Here’s the latest from the crossroads of faith, media & culture: 09/11/24

JWK: What are your thoughts on the election?

DL: One of the main reasons I wrote the book is because I think, especially, the Evangelicals and the religious right are using religion to move us toward theocracy. They are moving us away from democracy and they are moving us away from Jesus – if Christianity is the religion that you practice. I think it’s moving us further away from that. I think it’s detrimental to the country – just as having a sort of a MAGA-type dictator as a leader moves us further away from democracy and is dangerous.

JWK: So, how are we moving towards theocracy in your view?

DL: Didn’t we just remove a woman’s reproductive rights and right to choose?

JWK: The issue is in the hands of the states right now – and in Europe…

DL: If you ask me a question, sir, can I answer it before you answer it?

JWK: Sure, go ahead.

DL: We’re moving (away) from a woman’s right to choose – which is a woman’s right to able to have control of her body. The only reason that that’s happened is on a religious basis.

JWK: Well, some might say there’s a scientific basis too.

DL: If it was on a scientific basis then it would be (about) a woman’s right to choose because then you would know that a zygote is (not a baby). It would be different…There are different stages of being a human. We grow.

JWK: Right. So, I’ll tell you what, I would agree with you that at the moment of conception you’re talking about a religious or philosophical issue. People can think what they want. There’s no scientific evidence but, as you just said, as you move along in the pregnancy things happen. You have brainwaves occurring, you have a point where pain can be felt. So, as even Roe v. Wade acknowledged, as you move further along the in the pregnancy the state has more of an interest in monitoring…

DL: If you’re acting on science, it would be a woman and a doctor and they would decide.

JWK: How is that science? If you totally ignore the life functions that are going on inside the womb, how is that science?

DL: There’s a determinative period, right?

JWK: Right.

DL: So, the doctor who is a scientist determines all of those things. It is not determined by people who are sitting around a table – whether it’s in a state legislature or whether it’s in the United States Senate or the United States Congress. It is done by an actual scientist who is a woman’s doctor and herself. The only people who can decide if a pregnancy is tenable or not is the woman who is carrying the baby and the doctor who is treating her.

JWK: Well, I never heard of one doctor deciding the science for every doctor.

DL: Isn’t that what doctors do? Isn’t that what medicine is? Medicine is science.

JWK: Right but that does not negate the science of when bodily functions of a fetus occur. I mean do you have a problem if the baby can feel pain? Is that a problem or not?

DL: That’s not for me to determine, sir. That’s for a doctor and the woman who is carrying the child to determine. That is for a doctor – who is a scientist – to determine and not for lawmakers and religious people who are sitting around the country and have nothing to do with it and have no knowledge of it.

JWK: So, doctors get to just decide everything.

DL: Can you say scientist? That’s what a doctor is.

JWK: So, there’s no malpractice, I guess. It’s just whatever the “scientist” decides.

DL: That’s not what I’m saying. You’re going off on something else. I think we have to have an open mind about things. Look, religion, the Bible and God and all of those things, they’re very complicated. Anyone who says they know exactly what it is, they’re lying to you. They have an agenda. I want to know what your agenda is if you say that you specifically about what the Bible says and what Scripture is saying. That is a lie. That is a complicated topic.

JWK: Yeah, I would agree with you. Nobody knows. Anybody can have their opinion about what Scripture says.

DL: It requires us to apply critical thinking while keeping our hearts open.

JWK: I totally agree with that sentiment.

DL: It’s a library. It contains fiction, nonfiction, poetry. No one will ever fully understand it. If anyone says that they do, I want you to bust out a grain of salt and ask yourself about their agenda.

JWK: I think I would agree with that. You have people on both sides claiming they know what all these things mean. So, yeah, it needs to be discussed.

DL: Yeah, but you know that’s the whole “both sides” thing – when we know what’s better. There were people who were for slavery and then people who weren’t. There were people who were for the Holocaust and there were people who weren’t. Which side do we listen to?

