WHAT'S NEW

About
My Other Blog
Blog Schedule
Activism
Past Blog Posts
Various &
a Sundry Blogs
Favorite
Websites
My Stuff
On The Web
Audio-Visual
Library
Favorite
Articles
This Month's Scripture Verse:

Whoever loves money never has enough;
whoever loves wealth is never satisfied with their income.
This too is meaningless -- Ecclesiastes 5:10

SEARCH THIS BLOG

Wednesday, May 27, 2015

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For May 27, 2015


May 21

To Denny Burk and his blogpost calling the legal action against a Christian family bakery an effort to ruin them financially because of their refusal to provide services to same-sex weddings. This appeared in Denny Burk's blog.


If the family business was being sued for denying their business services to a particular function for Blacks or Hispanics, would we label the suit an effort to cause financial ruin? And yet when those in the LGBT community sue a business that is, in their view, participating in the marginalization of their community, why is that suit portrayed as an effort to ruin a family business?

To me, the issue here isn't one of agreeing/disagreeing with the plaintiffs in the court action. It has to do with the one-sided effort to market that court action to the public.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

May 22

To Joe Carter and his blogpost lamenting about how Robert Gates called on the BSA to accept gay troop leaders. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

What is the broader principle of which Carter is writing? Is it that we should discriminate against gays in society?

Where the Conservative Church has failed here is that it has made indistinguishable the Biblical teachings on sexual morality from calls to publicly discriminate against those in the LGBT community. Had we paired the Biblical teachings on sexual morality with a defense of equality for those in the LGBT community, we could have seen a different public reaction to our beliefs.  But some were determined that that was not meant to be.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost about how a Christian Jeweler had to refund money for jewelry made for a Lesbian couple after they learned what his beliefs about their sexual orientation were. This appeared in Heidelblog.

Is it possible that the reaction of the lesbian couple in the story is at least partially due to past, and even present, treatment of those in the LGBT community by the Conservative Church? After all, the Conservative Church has been in favor of criminalizing homosexuality, firing homosexuals from certain jobs because of sexual orientation, prohibiting same-sex marriages, and Jim Crow laws allowing Christians to discriminate against either those in the LGBT community or specific events. Do we honestly believe that that our past treatment of those in the LGBT community has had no negative or embittering effects on some from the LGBT community. 

In addition, why Dreher entitle the article in black-white terms. Yes, some from the LGBT community have not showed me respect. However, my experience has been that the vast majority of those from the LGBT community have treated me with much respect and as an equal even when they know what, because of the Bible, I believe about homosexuality.

It seems that some in the Christian community want the Church to unite around a persecution complex. That simply is not right. However, making people feel persecuted is an easy to manipulate them.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

May 26


To Joe Carter and his blogpost about 5 facts about Memorial Day. This appeared in the Acton blog.

The problem with Memorial Day does not have to do with the sacrifices some of our service people have made, it has to do with why they were sent in harm's way in the first place. And that problem is maintained when we copy what is said to us that our troops are always defending our freedoms. The problem with that assertion is that whether our troops are defending our freedoms depends on why they were sent into harm's way in the first place. Vietnam is key example the assertion being wrong since our losing that conflict has not affected any of our freedoms.

So what other interventions are there of other reasons than to defend our freedoms? Did we invade Afghanistan to defend our freedoms? If so, why did we team up terrorist groups to do so? How about Iraq? How is it that our troops were defending our freedoms in Iraq when the invasion was based on lies? The list of conflicts that need be examined here can be quite long if we include with our invasions all of the coups and other interventions we participated in.

The trouble with Memorial Day is not due to the valor of our troops. Rather, it is because our leaders have chosen to use our troops' valor as a moral shield to protect their policies. And they count on days like Memorial Day to compensate those who made the biggest sacrifices. And they do so as long as the policies that caused some of our troops to sacrifice the most go unexamined.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Joe Carter and his blogpost on why it's everybody's responsibility to interpret The Constitution. This appeared on the Acton blog.

It is every citizen's duty to interpret The Constitution. Of course this doesn't mean that all interpretations will carry the same weight. And with interpreting The Constitution, the points made above are valid. The problem is that how people use the points above, especially point #3, will vary as much as how people interpret The Constitution itself.

Let's give an example. Conservatives look at point #3 and say that our founding fathers were looking to establish a limited federal government with an emphasis on states' rights. Those on the Left will point out historical facts that Conservative don't mention when asserting the original intention of the founding fathers: namely that the Constitution was written in order to expand the Federal Government's power to respond to insurrections such as Shays Rebellion. Also, the end of Federalist #10 seems to see The Constitution as emphasizing the Union over the states.  In addition, while some Conservatives claim that The Constitution is based on the Bible and the Judeo-Christian faith, Leftists will point to both the historical context of The Constitution as well as documents like Henry Knox's letter to George Washington and the Constitutional Debates to claim that The Constitution was written to maintain the class status quo.

Thus, using the 5 point guide above, especially point #3, does not make interpreting The Constitution any easier or more uniform.




No comments: