Why is her right to life not protected? Because lefties like to debate … and like to be right … and sometimes enjoy browbeating opponents into submission with their superior command of the facts, we sometimes waste time doing that instead of learning something from dialogue. We debate the question presented instead of addressing an oblique one that is more illuminating. Recent reading on Christian nationalism debunks the “Christian nation” myth and provides a surfeit of ammunition for winning any number of debates on the matter. From the Ten Commandments to where constitutional principles conflict with biblical ones, “The Founding Myth” by Andrew L. Seidel provides a stockpile. But rather than debating the ins and outs of “Was the United States founded on Christian principles?” a more penetrating question to ask advocates of that proposition is “Why is that so important to you?” Or, “What’s in it for you?” It’s like asking a guy in a red, “Make America Great Again” hat, “When was it great before?” Or, “What does great again look like to you?” Never question people’s motives is one of those bits of debate advice tossed off as received wisdom. But mostly it’s meant to avoid personalizing the argument and raising opponents’ defenses (and ire). I say, make people question their own. In Oklahoma, for example. Slate senior writer Christina Cauterucci addresses a dissenting opinion in a 5-4 Oklahoma Supreme Court ruling this week. The majority found that the state’s abortion ban “must include an exception for…