The comment below was eventually posted because of ways there are to get around the making of comments permanently pending. Making a comment permanently pending is a way of trying to block a comment on some blogs.
Aug 6
To Gene Veith and his blogpost that calls for returning solely to studying Classical Literature and Christianity to create a 21st Century Renaissance in answer to many of today's problems. This appeared in the Cranach blog on Patheos.
What Veith, citing a Harvard professor, is calling for is to respond to the 21th century by creating a 21st Century Renaissance that depends solely on ancient material used to address the problems of the 14th century. Despite the similarities Veith has listed between the two time periods, aren't we grappling with problems particular to our time? And didn't that past approach work in a context different from today? Back then they were looking to revive Christendom. Does Veith want to address today's problems by restoring Christendom?
Do we want education that emphasizes morals? If so, why totally reject Critical Theory, CRT, and Post Modernism. These theories and approaches have been singling out the moral failures of Western Civilization including some of today's moral failures. How can we re-emphasize the building of morals while returning to that which caused many of today's moral failures? What does the Scriptures say about a dog returning to its vomit.
It's not that we should reject everything from Classical Education, Christianity and the Reformation. But neither should we reject everything from Critical Theory, CRT, and Post Modernism. If Veith believes otherwise, then his above post is just another verse from the Things Ain't What They Use To Be blues sung by many a conservative today. Conservatives cannot create a new renaissance relying too heavily on the past without promoting some of the same past moral failures.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 10
To R. Scott Clark and Elaine McArdle for Clark's blogpost quote of part of Mcardle's article on an attempt to provide legal protection for some who are polyamorous. Clark's title of his article claims that we are on the slippery slope to polyamory because of the Obergefell decision. This appeared in the Heidelblog.
Mcardle's article can be found at
https://today.law.harvard.edu/polyamory-and-the-law/
Providing legal protection for those in polyamorous relationships does not imply a slide to making polyamory a legal form of marriage. Rather, why should we Christians want those in such relationships to be punished in the public sector? Do we want state or society itself to become an additional punitive arms of the Church aimed at unbelievers? Isn't that the mentality of those Christians who think that the state and society must adhere to everything in natural law?
Many who criticize the conservative Church, are not necessarily criticizing the Church for standing by Biblical sexual morals. Rather they are antagonistic against the Church when the Church calls for the public punishment of those who don't follow those sexual morals even when those who would be punished are not members of the Church
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 14
To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost that condemns the AMA proposal to not record the biological sex of a child in the child's birth certificate. This appeared in Heidelblog.
It seems that the title of the blogpost was written without benefit of the whole story.
Because of the difficulty experienced and discrimination suffered by those whose gender identity moves them to try to change their biological sex (see https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/2019-09/i19-005.pdf in an AMA draft proposal), that category is not being recorded on a person's birth certificate. However, one's biological sex information is still being officially recorded in the Certificate of Live Birth.
Though I am not sure whether or not I agree with the proposal, I understand the concerns that lie behind the proposal. And since the biological sex of a each child is still being recorded on the Certificate of Live Birth (see https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/press-releases/ama-announced-policies-adopted-final-day-special-meeting ), I believe that the above title overstates what is happening. Then again, some fellow Christians believe that the state should punish those who are looking to transgender and that society should marginalize them. That is tragic. And that, IMO, is what lies behind the concerns expressed in the above title and blogpost.
No comments:
Post a Comment