders closed or entry restricted, holiday travel is at a minimum. Airlines are hemorrhaging cash; bars and restaurants are closed; millions have lost their jobs; some families are going hungry or have lost their homes. Worst of all, the virus has killed thousands of people in Germany, hundreds of thousands in the U.S., and close to two million people worldwide.

When times are bad, we ask why. And with our limited, time-bound perspective, we often can’t find a sastisfying answer. For atheists, this is their strongest argument: If God is omnipotent and good, why is there suffering in the world? With no easy answer, countless people have abandoned their faith.

But as dark as the winter has been, there is light on the horizon. Scientists have developed and tested a vaccine against the Corona virus in record time. Vaccinations have already started in many countries. If all goes well, our lives could return to normal in a few months. That is a reason for joy.

But there is a deeper and more permanent reason for joy: Two millenia ago, in an act of great love, God took on human flesh and became one of us. Jesus was born in a stall, lived a modest life as the son of a carpenter, and then as a wandering teacher. He shared our sufferings. Finally, he was put to death on a cross by the religious and political authorities of his day. The creator and ruler of the universe died at the hands of his rebellious creatures.

Jesus’s death had a cosmic impact that his opponents could not foresee. His sacrifice allowed God to forgive us completely and still maintain justice. It dethroned the evil powers that had held the earth in their sway. Through his teaching and example, and with the power of the Holy Spirit, he began a revolution that is still going on today. The world is slowly being set right, incompletely, in fits and starts, but the “moral arc of the universe bends toward justice,” as Martin Luther King said.

So, even in the face of injustice, disease, and suffering, we Christians have reason to be joyful. In Jesus Christ, God has redeemed us and the entire world. Let’s spread the message of joy to the world.

The Ongoing Coup

December 11, 2020 / rampinelli

Trump and his supporters are trying to overthrow the election results. That is a coup, which would destroy our democracy and have unforeseeable results. Christians must not support it.

December 11, 2020

When a revolution begins, you never know how it will end. The French Revolution began in 1787, when French aristocrats, objecting to new taxes levied on them to pay for France’s debt (much of it from helping the United States achieve independence), forced King Louis XVI to convene the Estates-General. In 1789, the Third Estate, which represented the commoners (including the new middle class of business owners and professions), insisted on a National Constituent Assembly to write a constitution for the country. Events took their turn, and soon the king was deposed and executed, and the aristocrats scattered.

After almost three years of bloody and fruitless war, liberals in the Russian Duma launched the February Revolution of 1917. But this was followed eight months later by the October Revolution, in which the Bolsheviks took over the reigns of power. They won the ensuing civil war and established a Communist dictatorship, which lasted until Gorbachev began his reforms in the 1980s. As for Gorbachev, when he launched his liberalization measures (Glasnost and Perestroika), little did he know that these modest reform measures would culminate in the end of the Soviet Union.

The United States is a constitutional republic, a representative democracy. The guiding philosophy is rule by the majority, with minority rights protected. We have often failed to live up to these principles, as American Indians and African Americans can confirm, but over the years we have become more inclusive and have righted many of the most egregious wrongs, such as slavery and Jim Crow. Majority rule is based on elections, and elections have consequences, as Republicans have frequently reminded us. Minority rights are based on the rule of law, which most Americans claim to support.

Events since the presidential election of November 3, 2020, have been frightening. Donald Trump has ceaselessly complained that systematic voter fraud has stolen a “landslide victory” from him. For three weeks, he prevented the General Services Administration from assisting with the transition. Even today, his administration’s cooperation with the president-elect, Joe Biden, has been lacking. Refusing to succeed, Trump has directed his lawyers to launch lawsuits in all the swing states, alleging voter fraud and asking the courts to overturn the election. But the evidence they have supplied has been unconvincing, and the courts have rejected virtually all Trump’s claims.

Now Trump is following another strategy: He is trying to convince Republican-dominated legislatures in these states to overturn the election results and send Trump electors to vote for him when the Electoral College meets. In all of these states, this would violate state law, which awards electors to the winner of the popular vote. Since most Republican legislators are loyal Americans and committed to the rule of law, it is hard to imagine they would do this.

But what if Trump succeeded and these legislatures nullified the election? That would be a coup d’état. It would be a revolution that ends the American republic. And as in many revolutions, the ultimate outcome would be unpredictable. The only thing that we could predict with certainty is chaos. Civil war would be likely.

In Romans 13, Paul tells us that we should be subject to the governing authorities, which have been instituted by God to let us live a peaceful life, protected from wrongdoers. Some Christians have taken this to mean that we should be unshakably loyal to Donald Trump. They are mistaken. If God put Trump in his position, he also put Obama in the same position. But did Trump supporters say we should be subject to President Obama?

The governing authorities in the United States are those who faithfully execute their duties under the Constitution of the United States as well as federal and state laws. Those in authority who break the laws and undermine the Constitution are not legitimate authorities: They have broken their oath. If Donald Trump somehow pulls off his attempted coup, he is no longer the legitimate president, but a lawbreaker and an enemy of the Constitution.

What I find especially painful is the many evangelical Christians who STILL support Trump, even though he is clearly trying to overthrow the Constitution. Not only are they failing as American citizens to support and defend the Constitution; they are aiding a politician who is trying to destroy the republic. They are helping to overturn the true governing authorities, instituted by God, who may be Republican or Democrat, but who uphold the rule of law.

Most evangelicals support Trump because he does what they ask him to: oppose abortion, support religious liberty, and appoint conservative judges. But that hardly justifies a coup. And from a pragmatic perspective: If the revolution really takes place, can they predict where it will end?

A liberal democracy, in which the majority rules and minority rights are protected, is the system most likely to protect our rights over the long term. For Christians, religious liberty is an important good, to be cherished and defended. But if a dictator promises to uphold religious liberty, can you be confident he will keep his word? Unconstrained by the rule of law or the voice of the voters, what dictators give you today, they can take away tomorrow.

Evangelicals, repent of your devotion to Trump.

What Else You Get with Trump

October 27, 2020 / rampinelli

Why Evangelicals Should Think Twice

October 27, 2020

Most white evangelicals support Donald Trump for reelection. Ignoring some of the craziest arguments, like Trump is “God’s chosen one”, Trump’s evangelical supporters emphasize his opposition to abortion, support for religious liberty, and appointment of conservative judges. Fair enough. Most Democrats are pro-choice and favor LGBTQ calls for acceptance, including the right to marry, over conservative Christians’ rights to not participate in something they believe is sinful, such as gay marriage.

But abortion and religious liberty are not the only issues that Christians should care about. What you also get with Donald Trump is a man with a narcissistic personality disorder. He has an inflated sense of his own importance, an excessive need to be admired, and little or no sense of empathy. As a result, his administration is the epitome of incompetence and corruption. More specifically, the Trump administration has given the country a disastrous foreign policy, a catastrophic climate change policy, a fiasco in health care, and poor stewardship of the economy. Even worse: Trump is dividing the country, attacking the rule of law, and threatening our democracy.

The Trump administration is fundamentally incompetent. While Trump began his term with competent people, such as General Mattis as defense secretary, he has since replaced them with sycophants, such as Pompeo and Barr. From the start, he surrounded himself with family members, as if the U.S. government were his family business, or a Mafia syndicate. Because of his grandiosity, he refuses to listen to his advisors unless they tell him what he wants to hear. The botched response to the Covid-19 crisis is an especially glaring, and deadly, example of the administration’s ineptitude.

The Trump administration is corrupt. As a narcissist, Trump believes the normal rules of political behavior do not apply to him. And so instead of putting his business assets in a blind trust, as his predecessors did, he turned them over to his sons. Foreign governments curry favor by booking events at his hotels and golf courses, as do domestic and foreign businesses. According to Forbes senior editor Dan Alexander, Trump daughter Ivanka’s trademark requests in China were approved 40% faster than before his election. Just a week ago, the New York Times reported that Trump has a secret Chinese bank account. Corruption, of course, is not just about money: Trump’s strongarming of Ukraine’s president to get politically usable dirt on Joe Biden is a prime example. There are good reasons why Democracy21’s Fred Wertheimer calls the Trump administration the most corrupt in history.

Moving on to foreign policy, the record is somewhat better. Trump did have some successes: for example, he brought the campaign against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, started by President Obama, to a successful conclusion. But his abandonment of our Kurdish allies, who spilled most of the blood in the fight, may have undone everything he accomplished, and it certainly smashed our reputation. Trump has also managed to avoid new wars, although he came close to starting one with Iran by killing General Soleimani. Moreover, Trump did sell tank-busting Javelins to Ukraine, but the sales agreement prohibits Ukraine from using them against the Donbas separatists. These successes are overshadowed by the Trump administration’s strategic failures. From the start, Trump has cozied up to dictators, such as Russia’s Putin, North Korea’s Kim Jong-Un, and Chinese Communist Party chairman Xi Jinping. At the same time, he has attacked long-standing allies, such as Germany, and ignored others, such as Australia, which had to wait two years until an ambassador was appointed. As China continues its economic and political global expansion, backed by a growing military capability, the U.S. needs its allies more than ever. Instead, Trump has trashed our alliances. Can we count on them when we need them?

With the command to “till it and keep it”, God gave humanity dominion over the earth. Our stewardship of the planet has not been good. Climate change, driven by the burning of fossil fuels, is already causing droughts, fires, and extreme weather patterns. It will continue to get worse. For that reason, world leaders came together and signed the Paris Agreement to keep global warming below 2° by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Despite the counsel of scientists, Trump denies climate change and so withdrew the U.S. from the Paris Agreement. While China has overtaken the U.S. as the world’s greatest polluter, there is no hope for success in the fight against climate change if the U.S. is not onboard.

On health care, Trump has promised to repeal the Affordable Care Act – Obamacare – and replace it with “something better”. At the end of his first term, his promised replacement is still a secret. But the threat to Obamacare is real, with a lawsuit pending before the Supreme Court to overturn the law.

Trump’s handling of the Covid-19 pandemic is a classic case of dishonesty and incompetence. Trump knew back in January that the novel coronavirus was a serious public health threat, but he chose to downplay it to protect his reelection chances. When Democratic governors took action to limit the damage, he attacked them, calling on supporters to “Liberate Michigan!” Even now, amid the predicted autumn wave of rising Covid-19 cases, he still argues that the virus is going away. The U.S. leads the world in Covid-19 cases and deaths, largely because of its slow response to the pandemic. Trump’s narcissistic focus on reelection has killed thousands of Americans.

Polls show that Trump gets his highest marks for the economy, which was doing well until the pandemic hit. But he does not deserve credit for it. Trump inherited a strong and growing economy from the Obama administration and juiced it up with massive tax cuts. But as any economist will tell you, an economic boom is not the time to increase the deficit. Trump’s tax cuts have raised the government’s debt immensely. When interest rates rise, which will happen someday, the interest burden will be hard to bear. Moreover, due to the high levels of government debt, which the tax cuts fostered, Trump’s Republican allies in the Senate refuse to pass a second stimulus package, which the economy now desperately needs. To maintain its position as the world’s strongest economy, the United States needs to invest in infrastructure – roads, rails, communication, and education – and in industries of the future, such as renewable energy. We are falling short. Another massive economic problem is the growing gap between the rich and the rest. Rising inequality threatens our social cohesion, which threatens our economy. But he does not seem to care about it, nor do his fellow Republicans.

Trump has been called the “Divider in Chief”. He has attacked Mexicans, calling them rapists and criminals. He has banned immigration from Muslim countries. His signature policy is to “build the wall” to deter illegal immigration and has taken money from the Defense Department to do it. Trump is anything but forthright in condemning white supremacists. Not surprisingly, racial incidents against Latinos, Blacks, and Asians have climbed substantially since Trump took office.

Trump denies that Blacks are more likely than whites to be victims of police violence. And when a 17-year-old white male shot a protestor in Kenosha, Wisconsin, Trump supported him. Instead of trying to calm the country in the wake of George Floyd’s murder in police custody, Trump fanned the flames. The result was a wave of protests that sometimes turned violent. Trump responded by sending DHS paramilitaries into Portland, Oregon, and encouraged the white nationalist Proud Boys to “Stand back and stand by!”

Trump’s disdain for the rule of law is painful to see. It began early in his presidency when he demanded personal loyalty from the FBI director, James Comey. Trump then obstructed the Muller investigation into his 2016 campaign’s alleged collusion with Russia. His widespread corruption has already been noted. Trump has pardoned the likes of Sheriff Arpaio and Roger Stone. Under Attorney General Barr, the U.S. Justice Department has been degraded into Trump’s personal law firm, which now wants to defend him in a civil suit.

But the worst evil of Trump’s presidency is his threat to American democracy. His strongarm response to peaceful protesters so he could have a photo op in front of a damaged church in Washington D.C. was an attack on our consitutional right to protest. He has called for an “army” of poll watchers to descend on voting precincts, presumably to intimidate people who would otherwise vote against him. But worst of all, he refuses to say that he will honor the will of the voters by leaving office peacefully. Instead, he says that, if he loses, it is proof of voter fraud, even though the polls favor Joe Biden to win.

If the loser does not accept the election results, but tries to cling to power, American democracy faces an existential threat. And if he would succeed in staying in power despite losing the election, America is no longer a democracy. We would have descended to the level of Belarus and become a dictatorship. The people would not take this lightly – massive civil unrest, with many casualties, would result. We could even have a second civil war.

If you believe that abortion kills a human being, it makes sense to oppose it energetically, and protection of religious liberty is an important part of our American democracy. But the reelection of Donald Trump would put our country and its democracy at grave risk. The price is too high. Instead, politically conservative evangelicals should strive to reform the Republican Party and renew its commitment to democracy and the rule of law. Then, in good conscience, they can try to win the next election. The country might support them.

Choose Your Jesus

December 23, 2017 / rampinelli

One of the great advantages of living in a modern capitalist economy is choice: If you have enough money, you can buy just about anything you want. Take cars, for example. If you like luxury, and have the cash, you can buy a Mercedes S-class. If you prefer a sportier ride, Porsche will be happy to give you what you want. If you want a more macho image, a pickup truck might be just right for you. And if you want the status of rejecting status symbols, Dacia will be happy to sell you a cheap but good car.

When I teach my students about marketing, the message is simple: Segment the market, select the segment or segments you want to serve, and offer them the products they want at a price they’re willing to pay. The theme song of a 1960s countercultural movie told listeners, “You can get anything you want, in Alice’s Restaurant!” That described the economy back then, and describes it even better now.

The consumer mentality isn’t just restricted to goods and services: In our post-modern, post-truth society, we can also believe whatever we want. Are you a political progressive? Then you know giant corporations, the Koch Brothers, and Republicans are all that’s standing between the people and a bright future filled with prosperity and social justice. If you’re a conservative, you believe that Donald Trump is a modern-day miracle-worker, who will restore manufacturing and mining jobs, protect America from unfair competition, and keep us safe from Muslims and Mexicans.

For years, now, the idea that we can believe whatever we want has applied to religion as well. Since the founding of the republic, we Americans could choose the church we want to belong to. This freedom of religion is a wonderful thing, and I’m very glad we have it. But that’s not what I’m talking about. Since at least the beginning of the 20^th Century, you could choose your church AND your beliefs.

Once upon a time, if you believed that Jesus was a great moral teacher, but not the Messiah, savior, or Son of God, you pretty much had to become a Unitarian. Now, there’s nothing wrong with that: Unitarians are fine people and have had a long and distinguished history. But if you want to write about a non-divine Jesus, you’ll gain a lot more attention if you’re a member in good standing of a non-Trinitarian church (or are Muslim and get interviewed by Fox News). After all, we expect that from Unitarians. But if a Lutheran, Episcopalian, or Catholic scholar claims that Jesus was just a man, well that’s news! Or at least it used to be, before it became so common.

The quest for the “historical” Jesus goes back to the Enlightenment, with the writings of Hermann Reimarus, who died in 1768. Reimarus argued that Jesus was a Jewish reformer who became increasingly fanatical and political and failed in his quest. His followers reinterpreted him as another type of Messiah, and Christianity resulted. In the 19^th century, David Friedrich Strauss argued that the early church embellished Jesus’s story to turn him into a divine Messiah. Then, in 1906, Albert Schweitzer published his magnum opus, “The Quest for the Historical Jesus”, in which he critiqued the previous searchers and argued that Jesus was an eschatological prophet who believed in the imminent end of the world. The famous theologian Rudolf Bultmann, in turn, argued that the gospel record was invented by the early church, but no matter: Whereas the Jesus of History is unknowable, we believe in the Christ of Faith, as proclaimed by the church. So, we could be agnostic about the historical Jesus but remain Christians through belief in the Christ of Faith.

In other words, Christians could be like Michelle Bachmann, who said that America’s Founding Fathers worked tirelessly to end slavery, even though many of them, like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, kept slaves until they died. We can believe whatever we want, regardless of the historical facts.

The so-called Jesus Seminar shows us how to do this. The four gospels, along with the epistles of Paul and, possibly, some non-canonical writings, such as the Gospel of Thomas, are the main sources that tell us what Jesus said and did. And Paul’s epistles don’t provide much detail here. One of the “Seven Pillars of Scholarly Wisdom” promulgated by the Jesus Seminar is reversal of the burden of proof: The gospel writings are so embellished, that we need evidence to conclude that anything in them is historical. So, if something in the gospels doesn’t fit our view of Jesus, we can simply reject it, based on reversal of the burden of proof!

The Jesus Seminar does, of course, have somewhat objective criteria for evidence, such as multiple attestation and embarrassment. But multiple attestation alone isn’t enoug: Even though Jesus’s birth in Bethlehem is attested by both Matthew and Luke (with some significant differences of detail), the Jesus Seminar argues he was born in Nazareth. On the other hand, community issues, where a statement or action of Jesus would reflect the concerns of the early church, is evidence of inauthenticity, as is self-reference, such as “I am the way, the truth and the life.” In other words, anything that the early church COULD have made up, it did make up, and Jesus never talked about himself at all. The result is, eighty-two percent of the words ascribed to Jesus in the gospels were not uttered by him, according to the Jesus Seminar.

While this may be shocking for orthodox Christians, it’s good news for religious consumers. You can cherry-pick the sayings and actions of Jesus to fit your desired image of Jesus, and reject everything else as “inauthentic”, added by the early church.

The Muslim Reza Aslan, for example, argues that Jesus was a proto-Zealot, whose goal was to free Judea from Roman rule, by force. Jesus, of course, failed (in contrast to Mohammed and his successors, who conquered much of the Eastern Roman Empire). An opposing view is provided by John Dominic Crossan, who argues that Jesus opposed Rome, but was non-violent.

In other words, you can believe that Jesus was a violent (Aslan), or a non-violent (Crossan), opponent of Roman rule – take your pick. If you prefer, you can make Jesus a liberal social justice warrior – look at his concern for the poor! Then again, maybe you want a more law-and-order Jesus, such as the one who said “not one jot or tittle of the law will pass away”. And if you don’t want your taxes to go to help the poor, Jesus said “the poor you will always have with you”. All the other sayings about helping the poor must have come from the early church. Moreover, if you care a lot about the “right to bear arms”, Jesus said “if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.” As for his rebuke of Peter for using a sword, you can call that an inauthentic addition by a pacifist early church. See how easy it is to have exactly the Jesus you want?

It’s certainly possible that the early church embellished what Jesus said and did before the gospels were written, and in the case of Mark’s longer resurrection account, even thereafter. But the gospels are the best sources we have for what Jesus said and did, so reversing the burden of proof of authenticity means we can know very little about him. And so we can cherry-pick our evidence and make Jesus whoever we want him to be.

An old joke has a businessman looking to hire an accountant. He asks the first two applicants, “How much is two plus two?” When they answered “four”, he dismisses them politely. The third applicant, when asked the same question, replies, “How much do you want it to be?” And if we’re free to reject what we don’t like, we can do the same!

We can choose our favorite Jesus by accepting the biblical evidence that fits our presuppositions and rejecting the rest. Or we can accept Jesus as presented in the gospels, a very complex man who is also God, and grapple with his actions and sayings that we might prefer to reject. For followers of Jesus, the choice should be clear.

Illiberal Liberals

June 29, 2017 / rampinelli

Liberals are supposed to be liberal. Some are not.

June 29, 2017

I think I’m a liberal, at least in the American context:

I support health care for all;
I favor low-tuition – or even tuition-free – education at public universities;
I want the federal government to take strong measures to fight unemployment, promote higher wages, and reduce inequality;
I support the right of gays and lesbians to marry;
I’ve consistently voted for Democrats since 1992.

I was – and am – appalled by the intolerance, ignorance, and closed-mindedness of many Trump supporters and others on the right. But I used to think intolerance was mainly on the right. I was wrong. A few things have happened recently to change my mind.

The shooting of Republican congressman Steve Scalise by a deranged Bernie Sanders supporter is certainly one of the worst atrocities by an American “progressive”. It would be easy to write this off as the random act of a crazy person with a gun. But some Twitter posts by “progressives” have applauded it, or at least argued that Scalise had it coming. Kathy Griffin’s photo shoot holding Trump’s decapitated head might have been a lame attempt at humor – she’s a comedian – but it was worse than just poor taste.

On a less gruesome note, but also of concern, was Sen. Bernie Sanders’s questioning of Russell Vought, Trump’s nominee for deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget. A year before, Vought weighed in on a controversy involving Wheaton College, his alma mater. The evangelical college had fired Larycia Hawkins for stating that Muslims worshipped the same God that Christians do. Vought supported the college, arguing that Muslims reject Jesus Christ, and so are condemned. Sanders questioned him hard on this, and then argued that Vought was an Islamophobic bigot who should not be confirmed. As a somewhat more liberal Christian, I disagree with Vought – and Wheaton College – but their arguments are based on reasonable interpretations of the Bible and should be treated with respect. Bernie Sanders applied a religious test to the appointment, essentially rejecting Christians with evangelical beliefs as unfit for public office. The Constitution, fortunately, prohibits this.

The problem wasn’t just with Bernie Sanders. On its Facebook page, the normally responsible “Being Liberal” site condemned Vought for his “incredibly Islamophobic” statements. Many of the commenters agreed.

Jaelene Hinkle, the conservative Christian goalkeeper for the US women’s soccer team, withdrew from the roster for “personal reasons”. Her likely reason was that the team’s jerseys included numbers in the LGBT rainbow and replaced the player’s name with “Pride”. Ms. Hinkle, like many other conservative Christians, opposes same-sex marriage and probably felt her witness would be compromised by wearing the jersey. She was skewered as a bigot in social media for her very discreet decision.

There’s more, of course. Liberal universities have canceled speeches by right-wing speakers, such as Milo Yiannopoulos and Ann Coulter. In academia, “political correctness” threatens free speech.

Liberal intolerance can also be found outside the US. Tim Farron, an evangelical Christian, resigned from his post as the head of Britain’s Liberal Democrats after a campaign where his views on whether gay sex was a sin were the subject of repeated press questioning.

It’s easy to object that the other side is worse, and it most certainly is. But that doesn’t excuse us who call ourselves liberals when we speak and act illiberally. Liberals are supposed to support freedom, especially the freedom to dissent from the prevailing views of society. That’s why freedom of thought, press, and religion are dear to liberal hearts, as is tolerance for people who think and act differently. In other words, illiberal liberals are hypocrites. They also provide ammunition to the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, who are pleased to trumpet any examples of leftist bigotry.

More pragmatically, left-wing intolerance undermines our ability to compromise with reasonable people on the other side. For a democratic system to survive, it’s essential that people who disagree find compromises that most people can live with. But when we’re intolerant toward those who think differently, we add fuel to the fires of polarization and make compromise impossible. After all, isn’t it immoral to compromise with evil? Many on the right are guilty of this, of course. But when people on the left do the same, it reinforces the radical right in their obstruction and uncompromising stance.

We liberals hope to regain power in Washington and the states, so we can begin to solve the massive problems our country has. Realistically, though, we can’t do this without stripping away some of the right’s supporters. White evangelicals, who voted 80 percent for Trump, are a group we can make inroads with. Jesus told his followers to feed the hungry, cure the sick, visit those in prison – in short, to love our neighbor as ourselves. Liberals’ compassion for the poor and dispossessed has its origin in Christ’s teachings. Christians who support Ayn-Rand-type libertarians, such as Paul Ryan, do so mostly out of ignorance. If we focus on helping the poor and middle class, we can win many evangelicals over if we don’t treat them as enemies.

This means we need to respect evangelicals’ beliefs, even those we disagree with. But respecting other people’s opinions has always been the essence of tolerance, and liberalism.

What Happened to Us?

May 19, 2017 / rampinelli

Terror on the Right: What happens when the pursuit of power trumps patriotism.

May 19, 2017

I guess you could say I was a child of the sixties, a decade marked by turmoil. It started with the Civil Rights Movement, led by Martin Luther King, Jr., which ultimately led to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which ended the infamous Jim Crow laws in the American South, our version of Apartheid. The Civil Rights Act, while a huge step forward, didn’t create equality, justice, and peace overnight, as the decade’s numerous race riots and the assassination of Dr. King vividly show.

The other great movement of the sixties was the anti-war movement, opposed to American involvement the Vietnam War. Because of the draft, thousands of conscripts were pulled from American cities and towns into the military and sent to fight in the jungles of southeast Asia. As casualties mounted, so did opposition to the war. The anti-war movement gained strength and spawned other leftist movements, which opposed just about everything in America. I spent my teenage years in Ann Arbor, Michigan, a hotbed of left-wing radicalism and anti-war activism. I remember a march where someone waved the Viet Cong flag. The Students for a Democratic Society – founded in Ann Abor – called for revolution to overthrow “capitalism”.

Most Americans back then, including many who opposed the Vietnam War, were appalled by the excesses of the far left. We could disagree on politics, but for most of us, our allegiance to the country was never in question. And once the war was over, many of the long-haired hippie types cut their hair, put on suits, and joined the “establishment”. Many of them became Republicans.

So, let’s fast-forward half a century. In 2014, rancher Cliven Bundy and his armed supporters, self-proclaimed “militiamen”, threatened to do battle with law enforcement officers attempting to enforce a court order to impound his cattle to pay grazing fees owed to the federal government. Amazingly, the insurrectionists were supported by a number of Republican politicians. As the 2016 election approached, some right-wing “militias” were training for civil war in case Hillary Clinton got elected. But Trump’s election hasn’t brought peace. With opposition to Donald Trump growing throughout the country, some of his supporters are still talking of civil war against “left-wing terrorists”. And at the end of April, a self-described conservative walked into a campus coffee shop in Lexington, KY, and asked customers what their political affiliation was. If they answered Republican, he left them alone. If they said Democrat, he attacked them with a machete.

Mainstream sixties conservatives would have been appalled by this. William F. Buckley Jr., for example, steadfastly opposed the John Birch Society for its conspiracy-mongering and extremism. If he were alive today, he’d certainly have harsh words for the Tea Party, militiamen, and Trump supporters. But today’s Republicans can’t find it in themselves to condemn advocates of sedition and extremism, as long as they vote Republican.

We now have a “conservative” Republican president whose ties to a hostile Russian government are suspect and about whose incompetence there is no doubt. The Justice Department has appointed a special counsel to investigate the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia. How have Republican leaders reacted? With a few honorable exceptions (such as Senators Lindsey Graham and John McCain), the silence has been deafening.

In the “good old days”, Republicans and Democrats could work together. Both parties supported the space program. Both parties voted for the Civil Rights Act. On foreign policy, the norm for both parties was, “politics stops at the water’s edge”. Shutting down the federal government was unthinkable, as was refusing to raise the debt ceiling. Back in the sixties, America worked, even during the depths of the Vietnam War.

What’s happened to us? The same thing that happened to the Roman Empire after Marcus Aurelius died. Power, not patriotism, reigned supreme, and the Empire descended into a period of civil strife. But today, everything happens much faster, thanks to modern media. The media could be a force for educating the public, but many Americans have no use for education. Rather, they tune in to TV and talk radio commentators who confirm what they already believe. Roger Ailes, who died on May 18, built Fox News into a “conservative” kingmaker. He combined right wing ideology with flashy entertainment, which hooked much of the white middle class. Rush Limbaugh and others were even wilder, hatching conspiracy theories and blaming all the country’s problems on “progressives”. Amazingly, new media outlets, like Breitbart, opened to the right of Fox News, as if there were much space there!

Republican politicians soon learned that compromising and negotiating with Democrats would get them a primary challenger for the next election. The key to a long career as a Republican member of Congress was to fight everything Democrats supported. And when voters elected the first African-American president, the very moderate Barack Obama, Republican politicians tried their best to make him fail, despite the harm that did to the country.

Hindus believe in Karma. Christians prefer to say, “you reap what you sow”. The laughable presidency of Donald Trump could well mean the end of the Republican Party, as Americans turn away with disgust from the lies, corruption, and incompetency of this administration. We can only hope that some principled conservatives start a new party or sweep up the shards of the broken GOP. But if we don’t want to go the way of the Roman Empire, we must never forget what happens when the pursuit of power overwhelms patriotism.

Between God and Mammon