June 14
To Heidelblog and Judge Neil Gorsuch and Heidelblog for the part of Gorsuch's dissenting opinion on a case that criticizes the steps that government has taken in response to the Covid pandemic which was quoted in the Heidelblog post.
Neil Gorsuch's full dissenting opinion can be found at:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-592_5hd5.pdf
There are two points to be made in response to Gorsuch's dissenting view in the Arizona et al., v. Alejandro Mayorkas, Secretary of Homeland Security et al. case. First, Gorsuch's objections, made in the above quote, were stated without providing any context whatsoever. And so just reading that part of Gorsuch's views would indicate that the government is taking those restrictive measures either willy-nilly or out of a new principle.
But such was not the case. The government was responding to a pandemic which had already killed many in Europe and overwhelmed Europe's health resources because of their late response to the pandemic. Somehow, the context of the government actions he was protesting didn't seem relevant to the point he wanted to make. Or, just perhaps, the context would show that he was protesting a phantom threat.
The second point is that it seems that some conservatives find small government to be a cure all for political situations and nations. That somehow, the idea of small government is omniscient in telling us the kind of government we need regardless of the circumstances. Whether stated explicitly or logically implied, the idea that any ideology or approach to government can answer the needs of the people regardless of the circumstances is only made out of an ignorance-fed arrogance. It's arrogant to believe that one's ideology or approach to government is omniscient.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 20
To Joshua Claybourn and his article about Juneteenth, the history around it, and its significance. Claybourn includes in his article some claims about the Founding Fathers and America regarding the treatment of people. This article was posted in the Imaginative Conservative blog.
There is some good information in the article about the end of slavery. But the claim about the Founding Fathers leading the global attempt to end slavery seems to have historical problems. One of those problems being what is written in The Constitution. Another problem was their own private practices.
And if we add to that their dreams of taking even more land away from Native American tribes, the claim is even more problematic even though there was no enslaving of Native Americans.
Of course there is another problem with the claim about the Founding Fathers. The gathering to debate and write The Constitution was done in response to widespread dissent and violence such as seen in Shays Rebellion. Henry Knox's letter to George Washington showed that the modern practice of discrediting one's ideological or political opponents with false claims has its precedence in our nation's past. The Federalist papers also shows the use of pejoratives by some of the Founding Fathers on those who were protesting the economics of their time. After all, it was an economics that favored the wealth of many of the Founding Fathers but also hurt the finances many veterans of the Revolutionary War.
Just as the article provided some balancing information about Juneteenth and the actual end of slavery in our nation, what is really true about the Founding Fathers regarding how they saw and treated others needs to be taught and learned. For what is really true about the Founding Fathers will not only show the faults of their time, but that the Founding Fathers were not secular apostles of freedom as many conservatives want to see them as. But instead, the Founding Fathers were people who were mixed bags of both good ideas and practices and bad ones.
The same can be said about America. The essence of America is a bit complicated. We can't deny that the 4 centuries of harsh racism sadly reflects on the essence of America. After all, we still have systemic racism in our nation today.
Rather those 4 centuries as well as how our nation abused those from other ethnicities as well as from other groups, along with some of the progress in human rights made in America show that America, like its founders, is a mixed bag nation with horrific sins and flaws along with some moments of honor and of making significant contributions to the world.
We should note here that those who have a black-white worldview will struggle the most with acknowledging either the contributions made by the Founding Fathers and the nation or significance of America's horrific sins and flaws. For all who have a black-white worldview, the color gray is a four-letter-word.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 1
To Heidelblog and Craig Carter and the part of his article quoted by Heidelblog that criticizes Scientific American for the opinion article it published stated that sex categories should not be thought of as binary.
Craig Carter's full article can be found at:
https://americanreformer.org/2023/06/scientific-american-descends-into-sophistry/
The Scientific American article reviewed by Carter can be found at:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/heres-why-human-sex-is-not-binary/
Romans 2 warns us not to judge lest we be found guilty of committing the same sin. That just might be the warning that should have been issued to Carter before he wrote his article criticizing the magazine Scientific American for the opinion piece it published which claims that human sex is not binary. Part of Carter's article is quoted above. Why might Romans 2 be relevant here?
First, Carter is responding to an opinion piece, not a research article. But that doesn't stop Carter from making a blanket accusation against Scientific American for the views expressed in the article he was commenting on. And so here we should note that Carter's reaction to the article is defensive and appears to be fear driven.
Second, Carter tries to dismiss some of the arguments used in the article he is reacting to. That we don't don't a universal distinction between the sexes in the animal world is relevant to humans because of our relationship to animals. We share enough similarities with many of them to warrant the references made to them in the Scientific American article.
Third, yes, doctors use the presence of reproductive organs to determine the sex of a child. In some cases, however, what can be observed when a baby is born says that the sex of a baby is indeterminant. Thus, the baby is born as being intersex. That should create a 3rd sex category for people. In addition, some males have female brain structures while some females have male brain structures. Some scientists have observed that in some who suffer from gender dysphoria (see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7415463/ ). And thus, even for those who are classified as males or females, there is some ambiguity unlike what Carter wrote in his article.
In addition, if one consults some of the references cited by the Scientific American article in question, one would be hard pressed to follow strict definitions of sex based on genotypes and/or phenotypes. (see https://academic.oup.com/icb/advance-article/doi/10.1093/icb/icad027/7157109 AND https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34096131/ ) in all cases. And so how does that confirm what Carter wrote?
Church History should provide ample warnings about easily writing off scientific information that challenges traditional perceptions. Here, we only need to be reminded of the Church's initial reaction to the teaching of Heliocentrism. And so that some scientists are saying some non religiously kosher things about sex should not cause us to over react in defending Genesis 1:27. Why? That is because while what Genesis 1:27 said was before the Fall, nature fell, along with man, when Adam sinned.
No comments:
Post a Comment