Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For April 9, 2014

April 4

To Elise Hilton and her Blogpost on Mozilla's intolerance to Conservative Christian views of marriage. This appeared on the Acton blog

Is it possible that this post hyperbole? After all, to say that the resignation of Brandon Eich because he contributed money to a California proposition banning same-sex marriage implies that religious conservatives need not apply to work at Mozilla is a bit of an overstatement. So is implying that to believe that it is ok for same-sex marriage is to reject the Biblical definition of marriage.

See, it was certainly intolerant of Mozilla to pressure Eich into resigning for making the contribution he did. But before Christians throw the first stone at intolerant progressives we should remember the history of persecution and the striving for rights that gays have had to endure. It wasn't that long ago when homosexuality was a criminal offense. Then my fellow Conservative Christians wanted  gays to be fired from certain jobs like teaching. Then my fellow Conservative Christians fought against laws allowing for same-sex marriage lest people in society think that homosexuality was normal and should be accepted. And now my fellow Christians want laws that allow Christian businesses to have the right to deny public services to same-sex weddings and even gay couples who are already married and the only intolerance that my fellow Christians notice is when it comes from the people they are asking society to persecute. 

This kind of selective perception indicates a blindness in how my fellow religiously conservative Christians perceive themselves. And that blind spot is a result of either the presumption of having a privileged status in society or having a pathological lack of awareness of how one's actions affect others or perhaps both. Whatever the reason for our shortsightedness, those who encourage a modern Christian martyr industry are leading the charge in filtering the past and present. And they are manipulating my fellow Conservative Christians into a stronger xenophobia as well as isolation from society. And it is tragic.

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


April 5

To R. Scott Clark and his brief blogpost on what happened to Brandon Eich at Mozilla. This was posted on Heidelblog

What happened to Brandon Eich was wrong. But how gays have been treated in this country was far worse. Homosexuality was first criminalized, then many Christians asked that gays be fired from certain jobs, then some Christians tried to prevent same-sex marriage, and now some Christians favor Jim Crow laws targeting gays. And what is our response?

Our response is to use instances like what happened to Eich in order to further a Christian martyr industry in this country to further separate Christians from nonChristians in this country. Yes, we now see some signs that the pendulum is swinging the other way but we didn't complain when pendulum was going in the other direction as it is in some African countries somewhat due to the influence of Christian missionaries. 

We all have a choice of being tribal here. That is we can join the gay rights fanatics, and note that not all favoring gay rights are fanatics, in one side or position ourselves on the side of those Christians who wish to prevent gays from enjoying full equality. In either case, we will imitate the other side by practicing tribalism, by adopting a gang mentality, by defining fair and unfair by who does what to whom. Or we can be principled by defending the equality and rights of all regardless of their view of gay rights.

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

To Anthony Bradley and his blogpost on the progressive plot to eliminate the normal boy. This appeared in the Acton blog.

Why is it that this website likes to scapegoat the nebulous group, "Progressives." Certainly there has been a progressive reaction to malehood but instead of totally rejecting or accepting that reaction, we should listen to see what we can learn. After all, learning from anyone does not imply agreement. Perhaps we need to examine whether what these "progressives" want to remedy in boys is a problem or a perceived cause of a problem.

If one happens to ask the left about education, you'll find that most Leftists will say that education is a bipartisan institution to teach and enforce compliance. That is part of what the No Child Left Behind, which had bipartisan support and targeted both boys and girls, was intended for. Don't ask kids to understand and think, simply demand that they memorize and regurgitate. In fact, if you look at how the Left views education here, you'll find that, like the Church, it is considered to be just another institution of indoctrination to maintain the status quo for the benefit of those with wealth and power.

Is the problem being observed and mentioned here legitimate? Certainly. And there is no doubt that there is some progressive participation involved. But do all progressives agree with what is happening? No. Are there broader issues involved? Yes.  And are the some progressives the only ones involved in abnormalizing and drugging normal boys? Not at all especially since the pharmaceutical industry, a member of the free market, is now an active participant that has something to gain here.

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

To Marcia Christoff-Kurapovna and her blogpost on democracy and aristocracy. This appeared on the Imaginative Conservative blog

The good part of this post is that there is a refreshing honesty about the kind of "democracy" or republic designed by our founding fathers. It was a partial democracy where there would be voting but that control would remain in the hands of those with wealth--these were the ones who belonged to the "landed interest," that is the wealthy landowners.

But the bad part of this post is that it shares the same vulnerabilities as all other partial democracies. That weakness is the rule of one group of people over the other. And when those who rule view themselves as superior and the provider for others, at the most we could graciously call this a paternalistic democracy. Note that, according to what is written in this post, if everybody had an equal voice, then we would be ruled by a pejorative mob. We should note that all representative democracies are ruled by mobs. In fact, we could say that when the representatives in such representative democracies are those with wealth and power, we could describe such democracies not as places where we have mob rule, but as places where the Mob rules.

In any case, the aristocracy in such a democracy seems to quickly embrace the role of the pharisee in Jesus' parable of the two men praying. In that story, the pharisee thanked God that he was not like the tax-collector-sinner because he was righteous while the sinner was not. So think about how such a democracy would rule over a country where only the elite were righteous enough to be qualified to rule while everybody had to be protected from the masses. It makes sense that those who picture themselves as either being a part of the elite or dependent on them would favor such a partial and paternalistic democracy.

BTW, my apologies to the Imaginative Conservative Blog for listing the above comment as being blocked. I discovered later that it wasn't blocked. This is my fault.

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

April 6

To Joe Carter's blogpost against "distributionism" by calling it utopian.  This appeared on the Acton blog.


It seems that "distributionism" is another name for a kind of "distributed capitalism." It is where more individuals are more self-sufficient and own their own means of production. And the objection here is that it doesn't fit in with the current global economy.

Those defending the status quo call most proposed changes to the current structure utopian. And the implication here is that though what we have is imperfect, it is the best available in an imperfect world. Therefore, calls to change need not apply and those calling for change, though sometimes well-intentioned, are not just calling for something that is unrealistic and unattainable, they are calling for what could only hurt what we have worked so hard for in the end. So the defense of the status quo relies on an immune system that attacks any  calls for change by discrediting them so as to inhibit public inquiry. 

But what isn't really examined here is the direction in which the current global economy, an economy supported by the writer of this post, is taking us. For in the current global economic system, wealth and power are being consolidated. And wealth and power are being consolidated because more and more restrictions on those who have proven to be exceptional are being removed. While that consolidation can build bigger and more majestic structures, fewer people are in control and, as with any centralization of resources, the first concern of those in control is to preserve their own current status. And this blogpost against "distributionism," though claiming to share some of the concerns of those calling for change, follows the method of operation practiced by those who defend the system. And the question is why?

An irony that exists here is that the same people who fear the consolidation of power in the gov't fully embrace what leads to such a consolidation, which is the consolidation of wealth, so long as that those acquiring such wealth are in the private sector. So those who sound the alarm against too much power in the government the loudest are supporting those in the private sector with wealth who want a powerful government to exist because they are becoming more able to purchase that power. 

It isn't that I am a big fan of "distributionism," it is that our current direction needs changing. And it isn't utopian to inquire as to whether we can improve on the way things are. And it isn't utopian to think about whether different systems can make things better. But so long as we accept the standard line that calls any desire for changing the system utopian, we will be unable to change our current direction, a direction that makes our current system not only unsustainable, but self-destructive as well.

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


To Leon Bupkiss's response to my comment to a blogpost on the differences between the french and american revolutions. This was on the imaginative conservative blog. In his comment, Loen Bupkiss denies the existence of corporate liberty in favor of reducing all liberty to individual liberty

Leon,
Democracy is about corporate liberty. It is about community deciding on how it will exist. And the problem that exists for some conservatives is the notion of corporate liberty, it is the all-or-nothing thinking that comes with reducing all liberty to individual liberty. And all-or-nothing thinking approaches to individual liberty leads to tyranny. That is true even of the all approach to individual liberty because such an approach relieves the elite individual of all social responsibilities.


BTW, my apologies to the Imaginative Conservative Blog for listing the above comment as being blocked. I discovered later that it wasn't blocked. This is my fault.