JWK: Right, but once you get into “both sides-ism” you kind of negate debate. I mean how do you debate if you immediately hit each issue with “both sides-ism.” I was always taught there there is more than one side to a story.

DL: There’s more than one side but there’s usually a right side.

JWK: So who decides what’s right?  You know, I’ve written a lot about negative religion and the way it can be used to control people. I think that’s true – but I think the same thing applies to the other side too. I mean free speech is the first freedom.

DL: I’m not saying you don’t allow debate. I’m just saying you have to be careful with “both sides-ism” – because both sides aren’t always correct. There’s one side that’s usually on the most humane and right side of history.

If you look at America – let’s take America – there were people who genuinely believed in slavery, that it was what God wanted and that certain people should be subjugated. There was debate about it – but we all know what the truth was. The same thing with interracial marriage. There were people who believed that it should be illegal and that it went against God. They had debates about it – but there was one side that was right.

JWK: Yeah, one side emerges. Eventually light emerges and will point us toward the right direction. That’s why we have debate. In those days, the people who were shutting down debate were the people who believed in slavery and were opposed to interracial marriage. Only through debate did the light shine through.

DL: Yeah, I never said we should shut down debate. I said we should be careful with “both sides-ism.”

JWK: Okay, so what do you hope people take from your book?

DL: I hope people take the truth – because the truth is really hard to swallow sometimes. I think that we get caught up in religious doctrine and sort of tailoring religious doctrine in our own image. We keep trying to create God in our own image instead of looking for the image of God in other people. If we look for the image of God in other people, then we won’t be selfish about our religious beliefs. We will allow others to have religious freedom. We will allow others to be who they are. We will have a separation of church and state – because that is what makes America great…The book is really about having an open mind and loving each other. It is about debate but it’s not about having “both sides” just for the sake of false equivalence. Both sides aren’t always equal.

JWK: That’s true – but you determine that through debate.

DL: That’s what I said – but after a while, once you start realizing who’s (on) the right side – who’s acting in a humane manner – that’s when you start to realize, okay, platforming this sort of discussion is ridiculous because it’s not equal to the other thing.

JWK: I think we’re certainly at that point with slavery. No sane person is arguing for slavery – but, to get to that point, you do go through debate.

DL: When you have a high school debate or a college debate, you get to a point where you realize “Okay, this doesn’t make sense. Let’s throw this out. We don’t want to put this out as equal to that side.” Almost in a mathematical kind of way you start the realize the falsities of certain arguments.

JWK: Which is the purpose of debate – to get to that point.

DL: What I’m saying is that we pretend that it’s all the same. We stop jettisoning the stupid stuff because we continue to believe that we have to keep platforming the stupid stuff because people believe it.

JWK: But I think you do have to platform the stupid stuff – otherwise you don’t have free speech.

DL: No, no, no, no. You have a debate about it but then once you realize that it’s false and silly you don’t (continue to platform it).

JWK: But who gets to decide that?

DL: Thinking people. Humane people. People who have a brain. People who understand that 1+1 doesn’t equal 5. 1+1 equals 2. (If someone says) “No, no, no. I believe that 1+1 equals 5” then (you don’t) say “Well, okay, we have to have a talk about it. Let’s discuss it.”

JWK: No one’s gonna listen to you if you say “1+1 equals 5” – but it doesn’t mean you don’t have the right to say it.

DL: Listen to me. Then you get to the point where you say “Why do we keep putting the 1+1 equals 5 people on the level as 1+1 equals 2 people?”

JWK: You’re not putting them on the same level. They’ve been rejected but they have the right to say what they want to say.

DL: Yes, they do – but then you can’t put them on equal territory.

JWK: So, I guess we would agree about that. They’re not equal. Nobody’s gonna listen to them because they say stupid things.

DL: But they do listen to them. You know that. That’s how you get QAnon. That’s how you get conspiracy theorists – because you keep putting the people who believe in nonsense and madness on an equal playing field with the people who believe in logic.

JWK: You know, years back the Catholic Church thought Galileo was crazy for claiming the Earth revolves around the Sun. They told everybody he was crazy – but he was right. So, it’s dangerous to have the power structure just label something as wrong.

DL: Well, Galileo was a scientist.

JWK: Yes, but the government was basically the Catholic Church. Even with covid, there were scientists who disagreed with what the government was saying and they were shut down. So, I think you have to have debate. That’s my opinion.

DL: Yeah, but there came a point where Galileo won out because he was (speaking) the truth.

JWK: Which I think is what I just said. I guess we agree on that.

DL: He wasn’t just someone interpreting religious scripture in a way that he wanted to interpret it.

JWK: So, I think we agree that truth – following debate – will win out. That’s why we have debate.

DL: Right, but you can’t keep putting a crazy person on the same level of Galileo.

JWK: Right. I’m not saying you should do that – but we do need debate.

DL: (laughs) Yes, we need debate and then, after a while, once you (determine) that’s not true, we’re gonna move that aside and we’re not gonna debate that anymore because we know it’s not true.

JWK: Somewhere in there I think we’re agreeing on something.

DL: And then we move onto a different level of debate – a more honest level, a more elevated level of debate. Otherwise, we just get bogged down in conspiracy theories and lies. You have to elevate the debate. You don’t agree with that?

JWK: It depends on what you mean.

DL: It’s like “The world is flat! Let’s keep believing the world is flat!” No, it’s not! It’s actually round!

JWK: Right, but that accepted conclusion is the result of debate.

DL: Yes – but then are you gonna keep arguing with a flat Earther?

JWK: But who is doing that? Nobody’s doing that. There’s no flat Earther out there being taken seriously.

DL: We do that every single day. I see that every day. People arguing that the election was stolen.

JWK: I’m sorry. We’re gonna have a disagreement here. I’m not even saying which side is right. I’m just saying I think it’s fine to debate that.

DL: You get to a point where you say “Enough! There is no evidence that the Earth is flat!” We’ve gone through that for centuries. When do you say “Enough! There is no evidence that the election (was stolen).”

JWK: People are still debating the 1960 election – whether Kennedy really won. The debate goes on. People can still make the point that they think Nixon really won Illinois. Who knows? But I think people have a right to question it.

DL: That doesn’t mean they’re right.

JWK: No, it doesn’t.

DL: Yeah.

JWK: Okey-dokey. Anything else you’d like to say as we wrap up?

DL: (laughs) No. I enjoyed talking to you. We should debate more.

JWK: Yeah, it was fun. I enjoyed it too.
_____
Speaking of debates…the Kamala Harris Campaign is up for a second one with Donald Trump. I’m sorta surprised she’s not taking the W and moving on. I’m also surprised that Trump is hesitating. As I said in my discussion above with Don Lemon, I generally see debating as a good thing and since I think an objective assessment of last night’s event would conclude that Trump was played like a violin by Harris (albeit with great assist from the two moderators), he should want another one.

The question is, if there is to be another debate, who will host it? Team Trump does not believe it will get a fair shake from the corporate media which they see (with good reason) as being in the proverbial tank for the Democratic Party machine. The exception to that, of course, is the conservative-leaning Fox News which the Harris camp is unlikely to agree to. The basic problem is neither side trusts a media outlet they see as hostile to them to be fair.

IMHO, the way around that impasse is to simply have two moderators – one from Fox News and the other from whoever the Dems choose. Each side would ask the questions their viewers want to see the candidates address over the economy, the border, parents rights, Afghanistan, Ukraine, Israel, abortion, January 6th, what have you. No need to hide biases. Just ask tough questions of both sides.

John W. Kennedy is a writer, producer and media development consultant specializing in television and movie projects that uphold positive timeless values, including trust in God.