Jan 26
To Tim Keller and his blogpost article on people preferring chosen faiths over the churches of their fathers. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.
Certainly, the Church has, at times, challenged the status quo in some ways. But I fail to see the evidence that it has done this across the board. This is especially true when it comes to economics and politics. Regarding economics, religiously conservative Christianity has more often than not supported the rule of wealth and that often comes with supporting tyranny. One only needs to note the prerevolutionary times of France, Spain, and Russia along with the coups in in Guatemala (1954) and Chile (1973) to see a positive correlation between religiously conservative Christianity and support for wealth and the acceptance of tyranny. Then we should note that religiously conservative Protestants in America have aligned themselves with private sector wealth for a while. This can be seen in their voting patterns especially with the election of Donald Trump.
While religiously conservative Christians have come around in greater and greater numbers to confront racism, it wasn't always that way. But it is more in vogue now. And for that part of the status quo, what Keller writes about the Church challenging the status quo has some degree of truth to it. However, there is no challenge to the economic structures on which the status quo in America rests by large numbers of religiously conservative Christians. So now, conservative Protestants in America are doing what their brothers and sisters have done in the Orthodox and Roman churches in other parts of the world.
As Keller isolates the variable for church growth to chosen faith over inherited faith, as the two swap places, then we should expect a vacillation in growth between established protestant denominations and the less liturgical evangelicalism and pentacostal denominations as time goes on.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan 27
To Kyle Hanby and his blogpost that reviews an article by Samuel Gregg on the history of the progressive movement. This appeared in the Acton blog.
Certainly progressives have their dark places in history. But how does that distinguish them from other groups? Don't all groups have their own skeletons in the closet?
But also, though stated, there is a lack of emphasis distinguishing today's progressives from yesteryear. This allows for people to conflate the two.
And finally, there should be a distinction made between the Left and progressives. For we should note that the Left has had their share complaints about progressives as well. And those complaints started with then President Wilson's jailing of Eugene Debs for his opposition to the US entering WW I. In the meantime, the Left has also complained about how progressives, like conservatives, preferred elite-centered rule and how progressives have abandoned representing the working class.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Rev Ben Johnson and his blogpost that defends high CEO pay because it gives CEOs incentive to work harder. This appeared in the Acton blog.
If we want to look at disincentives to work, we should look at the exorbitantly large salaries and severance packages CEOs are offered before they start working. Regardless of performance, CEOs are so well paid that any additional pay related to performance begins to become meaningless or is meaningful only in terms of some CEOs keeping up with other CEOs. In the meantime, if the defense for unlimited CEO pay was applied to all workers, we wouldn't need a minimum wage. But we need a minimum wage because businesses can't always offer pay incentive for all workers because of what is paid to CEOs and investors. If all workers were given pay incentives, the overhead costs would take away from CEO pay the investors' desired ROI.
This article is nothing more than a rationalization for maintaining or even increasing the disparity between the highest paid employees and the lowest paid employees. We should note that CEOs often make hundreds of percent more pay than the lowest paid employee. In the meantime, what the lowest paid employees do often brings in the actual cash into the business. Food service companies, for example, are an excellent example where the lowest paid employees are the ones whose work brings money into the company through their labor but are some of the lowest paid of employees.
It seems that this article wants to deny the reality that many low paid workers live through because the sky is the limit for the highest paid employees and investors. And it seems that this article celebrates what the scriptures warn against: the love of money.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan 28
To Stephen Turley and his blogpost claiming that there are “alternative facts.” This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.
The jeering response to 'alternative facts' is the result of an accumulation of times when Trump and his campaign have denied what was recorded and observable. Whether it is Trump's demeaning comments made about and even to women along with his claim that no one respects women more than he does or his criticisms about the intelligence community with similar claims about how he regards them. Then he speaks quite a bit about himself while addressing the intelligence community in front of the wall that remembers those agents who were killed in the line of duty.
What we should notice while observing Trump is how not only does he deny what is observable, but that he too often claims to excel beyond all others in either a character or personal trait or in how he acts toward others as our nation has done about itself too. We might compare that bragging with traits we see in narcissism (see https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evolution-the-self/201311/6-signs-narcissism-you-may-not-know-about ). Or Trump's aggression toward those who disagree with him as an authority figure could be compared with what we see in authoritarianism (see https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sideways-view/201502/the-mind-the-authoritarian ).
It isn't that Trump is the only authoritarian in today's political scene; it is that he and his party have have a tremendous amount of governmental power while displaying too many narcissistic and authoritarian traits for comfort. And what goes for Trump also goes for some of his apologists as they suffer from collective narcissism and authoritarianism. These traits rule out both listening to those who see things differently and collaborating with others. But I guess when one demonizes those from other groups, there is no need to listen to or collaborate with them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan 29
To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost noting that page Assyrians regarded abortion to be murder. This appeared in Heidelblog.
Having argued for the pro-life position on social media a number of times, I realize that we have do more than just say that abortion is murder. We have to show why that is the case. And while Pro-Choice supporters will focus on who has the right to talk the human status of a a pregnant woman's unborn, I found it useful to respond by trying to focus on the criteria we use to define what is human life. For in focusing on the criteria alone, one could legitimately answer that all of us should be involved in the discussion of what is human life but that discussion involves all of us.
In addition, to allow the pregnant woman who does not want to be pregnant and bear a child to be the sole person who determines what is the human status of the unborn inside her, I point out that there exists a conflict of interest for the pregnant women to decide since what she may want can be at odds with the result of determining the human status of her unborn.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan 30
To Joe Carter and his blogpost that provides some overall information on Trump’s ban on immigrants and refugees who come from certain nations. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.
And yet the nations involved in the ban were not the nations from which those in some terrorist attacks on the US have come. Not on the list are the nations from which the 9/11 attackers came nor the foreign born San Bernardino shooter. As for whether Muslims were targeted by the ban, we might ask if Trump had banned Israelis from entering the US, would that would be considered a ban on Jews from entering our country?
There is no problem with reviewing previous immigration and refugee limits. But one does not need to ban people from so many Muslim nations to do so. And though I disagree with the ban Obama established in 2011, it was sparked by the discovery of 2 Al Qaeda members who emigrated to the US from the nation banned, Iraq. Was there any such discovery on Trump's part of people who had entered our country?
There is one more point to make. Most of the nations listed in Trump's ban are nations that have been on the receiving end of US military attacks. Should we consider whether there is a link between our foreign policies and terrorism?
No comments:
Post a Comment