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:

But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people.
2 Timothy 3:1-5

SEARCH THIS BLOG

Wednesday, July 1, 2020

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For July 1, 2020

June 27

To Gene Veith and his blogpost on how we can orchestrate we should honor the flag at sporting events and such. His proposal is that we should say the Pledge of Allegiance so that the words of the pledge are used to show what the flag is about. He also states that our saluting the flag should be about our common commitment to God, fellow citizens, and to principles like liberty and justice. This appeared in Cranach.

There is often a problem when we try to answer questions by reducing the issues involved to one issue. Such reductionism invites an oversimplification of the question as well as black-white thinking.

While Veith wants us to determine how we should name forts by whether the people whose name we would use fought for or against the flag, there are far more important criteria than that to use. For example, did those confederate soldiers fight to defend not just slavery, but the white supremacy that was the basis for slavery? If we use Veith's criteria, aren't we making a symbol more important than people minimizing the significance of that question?

And, btw, lest someone challenge the fact that white supremacy was the basis for slavery, one only needs to read what the Cornerstone Speech says about the Confederate government: 'Our new government is founded on exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition.'

As for his suggestion about saying the pledge and how it should be said at sporting events, isn't there a bit too much conformity being suggested? If such conformity is expected, then how different will our Pledge of Allegiance be different from the Nazi's 'Zieg Heil'? Should we have such conformity in a nation based on freedom?

My own basic problem with reciting the Pledge of Allegiance is the first sentence: 'I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.' Why object to that if the pledge ends with 'with liberty and justice for all'? One reason is because while I believe in a general submission to the governing authorities, allegiances to other groups or things unnecessarily divides the Church. When we pledge allegiance to something, especially when that something is placed on a high pedestal, it becomes a possible competitor with our allegiance to God. And that is seen especially in our reactions to fellow Christians who don't share our allegiances. We start treating those who share our allegiance with preference over those, and that can include fellow believers, who don't. We see that in ideological tribalism.

Plus, if my first allegiance is to God, then isn't my responsibilities as a citizen already spelled out in God's Word?

Finally there is the problem with whether people agree that our nation, symbolized by the flag, is one with liberty and justice for all. Do we have a consensus in this nation as to whether there is systemic racism, significant police abuse problems, fairness in wealth distribution, among other issues that many associate with justice? So if we did the pledge the way that Veith suggests, how should those from marginalized groups act during the reciting of The Pledge and how will privileged groups respond to them? We have some of the answers to that question already.

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

To Josh Buice and his article on reasons why Christians should reject Black Lives Matter. This appeared in the Deliverance by Grace blog.

As a Christian Fundamentalist, I have no problems with working with Black Lives Matter (BLM). I've seen their peaceful protests in person. I've seen one of the presentations at the Left Forum in NYC. I've conversed with at least one of their people a couple of times. How can I do that as a Christian?

It is quite easy. In fact, linking up with BLM is in certain ways similar to working side by side with Republicans and Democrats. In working with them, we are dealing with issues revolving around how do we share society with others. And here, whereas Marx is accused of making everything political, we religiously conservative Christians are in danger of making everything religious. And when doing that, we make it more difficult to work with unbelievers on political and social issues. And the more we do that, the more we enter our own virtual monastery.

The question we must address here is this, how should we Christians share society with others? Do we want to share society with others as equals, or do we want a place of privilege and supremacy over others? Before answering that question, we need to remember Jesus's warning against 'lording it over others.' Though that warning was addressing how we should relate to fellow believers, it has its applications to the question being addressed.

Do we want to share society with Blacks and people from other races as equals? Do we want to share society with those from the LGBT community as equals? Here we need to exercise caution when answering those questions because once we call ourselves Christians, everything we do or say, as well as much of what we don't do or don't say becomes associated with the Gospel. And what people associate with the Gospel by what we do or say as well as don't do or say either hurts or builds up the reputation of the Gospel. When what we do hurts the reputation of the Gospel, we are sometimes providing stumbling blocks to the listening of the Gospel. And that fact should frighten us to the core because of our struggles with sin.

If we don't want to share society with people from other races as equals, what will they associate with the Gospel? If we don't want to share society with people from the LGBT community as equals, what will unbelieving observers associate with the Gospel?

Social and political movements aren't suppose to be concerned with conversion to Christ, that is our concern. When we insist that they must be so concerned, we're in danger of making everything religious. But because what others associate with the Gospel is our concern, then shouldn't we look for where we can work with different groups, like Black Lives Matter.  It isn't that we can do whatever their members do without regard for sin. It is that we should look for opportunities to join and work with groups like BLM  so that by working on political and societal issues, we are building up the reputation of the Gospel.

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

June 28

To Gene Veith and his blogpost that cited a poll that, among other things, showed that 79% of liberals wanted a new Constitution. This appeared in the Cranach blog on Patheos

Those who care when citing polls, look at the source of the polls and see what repetition exists. The source of the poll cited is Quillete.com which is a fairly conservative website that has a mixed factual reporting rating and called a questionable source by Mediabiasfactcheck (see https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/quillette/ ). [blog correction: the next point made here was in error because  I misread Veith's post. He actually stated the full line in his article] In addition, Veith neglects to include an important detail in the survey statement on changing our constitution. The full statement that was asked is below:

Move, after public consultation, to a new American constitution that better reflects our diversity as a people.

I am sure that the added detail does not lessen the blow that many conservatives feel from the statement. But that full statement does take the edge that Liberals are going to ramrod a new set of laws down our throats.

As for the name change, our official name is the United States of America. America is our presumptuous self-designated, nickname that seems to forget the other nations that exist on the western hemisphere.

There are two points to consider as we see the protests and calls for change continue. First, what see going on today fits in with the often used approach to addressing long-term social injustices.That is that a phobic reaction occurs in order to prevent all future repetitions of the social injustices being addressed. With that phobic reaction is proverbial the throwing out of the baby with the bath water because there is a fear of not being able to distinguish what should continued from the past from that which caused the social injustices.

On the other hand, many of those who resist the core changes called for by the protesters either don't know or don't care about how the status quo oppresses others.

No comments: