Nov 17
To R. Scott Clark and his blog article that quotes Carl Trueman's article on how the new approach to gender identity makes Nietzsche look like a prophet because of what he said about language and our perception of reality. This appeared in the Heidelblog.
Conservatives often rely too heavily on selected parts of the past to understand and respond to the present. Regarding the issue of gender identity and biology, both those conservatives and some who are seeking to gender identify themselves as no one has identified themselves before represent two sides of the same coin. While both want to conflate a biological construct with a social construct, they also want to minimize one of those constructs. Conservatives like Trueman want to conflate the two constructs in a way so that one's gender identity is identical to ones biological identity while some in the LGBT community want to do the converse. The problem is that how can one conflate what is physical, or objective, with one that is social and, in the end, subjective? And what complicates the problem is that the social construct identity has, as a source of input, the biological construct.
The reason why we have two opposing sides approaching the relationship between the biological construct and the social construct differently in the same way is because both are applying forms of all-or-nothing thinking to the problem. On the one hand, Trueman's conservative authoritarianism employs a black-white world view. In this case, one is either male or female. And one's gender identity can only be determined by one's unaltered biologically sex otherwise one is throwing out that factor.
For at least part of the Trans portion of the LGBT community, one's gender identity can be used to deny the reality of one's unaltered biological sex. Again, all-or-nothing thinking is being employed only this time, it is in response to a desire to address long-standing social injustices forced on Transexuals. All-or-nothing thinking is often employed when addressing long-standing social injustices because not only is their a desire undo and fix those past and present injustices, there is also a desire to prevent all future injustices. And in doing so, there is a fear that people will not be able to distinguish between practices and ways speaking that have been accidentally associated with those injustices from those practices and ways speaking that have actually enabled those injustices. In other words, what we are seeing in some who are trying to stop and repair both past and present social injustices along with preventing future injustices is similar to a phobic reaction.
Ours is not the first culture to have seen gender identity issues. Some Native American tribes have, at least in the past, recognized up to 5 different genders. And though their gender identity issues don't always align with the gender identity issues we see in our society, those tribes honored those with such gender identity issues as people who have overcome something. We need to realize that our unaltered biological sexual identity can play a role in our gender identity but it is only a role. And just because one's biological sexual identity might not carry the day in determining one's gender identity, it doesn't mean that the two have been severed. It just means that other factors played a stronger role in determining the gender identity of a given person.
If we eliminate or even reduce the all-or-nothing thinking both sides employ here, we could start down the road where what both sides think will be a just solution will also not deny the reality of one's biological sex or the reality of one's gender identity. We will realize that though our unaltered biological sexual identity and our gender identity is neither equal nor disjoint. That society's gender issues are not making Nietzsche into the prophet that Trueman thinks he is becoming.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nov 24
To David Deavel and his article on the lies society is telling itself about gender identity, systemic racism and such. This appeared in the Imaginative conservative blog.
Is it odd that Deavel is very selective in the lies he lists? He doesn't mention the denial of climate change, the denial of the pandemic or the conspiracy theories the revolve around the pandemic and the vaccines, nor does he mention the stolen election lies.
In addition he glosses over some of the lies he reports. For example, he oversimplifies the gender identity and the denial of systemic racism. CRT has given us the opportunity to distinguish the racism faced by Blacks in this nation from the racial prejudice everyone both has toward others and suffers from. The racism that Blacks face also includes racist oppression from society in how it perceives things and from our nation's institutions. Both how society interprets things and those institutions favor whites and is oppressive, in varying degrees, to Blacks and others. When we see oppressed people oppressing attacking others, what we are witnessing, to borrow a phrase from a fellow activist and friend, is that oppressed group learning more from their oppressors than from the experience of being oppressed (see https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0310/S00067.htm ).
Regarding gender identity issues, we should note that while gender identity is a social construct, one's biological sex is a physical construct. Thus to conflate the two in order to override one's biological sex or to deny real struggles some have with gender identity are equally wrong. We should note here that some Native American tribes recognized, and even honored, up to five different genders.
I could go on but in short, conservatives struggle with accepting realities that either point to past conservative failure or future conservative impotence. That is not to say that conservatism has neither contributed in the past nor is unable to contribute in the future. Rather, that is to say that conservatism is not omniscient and thus has both significantly contributed to past problems and is unable, by itself, to adequately respond to future problems.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nov 28
To R. Scott Clark and Abigail Shrier on Clark's blogpost that quotes Shrier as claiming that California teachers are being told to recruit public school kids into the LGBT community. This appeared in Heidelblog.
Abigail Shrier's article can be found at:
https://abigailshrier.substack.com/p/how-activist-teachers-recruit-kids
One of the biggest crazes followed by bloggers is to quote from unvetted news sources as if the stories they report are facts regardless of the context in which some statements are made. The above article by Clark serves as a case in point.
While Shrier, the author of the article Clark is quoting above, states that she is reporting on an event based on audio sent to her, we don't get to hear that audio, we only get to hear what she claims the audio said. Furthermore, a review of her book Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters seems to have some factual problems and inadequate research (see https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/political-minds/202012/new-book-irreversible-damage-is-full-misinformation ).
And in a Clark article on the case in Finland regarding a form MP facing criminal charges over what she wrote about homosexuality, Clark himself shades the facts and clearly fails to objectively write about all that was involved in the case.
So why quote from an unvetted source? Perhaps it is because that source reported something that Clark wants to believe. I am not saying that what was claimed in the article is not true. I am saying that we have no way of confirming the story reported by Shrier.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nov 29
To R. Scott Clark and Joy Pullman, whose article he quotes in his blog article on on how the criminal charges on Päivi Räsänen in Finland for for possible hate speech because of her pamphlet on homosexuality. This appeared in Heidelblog.
Joy Pullman's article can be found at:
Päivi Räsänen's booklet on homosexuality can be found at:
https://www.lhpk.fi/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Male-and-female-He-created-them.pdf
One has to wonder why Joy Pullman spins this story the way she does and why Clark quotes her. Päivi Räsänen's commenting on homosexuality goes way beyond what the Scriptures say about it. Her pamphlet on it says the following (see https://www.lhpk.fi/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Male-and-female-He-created-them.pdf ):
Ultimately, the issue is one of whether homosexuality is a neutral state of being or a negative developmental disorder from the person's own viewpoint. If the latter option is the case, advocating for homosexual “rights” further harms these. In addition, advocating for homosexual “rights” promotes such a rupture in the values of society that does not at all support human growth towards balanced marital relationships...
The inclination to homosexuality as such is not a characteristic comparable to mental health issues or physical ailments. Instead, the scientific material unequivocally proves that homosexuality is a disorder of psycho-sexual development. Those who claim that homosexuality is a natural “healthy” variety of sexuality nullify the evidentiary value found in family background studies for political reasons. Due to pressure from homosexual activists, political objectives have overridden scientific facts.
Going beyond the current science to claim that science calls homosexuality a disorder, to claim that to advocate for homosexual rights is harmful to these [unclear what 'these' refers to], is a threat to society, and is a denial of science. And yet, Pullman claims that Päivi Räsänen is being persecuted for her religious and theological statements. Such a claim is not just false, it is disingenuous in the light of what Päivi Räsänen wrote.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dec 1
To Joseph Pearce and his article on how the persecution of the Roman Church during the French Revolution caused those in England to show sympathy and support for many in the Church. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative.
Why is it that the atrocities committed against the Roman Church by those leading the French Revolution are reported without any context. Not that that context would justify the atrocities, but it would provide an understanding of those atrocities that could spare us the repeating of history. We should note that before the Revolution, the Church sided with the aristocracy in passing laws that kept giving more power to those at top and taking more hard-earned wealth from the peasant class in France.
This theme of the Church siding with wealth and power has since been repeated too many times with similar enough, though certainly not identical, results in the pre-revolutionary times of 2 other nations: Russia and Spain. Here we should note that in Russia, it was the Orthodox Church that sided with the Tsar and the Capitalists who were causing great hardships for the Russian people. Similarly, in Spain, the Church sided with wealth and power both before and after its revolution and thus was too closely associated with oppressive powers so that many saw the Church as being part of the problem.
We are seeing at least a partial replay of that here as the dominant branch of the Church, evangelicals, have aligned themselves with power and wealth by supporting Republican candidates, in particular, who follow Trump. The Church is already seen as being anti-science with some of its other stands, in particular with those stands on vaccines and the pandemic along with its stands on climate change.
The lesson from the French Revolution for the Church should be to be careful with whom and for what we associate the Church or the reputation of the Gospel can be significantly tarnished and the Church can suffer unnecessary persecutions. That message applies to us individual Christians as well as to the Church because we so often fail to follow God in both how we exercise self-control and treat others.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dec 2
To W. Robert Godfrey and his church school lesson on how the rejection of Christendom has influenced the world we now live in. This appeared on Abounding Grace Radio.
https://agradio.org/whats-going-on-right-now-sex-race-politics-power-with-dr-w-robert-godfrey-5
I found this lecture to be problematic. It is so because its view of history and the conflict between freedom and nature demonstrated a very narrow view of history. What was mentioned merely in passing, which is Christianity being defined by the actions of Christians, does not give adequate weight to reasons why people sought to replace Christendom.
Besides the fact that we see no justification from the New Testament for establishing Christendom, by not giving adequate weight to the failures of Christianity, which is, again, being defined by the actions of Christians, the new religion, as Godfrey describes it, of freedom in contrast to nature forgets that the main conflicts were over the Church siding with wealth and power.
If we take the French Revolution for example, was the brutal rejection of the Church because those who were seeking to overthrow the rule of the aristocracy were rejecting nature? If so, then wouldn't that imply that the rule of the aristocracy was justified? Or was the rejection of the Church because the Church had sided with wealth in power? Isn't it understandable, though not justified, to see that violent rejection of the Church as being the result of the Church's enabling of and support for oppression by those with wealth and power?
When Marx and Lenin described religion as being the 'opiate of the people,' was that because they were rejecting nature or was it because they saw that Christianity, as represented by the dominant branch of the Church then and there, was at least passively supporting wealth and power by refusing to speak out in behalf of the workers and others who greatly suffered because of the economic conditions forced on the people by those with wealth and power? And what should we say about the pre-revolutionary times of Spain?
Here in America, how much of Christianity supported white supremacy via slavery, Jim Crow, and the still remaining systemic racism? How is it that so many Christians felt entitled to take land from Native Americans? And that doesn't include the foreign wars we fought. Was their support of white supremacy and denial of freedom to people of color because they were in tune with nature?
Or look at the conquest of South and Central America by the Spanish who acted, in part, in the name of the Church? Look at the European imperialism and colonialism that spread throughout the world. Look at how many in the Church supported the oppression of workers during the Industrial Age.
So how is it that it was the conflict between freedom and nature that drove the overthrow of Christendom?
Finally, Godfrey's discussion on transgenderism neglects to mention that some Native American tribes recognized up to 5 genders? How is it that Godfrey reduces nature to what is visible on the outside without considering what nature is saying on the inside to those people? Is it really freedom that is driving transgenderism or is gender identity more complex than being determined just by one's biological sex? After all, isn't one's biological sex a physical construct while gender identity is a social construct?
Godfrey's analysis of what is going on here and now especially with regards to the overthrow of Christendom simply needs a wider perspective than what can be seen by Christian Traditionalists. And with that must come a fuller appreciation of the long history of failures of Christianity with Christianity then being defined by the actions and behaviors of Christians.
-----------------
Dec 3
To John Hornet and his article that calls Biden's infrastructure bills Marxist and contrasts that with what Christianity calls for. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.
https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2021/11/marxist-worldview-behind-spending-bill-john-horvat.html
Horvat not only misunderstands the purpose of the infrastructure spending bills, he completely misunderstands Marxism and thus wrongly associates the infrastructure bills with Marxism.
Marxism is first about the redistribution of power. Without that, who's spending what on whom and/or what is unrelated. Marx wanted to see a total transfer of power from the Bourgeoisie to the Proletariat. That transfer of power was to be both political and in the workplace. Unless that transfer of power occurs, the Bourgeoisie would continue to see labor power as a commodity and thus those who supplied that labor power as disposable objects for profit for the benefit of the Bourgeoisie. That has subjected workers to massive abuse and exploitation. And while Marx was completely correct in that analysis and wanting a transfer of power to the proletariat, he was wrong in wanting the '<b>total</b>' nature of that transfer.
Also, Marxism doesn't have a monopoly on materialism; other systems, like our very own Capitalism, also lay claim to materialism. Thus to claim that Biden's infrastructure bills are Marxist without a thorough examination is to use "Marxism' as a pejorative label.
But what are the infrastructure bills about? Are they utopian in vision or do they come from a realism. After all, it is realism that says that part of maintaining the economy is to maintain and even update the nation's infrastructure. In addition, to brush aside the material needs of the people by crying 'Marxism,' including Marx's utopian goals, is to bluntly ignore the material needs of many people who have been economically marginalized by our current economic system. To borrow and adapt a situation described in one of the epistles, to brush aside the material needs of those in need in the way Hornet does in the above article is to see a person in need and say to them: '<b>be warm by pulling yourself up by your bootstraps or by dying and going to heaven</b>.' Trying to provide for people's basic needs is not utopian; rather, it is compassionate realism. Only the privileged can engage in the Marie-Antoinettse-speak that is suggested by Horvat's 'Christian' view of things.
There is a reasonable reason why Hornet writes against Biden's infrastructure bills. That reasonable reason revolves around who is to pay for Biden's infrastructure bills. Are they to be paid for by increasing the deficit or by increasing taxes on the wealthy. Considering that the wealthy don't seem to mind increases in the deficit if that means that they get to pay less and less in taxes, a reduction in operating costs, or increased business with the federal government, We see that when unfunded wars and spikes in the defense budget benefits the Military Industrial Complex, when Medicare is refused the opportunity to negotiate with the Pharmaceutical companies, or when taxes and regulations are cut on big business. So where are Horvat's concerns about the deficit when that occurs?
--------------------------
Dec 6
To Gene Veith and his article distinguishing the conservative approach to human rights from the progressive approach to human rights. This appeared in the Cranach blog on pathos.
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/geneveith/2021/12/do-rights-limit-or-empower-the-government/
Unfortunately, exclusive-or, or black-white thinking is deeply woven in Veith's article. For according to Veith, rights are about either limiting gov't or giving people entitlements, but not some kind of combination of both. It is basically the light beer commercial approach to human rights.
The problem with the conservative view of rights is overwhelmingly obvious, what the Federal gov't is forbidden to do to its people, at least the powerful private sector elites and, perhaps, even regional or local gov'ts are allowed to do. So in essence, there is no freedom of speech, religion, assembly or the press so long as the Federal gov't isn't the party that is infringing on those freedoms. For our rights are not about how we are deserve to be treated by others, our rights are purely about what limits the federal gov't can put on us. That is why the first 10 amendments are more popularly known as the Bill of Limits. For so as long as the Federal gov't doesn't infringe in those areas, then there is no foul.
Of course, that principle is not consistently carried out by conservatives and that is shown by their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. For now, neither the state nor local gov'ts are allowed to limit the right to bear arms. In fact, if that approach is taken literally, private sector businesses should not have the ability to prohibit the carrying of any kind guns or weapons on their properties. So look out shopping malls, here they, that is guns, come. Maybe I will do all of my shopping through amazon. Freedom of religion laws also show the inconsistency to this approach.
Of course, the real problem with the conservative approach to rights is that it is reductionistic. Though they call what the amendments talk about 'rights,' or what we owe others, they are not rights at all. They are not what people owed because they are people. And that is fairly consistent with part of the mindset of the writers of The Constitution. Why? It is because that document was written in response to widespread dissent over economic conditions and Shays Rebellion by those who felt threatened in those times: the then financial elites of America. And, ironically, The Constitution, for all of the limits it put on the federal gov't, strengthened to federal gov't's ability to respond and suppress insurrection and rebellions. In addition, The Constitution originally distanced the Senate from any popular pressure from the vast minority who were allowed to vote.
So what good is the right to life, which is not in The Constitution, when economic conditions don't lend themselves to people being able to make a living for themselves and their families? And why aren't we considering the background of the writers of The Constitution when talking about rights here? Most of those involved were slaveholders and bondholders. Most were financial elites at the time. Do we see why they wanted limits on the federal gov't?
Both the historical context of The Constitution and today's events make it clear that some conservative approaches to human rights limits only what the federal gov't can do but seem to allow or even promote the notion of local gov'ts or private sector elites ignoring our rights and ruling over us. And to think that such conservatives balk at the mention that conservatism has a penchant for authoritarianism.
-------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment