Sept 23
To Heidelblog and Thomas Jipping for the part of Jipping's article that the Heidelblog post quoted. Jipping's article was about an op-ed to the Washington Post by a representative for the ACLU which said that religious freedom cannot be used to justify discrimination.
Thomas Jipping's article can be found at:
There are some issues that must be raised here. First, America's origin cannot be reduced to a single factor, such as the search for religious freedom as claimed in the article. Yes, many of the first settlers came here because of religious persecution in England. But it wasn't until later in the colonization of America that religious freedom began to take form.
We should note that in the colonies, some groups of Christians persecuted other Christians for their different religious beliefs. For example, the Puritans persecuted and even martyred Quakers who set foot in New England and practiced their faith. And thus, though both groups may have come here to escape religious persecution, the religious persecution by those from one faith of those from another faith contradicts the claims that all of the early American settlers were seeking religious freedom. That is because freedom does not provide one with the license to just do what one wants. That is because freedom contains a self-restraining principle. That principle says that one must give others the same freedom that one desires for oneself. For Freedom - Equality = Privilege.
And so while many of the first settlers who came to America to escape religious persecution, their persecution of fellow Christians, let alone of Native Americans, who held different religious beliefs implies that they were seeking religious privilege rather than religious freedom.
In addition, contrary to the objections raised in Jipping's article, the references to the 1960s Civil Rights conflicts are most appropriate here. Why? Just as many of my fellow religiously conservative Christians believe that they have the right to discriminate against those in the LGBT community because of their own religious beliefs, the same applied to the practice of segregation during the Jim Crow era in the South. Many southern religious conservative Christians used the Scriptures to defend Jim Crow laws and culture that marginalized blacks and denied them from having an equal status in society. Thus to integrate and treat blacks as equals went against their religious beliefs.
Many of my fellow religiously conservative Christians object to comparing the discrimination they wish to practice on those from the LGBT community with the Jim Crow era of discrimination against blacks by saying that being black does not merit punishment because being black is not a sin. But being homosexual or transexual are sinful and thus merit being marginalized in society. But right there, we see the imposition of a certain set of religious views, some of which I share without supporting discrimination, on those with different beliefs about being homosexual or not being cisgendered. And so again, the formula of Freedom - Equality = Privilege applies to those of my fellow religiously conservative Christians who believe that their faith justifies discriminating against those from the LGBT community are not seeking religious freedom; they are seeking religious privilege.
It is inconsistent, to say the least, to believe that those in the LGBT community should have equality in society while discriminating against them. And thus, the desired right to discriminate against those in the LGBT community for religious reasons carries with it some secular eschatological hopes. And some of those hopes desire a return to the old status quo when those in the LGBT community were marginalized in society because they don't deserve to be treated as equals. For treating them as equals means that one must agree with their lifestyles or not see them as a threat to society. And there is the rub. That we can only treat those who agree with us on a given subject(s) as equals. Only here, the given subjects are sexual orientation and gender identity.
Discriminating others can never be considered a freedom. That is because one cannot separate freedom from equality and discrimination rests on a presumption of inequality.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sept 25
To Glenn Arbery and his article on why young men in college seem lost and are unable to complete their education. Arbery attributes this problem to the teach of feminist ideologies that makes young men feel bad about their masculinity. This article appeared in the Imaginative Conservative Blog
Besides the advertisement for Wyoming Catholic College, the article is based on pure speculation and assumption. It assumes that young men are belittled by the prevalent teaching feminist ideologies--which seem to be regarded as a monolith. What are feminists ideologies teaching these young men that is belittling their masculinity? There is nothing specific provided by the article though feminist ideologies are made the scapegoat.
Having been a college instructor, I never saw any evidence of the claim made by Arbery. What I did see though were students who lacked the academic preparation and/or personal maturity to succeed in college. And culture, previous education, and parents seemed to be more responsible than any ideology.
Society for the privileged revolves around entertainment. And for many young men, their lives revolve around being entertained. Part of that reflects the kind of home life they grew up in. But it also reflects society at large. When we look at what society invests in, entertainment seems to be one of the top sources for that investment.
In addition, society doesn't teach enough kids the value of work. In fact, our economic system teaches us that wealth is more important than work. With wealth comes power, status, and the increased ability to consume. Work often doesn't bring power and status. And the harder we work, the more discomfort we experience. That discomfort can be a shocking new experience to many kids whose lives revolve around entertainment. In addition, when wealth is valued more than work, people tend to be to focused on themselves and what they are getting rather than on how they can contribute to others.
In addition, many parents have been more concerned with the recognition their children receive in school than with their children's learning and preparation for the future. I had a conversation with a school system's lawyer one time. And what they told me is that too many parents have a penchant for threatening to file lawsuits. And on of the parents' big complain is that their students are receiving high enough grades. I know of one school district where parents demanded that a particular teacher be dismissed. Why did they demand that? It was because the teacher held to high standards when it came to giving grades.
And then there are school administrators who believe so much in boosting the self-image of each student that they pressure teachers to pass their students regardless of their grades.
In the meantime, students whose lives revolve around entertainment are often content to go along for the ride of easy grades and almost guaranteed graduation. That entertainment includes sports.
Finally, sometimes those who have lived in the lap of luxury lose an edge that would push them to excel while those who are hungry to escape deprivation. That might be what we are seeing as women have tended to have less power than men and so men have grown complacent while women are more hungry to excel.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost about those who are promoting theonomy in America. This appeared in Heidelblog.
The problem with focusing on theonomy is that we tend to let other levels of Christian control of society fly in under the radar.
Lately, the Christian websites and news media have been focusing on Christian Nationalism. And with Christian Nationalism, we see Christians seeking varying levels of control over the government and society enabled by Christians gaining a privileged place above all other religious groups in government. Should Christians achieve such a privileged place in America, then we would no longer have what is left of a democracy, we would have an ethnocracy--btw, a given religious group can be counted as an ethnic group according to anthropologists and dictionaries.
We need to oppose any level of Christian ethnocracy in America. Allowing that to happen is not just wrong, it can sabotage our efforts to carry out the Great Commission. That is because if we were to achieve installing a Christian ethnocracy in America, people would see our opposition to democracy and desire to control their lives before they would consider listening to our evangelism.
No comments:
Post a Comment