Author: Andrew Sullivan

A milestone worth noting:

For the first time since the United States invaded Iraq in 2003, there are more U.S. troops deployed in Afghanistan than Iraq — 94,000 compared with 92,000 (BBC, AP, AFP, Tel). The total number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan is expected to reach 98,000 later this year, and has roughly tripled under the Obama administration.

Edge holds a forum on the meaning of the synthetic cell breakthrough. Daniel Dennet imagines a possible future:

Once the techniques honed by Venter and his team become widely known, will it be utterly beyond the capabilities and budgets of, say, well-trained biology majors to develop their own artificial life forms? That is not at all clear. What good will it do to have international agreements about the obligations of laboratories to equip their creations with default-apoptosis machinery if there are thousands of free-lancers engaging in bio-hacking? The price we will pay for this huge amplification of our technological prowess is probably an equal and opposite vulnerability. Welcome to the fast lane, humanity.

A reader writes:

I think it is that very paradox of "fully God and fully man" that keeps me Christian.

For me, it is immensely comforting to think that God took into Himself all the complexity and paradox of being human. And in the process suffering what was surely one of the most inhuman and unjust deaths possible for a human. For me, this is an answer to to dilemma of suffering and free will (whether it satisfies everyone else or not). God created the possibility of human cruelty by giving us free will, yet He was willing to suffer the consequences of that cruelty and injustice Himself – and by transcending the worst humans can do. So he opens the way for us to transcend that cruelty also.

The Epistle to the Philippians 2:5-8 states it most clearly:

"Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross."

I find that this passage is the essence of what keeps me a Christian.

I can't explain why Creation must include suffering and human evil as a necessary part of existence. But I see Christianity telling me that God was willing to take all of this mess and ambiguity and injustice into himself by becoming human.

For me, another expression of this same idea comes through the St. Thomas Aquinas's words from the Panis Angelicus: "The bread of angels becomes the bread of man . . . What a marvel! The poor, the servant and the humble / May consume their Lord."

And yet the Christian story does not end with the death and humiliation of God in Christ. Philippians continues:

"Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

To me, the same idea is stated differently (and applied to us, rather than Christ) in St. Francis' prayer:

"For it is in giving that we receive; it is in pardoning that we are pardoned; and it is in dying that we are born to eternal life."

I suppose this idea of the ultimate triumph of selfless love is not exclusively Christian, but because it is central to the Christian Gospel, I remain a Christian.

(Painting: The Supper At Emmaus, Rembrandt, 1628.)

A Rubicon is crossed, of sorts:

While public attitudes haven’t moved consistently in gays’ and lesbians’ favor every year, the general trend is clearly in that direction. This year, the shift is apparent in a record-high level of the public seeing gay and lesbian relations as morally acceptable. Meanwhile, support for legalizing gay marriage, and for the legality of gay and lesbian relations more generally, is near record highs.

A large part of the increase comes from men, not women. The religious grouping with the biggest increase in moral acceptance: Catholics, with a 16 point gain in tolerance since the hierarchy decided to demonize gays and banish them from the seminaries. Keep it up, your Holiness. And the issue of homosexuality isolates Republicans from Independents more than any other issue I’ve seen: 61 percent of Independents and Democrats alike see gay relationships as morally acceptable; only 35 percent of Republicans do. And the moderates are changing twice as quickly as Republicans.

Beat this one:

So many more here.

Joyner calls DADT repeal "still a hot button issue in much of the country." Really? A new poll:

A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Tuesday indicates that 78 percent of the public supports allowing openly gay people to serve in the military, with one in five opposed.

"Support is widespread, even among Republicans. Nearly six in ten Republicans favor allowing openly gay individuals to serve in the military," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "There is a gender gap, with 85 percent of women and 71 percent of men favoring the change, but support remains high among both groups."

So why has this remained so radioactive? First, the military is more influenced by Christianist thinking than many other segments of society. Second, the Democrats are still suffering from the post-traumatic stress of 1993, aka homophobia-phobia. Third, the media wants it to be radioactive because that's always a better story.

But this will almost certainly be a total non-event. And Rep. Patrick Murphy, who has spearheaded repeal, says he has the votes.

Julian Glover reviews the Queen's Speech setting out the Coalition's legislative agenda:

Compare this year's speech to Labour's, last autumn. The old speech set the state as the protector of the individual. There were promises to stimulate growth, extend training and strengthen services. The message was that government existed to do good.

Today's speech was the philosophical opposite: the emphasis was on individual rights and duties, paring back regulation and laws. This was a speech written by a government that does not trust its own strength and, as such, it did justice to the promises set out by the coalition.

What stands out most of all is the size of the ambition: 22 bills, most of them big, most of them potential flashpoints – with public service

workers, or unions, or inside the coalition.

Parliament will have to sweat this summer to pass them, even with a House of Lords that is well-disposed to much of this agenda. And this, too, is what the coalition promised.

There was a point, long ago it seems now, when it was hard to take seriously David Cameron's claim to be a liberal progressive. There was a point, just a fortnight ago, when a Tory deal with the Lib Dems was implausible. But this speech is the synthesis of those two things. It will bring a liberal revolution.

A former reporter in Afghanistan writes:

Yes, Mullah Zaeef is a moderate in Taliban world. In the late 1990s he tried to get the Taliban to allow the Internet into the country. And two years ago he bought an iPhone. I met with him a dozen times in Kabul from 2006-2009 and he was always a friendly, humane man.

Then there's this: We invited him over to our house for lunch once. At the table was Zaeef, three men and one women. I pulled out a camera to take a picture, and Zaeef whispered something to our Afghan interpreter, his way of being polite: He couldn't have his picture taken — there was a woman at the table.

That's the face of modernism in the Afghan south.