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, November 30, 2016

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For November 30, 2016

Just a reminder that the comments below are not edited as much as the regular blogposts. Therefore, they will contain more gramatical and spelling errors than the regular blogposts do.

Nov 15

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost quote from Simon Capiobianco about Social Justice Warriors. This appeared in the Heidelblog

I see two problems here. First, Social Justice Warriors (SJWs) do not make up a monolith. Second, with all of the fault finding of SJWs without noting their legitimate work and concerns, it seems that the person giving the assessment is vying for the position of pharisee from the parable of the two men praying. And that would make this particular critic of SJWs guilty of most of the faults this critic saw in SJWs.

Why would Capiobianco paint such a heterogeneous group as a monolith?  The flawed logic from above is obvious: If all SJWs are as described above, then they have no valid points to make--something stated rather explicitly. Thus, Capiobianco could be trying to discredit them so others don't listen to them at all. It is a a kind of censorship or book burning if you would. Of course, Capiobianco's assessments are arrived at through deduction, not though an inductive approach that would examine each of the issues or concerns that SJWs have.

Yes, some SJWs are guilty of some of the faults listed above. But not all are. And so what are the faults of conservatives?



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

Nov 16

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost on how the Church should note let its pulpit be used  during worship services by politicians. Clark went on to explain the Church’s role in society. This appeared in Heidelblog.

I fully agree that no candidate should be speaking from any church pulpit during worship service. And I oppose the idea of the Church becoming an agent of the state like the Church did in the 4th century.

But let's face it regarding the last point, the Church is regarded by those in power to be one of several 'institutions of indoctrination' telling its members how to fit into society and obey those with authority.  What those with power do not want is for the Church to speak prophetically about and to those with power. When part of the Church did that during the 1960s, the liberal side of those with power called the movement in which the Church was participating in by speaking prophetically about and to those with power an 'excess of democracy.' To be sure, those in the Church who were speaking prophetically about and to those in power contained very few, if any, conservative elements. And it seems that regarding issues of militarism, economic classism and exploitation, and destruction of the environment the same applies today. Very few from the conservative churches are speaking prophetically about and to those with power. Many conservatives rightfully speak out against abortion and some have now decided to speak against racism. But the vast majority of the conservative Church refuses to speak out against the about those issues, previously mentioned, that are used to fill the coffers of those with power. Militarism, economic classism and exploitation, and destruction of the environment are issues where some who are wealthy are  benefiting at the expense of many who are vulnerable.

We need to consider whether in the Church's charge to preach the Gospel purely, should it preach against corporate sins as practiced by the state and society as it currently preaches against individual sins. We need to wonder if when the Church as an organization speaks only against personal sins, that such is by design to protect the status of those with wealth and power. For wouldn't  preaching against personal sins only make today's Church similar to the Church during the 4th century when it became an agent of the state?

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

Nov 26

To Joe Carter and his blogpost on 9 things we should know about Fidel Castro. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website

There are many legitimate criticisms one can make of Castro. Some are listed here. At the same time, the context for his faults, some of which were provided by the US, are often overlooked so that some could talk of Castro as the Pharisee did of the publican from the parable of the two men praying. For example, the person Castro overthrew was a dictator who was know for corruption and brutality (see http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/cuban-dictator-batista-falls-from-power ). In addition, in order to overthrow Castro, the US militarily attacked civilian targets and that preceded the Bay of Pigs fiasco. Finally, the reason that the USSR placed missiles so near the US in Cuba was to gain some degree of parity with the US, which already had a decisive advantage in terms of nuclear weapons, and its nuclear missiles placed in Turkey which bordered the USSR.

Castro brought some good to Cuba but that good could never compare with the violence and the oppression that came with his rule. And while some would wantonly blame the Left for his tyranny, we should note that results of revolution often significantly mirror the regimes that were replaced. Please note that the key words 'often' and 'significantly.' Examples of that statement could be found in how well Lenin's regime imitated the Tsars and in how well Castro's regime imitated the regime of his predecessor Batista. Even the American Revolution brought a significant mirroring of British rule only without an aristocracy. We should note that the writing of The Constitution came in response to widespread dissent and Shays Rebellion. Thus, The Constitution was written in an effort to maintain the place of American elites in society.



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

Nov 28

To Bruce Frohnen and his blogpost criticizing both those conservatives who opposed Trump’s candidacy and to all political nonconservatives. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

If were summarize Frohnen's political views, I would use a madlib approach to some of the sayings of Jesus. For example, when Jesus said that he was the way, truth, and the life, Frohnen appears to be saying that real political conservatism is the way, the truth, and the life and that no country flourishes without completely embracing it. Such a summary shows Frohnen's political exclusivism. For not only is the left counted by Frohnen as ravenous wolves looking to attack the sheep, so are are the wrong kind of conservatives. And such a view does not foster a sharing of power demanded by real democracy.

Frohnen's reference to the words of the cast of Hamilton to Pence as crybullying is pitiful. For the words spoken by the cast member representing the rest were nothing more than a listing of concerns which was sparked by the racism, sexism, and xenophobia associated with Trump's campaign. And if listing concerns is called crybullying, then it appears that, in Frohnen's America, not only conservative concerns are worth listening to but that he reacting ironically.

Frohnen's  antagonistic  attitude to all viewpoints that lie outside of what he considers to be true political conservatism makes his support for Trump troublesome. For if he is supporting Trump because Trump shares his antagonism, then we headed for a far more authoritarian politics than we would have had under a Clinton Presidency. And we would have had a somewhat authoritarian politics under her if she followed in Obama's footsteps.

Frohnen's antagonism toward all other views has been seen before. It has been seen in people from all political views from conservatism to liberalism to those from the Left. And it resembles the Pharisee from the parable of the two men praying. And we know what happened to the Pharisee. And we know from history what happens to nations whose leaders adopt the attitude of the Pharisee. But to those Pharisees who believe they have a monopoly on the truth, the destruction they brings comes as a complete surprise.



No comments: