Sept 28
To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost that includes a video from Project Veritas on one of the pharmaceutical companies involved with the production of a Covid vaccine. This appeared in Heidelblog.
If we are concerned about the commandment prohibiting the bearing of false witness in this age of the internet, it is necessary for us to do our best to vet our sources before spreading information from them. Below is a report on Project Veritas and it includes a factual reporting rating.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/project-veritas/
That in a capitalist economy we would see some exploitation should not be used to discredit vaccines that have proven effective in preventing serious complications from the Covid infection if not preventing the infection itself. Nor should it be used to spread conspiracy theories, the latter of which puts one in danger of violating the commandment prohibiting bearing false witness. And we should note that what the Project Veritas video is showing the opinions of some people. So what are Clark's intentions here with this particular post and his previous post from the Rome Covid Summit where at least some of the initial signees to the statement from that summit were actively promoting the use of Ivermectin to prevent or treat Covid-19?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct 2
To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost quote from and article by Chris Gordon about Christians not having to worry about the current Cultural Revolution here in America. This appeared in Heidelblog.
Chris Gordon's article cited by Clark:
https://agradio.org/the-christian-response-in-revolutionary-times
What some fellow Christians have called liberties are more correctly called privileges. A simple equation distinguishes liberties from privileges: Liberty - Equality = Privilege. Just as for most, if not all, of America's history, oppression has allowed whites to enjoy privileges that they have denied blacks from having, so too have we Christians enjoyed religious privileges that we have denied to others. One past example of Christian privilege denied to others can be seen our Blue Laws from the past.
More recent examples revolved around sexual practices and relationships. Those who, with or without religious backing, believed that homosexuality was morally ok were denied practicing that belief by the biblical prohibition against it. Even Reformed 2Kers would use natural law as a reason to prohibit same-sex sexual practices and marital relationships even though it is their theology, not the Scriptures, that demand that today's governments ban such practices.
The tipping point for recognizing the 'Cultural Revolution' (a.k.a., the losing of the Culture War) was the Obergefell decision. Since then, more and more court decisions have mandated that Christian businesses fully treat those from the LGBT community as equals in society.
So are we being criticized and even persecuted by unbelievers here for having different moral beliefs about homosexuality than they do or are we getting flack for wanting to discriminate against those in the LGBT community. IMO, both reasons explain why we might be suffering cultural criticism--or what some call 'persecution.' The problem is that we religiously conservative Christians have been so control oriented that we cannot tell the difference between criticism from persecution as well as being opposed because of our religious beliefs from resistance to our attempts to control some with whom we disagree. From what I've seen and read, we are getting more resistance for trying to maintain control over others than for merely holding to the beliefs we have historically had.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct 4
To R. Scott Clark and Jonathan Haidt for Clark's blogpost citation of Haidt's article on the problems of monomania. This appeared in the Heidelblog.
Haidt's article can be found at
https://www.persuasion.community/p/haidt-monomania-is-illiberal-and
Monomania involves reductionism. With reductionism is the elimination of any other concerns, issues, evidence and so on that lies outside the target issue. The result is a black-white view.
But what is curious here regarding Haidt's hypothetical situation that he says follows Kendi's words is whether Kendi would agree that the implication that Haidt exists. For if he doesn't then what do we make of above citation of Haidt?
Haidt is correctly in favor of our existing groups being non-polarizing and being able to talk and collaborate with each other. He correctly sees the danger of the current polarization trend. At the same time, when he quoted Kendi, can he look beyond the overstatements and any reductionism employe to see what is really being said?
It seems to me that what people like Kendi are trying to make us aware of is that white America has never really come to grips with the extent that racism has been a part of America and has thus affected many who are from minority races. For what is the first reaction that many white Americans have when the subject of racism is discussed? Isn't there a strong tendency for their first concern to be whether they are being called a racist? But when the subject of racism is brought up among Blacks, isn't the first thought about how they have experienced racism?
And so while some Blacks, like Kendi, will unintentionally overstate things and use reductionism to get us to listen, isn't the message they are trying to tell us is that the effects of racism on those from minority races have caused greater harm than we could possibly have imagined. However, that message will not be readily listened to because such a message brings to the forefront the conflict of interest that many of us whites experience when listening to or reading about racism. On the one hand, we want to think of ourselves as good people. But such a notion is sharply contradicted by how our practice of or unconscious support for racism.
It seems odd to me that Haidt can't see past his concern for the negative effects for polarizing groups and messages and monomaniacs to put Kendi's words into context rather than use them for an example of a concern he wants to express.
No comments:
Post a Comment