Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For February 1, 2023

Jan 26

To Heidelblog and their blogpost that references a Heidelblog resource page with references meant to totally discredit the 1619 Project. 

https://heidelblog.net/2023/01/new-resource-page-resources-on-the-1619-project/

Actual Heidelblog Reference Page:

https://heidelblog.net/1619-project/

The above criticisms of the 1619 Project lack precision in its criticisms in an attempt to discredit the whole work. 

For example, Sean Wilentz, who is in the article that criticizes the project from the Left, offered specific criticisms of the 1619 Project in an effort to keep the whole project from being discredited. In other words, he didn't reject the whole project or the project overall. He saw a significant amount of value in the project.

One of the points of contention from the 1619 Project was the claim that the Revolutionary War was fought in order to protect the institution of slavery from being axed by British rule. And though such a claim is an overstatement, it is not without evidence. For while American elites who led the campaign to breakaway from the British Empire did not mention the protection of slavery as a reason for the Revolution, the newspapers at that time did frame a statement made in a particular British court ruling as a threat to the institution of slavery.

As for the National Association of Scholars, its name sounds like a neutral voice but in reality it is a political conservative advocacy group similar to the American College of Pediatricians. Thus, the neutral sounding name that suggests objectivity for the National Association of Scholars which is far from the purpose of that group.

I could go on, but here is the point. Like with Critical Theory and Critical Race Theory, some conservatives have targeted the 1619 Project to be completely discredited rather than to identify its contributions and errors to our understanding of history. The treatment of the 1619 Project by those conservatives provide examples of black-white thinking, which is a kind of thinking that we see in authoritarianism. And, if indeed, the analysis of the 1619 Project by these conservatives is from an authoritarian viewpoint, then the goal of this kind of conservative analysis of the 1619 Project is to gain control over enough people so as to  silence the Project.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jan 27

To Pat Buchanan and the Imaginative Conservative blog that reposted a Buchanan article that was first posted in 2012. 

Just some loose thoughts here. 

First, conservatives don't have to impose their values to conserve their traditions and principles. But according to the above article, imposing their values on the rest of the people defines success for them.

As for Russell Kirk being a traditionalist, I say this to traditionalists from all ideological perspectives. Traditionalism is the other side of the coin from Narcissism. Both isms artificially elevate a set of time periods above all other time periods to the extent that it seems they believe that their chosen set of time periods has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them.

Buchanan's comments on the Civil Rights Revolution lack awareness. While he is quick to praise Martin Luther King Jr, much of what he also condemns was part of King's mission in life. In his interview with Xander Vanocur 11 months before his death, King defined the period of the passage of the '64 and '65 Civil and Voting Rights Acts as a struggle for dignity. King goes on to say that what he was working toward at the time of the interview was true equality for Blacks which was to be measured through the equality of results (see  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xsbt3a7K-8   ). 

Is Buchanan aware that King listed as the triplets of evil: racism, economic exploitation, and militarism? Is he aware that King said that to take down racism, we must also eradicate the other two evils?

In terms of what is bankrupting this nation, isn't it government spending on goods and services provided by corporations either in defense, pharmaceuticals, private prisons, and other goods and services. These items are provided by the same corporations that pay lobbyists to earn favor for their employers in the laws passed by our government.

As for the Vietnam War, what we used to justify our presence there, the Domino Theory, proved to be false. In fact, our involvement in Vietnam began around the time when the US rejected a democratic process that would determine whether the two Vietnams would be reunited. And the end of the Vietnam War showed that the War was always about reunification.

And what did Reagan revive? It was a belief in our nation but what is that belief based on? After all, the US has often interfered in the internal affairs of other nations including overthrowing left-leaning democracies and replacing them with dictatorships (for some examples see Iran in 1953, Guatemala in 1954, Greece in 1967, and Chile in 1973). Millions of civilians died in Vietnam because of our weapons and our intervention in that nation. Systemic racism in the US has survived the work of the Civil Rights Movement. And for the past several decades, wealth and income disparities have continued to increase between the classes and the races in this nation. Reagan's war against unions and embracing of neoliberal capitalism has contributed to those growing disparities.

Yes, some conservative values and practices have fallen out of favor for much of the nation. But if conservatives hold on to those values and practices, how is it that they have failed even when others have not? How have they failed unless conservatives judge their success by their imposition of their values and practices on others in this nation?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jan 30

To Heidelblog and Dorothy Sayers for the part of Sayers's address that was quoted in a heidelblog post about Christianity vs paganism. 

Dorothy Sayers's full address can be found at:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/6ah7lgde0rrsd7m/sayerscreed.pdf?dl=0

One should only accept Sayers's claim that Christian and pagan are in a 'life-and-death' struggle if Christendom is Christianity. And the last time I checked multiple sources on this, including Heidelblog (see  https://heidelblog.net/2022/06/christendom-was-a-renewal-of-the-old-testament-theocracy/  AND   https://heidelblog.net/2021/11/christ-the-only-way-doctrinal-confusion-and-a-twofold-kingdom/     ). Christendom is not Christianity. Instead, Christendom is both caused by and causes confusion on the relationship between the Church and State. And thus the presence of heathendom does not put Christian and pagan in a dire battle with each other.

And so with the main claim of  Sayers's address resting on equating of Christendom with Christianity, I am confused why the Sayer's address is quoted from  here. After all, if Christendom is not identical with Christianity, how can we say that the replacing of Christendom with heathendom puts Christian in a 'life-and-death' struggle with pagan?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Joseph Pearce and the reposting of his article on what was tragic in the Old South. His article presented a challenge to an opinion written by a Tennessee girl who denounced the South's history and its heritage. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

If the South's only major flaw was slavery, then was the Federal government overstepping its role, or unjustly attacking subsidiarity, in outlawing Jim Crow laws? Inquiring social justice warriors want to know.

There are a couple of problems with Pearce's article here. The first, of course, was limiting the South's sins to that of slavery. That is a problem because what drove or enabled slavery goes without criticism: the belief in white supremacy. And it was that belief that caused Jim Crow laws and culture to follow what was an all too brief respite from the racism in the South known as Reconstruction. 

But the mere existence of either slavery or Jim Crow shows the problem with putting the principle of subsidiarity on too high a pedestal. We can't afford to have local rights, whether they be parental rights, church rights, state rights or whatever else rights be independent from evaluation by universal values and principles. We can't allow the individual to violate the equal rights of others.

Another problem with Pearce's analysis here is to call the Federal Government a distant government. When each state has two Senators regardless of its size and each state is divided up into sectors according to its population and has its own representative, we can't call such a government 'distant.' We even have an electoral college that also helps balance out the voting power between urban centers and rural areas. How is that 'distant'?

Here I have to agree with the 'Tennessee girl' Pearce referenced far more than with Pearce. Then again, I am not from the South. But I've seen violations of equal rights in the North as well. We have enough stuff to be ashamed of here too.

 

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For June 15, 2022

 June 3

To Heidelblog and Scott R. Swain for Heidelblog's partial quoting of Swain's article on the importance that tradition plays to faith. This was posted in Heidelblog.

Swain's original article can be found at:

    https://www.scottrswain.com/2022/05/12/on-tradition/

We want the transmission of the faith to be relevant without changing the core of the faith. The question is, where do we get that core from?

Certainly the Scriptures are our first and ultimate source. But traditions can be helpful provided that they are not put on too high a pedestal and that we understand where our traditions might be more influenced by the times and culture of those whose writing became our traditions than on the Scriptures.

For us Reformed people, we have to acknowledge that there are parts of our traditions that carry different priorities. For example, what our traditions describe the Godhead and soteriology are more important to pay attention to than what the parts of those traditions that talk about how we relate to society or each other. For if we put all of the parts of our traditions on the same footing, either we will easily compromise the most basic and essential parts of our traditions or we risk putting our traditions on such a high pedestal that they compete with the Scriptures for importance. And if we rely too much on our traditions to understand the Scriptures, the Scriptures themselves become subject to the man-made canon of our traditions. 

One other point should be made here. If we put too much emphasis on our traditions, and thus putting them on too high a pedestal, we will  fall prey to an authoritarianism that makes us vulnerable to relying too much on human authorities rather than properly submitting to the authority structures God has placed over us.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

June 7

To R. Scott Clark and his article that tries to partially criticize winsomeness in discussions about the faith. Here, winsomeness is called a synonym of being nice. This appeared in Heidelblog.

Authoritarians don't like to be nice, neither do those who lack self-control. Donald Trump is an epitome of anti-winsomeness, but one doesn't have to be a Trump to cross the line in how we respond to people. Here we are not talking about watering down the truths we confess, we are talking about how we confess those truths before others.

In Galatians 6, Paul tells us to be gentle in how we correct fellow believers who have fallen into sin. One reason for being gentle is that we too could easily fall into sin. And if we are called to be gentle with those who have fallen into sin, how is it that we have the license to be aggressive with or even hostile toward those in our Christian intramural debates or in defending what we believe before unbelievers? After all, gentleness and self-control are part of the fruit of the Spirit.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

June 8

To Heidelblog and Carl Trueman for the Heidelblog post that quotes a part of Trueman's article that speaks against Pride Month for the LGBT community. Thie appeared in Heidelblog.

Carl Trueman's full article can be found at:

    https://wng.org/opinions/welcome-to-pride-month-christian-1654083759

When, in the article cited, Trueman wants to separate what the government allows people to do in the privacy of their own bedrooms from Pride month, he is forgetting 1 facet of marginalization: that which is practiced by society.

Pride Month is, in part, about equality for those in the LGBT community in society. So if the state doesn't criminalize the LGBT community but society is free to punish those from the LGBT community, what has been gained by the LGBT community? In fact, isn't this part of the objections to the legalization of same-sex marriage by many fellow religiously conservative Christianas? That if same-sex marriage is legal, then it is regarded, in society, as being equal to heterosexual marriage.

Should Christians participate in Pride Month? I don't believe so. That is because we shouldn't be celebrating sin. But should we agree with the need for the public recognition of Pride Month? Yes, that is if we believe that those in the LGBT community should enjoy full equality in society. And we can't separate the issue of full equality from Pride Month though Pride Month says more than that.

It's odd that Trueman's article favorably compares opposition to racism with opposing Pride Month. After all, the former opposes bigotry while the latter celebrates and promotes bigotry.

We need neither the state nor society to confront the LGBT community. Rather, the preaching of the Gospel and Church discipline for those who persist in sexual immorality is all we need in speaking against the sins practiced by the LGBT community. For us to enlist society or the state to further challenge the LGBT community will not only display a presumption of self-righteousness on our part, it will cause those in the LGBT community, and perhaps others, to see the Church's oppression before they hear the Church's evangelism.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

June 11

To the Heidelblog and Aaron Rent for Reno's article that was partially quoted in the Heidelblog post. In particular, the comment below addresses the title of this Heidelblog article. This post appeared in Heidelblog.

Aaron Reno's full article can be found at:

https://aaronrenn.substack.com/p/the-three-worlds-of-evangelicalism-7fc?s=w

Post Modernism has certainly led the charge in determining how Christianity is perceived in our nation today. But Post Modernism was not targeting Christianity per se as it was targeting all groups that claimed to have an exclusive possession of the truth. Also, Post Modernism's reaction was result based. Under Christianity, especially white,  religiously conservative Christianity, many groups had been sorely oppressed and marginalized in America. And that is a truth that we white religiously conservative Christianity has yet to come to full grips with both intellectually and emotionally. That Is why we have failed to adequately acknowledge and appreciate the fallible attempts by those promoting CRT, those in BLM, and those in LGBT community to tell us how we have, and still try to, oppressed and marginalize others. Since their attempts are fallible, they are wrong in some of the things they are saying. But the gist of what they are saying about us is correct.

Our, that is those who are white, religiously conservative Christians, marginalization is nothing compared with the marginalization that we put others through. And yet, we are very focused on our current state in society.  And we should note that that white, religiously conservative Christianity is not really marginalized in the whole nation like minorities and the LGBT community had been. There are large areas of the nation where such Christianity still holds sway.

Another way to express the last two paragraphs is that we white, religiously conservative Christians have been spoiled by the past so that we are tending to magnify and marginalization we are suffering today. And our magnification of our current marginalization is just another cause for us to lose credibility as witnesses for Christ.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

June 11

To Anthony Costello and his comment in response to a comment of mine about CRT. His comment appeared around June 10th This was part of the conversations that followed his article entitled "Whiteness" And The Splitting Of The Evangelical Mind. That appeared on the Theological Apologetics blog on Patheos.

Anthony,

I simply accommodated to your language. With some of the above, they denied the pandemic, such as a family member who denied it both before and after having Covid. So it doesn't matter got me which word is used. Not treating the pandemic as seriously as it should be costed lives.

I can't believe you asked the question about whether I have read any CRT. That is simply an attempt to discredit me here. How would know about ties between MLK and CRT without being familiar with both? Listen to the Xander Vanocur interview with MLK, which can be found on Youtube, as he made the distinction between his earlier of struggling for dignity and his latter work of struggling for real equality and then read Kimberlé Crenshaw on the equality of outcomes. Or read Anthony Cook on how MLK deconstructed the Christian support for Jim Crow. Or read Derrick Bell on the possibility of racial equality in today's America or Jayne Chong-Soon Lee as she challenges Kwayne Anthony Appiah's take on racism.

Not only that, the AME has determined to make social justice issues part of their sermons--btw, AME is the only African Methodist Church denomination I have found. And I didn't see any denunciation of CRT by that denomination. However, I did see an interesting quote from a Black leader of the Methodist Church regarding CRT (see https://um-insight.net/pers... ):

First and foremost, Critical Race Theory does not teach that ‘some students are inherently good, and others are inherently bad based on their outward appearance.’ Critical Race Theory takes a critical look at racial justice and the roots of racism in the United States. It focuses on systemic and institutional changes and challenges that lead to racism and seeks to uncover the hidden dynamics that have brought us to where we are in this country.

Contrary to promoting racism, as has been suggested, Critical Race Theory examines the role of race in our justice system and the complex interplay between race, and gender and its impact on minorities. Unfortunately, some groups have co-opted the term and twisted it to serve their own agendas. 

Here's the real problem, You're using a model of thought to deduce the extent to which CRT reflects how Blacks experience racism in this country without regard for the history and real life experiences of Blacks in this nation. And by your model of thought, you seem to have concluded that CRT does not reflect to any degree how Blacks have and still do experience racism in this nation.

And in your comments to me, you use name dropping to defend your case.

Your argument is not very sound. We religiously conservative Christian thinkers often are lured into a temptation that we can define anything in or out of existence through deduction.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

June 12

To Mark Malvasi and his article that criticizes Nikole Hannah-Jones's 1619 project. Malvasi attempts to steer a course that between Jones's 1619 Project and the vision of America held to by the Patriotic Right. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative Blog. 

So Nicole Hannah-Jones's 1619 Project errs more in interpretation than in facts.  And Malvasi wishes to find a Goldilocks position between the approaches of both Jones and Zinn and that of the American Patriotic Right. And thus Malvasi is seeking to do more than just take an edge off of the historical approach taken by Jones and Zinn.

In trying to curb Jones's interpretation of history, he moves the date for when slavery and race became more of a focal point in the US. He also includes that it was Americans who freed the slaves in the Civil War. In addition, he contends that Jones's interpretation of history accounts for neither abolitionists nor the Civil Rights Movement.

But in all of that, Malvasi might just be a bit too selective with the facts. Race was an issue from the beginning of white America's history. After all, land was being forcibly taken from Native Americans almost from the beginning and captured Native Americans as well as Blacks were being traded as slaves by the Puritans in the latter part of the 1630s.

Yes, Americans freed the slaves in the Civil War. But they had to fight their fellow Americans to do so.

As for the Civil Rights Movement, the bulk of the key leaders from that movement were black, and so what was missing in Jones's description of America regarding that? And being an abolitionist did not imply that one believed in equality. In fact, many black abolitionists soon learned that many white abolitionists were still white supremacists.

And yes, America was not alone practicing slavery and promoting white supremacy. But America seems to have ended slavery later than many other nations did. And we are still battling the notion of white supremacy. While other nations eliminated slavery, the US followed slavery with Jim Crow.

Malvasi wants to select a Goldilocks position in talking about racism and slavery in the US. He wants a position that lies between Jones-Zinn and the American Patriotic right. But I have another suggestion. My suggestion is this, America should treat our past history and present practice of racism in the same way that we want Germany to treat its history of Nazism. To do so would indicate how seriously we are taking both our past and present racism. 

Of course the difference between the two situations is that America is still suffering from horrible problems with racism. Nazism has been relegated to being that of a fringe group in Germany today. Unfortunately, racism here is still too much in vogue.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For September 29, 2021

 Sept 25

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost quote of part of an article by Princeton historian, Sean Wilentz, which criticizes the 1619 Project for claiming that a main reason for the Revolutionary War was to protect the institution of slavery from the British. This appeared in Heidelblog.

The link to Wilentz's article is below:

    https://www.opera-historica.com/pdfs/oph/2021/01/05.pdf

The title of Clark's blogpost does not match the intention of Wilentz's expressed concerns over the 1619 Project. In an interview reported by The Atlantic, Wilentz said the following about the letter containing his criticisms of the 1619 Project (see  https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/historians-clash-1619-project/604093/ ):

Far from an attempt to discredit the 1619 Project, our letter is intended to help it.

In addition, there are scholars  who share a similar view of the relationship between the Revolutionary War and slavery which was claimed in the 1619 Project. For example Alfred Blumrosen, Professor of Law Emeritus at Rutgers along with his late wife who was an adjunct professor of law there made similar claims (see  https://www.zinnedproject.org/materials/slave-nation/ ).

The central issue involved in connecting the reasons for the Revolutionary War and the defense of slavery revolve around the effects on public perception on the future of slavery which the press, both American and British, played by how they reported on the Somerset case and the words of its presiding judge, Judge Lord Mansfield: 

So high an act of dominion was never in use here; no master was ever allowed to take a slave by force to be sold abroad, because he had deserted from his service, or for any other reason whatsoever. We cannot say the cause set forth by this return is allowed or approved by the laws of this kingdom, therefore the man must be discharged.

Two academic papers deal the newspaper accounts and the resulting public perception (see  https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc804870/m2/1/high_res_d/thesis.pdf  and  https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED245272.pdf  ). Thus, whether there was a relationship between the Revolutionary War and slavery is not as clearcut as some would believe.

Does the 1619 Project overstate any existing relationship between the war and slavery? Yes it does. But, that is no reason to discount the whole project since it points to a truth that the project's critic, Wilentz, recognizes and expressed in his letter to The Times. That truth was the central role played by slavery in American history.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sept 27

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost containing a quote from the statement made by the Global Covid Summit in September, 2021 in Roam. This appeared in Heidelblog.

Full statement from the Global Covid Summit in Roam

https://doctorsandscientistsdeclaration.org

One of the things I do before I consider accepting information I read on the internet is to vet the sources. Some of the co-signers listed are advocates of the use of Ivermectin for Covid-19. And considering the fact that there is no peer-reviewed legitimate documentation supporting the use of Ivermectin for treating Covid, the 2nd resolution makes sense. What is written above is declaration that there should be no governmental medical standards that the the government should apply to doctors in the name of the doctor-patient relationship and in order to stop political intrusion into the practice of medicine.

Such seems to forget that government intrusion is not always politically based. That, in terms of medicine, it is well advised by the scientific study of those practicing medicine and/or medical research. And if it is well advised by scientific study, it is wrong to a priori claim that gov't oversight into how medicine is being practiced is politically based.

Doesn't Clark understand what is really being promoted by the Global Covid Summit? Has he vetted his sources and publicly disclosed what he found?

We need the truth about using Ivermectin as a treatment for Covid 19. That truth is that there is no current research that confirms the claims that Ivermectin is a proven treatment or prevention for Covid-19. That legitimate research is needed before such a claim can be made. That those who want to treat the disease with Ivermectin must be upfront and explicitly clear about what is known about Ivermectin at this time. And anyone practicing medicine must explain that, from what we know at this time, vaccines are really the first line of prevention and, hopefully, the elimination or managing of the disease.

Should the research prove the claims about Ivermectin to be true, then that would be great. But as of now, there is no such proof (see  https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/public-health/why-ivermectin-should-not-be-used-prevent-or-treat-covid-19  ).

Comments Which Coonservatives Block From Their Blogs For November 4, 2020

 Oct 28
To R. Scott Clark and Tim Sandefurr on Clark’s blogpost that quotes and article from Sandefur stating that the 1619 Project was dead because it missed the idea that freedom was the core of America’s founding. This appeared in Heidelblog.

Sandefur’s article is
    https://thedispatch.com/p/the-1619-project-an-autopsy

The 1619 Project didn't get the facts wrong, but it did partially misinterpret some of the facts in an effort to emphasize the role that slavery and white supremacy played in the founding of our nation. While King is quoted above about America's promissory note, he and others spoke of two Americas. King noted that there is an America that enjoys prosperity and an America that is ruled by poverty. Thus, to quote King and say that freedom is the single element that makes America, America is to ignore not only our history and the current situation, it is to ignore what King saw in America. In one speech King said the following about the 2 Americas (see  https://billmoyers.com/2013/04/10/dr-kings-two-americas-truer-now-than-ever/   ):

 “There are literally two Americas. One America is beautiful for situation. And in a sense this America is overflowing with the milk of prosperity and the honey of opportunity. This America is the habitat of millions of people who have food and material necessities for their bodies, and culture and education for their minds; and freedom and dignity for their spirits…

    “…Tragically and unfortunately, there is another America. This other America has a daily ugliness about it that constantly transforms the buoyancy of hope into the fatigue of despair. In this America millions of work-starved men walk the streets daily in search for jobs that do not exist. In this America millions of people find themselves living in rat-infected vermin-filled slums. In this America people are poor by the millions. They find themselves perishing on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity.”

The racial divide that has always been a part of America points to 2 Americas along a racial divide. From slavery to Jim Crow to now, we see an America whose history is replete with systemic racism. That is because America is built on white supremacy, something that even found its way in our Constitution.

Of course challenging the self-flattery of the Conservative view of America and its past challenges the credentials that Authoritarian Conservatives have assigned to our nation's founding fathers. Like all of us, our nation's founding fathers have mixed records of nobility and sin. But Authoritarian Conservatives want to overstate their nobility while minimizing the atrocities they committed--yes, owning slaves is an atrocity.

As for the 1619 Project, its only fault was that of applying reductionism to American history in trying to recognize how important a role slavery played in the founding of our nation. For while the 1619 Project initially stated that America was founded solely on slavery,  in reality, slavery played a major role in America's founding along with some other issues. There were several parts that make up the core of the founding of America and slavery and white supremacy were parts of that core. Thus, the 1619 Project was wrong because it overstated its case about slavery and America. Thus, to totally reject what the 1619 Project claims is the flip side of the coin of believing everything that the 1619 Project initially said. Just like our nation's founding fathers had mixed records of being right and practicing sin against others, so to the 1619 Project is a mixed bag that has important contributions to make in understanding America while also containing some major flaws.

But such a review of the 1619 Project is difficult for Authoritarian Conservatives to accept because part of being authoritarian is that one tends to view the world as being black or white.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oct 29

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost that quotes and article by Ryan T. Anderson which  lists alleged negative repercussions that the Equality Act could have on the religious liberty of religiously conservative Christians. This appeared in the Heidelblog

Anderson’s article:
    https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/05/07/nancy-pelosis-equality-act-would-undo-trumps-most-significant-achievements/

Even though the right to an elective abortion was about equality, to tie that with the Equality Act neglects the fact that the Act is about discrimination, not abortion per se. The Act is about reversing the long history of discrimination and even persecution of those from the LGBT community in and by this nation.

If there is a tie between the Equality Act and abortion, then the evangelical shame is to fail to recognize the legitimate parts of the Equality Act which acknowledges and opposes the discrimination and persecution of the LGBT community in this nation. How is it against religious liberty to so recognize, and then denounce, that discrimination and persecution? It is a shame not to recognize and try to reverse that discrimination and persecution while opposing whatever advantage that the Act gives to the access to elective abortion.

The opposition to the Equality Act isn't about religious liberty, it is about defending the privilege of a subset of those in the Christian religion. And the privilege being sought, for the most part, is that of the right to marginalize those from the LGBT community. We should note that the difference between privilege and liberty is the absence of equality in the former. Where there is equality, there is no privilege. Where there is no equality, difference become privilege for some and marginalization for others.

Finally, regarding bathroom and locker room situations, perhaps the fault lies with the Christian community here. Some Native American tribes recognized up to 3 or 4 genders. They recognized men who were more feminine in their interests and pursuits and women who were more masculine in their interests and pursuits. And perhaps our insistence on recognizing only 2 genders forces those who don't identify the biological sex of their birth to choose the only remaining option: the gender of the opposite sex.

Remember here that we are talking about society, not the Church. That because the Church cannot and must not recognize or acknowledge one's freedom to identify as the gender that does not match the sex they were born with or do the same with those whose sexual orientation is for members of the same sex, doesn't mean that the Church should require society to follow suit. Otherwise, the Church is demanding religious privilege for itself and marginalization for those who hold to different religiously based views of sexual orientation and gender identification.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For October 14, 2020

 Sept 18

To Andrew Latham and his blogpost that accuses Marx and Engels as being racists and of early founders of Marx as embracing slavery. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

I cannot speak much to racism in Marx except to say that what is written above does not make him stand out from either most leaders in America or from people like Tocqueville. Whereas Marx saw in Germany the hope for the future, Tocqueville saw in Great Britain the superior society. In addition, Tocqueville wrote about Blacks and Native Americans in similar ways as is being attributed to Marx and Engels above. And yet that seems to not have been important enough for Latham to mention. And unlike Tocqueville, Marx did not get to witness what was going on in the United States.

But as for slavery, Latham fails to mention Marx's relationship with Abraham Lincoln. It has been summarized as one where they communicated and Lincoln learned from Marx without becoming a Marxist (see  https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2019/07/27/you-know-who-was-into-karl-marx-no-not-aoc-abraham-lincoln/  ). Marx spoke against American slavery in class terms. He corrected the perception that London's media presented of our Civil War which was that of a battle between protectionism vs free trade. Marx said that it was about slavery (see  'The North American Civil War (October, 1961) in   https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/internationalist/pamphlets/MARX-on-Slavery-OptV5.pdf  ). In Marx's congratulatory letter to Lincoln for winning a second term, he criticized the South by calling it an 'oligarchy of 300,000 slave holders and described the Southern cause as 'property against labor' (see   https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm ). In 1861, Marx called slavery a horror (see  https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1861/10/11.htm ).

Yes, Marx made more than just mistakes with some of his views, though it is very debatable whether those who committed great atrocities while claiming to represent him were actually following what he  wrote. Rosa Luxemburg, a socialist contemporary of Vladimir Lenin criticized Lenin's regime as imitating a bourgeoisie dictatorship in its structure and operation. Why she said that is the real issue. For Lenin did everything to ensure that proletariat rule would not be his way of governing Russia (see  https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1918/russian-revolution/ch08.htm ). In fact, none of the big 3 leaders of the Russian Revolution were Proletariats. Rather, they led a vanguard movement equating themselves with Marx's revolution. We should note that it was their vanguardism, not Marx's teaching, that led to their tyrannical rule in Russia and we could say the same of Mao in China. We should note that because our 2 major political parties portray themselves as vanguards as well.

So why was the above article written. My guess is that it was written to inspire people to view Marx in all-or-nothing terms and thus to reject anything associated with Marx. And if I am correct, by doing so, Latham is speaking as an authoritarian which is something for which we should all condemn Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, and Castro for ruling like one.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sept 24

To Sir Roger Scruton and his article that heavily criticizes the replacement of classical music with avant-garde. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

The only problem that occurs when discussing the classical tradition and avant-garde is when we try to force a false dichotomy between the two onto the listener. Just because avant-garde might, in many cases, better express the world in which we have been living doesn't mean that we can dispose of all of the music from the past. Likewise, just because of the magnificent contributions and works of the classical period doesn't mean that we should disregard boundaries crossed by avant-garde music.

While Scruton uses the views of the music critic Robert Reilly to make his case. And while Scruton tries to establish Reilly's musical authority to speak on such matters by presenting him as a kind of Renaissance man, I would like to think that Leonard Bernstein also possesses significant enough credentials to speak about music. He talks favorably about Schoenberg's explorations and achievements while telling us that we cannot escape the past (see  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olwVvbWd-tg  ).

We see 12-tone scales and other more exploratory approaches to music in some Jazz artists. Why? it is because they believe that the rules and new boundaries set are tools rather than goals. After all, music is first about communication rather than about techniques and tools. Music, like all of the arts, are to reflect life rather than try to meet some idealistic standard.

And in reflecting life, music is a barometer for where we are as a people. Rather than criticize avant-garde, I would hope that Scruton would spend his time on what the overly simplistic approach to music that we see in pop music tells us about people in general. How the rejection of complexity in music indicates that we have a population that believes that life must simple. And in so believing, we see more and more people becoming unable to see reality for what it is because they cannot tolerate complexity. And that is where avant-garde comes in.  It has simply introduced more complexity and is overly criticized by some because they cannot accept that complexity.

Thus, there is no reason to either reject classical music or avant-garde or any other approach to music that tries to adequately reflect the the complexity that is so much a part of life in every age.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sept 24

To G. Shane Morris and his blogpost that claims that it is progressives, not evangelicals who are obsessed with sex. This appeared in the Troubler of Israel blog on Patheos.

IMO, the above article indicates that Morris is too defensive to understand the complaints made about us religiously conservative Christians. Here is the complaint, that in terms of legislation and politics, many religiously religiously conservative Christians are obsessed with controlling the sexual practices of fellow citizens, especially those who are unbelievers, while we say nothing about America's immoral wars and support the cutting of social safety nets by the government.

If we can disagree with other religions while fully supporting their right to meet and practice, how is it that we are unable to to disagree with the sexual practices of unbelievers while allowing them the freedom to follow their own sexual mores? The concern from many unbelievers isn't about us agreeing with their sexual practices and relationships. Rather it is about us imposing our sexual mores on them. For the most part, religiously conservative Christians have fought tooth and nail against full equality for the LGBT community. And we have done so partly because such equality would cause us to have more contact with them than we care to.

At the same time, many of us religiously conservative Christians express no qualms when our nation separates kids from parents and locks everyone up. Many of us show no concern about the cutting or reducing of social safety nets nor do we want to admit that there is systemic racism in our nation. We even cheer the sending of our troops into harm's way while sharply condemning as being unpatriotic those who oppose, or even question, our wars.

Certainly some of us believe that the Church should be in charge of helping the needy. But America's conservative Church has no such interest in helping everyone. Don't we understand why many conservative churches move out of urban areas into the suburbs? And yet some of us want the conservative Church to take care of all who are in need.

In addition, the note by Iain Lovejoy noted the problem with the field hospital.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oct 6

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost that accuses CRT of suppressing dissent. This appeared in Heidelblog.

Odd that Clark would take one school's attempt to accommodate CRT and attribute that to CRT as a whole. I suspect that Clark's real objection is the basic tenet of CRT: that this nation was founded on and still revolves around white supremacy. I think that Clark denies that the nation is still based on white supremacy, as well as some other supremacies. The inclusion of other supremacies comes with the addition of Intersectionality.

In addition, CRT says that because of the current systemic racism that exists in this nation, we do have to review and even redefine some of our basic institutions.

Part of CRT is based on the works of Martin Luther King Jr. And here we should note that  King battled against a large white supremacist culture that, with the help of laws, enforced that white supremacy on this nation. Thus, racism wasn't only an individual sin, it was a corporate, societal sin. The response of color blindness forgets the disadvantages that systemic racism brought to many people of color. Thus color-blindness and meritocracy only furthered those disadvantages and inspired those who hold to hyperindividualism to continue to believe in white supremacy because they overlooked the disadvantages from which many people of color were performing with. Many liken all of that to a race where the starting line for those with privilege is significantly closer to the finish line than the starting line for those who have been marginalized. To then judge people based on when they cross the finish line might seem fair, but it is far from fair.

Thus, one has to question whether a person who opposes racism as an individual but does not oppose systemic or institutional racism is still adequately opposed to racism.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oct 13

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost that celebrates the removing of the Pulitzer Prize from and criticism of the 1619 Project. This appeared in Heidelblog.

The key problem with  the 1619 Project was not with facts but the interpretation of the facts. It employed all-or-nothing thinking by reducing the founding of America to the issue of slavery.

The conservative reaction to the 1619 Project by some religiously conservative Christians often employs the same type of thinking. And the reason for that is partial conflation of Christianity with American Patriotism. This is seen in their use of the parallel of America's founding fathers to America with the Apostles to the Church. And in doing so, they put America's founding fathers, and America itself, on too high a pedestal.

As for why the American Revolution was fought, there was no one single issue. That the British were interfering with the colonialists westward expansion that would take land from the Native Americans is certainly  one reason. Defense of slavery was another reason why some of our founding fathers sought independence from England. How the Sommerset case was reported, especially with how the judges words about how slavery was not consistent with English law was taken out of context. Thus,, many wrongly thought that his decision spelled the end of slavery in England and the colonies. So it is quite reasonable to see that continued belonging to the UK posed a threat to slavery and thus provided another, but not the only, reason why some of the founding fathers, many of whom were slave owners, wanted to break away from England.

Of course those two reasons alone break the idealistic parallel that many religiously conservative American Christians want to maintain between the role that our nation's founding fathers played with the creation of American and the Apostles' role in establishing the Church.

Comments WHich Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For September 16, 2020

 Sept 12

To R. Scott Clark and his lengthy blogpost quote of Ayaan Hirsi Alli that claims that like the 9/11 attackers, those who are currently woke, have ulterior motives than simply trying to correct the injustices they see. This appeared in Heidelblog.

Link for Alli’s article that was quoted from by Clark:    https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-islamists-and-wokeists-have-in-common-11599779507

I could not read much of Alli's article because I don't have a subscription to the Wall Street Journal. So I will only address what I read.

Much of what is in the above post and the part of the article I could read, written by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, represents the view of the privileged. For example, the view that the 9/11 attacks were motivated solely by the religious beliefs of some, perhaps a very small percentage depending on the location, Muslims. Accordingly, we are infidels and they are ordered by the Koran to kill infidels is his take on the 9/11 attacks. Thus the person quoted in the above post does not believe that foreign policies or other factors motivated the attacks.

We should note that the privileged often take their own actions or the actions of their own nation for granted. We should note that knowledge of resentment of the US was known to our government back when Eisenhower was President. The reason for the resentment? It was because the US backed brutal dictators in the Middle East and thus prevent people from practicing self-rule. The US support for the Shah of Iran serves as an example for during the Eisenhower Administration. And that is especially true since the US and the UK orchestrated a coup to overthrow Mohammad Mosaddegh, who was democratically elected by his people, because Mosaddegh was working to nationalize Iran's oil resources. That tradition of backing brutal dictators in the Middle East continues from then to this day with the backing of the Royal Family in Saudi Arabia, the backing of Saddam Hussein during the 1980s, and the previous backing of Hosni Mubarak and the current backing of el-Sisi in Egypt. In addition, there is the almost automatic support for Israel's brutal Occupation of the Palestinian Territories and the sanctions on Iraq after Hussein invaded Kuwait. Those sanctions are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousand of Iraqi children.

But of course, foreign policies that support brutal dictators, that visit wars on countries, that support a brutal occupation, and maintained murderous sanctions could never serve as a motivation for people to want to attack us whereas the fear that a nation with a leftist government was all the reason the US needed to attack through coups and terrorists groups nations in Central South America. These nations included Nicaragua, Chile, Guatemala or for attacking Cuba before the Cuban Missile Crisis.

And even when journalists who live in or traveled throughout the Middle East and report that foreign policies and conditions there served as reasons for why Al-Qaeda attacked us should be disregarded because of the above article. Robert Fisk, for example, interviewed Osama Bin Laden. From that we learned that the US was not Bin Laden's first enemy.  During the 1980s, enraged by the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, he went to fight there to repel the invasion. We learned from a Soviet veteran of the conflict some of the tactics used by Al Qaeda then were terrorist attacks.

Jason Burke, a journalist who traveled throughout the Middle East in reporting for the Independent, a British newspaper, noted that Middle East terrorists were a diverse group, including the 9/11 attackers. Not all of them were religious Muslims.

Likewise, by trying to associate wokeism with radical Islamic terrorism, it seems that Alli, remember that I do not have full access to the WSJ, at the least suggests that the reason, note the singular, for wokeism has nothing to do with the pervasive injustices that have been a core part of U.S. history. Nothing from the ethnic cleansing of Native Americans from the land to slavery, Jim Crow, and the current systemic racism in our nation to the history of women's suffrage and their continued struggle for equality to the history our nation's labor conflicts to the struggles first for decriminalization and then for equality for the LGBT community could ever be construed as a legitimate reason by itself for what Ali calls 'wokeism.' Rather, he uses guilt by associating it with his limited view of radical Islamic terrorism to try to discredit wokeism.

By quoting Ali's article, Clark embraces a privileged view of what is causing the conflicts of today. And that privileged view, like the proverbial <i>Bull in a china shop</i>, imitates those who are privileged who assume that whatever actions they have taken or supported have not contributed to any of the damage that is right before them.

Church history has provided too many tragic examples of the Church adopting the views of the privileged. Such has always tarnished the reputation of the Gospel and has sometimes caused the Church to suffer unnecessary persecution.

From what I could read, Alli complains about the lack of freedom  allowed by both the 9/11 attackers and many who are currently woke. But again, as wrong as that is, how could past policies and practices not be considered the primary reason for the 9/11 attacks and what Alli sees. Didn't those past policies and practices also prohibit the freedom of expression or is that not worthy of mentioning?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sept 13

To Lincoln Matthews and his article on how the 1619 Project is communicating misinformation to many Blacks and thus should be opposed. This article appeared in The Imaginative Conservative Blog.

I do not know of anyone who has said that America is the only racist nation. Being uniquely racist, however, could refer to the way racism is practiced here. Regarding slavery, history does show that some other nations ended slavery before we did. And, in fact, one of the reasons for the Revolutionary War included the preservation of the institution of slavery. Overseas slave trading was coming under examination. Slavery was being question in the UK prior to our Revolution. For example, in one 1772 case, it was determined that slavery was not based in English law and was a violation of Habeas Corpus. And there was a previous case that came to the same conclusion. Thus, indicators of the end of slavery were apparent before the Revolutionary War.

Another reason for the Revolutionary War was that the British had stopped westward expansion. In essence, the British were protecting Native Americans and their lands from the English colonists.

Yes, others practiced slavery. But America's practice of slavery was race-based, cruel and demeaning. Even with the Civil War and the Emancipation Declaration, many abolitionists, especially white abolitionists, though opposing slavery, still believed in white supremacy. And the slave mentality and belief in white supremacy extended in different forms after the Emancipation Declaration. During Jim Crow, prison labor replaced slave labor and laws were written to make it easy not just to segregate the races, but to arrest Blacks.

All of that was part of what Jim Crow was about. And even after Jim Crow, we find systemic racism. We find that wealth disparity between the races has continued to grow under our current form of Capitalism. We see systemic racism in voter suppression, housing, employment, banking, and so forth And there are well-documented instances where Black business success was met with terrorism and violence by whites. The Tulsa massacre of 1921 serves as an example.

Wealth also comes into play here. For  much wealth is inherited. But the median wealth for Black families is around 1/10 of the median wealth for White families. And that is despite the economic statistics cited above (see https://money.com/wealth-gap-race-economic-justice/). That article discusses other disturbing statistics to such as employment discrimination. It doesn't mention redlining which greatly contributed the wealth disparity between Blacks and Whites.

The above article by Matthews has somewhat of a case to make if one restricts the time of slavery to that of  Juneteenth. But practices and cultures like Jim Crow and the discrimination that continued after Jim Crow was ended could be seen as a continuation of certain aspects of slavery.

It is one thing to say that the 1619 Project needs some corrections. But the overall message from that project rings true. And it is a project that needs to be available to more and more people.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost that not only criticizes Mark Galli for becoming a Roman Catholic,  he claims that Reformed Theology provides everything that Galli was looking for in a Christian theology. This was posted in Heidelblog.

The pedestals we build sometimes indicate the idols we hold to. I think that is true for  Clark, with some others, and reformed theology.

Clark writes as if Reformed Theology provides the complete connection to the Apostles and the rest of the Biblical writers. It is as if Clark is saying that Reformed Theology has everything to teach all other theologies and nothing to learn from them. At this point, we need to stop to see how high the pedestal Clark has built for Reformed Theology. Has Clark crossed the point where the Reformed traditions are starting to compete with the Scriptures? Is he not aware that, unlike the Old Testament Prophets and New Testament Apostles, the words of the Reformed traditions were not God-breathed though they were interpreting the Scriptures? Thus, those traditions have flaws and errors while the writings of Evangelicals, Romanists, Eastern Orthodox, and even some mainline Protestants can also provide valuable insights not considered by the Reformed writers.

Does not Clark understand that thinking that one has an absolute or near monopoly on understanding the Scriptures makes one very vulnerable to arrogance? Doesn't Clark realize that our Reformed traditions are to us what the traditions were to the Pharisees in Mark 7?

I follow Clark om that I would not become a Romanist. At the same time, I've learned Biblical lessons from Romanists that were not be taught by Reformed theologians. And it doesn't take much reading to note where some of our Reformed heroes fell way short of God's standards. And one doesn't have to be brilliant to observe that today's world presents challenges to believers that our Reformed heroes never considered.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sept 14

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost that expresses fear that the influences of Revoice doctrine, Critical Race Theory, and the Social Gospel are infiltrating the PCA and will lead to its demise. This appeared in Heidelblog.

The following statement is not applied consistently by Clark or anyone in the PCA who rejects the current changes:

'Importing secular ideologies into our churches will poison and ultimately kill them.'

The 'them' is referring to churches. But we should note that the Church imported Jim Crow culture in the South and it wasn't until recently that the PCA apologized for  its sins there. Many in the PCA passionately embrace capitalism and small government conservatism and these are secular ideologies. We don't see any warning against those secular ideologies here.

The above post speaks in all-or-nothing terms regarding the influence of the Revoice Doctrine, Critical Race Theory, and the Social Gospel. But is that to say that there are no elements in any of those ideologies that, by the common grace of God, do not speak truth? Or is there only room in Clark's PCA for political conservatives who embrace Capitalism? A side point here, the kind of Capitalism that our nation now employs is different from the form of Capitalism that was employed following WW II.

If everything from Revoice doctrine, Critical Race Theory, and the Social Gospel must be rejected, then it seems that the answer to the last question is a resounding 'YES!' And thus we are adding to the marks of the Church. And perhaps that is being done solely because people tend to glorify what they have a positive familiarity with and that familiarity becomes canon, along with the Scriptures, for discerning truth.

And even if that isn't the case, if Clark means to throw out everything from Revoice doctrine, Critical Race Theory, and the Social Gospel the all-or-nothing thinking that is being employed is preventing us from comparing the details of each of those ideologies with the Scriptures to see what should be accepted and what should not.

Change is threatening especially in orthodox circles. The fear that too much change will sever us from a revered past can cloud our judgment as much as protect us. The fear of change assumes that there are no new circumstances that we face that others have not faced before and thus there is no need to listen to current voices. Thus that fear can at least partially take the place of the Scriptures when we judge what is right or wrong. And that is part of the tyranny that traditionalism forces on us.

So though I share some of Clark's concerns, I am afraid that traditionalism is writing the above post. And here we must remember that traditionalism is at least the life imprisonment sentence for the marginalized as much as it is the ultimate source of security for the privileged.