To Russell Moore and his blogpost on the myths of religious freedom. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition.
Unfortunately, theory doesn't always meet practice. Both myths #1&2 showed this concerning the same-sex marriage crisis that faced our country. For while Christians opposed such marriages partly because they were concerned about the ramifications such marriages would have to their own faith, they paid little attention to the religious beliefs of those who believed that same-sex marriages were legitimate. In addition, when a business sells goods and/or services to a person or activity, no support for the person or activity is implied. And those who believe that Christian businesses should be able to discriminate forget both the context in which they are operating their businesses and our history. In a capitalist economy, goods and services are, for the most part, supplied solely through privately owned businesses. In addition, we saw such discrimination during Jim Crow and if we listened to what those who experienced such discrimination said, you would find that the refusal to provide services because of the group one belongs to, and this includes the weddings of one's group, to be significantly humiliating and marginalizing.
Myth #3 was supported by some who felt that Kim Davis should not have been sent to jail for her refusal to follow her legal obligations.
Regarding Myth #4, we have to admit that Christianity had a privileged place in our nation. And some conservative Christians want that privileged position to be continued as they demonize multiculturalism. In fact, the arguments made against same-sex marriage partly depended on Christian privilege in this nation.
It isn't that I believe that Christians should not be allowed to press their demands based on their religious convictions in society. It is that Christians should not press demands that give them a privileged place in society. In other words, Christians should use their religious convictions to press the demands of all who are being marginalized whether the marginalized are Christian or not. This is what Martin Luther King Jr. did.
———————-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct 29
To Ian Shaw’s comment stating that some Christians believe Trump and his claims to being a ‘great Christian.’ This was part of the discussion on the blogpost reporting Trump’s quote. This appeared in Denny Burk’s blog
There is a reason for why people are buying what Trump has to say. The reason is that they are looking for a hero and it is difficult for some Christians to believe that nonChristians can be heroes.
————————--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct 31
To Gordon Lloyd and his lengthy blogpost claiming that justice was the guide for the writing of The Constitution. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.
Let's suppose that the writer's basic premise regarding the writing of The Constitution is true, should we ask the Rocky J. Squirrel question of: Is it a freindly justice.
Of course, in answering question, a significant amount of information was included in the above testimony. Some of that information includes Shays Rebellion and the widespread dissent that had been occurring at the time, Henry Knox's letter to George Washington, Yates' notes, and post-Constitution conditions. Those conditions included the fact that only a very small percentage of Amercians could vote, Blacks were slaves, and Native Americans were being ethnically cleansed. In addition, some of the most troubling evidence regards Madiosn's view of where power should rest: by his own testimony in other writings, he believed that it should rest with the wealthy.
So to go back to Rocky J. Squirrel's question: Did The Constitution produce a friendly justice? The answer to that question depended on which economic class and race one belonged to.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nov 3
To Joe Carter and his blogpost, answering criticism from a New York Times article, stating that Christians who have disputes with each other should submit to Christian aribitration rather than go before secular courts. This appeared in the Acton blog.
There are a few issues that immediately come to mind. First, should Christians be the only ones who judge disputes between Christians. What if the dispute involves the violating of criminal law rather than a civil matter? Should such a dispute only be decided by a Christian arbitrator? Or what if there is a civil matter between a nonChristian and a Christian? After all, Carter mentioned two examples where a nonChristian party could be involved, Must a nonChristian be required to have his dispute settled by a Christian arbitrator?
But there is one other issue. That issue is calling for Christians to suffer loss than have arbitration decide the matter in the first place for the sake of the Gospel. At least, this is what Paul stated starting in vs 7, a verse that follows what was quoted above:
But instead, one brother takes another to court—and this in front of unbelievers!
7 The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? 8 Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers and sisters
What was at stake here is the reputation of the Gospel. And what Paul was suggesting was that it was better fo us to suffer loss than for the Gospel to suffer loss in reputation.
So here, things aren't as clear both in the original article or in the issue being brought up.
Nov 3
To Joe Carter and his blogpost, answering criticism from a New York Times article, stating that Christians who have disputes with each other should submit to Christian aribitration rather than go before secular courts. This appeared in the Acton blog.
There are a few issues that immediately come to mind. First, should Christians be the only ones who judge disputes between Christians. What if the dispute involves the violating of criminal law rather than a civil matter? Should such a dispute only be decided by a Christian arbitrator? Or what if there is a civil matter between a nonChristian and a Christian? After all, Carter mentioned two examples where a nonChristian party could be involved, Must a nonChristian be required to have his dispute settled by a Christian arbitrator?
But there is one other issue. That issue is calling for Christians to suffer loss than have arbitration decide the matter in the first place for the sake of the Gospel. At least, this is what Paul stated starting in vs 7, a verse that follows what was quoted above:
But instead, one brother takes another to court—and this in front of unbelievers!
7 The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? 8 Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers and sisters
What was at stake here is the reputation of the Gospel. And what Paul was suggesting was that it was better fo us to suffer loss than for the Gospel to suffer loss in reputation.
So here, things aren't as clear both in the original article or in the issue being brought up.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Gabriel Zanotti and his blogpost that either attempts to defend true Capitalism from or reconcile it to the statements made by Pope Francis about today's Capitalism. This appeared in the Acton blog.
The problem with this article is simple. It assumes that an economic system can be created in the same way that we can create machines that will never breakdown. Of course, the first problem with that assertion is that all of the machines we've created eventually breakdown. But let's go on. That this machine will coordinate market activities so that fairness and prospertiy will prevail. However, when one understands that the fuel used by this machine is greed and that competition makes up the innerworkings of the machine, coordination can only be achieved if this machine can compensate for the fact that the intention of many of the participants is not for coordination, but for maximizing private gain.
And let's not kid ourselves about the invisible hand. Why? Because the invisible hand, according to Adam Smith revolved around the idea that a businessman's decisions would be guided by his selfish concern for the welfare of his own nation. The invisible hand did not concern itself with this machine and the guarantee of fair prices. And even Adam Smith's invisible hand was shown to not always exist.
So while this article rightly protests against the problems of monopolies and crony capitalism, it assumes that we can make an economic system that, despite its dependence on greed and competition, can avoid either problem.
In addition, while Hayek's first condition concerns itself with equality under the law. That means nothing when laws can be bought. It also means nothing when the common good and concern of the community is forced on the market, the market is counted as a hampered market.
Also, we need to realize under the current ethic of maximizing one's profits to the extent of denying that one is one's brother's keeper, no economic sytem can work. And that is regardless of the lack of economies being hampered. For Martin Luther King Jr. stated the following in his speech against the Vietnam War:
I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a "thing-oriented" society to a "person-oriented" society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.
See, King's statement challenges the fuel on which the economic system from the ASE depends.
Finally, every defender of Capitalism I know can adequately defend it from a small-picture perspective. But once the picture grows to include more stakeholders and complexities, Capitalism falls apart and becomes a private sector tyranny. And that is regardless of the size of the gov'ts involved and their intervention/interference or lack thereof.
What the defenders of the ASE or any capitalist system assumes is that we, a sinful and limited people, can create an infallible machine that can work around our sinful nature. Besides the Scriptural references that talk about how some of our property rightfully belongs to the poor so they can survive and for that to be implemented, the national gov't must be involved, such an assumption must be seen as another attempt to build a Tower of Bable. After all, history and current events should teach us that the pursuit of profits that produces new demands for labor neither always produced friendly conditions for new labor nor does it protect established labor. The above is nothing more than a plea for allowing an undemocratic rule of those with wealth over the rest.
To Gabriel Zanotti and his blogpost that either attempts to defend true Capitalism from or reconcile it to the statements made by Pope Francis about today's Capitalism. This appeared in the Acton blog.
The problem with this article is simple. It assumes that an economic system can be created in the same way that we can create machines that will never breakdown. Of course, the first problem with that assertion is that all of the machines we've created eventually breakdown. But let's go on. That this machine will coordinate market activities so that fairness and prospertiy will prevail. However, when one understands that the fuel used by this machine is greed and that competition makes up the innerworkings of the machine, coordination can only be achieved if this machine can compensate for the fact that the intention of many of the participants is not for coordination, but for maximizing private gain.
And let's not kid ourselves about the invisible hand. Why? Because the invisible hand, according to Adam Smith revolved around the idea that a businessman's decisions would be guided by his selfish concern for the welfare of his own nation. The invisible hand did not concern itself with this machine and the guarantee of fair prices. And even Adam Smith's invisible hand was shown to not always exist.
So while this article rightly protests against the problems of monopolies and crony capitalism, it assumes that we can make an economic system that, despite its dependence on greed and competition, can avoid either problem.
In addition, while Hayek's first condition concerns itself with equality under the law. That means nothing when laws can be bought. It also means nothing when the common good and concern of the community is forced on the market, the market is counted as a hampered market.
Also, we need to realize under the current ethic of maximizing one's profits to the extent of denying that one is one's brother's keeper, no economic sytem can work. And that is regardless of the lack of economies being hampered. For Martin Luther King Jr. stated the following in his speech against the Vietnam War:
I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a "thing-oriented" society to a "person-oriented" society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.
See, King's statement challenges the fuel on which the economic system from the ASE depends.
Finally, every defender of Capitalism I know can adequately defend it from a small-picture perspective. But once the picture grows to include more stakeholders and complexities, Capitalism falls apart and becomes a private sector tyranny. And that is regardless of the size of the gov'ts involved and their intervention/interference or lack thereof.
What the defenders of the ASE or any capitalist system assumes is that we, a sinful and limited people, can create an infallible machine that can work around our sinful nature. Besides the Scriptural references that talk about how some of our property rightfully belongs to the poor so they can survive and for that to be implemented, the national gov't must be involved, such an assumption must be seen as another attempt to build a Tower of Bable. After all, history and current events should teach us that the pursuit of profits that produces new demands for labor neither always produced friendly conditions for new labor nor does it protect established labor. The above is nothing more than a plea for allowing an undemocratic rule of those with wealth over the rest.
No comments:
Post a Comment