Church History Is Repeating Itself In New Ways

Before its Civil War, the dominant part of the Church in Syria supported Assad because he offered them protection. At the same time, he was, and still is, a tyrannical dictator. And though the dominant part of the Church no longer supports him, the dominant part of the Church in Egypt supports al-Sisi because he offers them protection. At the same time al-Sisi himself acts like a tyrannical dictator as he abuses the rights of various non-Christian groups.

In the US, the dominant branch of the Church--conservative Evangelicals--supported, and still does, former President Trump. Why? One reason is that they perceive that he is defending them from from secular culture. He is also aiding them in their culture wars against "progressives,' which includes those fighting systemic racism by promoting CRT and those working to establish full equality for the LGBT community. And while supporting Trump, they end up supporting the domestic side of Neoliberal Capitalism, which has caused a decades-long increase in both income and wealth disparities while threatening to make social safety nets like Social Security and Medicare nonexistent because businesses have to pay taxes to support those programs. In addition, Trump cut taxes to corporations as well as cut regulations that protected the workers and the environment.

In Russia, the dominant part of the Church, the Russian Orthodox Church, fully supports Vlad Putin as Putin and his government have given that part of the Church a special privileged status. For example, other branches of the Church are not allowed to evangelize outside of their own walls. In addition, Putin has persecuted the LGBT community and that pleases the Russian Orthodox Church to no end.

What is listed above is not unusual. It is not unusual because for the past few centuries, the dominant part of the Church in many nations has shown a penchant for siding with wealth and power. Three prominent examples of this siding with wealth and power include: the pre-revolutionary times of France (the Roman Church), Russia (the Orthodox Church), and Spain (the Roman Church). What makes the examples of Syria and Egypt different from the past is that the motivation for siding with wealth and power is for security reasons. A given dictator offers protection and dominant branch of the Church that is offered this protection then takes the offer while supporting, or having supported in Syria, a leader who abuses others.

In the US, the dominant part of the Church which is siding with wealth and power is a hybrid of the past and the present. A large portion of conservative Evangelicals are looking to gain power by siding with Trump and the Republicans who follow him despite Trump's moral flaws that continue to this day. At the same time, these same Evangelicals are also loyal to Trump because he is using judicial appointments to protect the religious "liberties" of Christians in their culture war battles against the LGBT community and the secularization of the nation.

This siding with wealth and power should not be the standard practice of the Church when we consider the Scriptures. James chapters 2 and 5 tell believers the leaning of the wealthy.  Paul does that to a lesser extent in I Corinthians 1. And then there are the statements of Jesus.

It should be mentioned that siding with wealth and power is an easy trap to fall into, especially when one has been living a comfortable, materially privileged life. All of us who live privileged lives are not only vulnerable, but most likely have already compromised some of our moral and spiritual values to enjoy that privilege--myself included.

At the same time, we are warned by the Scriptures against enjoying that material privilege too much. Jesus tells us to build our treasures in heaven. The examples set by the Apostles also challenges the priorities we have.

But all of that is on a personal pew sitter perspective. We would hope that our spiritual leaders would not only encourage us to live differently, but would not direct their churches and followers to support those who promote policies that continue to increase income and wealth disparities and either make people more vulnerable to economic hardships or put vulnerable people at even greater risk.

That is the state of the dominant part of the Church in the US--conservative Evangelicals--today. And they do this by almost automatically supporting Republican Party candidates, especially  those in the Trump camp.

Why do conservative Evangelicals such candidates? A major reason  is the abortion issue. Because of the number of abortions per year, and the number varies depending on the source, abortion has become the number 1 priority for many conservative Evangelicals. And so if their support for a political party or candidate potentially or eventually drops that number, it is worth it to them to sacrifice some other issues that might not support life of those who are born. 

Two sources for abortion statistics we should pay attention to are from the Guttmacher Institute and the CDC. While both reported an increase in the number of abortions, the difference in the number of abortions between them can be over 200,000 with the Guttmacher reporting a higher number per year than the CDC. The differences is because of how abortion data is collected. The number of abortions reported for 2019 however ranges between just over 600,000 to less than 1,000,000 (click here for the source). With that many abortions, and remember that for us conservative Evangelicals, each abortion involves the ending of a human life.

And so when other life supporting issues are brought up, such as environmental issues, social safety nets, income and wealth disparities, and so on, the sheer number of abortions cause some of us to make abortion the single issue on which to base our votes.

But such an approach is due to the lesser known research on how social conditions can also cause deaths. Now the number of deaths caused by social conditions with the number of deaths caused by abortion, it seems like we are comparing apples to oranges. Abortion directly kills people while some of these social conditions are merely contributors to death. However, if they are significant contributors to death, perhaps we should then pay attention to the numbers even though the statistics on this are not reported on a yearly basis that I know of like abortion statistics are. 

For example, one study calculated the number of deaths in 2000 caused by various social conditions (click here for the source) to approach 900,000. Social conditions that contributed to deaths include low education, segregation, lack of social support, individual poverty, income inequality, and area poverty. Now though these numbers are calculated estimates while abortion figures depend on counts, the number of deaths from social factors should  get our attention if we conservative Evangelicals are really pro-life rather than just against abortion.

A report by the World Health Organization stated 'unhealthy environments' contributed to the deaths of 12.6 million people in 2012 (click here for the source).  And though that number is around 1/6 of the total number of abortions in the world per year, it is still a significant number. And while the disparity between the number of deaths worldwide from environmental reasons and the number of abortions worldwide is large, the disparity in the US is not.

Another factor we must consider is how social and environmental conditions contribute to the number of abortions.

Now all of this focus on abortions and other causes of death is meant to support the following point. That in the US, the common distinction we make with the labels of 'pro-choice' and 'pro-life' are misleading. In reality, we have two pro-life groups. One group is concerned about life being threatened by environmental and social causes. The other group is concerned about life in the womb. And because of the abortion numbers, many Evangelicals have supported the Republican Party. And that political party more fully supports those with wealth and power than the Democratic Party. 

And so the abortion issue provides a partial explanation for why conservative Evangelicals have ended up siding with wealth and power. But it isn't the only explanation. Again, many conservative Evangelicals feel threatened by an increase in the secular presence and influence in our society. And that is another reason why they are currently siding with wealth and power by voting Republican.

For the sake of the reputation of the Gospel, we need to find ways to defend life without repeating the often made Church mistake of siding with wealth and power.

Second Verse, Same As The First

For the past few centuries, Church History in the West has had many examples where the predominant branch of the Church in a given nation has sided with wealth and power.  Examples include the Roman Church's siding with wealth and power in France and Spain during their respective pre-revolutionary times as well as the Orthodox Church during the times leading up to the Russian Revolutions of 1917.

In the United States, the predominant part of the Church is the Protestant branch in general and white evangelicals in specific. They have show that support for wealth and power through their support for the Republican Party even though the reasons for their support center around the abortion debate and culture war issues. Still, of the two major political parties that first serve the interests of those with wealth and power, the Republican Party has demonstrated that it is far more willing to sacrifice the welfare of the American people while catering to perceived needs and even whims of Big Business.

Just recently, Reverend Stephen Spinnenweber (click here for a bio) wrote an article which was posted on the Reformation 21 website which not only gladly proclaimed that he is a one issue voter and that issue is abortion, but strongly encouraged other Christians to do the same (click here for the article).

On the one hand, I sympathize and even agree with Spinnenweber on his stand against abortion. After all, abortion takes a human life. Some attempt to minimize the significance of that by denying the personhood of the unborn. Personhood is used there to redirect the assignment of human life to those stages of the unborn which we can either directly interact with or more easily relate to or can perceive as being human life. And I understand his main reason why he is voting on a single issue. That reason is that some issues are weightier than other issues.\ Abortion is among the most important issues because each abortion ends a human life. Thus abortion is a dealbreaker for many in terms of voting for a candidate.

Where I struggle with Spinnenweber is his analysis of the situation. Now Spinnenweber also speaks of racism as being a dealbreaker regarding for whom we vote. He rightfully speaks against Jim Crow era and laws as being horrific. And he also includes policies that would deny any 'societal group' of rights recognized by The Constitution or their God-given  rights. However, because abortion is the murder of a child, he believes that it is an issue that stands above all other issues.

But is abortion the only issue in which human life is taken? The answer is no and I am not referring to capital punishment. For example, according to the AJPH, just in the year of 2000, the following estimates were made about America (click here for the reference):

• 245,000 deaths were attributable to low education
• 176,000 deaths were attributable to racial segregation
• 162,000 deaths were attributable to low social support
• 133,000 deaths were attributable to individual poverty
• 119,000 deaths were attributable to income inequality

The article from which those statistics come from was based on a review of literature. Also, couldn't we very well say that some of those same conditions that are contributing to premature deaths mentioned above also contributing to either infant mortality or the decision to get an abortion? So should a candidate's positions on those subjects become dealbreakers.

We could also add that scientists are estimating that between 2030 and 2050, we will see 250,000 around the world will die per year (click here for the reference) from the effects of climate change. So should a candidate's position on climate change become a dealbreaker? Of course, it isn't just climate change that should cause us to be concerned for the environment. Pollution also causes premature deaths. One study stated that 9 million people around the world prematurely died because of pollution in 2019 while another study claimed that 53,000 premature American deaths could have been prevented if 'all energy emitted emissions' were done away with (click here for the source).

In addition, if we want to talk about a candidate's positions on issues where premature death is involved, then shouldn't we also include a candidate's position on wars, military and other interventions, the selling of military arms, gun control laws, and nuclear weapons be dealbreakers in terms of the candidates we will vote for?

If we want to talk about racism being a dealbreaker, then shouldn't the denial of systemic racism, such as is fallibly described by CRT be a dealbreaker even though that systemic racism is not at the level it was during Jim Crow?

Also, if the denial of God-given or Constitutional rights is also a dealbreaker in terms of voting for a candidate, then should any candidate who favors a dictatorship in place of a democracy also be a dealbreaker? After all, the January 6th Hearings are revealing just how close we came to losing what we have left of democracy and falling into a dictatorship.

Narrowmindedness is not a good way to describe the single-issue voter. But reductionistic would be. And the problem with being unnecessarily reductionistic is that it leads to unnecessary black-white thinking. Not only can black-white thinking lead to authoritarianism, it requires that we ignore pertinent information. For example, Spinnenweber's emphasis on abortion would cause him to ignore a candidate's other positions that contribute to other causes of death and issues listed above which either an anti-elective abortion or a pro-choice candidates have. But if he does that, he becomes inconsistent because it was the premature causing of death which caused Spinnenweber to make abortion such an important issue.

All of that returns us to the beginning. To vote on the single issue of abortion, either intentionally or not, is to support the Republican Party and side with wealth and power for religiously conservative Christians who oppose the legalization of elective abortions. And thus one has to wonder because of a single-issue approach to voting we are seeing a repeat of history despite all the dealbreakers listed above which many Republican lawmakers support.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For May 18, 2022

May 12

To the Heidelblog article that quotes part of Carl Trueman's article on how Baylor is chartering an LGBT organization on campus. Trueman continues by comparing the Christian reaction to Baylor's recent move with his own Grove City College's negative response to CRT and to Jemar Tisby. 

Besides the fact that the title for this article has little to do with what Trueman wrote, what many of us religiously conservative Christians struggle with in reacting to the LGBT community is to realize the extent and effects that the recent past marginalization of that community in and by society has on that community. Often, the initial addressing of social injustices often yields an overcompensation for past time because those addressing social injustices want to prevent any future injustices. And thus there is a hypervigilance that makes people not just sensitive to what contributed to past injustices, but what coincidental factors that are associated with those injustices.

My guess as to the disparity in reactions that Trueman is writing about is do to the disparity in how many Christians see the two institutions. Smaller religious colleges are often viewed as being more religiously centered than larger institutions, especially those that have teams competing at a division 1 level in elite conferences in the NCAA for decades. Even if you take BYU as a counterexample, it doesn't have the history in competing in elite NCAA conferences. And so many Christians view institutions like Baylor as a hybrid institution where it has religious roots but is also significantly secular in atmosphere.

Finally, part of the reaction to Grove City College is its newfound response to fellow Christians. There are religiously conservative Christians who are either politically liberal or politically leftists--there is a difference between the two. And thus many see Grove City College's response to CRT, with which they include their response to Jemar Tisby,   as dividing the body of Christ for the sake of providing a politically conservative bubble in which to educate their students.

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

May 13

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost on why abortions, assuming elective abortions, should be made illegal. His article was written in response to a position taken by Alex Berenson who, despite recognizing that abortion is murder, for practical reasons believed that we have to allow abortions to be legal. This appeared in Heidelblog.

I fully agree with what the above article says when it states that elective abortions must be made illegal. But if the leaked SCOTUS opinion reflects the final decision adequately, we are not going to ask women to forego abortions because of the human life of the unborn, we are going to  be telling women and everyone that they cannot have abortions because there is no right to privacy. Thus, women cannot have abortions because of the religous sentiments of those in their state governments.

The problem with elective abortion is that it came from a legitimate concern of the Sexual Revolution: the equality of women. One of the issues that became almost inseparable from women seeking equality was to have the right to an abortion because of the personal freedom and power of choice that recognized right gave women. As a result, continuing that journey toward equality has created a conflict of interest when it comes to considering the humanity of the unborn. Note that it is the quest for equality, not the gender of the person, that creates this conflict of interest.

And so we need to minimize or even remove that conflict of interest without compromising our opposition to the legalization of elective abortions. We need to remove that conflict of interest so people can consider the humanity of the unborn more objectively.

While I agree with the above stated opposition to abortion, insistence on making either the whole 10 Commandments or the 2nd Table of the Commandments the law of the land is the result of our theologies rather than the teachings from the New Testament. That doesn't imply that we should allow for murder or theft. It is simply that we should not allow murder and theft for other reasons than that they are in the 10 Commandments. Here we should note that many of our standard theologies were written in a completely different historical and cultural context than what we have today.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For May 11, 2022

Around May 4

To Helen Freeh and her article that attacks Disney because she thinks that it is trying to sexualizing children. She then proceeds to critically attack some standard Disney cartoon stories. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog. 

I never liked Disney, especially the theme parks. But the cartoons can in no way compete with Rocky and Bullwinkle, Looney Tunes, and some Hanna-Barbara cartoons.

But the above article just tries too hard to attack Disney..  Freeh reads way too much into the Disney films critiqued above and shows a hyper-vigilance as to  the displaying of men and families in Disney films. Like music, films aren't there to always portray the ideal, sometimes they portray realities that kids from dysfunctional homes have already been living through. And yet, families and men are not always portrayed in the same way in Disney films.

But worst of all is the motive for the above article. it is retaliation for Disney introducing male-male or female-female romantic relationships or characters who are displayed as being gay. Those male-male or female-female romantic relationships no more sexualizes children than seeing Mickey kiss Minnie, Ariel becoming able to enjoy life with the man of her dreams, or the marriages of  Cinderella and Sleepy Beauty to their respective princes.  

The real issue here is that many of my fellow religiously conservative Christians are angry when homosexuality is depicted as being normal in society. And that is the reason for the above demonization of Disney. I guess treating those in the LGBT community as being fully equal in society is what has stirred Freeh's anger toward Disney. And it seems that Disney is bad enough without being demonized.

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

May  7

To Dr. Glenn Arbery and his article that starts off as social commentary on abortion in our society and ends up being an advertisement for Wyoming Catholic College, which he is the President of. This article appeared in the Imaginative Conservative Blog.

So the above article is merely an advertisement for WCC while initially posing as social commentary. The above article is merely preaching to those who ware considering becoming part of the choir.

As a product of a Christian college, I'll put in my 2 cents. We in the Church, which consists of all who believe in Christ, need to get our facts straight when it comes to interpreting and speaking to society. We need to remember that we are believers while society is a mix of us with unbelievers. So not only do we have to interpret our culture credibly, we have distinguish between what we can expect from society and what is unfair to expect.

Certainly we want our society to have a basic culture of life. But we will get nowhere with that unless we acknowledge that women should have self-ownership over their bodies. The Sexual Revolution, for all of its errors, got its basic thrust right--opposing the relegating of women to 2nd class citizens by recognizing them as equals in society. Thus, our challenge as Christians  is how to keep both a culture of life and the rightful recognition of women as equal persons to men in society.  

One of the reasons for the Sexual Revolution is the failure of the Church to embrace and promote the recognition of women as equal persons to men in society. Rather the Church and the rest of the society was content with  the idea that men had place of privilege and supremacy over women in society. Women were made overly dependent on men in a number of ways. And since women only were recognized as having the right to vote in the early part of the 20th century shows that the subjugation of women in society has roots going back to the days of Colonial America.

So when it comes to abortion, we have to associate women's right to self-ownership of their bodies with a culture of life that recognizes the right to life for the unborn.  And until we can cogently make that association, we won't get a fair hearing in society

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

May 9

To Kevin Brown and his article on how certain lessons that can be taught from a Christian Liberal Arts perspective can solve the problem our society has with incivility, division, and lack of universal agreement on reality. This appeared in the MereOrthodoxy blog.

Since my first attempt was not accepted, I will try one more time. Each time that Christianity claims to have an exclusive solution to a problem, we find that quite a few Christians have been part of the problem.

It was claimed that the solution to slavery was to increase the number of Christians. But there were many Christians who either owned slaves or supported slavery. It has been claimed that Christianity is the solution to racism. But not only did many Christians use their religion to defend Jim Crow, many current Christians deny the existence of systemic racism. And now this article says that besides a Christian led skeptical view of ourselves will help solve the current incivility in today's society and that  Christian tradition and authority will help solve that problem and help people find their moorings in absolute truth. 

The problem with the proposed solution made by the article above is that it perpetuates the problem. The problem is partially described in the following quote from the above article:

The inclination to narrate reality in a self-serving manner seems endemic, with growing momentum in recent decades.

By pointing to itself as the solution, isn't the proposed Christian solution merely repeating the mistake identified in the quote? In addition, have Christians, especially those who have been educated by Christian liberal arts taught in Christian schools, provided enough examples to support the above claims especially when we consider the percentage of Christians who provide counterexamples?

Also, 2 of the real causes for today's incivility are furthered by the article's suggestion. What we see in today's reliance on relativity and its hostility toward outside views is in large part caused by tribalism and authoritarianism. While tribalism is based on a high degree of loyalty to a group regardless of what the group is about, a large part of tribalism is group authoritarianism. And much of the incivility that we see today matches up well with the traits of the authoritarian personality (see  https://www.psychologistworld.com/influence-personality/authoritarian-personality   ). 

In addition, Post Modernism, though not offering any viable solutions, has rightly drawn our attention to the works of those who claim to have exclusive ownership of truth. And those works, even by Christians, do not support what the above article is saying. In addition, the Christian participation in the January 6th insurrection, the Christian support for Trump, and the Christian portion of the anti-tax movement also bears witness against the claims of the article

It's not that Christianity and Christian liberal arts can't contribute to our society's current state of incivility and lack of universally held view of reality. The article is right in saying that it has a role to play.   But pointing to ourselves without noticing our failures or pointing to us alone is what we see in tribalism and adding authority based on ideology, which is what we see in authoritarianism, is not a solution to a society that is suffering in significant part because an authoritarianism has crossed all ideological boundaries.

 

Whose Body? Whose Choice?

 'My body, my choice' has the potential to become a well traveled chant. In terms of my awareness and memory, the chant was first used by women protesting for abortion rights. It was also used by anti-vaxxer, religiously conservative  Christians during the current Covid-19 pandemic. The irony of their use of the phrase is that they are borrowing it from the ideological enemies in the abortion debate.

The phrase could also be used by the LGBT community both now and in the past. For there use to be laws that criminalized certain sexual practices used by homosexuals even though heterosexual couples often performed the same acts. And, according to the leaked legal opinion, with the logic employed by the Supreme Court on the Mississippi abortion case, states, especially states governed by religiously conservative Christians, could reinstitute those same laws that had been ruled unconstitutional. And those laws could also be applied to the transgendered as well. Time will tell if that chant will be used by the LGBT community.

We should note here that if we mix the anti-vax sentiment from religiously conservative American Christians with the pro-choice chant, that chant has a chance to transition when it is used by anti-abortion advocates in response to pro-choice advocates. The new chant could become, 'My body my choice, Your body my choice.' 

We should note here that none of our freedoms are absolute. We have the right to free speech but we can't just yell 'fire' in a crowded area when we know that there is no fire. The right to bear arms has limits as the Supreme Court noted in the District of Columbia v. Heller opinion. We have freedom of religion until our religious practices harm or violate the rights of others. And so the question becomes what should be the constraints that the law should put on the 'My body my choice' way of thought. For one doesn't have to be a woman who is or might become pregnant to understand that we have the right to make certain choices our own bodies.

And so 'My body my choice' has limits. Those limits include when our bodies either physically threatens others or their rights. Thus the anti-vaxxer chant was totally inappropriate as well as naive. It was inappropriate because the mask and vaccination requirements were put into place to protect the health of others. As it stands, the Covid pandemic has killed over 900,000 Americans and that includes hundreds of healthcare workers. It's not that the vaccinations provided 100% protection against the virus. It is that the vaccinations both curbed both the spread and the threat posed by the disease. And the masks provided a measure of protection for the general public provided that they were employed by a significant percentage of the people. And that is why the anti-vaxxer use of the chant was naive.

So when it comes to anti-vaxxers, the 'My body my choice' could be answered with the following: 'Your body our choice.' The reason why it could become our choice is simple. One's behavior during the pandemic either reduces or increases the health risks of others. In addition, there are several vaccination mandates that have already been in place well before not just Covid 19, but, for some who were in the Trump Administration, Covid 1.

The next issue here is whether women who considering undergoing an elective abortion can legitimately claim 'My body my choice.' Here some context is needed. The Sexual Revolution was actually in response to 2nd class citizenship that women were forced to endure because of patriarchy. The desire to have getting an abortion a right was seen as part of the liberation of women from that 2nd class citizenship.  And because of that, there is a conflict of interest for women who are seeking equality with men, things have improved but it is still a quest, in considering the human status of the unborn. It is a conflict of interest because of the desire to reverse and prevent past injustices; it is not due to their gender per se. For if an unborn is a human life, then the insistence on legalizing elective abortions has women chanting 'Your body my choice' to the unborn. 

And if the unborn are human lives, then the obtaining of an elective abortion is the killing of another human for the sake of one's rights over their own body. At that point, society and the state are justified in chanting 'Your body our choice' in order to protect the lives of the unborn.

Unfortunately, the human status of the unborn was apparently not a consideration employed by recently leaked Supreme Court opinion  on Roe v. Wade. Rather, the logic employed by Alito targets the right to privacy because it is not explicitly mentioned in The Constitution, neither is the right to an abortion. That with some other considerations means, according to Alito and company, that the states have the right to determine their abortion laws. Included in that opinion was the fact that most of the states had laws outlawing abortion back when the 14 Amendment, an amendment referred to in claiming the right to privacy, was written.

Now I am not a lawyer have neither read nor conveyed enough of the leaked opinion. But if there is no right to privacy being respected, if the opinion is based on the beliefs of the nation back when the Christian religion had a dominant influence on the nation, and there is no explicit mention of the right to an abortion, then other rights that have been recognized by the Supreme Court based on the right to privacy are at risk if there is no significant difference between the leaked opinion and the final ruling. What is tragic is that the opinion and anticipated ruling has nothing to do with the human status and thus the rights of the unborn--here the unborn is call potential life at certain stages. Rather, women are not recognized as having the right to privacy in terms of reproduction. And so while my fellow pro-lifers are cheering the results, the grounds for the ruling are inadequate for the pro-life cause and creates a potential for those governing a state to override previous rights based on the right of privacy according to their religious views. The leaked opinion and anticipated ruling sets the stage for states to say to the LGBT community, 'Your body our choice.' And it isn't just the LGBT community that might hear that refrain, it is heterosexuals who employ some of the same practices that homosexuals use. 

In addition, if the states are saying to the LGBT community 'Your body our choice' because of the religious sentiments of their governing officials, the refrain becomes 'Your body my choice' to the LGBT community as well as to women by many of my fellow religiously conservative Christians who are voting those officials into office.

What the leaked opinion and anticipated ruling prevent is a long, overdue national  discussion on what is human life. This is an important discussion because the same logic used to determine the humanity of the unborn can also be employed to determine the human status of people at various stages of life.

If we are going to revisit Roe v. Wade and the abortion issue in a proper way, we can't allow for the human rights of the unborn to be determined by any other factor that the human status of the unborn. That means that women who are undergoing the difficulties of deciding on obtaining an abortion see their decision as a conflict between their rights and the religious sentiments of those governing the state she is in.    And yet, that is what Alito and company are doing if leaked opinion holds. In addition, they are providing an opening for other rights based on privacy to  come in harm's way. 

 

What Will The New Abortion Bans Succeed At

 One could imitate a ringside announcer in introducing the two fighters in the abortion contest. In the the corner to my right are the Anti-Abortionists who call themselves Pro-lifers. Many times they believe in sending everyone who is involved in an abortion to jail. There are those times when they settle for making a get rich quick piñata by filling it with money and beating it with our legal system--see the Texas abortion law.

In the corner to my left are ideologically wild women who believe that abortion should be legal and accessible up until the time that the unborn fully exists its mother. They believe that this kind of access to abortion will free or enable women to become equal to men because they will have their cake of sexual freedom and eat it too.

And like the relationship between one's biological sex and gender equality where there are gender identities that lie in between the two opposites but their biological sex will be forced into choosing between one of two options. So too are all of those groups that lie in between those two fighters in the abortion contest. They will be counted as being in the camp of either the fighter in the right corner or the one in the left corner. And such overly simplistic thinking plays a major role in making a controversial issue into an unnecessarily high divisive one.

Oklahoma is the latest state to pass a restrictive abortion law since the Mississippi abortion law was heard by the Supreme Court. One has to wonder if those states that are passing restrictive abortion laws have some inside information regarding the upcoming SCOTUS decision on the Mississippi abortion law. That is because if SCOTUS rules significantly against the Mississippi abortion law, then state governments like Oklahoma must return to the drawing board of the abortion issue having just wasted their own time and taxpayer money in formulating new laws.

As a pro-lifer myself, one of my concerns, besides the lives of the unborn and the women involved, is how these laws will unnecessarily cause this nation to be even more divided than it is today. That isn't because I think that national unity is more important than human life, it isn't. But the more divided this nation becomes over this issue, the more each side, including the pro-life side, will be condemned to singing only to its own choir when discussing the issue either privately or publicly. And from my pro-life perspective, laws alone will not stop abortion, changed minds and hearts will. But the more divided we are about this issue, the less we will listen to each other and thus the more we will become solidly fixed with our current commitments.

Also, the more divided this nation becomes, the less that many of my fellow pro-lifers will refuse to listen to women as they share about the dilemma they face when pregnant. That abortion is not just about the lives of the unborn, it is about women and the sacrifices and risks that nature calls on them to make when carrying a child. And in a very true sense, a woman's labor begins after the child is born. All of that occurs in a context of the frailty of human relationships and in ever changing economic and social worlds. For some women, pregnancy is life threatening. And unless one has seen a women deliver a child,  one will never know that giving birth can be traumatic for many women because of the stress and strain put on the body. And all of us pro-lifers, especially those who have reduced the abortion issue to just the life and rights of the unborn, need to listen to a wide range of stories by women who have become pregnant with some who have carried their child to term while others have decided to get an abortion.

Unfortunately, the giving birth and raising of children by women is a victim of the oppression of women in our society. It is a victim by virtue of guilt by association. It has been unfairly associated with past, even present, male oppression of women. When the Sex Revolution began women were so often made dependent on men by society and its systems. And many women who had entered the workforce were, and still are not, treated as equals to men. And because giving birth and raising a child has been so strongly associated with men keeping women down, those women who struggle with that oppression have been understandably swayed into seeing motherhood as a tool of that oppression and thus are reluctant to recognize the human life that the unborn are because of what they think they need to do to be free of male oppression and be counted as equals to men.

In many ways, the fighters introduced at the beginning of this article are examples of the Pharisee from Jesus's parable of the two men praying (see Luke 18:9-14). In that parable, the Pharisee thanks God that he is a righteous person who shares none of the sins and faults of the person considered to be one of the worst in society at that time: the tax collector. So the more we become like one of the two fighters described above, the more we become like that Pharisee and that is displayed by how we talk about those who reside in the camp of the other fighter. That is why making abortion into such a divisive issue is so harmful to this nation. And such makes is less and less likely that we can resolve the abortion issue in a fair and just manner. 

I Guess This Week's Subject Is About Abortion

 With SCOTUS having heard the arguments on Mississippi's new abortion law, we are left to wait until it rules to see what will happen to the  Roe v. Wade decision. Will it overturn that decision? We don't know yet. We should note that there were indications by the line of questioning used by some of the SCOTUS justices. Their questions  indicated that the Mississippi law will be upheld. That is also indicated by the fact that the Supreme Court has 6 conservative judges and 3 liberal ones.

Comparing our current abortion laws with other nations, such as those from Europe, can be tricky because some sources slant what they write according to their own interests. But here is a significant part of the abortion issue: it's about associations. 

What do associations have to do with abortion? When one considers what was happening in this nation at the time of Roe v. Wade, associations have a lotto do with the abortion issue. Back then, bearing children was strongly associated with the subjugation of women in our society. Thus abortion rights were strongly associated with women seeking to escape that subjugation and achieving an equal place in society. Thus it is logical to reason that to escape the sexist oppression of that time and the centuries before, women must have full control over their part in reproducing. And, as such, women were placed in a situation where they had a conflict of interest when considering the human status of the unborn might. For counting the unborn as being human and recognizing and recognizing its right to live can conflict with having fewer to no restrictions on abortion.

At this point it should be noted that women have a number of other reasons for wanting an abortion and they deserve a fair hearing. For one thing, and we guys can never fully appreciate this, giving birth is a traumatic experience for the woman. Those who have watched their wives give birth can attest to this fact. And though doctors can generally give reliable information as to when giving birth might endanger the woman's life, they are not infallible.

In addition, the economic impact that a woman can experience along the physical and emotional drain of taking care of possibly another child can greatly affect a woman's life and future.

On the other hand, we have the human status of the unborn to consider. At what point in gestation does the unborn become a human life? And can we determine that point without religious influence? How does the criteria we use to determine the humanity of the unborn impact how we will legally treat those who are born as they go through changes in life?

Personally, I oppose the legalization of elective abortions. But how can we not understand the complexity of the issue and the historical baggage that comes with it? How can we  write proper laws on abortion while encouraging thoughtful discussions on the criteria we will use to determine what is human life? 

If abortion only affected the women involved, then men should have no say about whether a woman has the right to an elective abortion other than to help guarantee that abortions are safe. But once we realize the possible human status of the unborn, then we must all not only put in our 2 cents on what is human life, we must listen to what each other says--a task made extremely difficult by the distance we create when we look down on each other. For if the unborn is a human life, then abortion significantly affects not only the woman, but another person as well.

Abortion Is The Horse On Which Our Presidential Elections Ride

Despite all of the other issues of religious liberty, immigration, and size of government, the abortion issue is still the central issue in our elections. My speculation tells me that the hard-line positions each major political party takes on abortion is the #1 deal breaker that determines for whom many voters cannot vote.

Perhaps the largest base of the Republican Party is the religiously conservative Christian voting block. And while many in that block would easily consider a more moderate platform than  what the Republican Party provides on other issues, the comment I have read and heard the most from those I am in contact with is that they could not vote for a candidate that supports abortion--the murder of unborn babies.

On the other side of the tracks, the Democratic Party has taken such a hard-line position in support of Roe v. Wade and making abortions legal that the few pro-life Democratic candidates and office holders must feel significantly marginalized by their own political party at big events. They must feel marginalized because it seems that they are censored and prohibited from sharing their pro-life views on any moderate or big sized stage. Perhaps if the Democrats allowed for more diversity in views on abortion by their candidates, they could significantly chip away at the Republican Party's Evangelical base.

What is tragic for my fellow religiously conservative Christians (a.k.a., my fine fellow flaming fundamentalist friends and family) is that they have let their hard-line position on abortion be used to allow a host of anti-life sins against those who are born to become acceptable to fly in under the radar. They have allowed attacks on the environment in the guise of the elimination of environmental regulations, attacks on social safety nets, support for an economic system that continually increases wealth and income disparities, access to affordable healthcare, our ever growing militarism and assumed right to wage war and interventions wherever and whenever our President chooses, a renewed nuclear arms race, and support for foreign tyrants, issues all of which involve quality and/or length of life to be relegated to being invisible.

Here I am not talking about those Christians who want to see some level of Christian rule over the nation. Rather, I am talking about those Christians who are sincerely interested in preserving the lives of the unborn and who are heartbroken over the number of abortions that occur each year. So despite the offenses of the President and his misguided Trumpublicans, their consciences cannot allow them to vote for candidates who are not pro-life candidates.

 Thus, because of the abortion issue and the hard-line positions that the Republican and Democratic Parties take on them, what should be a shoe-in election rejection of the current President, who is mentally, morally, and intellectually unfit for office, tomorrow's election is a toss up. And if we drift into some autocratic rule, whether it is Christian Fascism, as Chris Hedges has been understandably predicting, or we become like Russia where the head of state exploits the predominant branch of the Church in Russia by tossing them enough bones, the hard-line positions on abortion which the Republican and Democratic Parties have taken will be more to blame than any other reason.

 

 

 

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For Dec 18, 2019

Dec 13

To John Horvat and his article that reviews a publication by The Atlantic that tells us how to avoid a another civil war. In his article, Horvat uses what was published in the Atlantic as seemingly a picture of the left. And that picture paints the left as having nothing new to say and having no contribution to make regarding the divisions in our nation. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

Unfortunately, article that portray opposing groups as monoliths where one side is represented has being all evil or having nothing to offer appeals to the simple minded. It appeals to the passive authoritarians. And that is how active authoritarians like it whether the authoritarians are on the left, are liberals, or on the right. Simple black-white thinking where the only one side has everything teach and the world consists of us vs them is part and parcel of authoritarianism whether it is capitalist authoritarianism or socialist authoritarianism.

For heaven forbid that people look at the different capitalist and socialist ideologies and regimes in terms of shades of gray. Heaven forbid that capitalists and socialists have things to teach each other. For if that was case, then people would have to think for themselves when listening to or reading others. That is why if one can paint the other group as all wrong or evil, the audience does not have think for themselves, they just have to take the speaker's or writer's word for it.

And thus we have the above criticism of The Atlantic's publication on how to avoid a Civil War. From the perspective of what was written in the Atlantic, all of those on the left are portrayed as monoliths. And that saves the speaker or writer a lot of work and plays to the sentiments of those who just want to feel.

We should note that The Atlantic and the left is not the only side that has mentioned the possibility of a  new civil war. Conservative Robert Jeffers, one of Trump's staunchest defenders and spiritual advisors, has warned the nation of a 'civil war-like fracture' should Trump be removed from office. There the division that would make up that fracture is based on religion instead of economic class or race. Would Horvat belittle the division by religion as he does the divisions that occur by economic class or race?

And while Horvat makes light of drawing attention to those divisions, we should note that The Constitution was written in response to the economic class struggle that existed during that time in the midst of a recession. And the Civil War was fought, in part, over the issue of race-based slavery that resurrected itself into becoming Jim Crow.

We should also note that for the past several decades wealth and income disparity has grown between the economic classes and the races and that as that wealth disparity continues to grow, America is becoming oligarchy (see https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746  ). But even before the 21st century, American labor history is replete with violent oppression orchestrated by many, not all, wealthy business owners.

So with today's news and our history, how is it that Marx's observations can no contribution to today's issues?

We should note one other fact. As Horvat complained about the Marxist notion of the 'progress of history,' it was Martin Luther King Jr. who referred to the progress of history as a way of offering hope to both those  Blacks who had been oppressed by American white supremacy and those who lived in poverty. And it was Martin Luther King Jr. proposed that we create a hybrid between what is best in capitalism and what is best in communism. For he noted that each side had something to contribute but was also deficient in its perspective.

And talking about the failures of the left, we should note that many of those failures were the result of Western, especially American, interventions that replaced disobedient democracies with brutal dictatorships that racked up quite impressive statistics in terms of murder and oppression. And even in the US, much of our nation has been built either on stealing land from America's indigenous peoples and by enslaving those who were kidnapped and stolen from another continent. That adds to the list brutal oppression seen in our interventions.

The problem with recognizing the good and bad in each side is that it puts the audience to work. It requires those in the audience to think for themselves on an issue-by-issue basis to see how each side can contribute resolving our problems. And that is why authoritarians paint each side as being either good or evil but not both. Because once the good and evil labels are adhesively applied to each side, active authoritarians have much less work to do in convincing their audiences to agree with and follow them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dec 14

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost that quotes part of another article that corrects a false claims of the number of women who died from undergoing an illegal abortion in 1972. This appeared in Heidelblog.

Quoted source:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/12/13/biggest-pinocchios/

The above statistic about the number of deaths from illegal abortions doesn't paint the whole picture about the abortion issue. For example, in 1972, it was estimated that approximately 130,000 women sought an illegal abortion (see  https://www.jstor.org/stable/2133995?seq=5#metadata_info_tab_contents  ). Before 1972, the number of women seeking illegal abortions was higher. In 1955 it was estimated that the number of illegal abortions ranged between 200,000 and 1.2 million (see https://www.jstor.org/stable/2133995?seq=5#metadata_info_tab_contents ). What saved many women who underwent illegal abortions was hospital care afterwards. And what should also be included are the horrifying tools and methods used in the performance of illegal abortions back then.

So though the cited CDC statistic is correct and corrects the use of an incorrect statistic, it doesn't tell the whole story. And if we pro-lifers are to maintain any credibility and show the appropriate care and respect for women who wrestle with the abortion issue, then we must present as much of the whole picture as we can.

While one can safely say that only 39 people died from abortions in 1972, tens of thousands of women risked death by undergoing an illegal abortion in 1972. And far more did that prior to 1972. Those stats, as much as the stats cited from the CDC in the article above, must be included when correcting false claims about abortion.

Is The Abortion Debate A Microcosm Of The Incivility Of Our Society?

The new Alabama law on abortion has made the issue of abortion a very hot topic now. On the pro-choice side, we have memes showing a vast hypocrisy of many, not all, of those who oppose the legalization of elective abortion. Those memes describe how hypocritical it is for opponents of elective abortion when they do not also demonstrate the same care for children who are born as they do for the unborn. And those memes speak an inconvenient truth about many opponents of elective abortion who also show little to no concern for the children of asylum seekers who are locked up in cages. That inconvenient truth is that these opponents of elective abortion are unable to credibly claim that they care about children.

But if we take the converse of those memes, isn't another hypocrisy revealed? For how can one claim that they care about children regardless of their sincere concern for children of immigrants when they allow for the killing of those in the womb. After all, it isn't the children of immigrants who might infringe on the freedom of a woman to pursue a career or who could cause great distress in the taking care of the child if born, it is those in the womb.

The combination of the memes with their converses give a modern illustration of Jesus's parable of the two men praying (click here for the source):

To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everyone else, Jesus told this parable: “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’

“But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’

“I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”

It seems that both sides have forever been mirror grumbling at each other as the Pharisee grumbled about the tax collector. And that grumbling serves the purpose of causing onlookers to regard the issue as not worth their interest and effort. Thus we have what seems like a forever stalemate. And it is the political parties that use their respective groups on this issue who truly benefit from the stalemate. For each political party knows that for as long as they can portray themselves as either supporting or opposing the legalization of elective abortion, they can slide on so many other issues.

But if we looked at those in the abortion debate who keep accusing their opponents of hypocrisy as the only ones to whom Jesus's parable applies, then we have leaped without looking into the role of the Pharisee in the parable. For whenever we speak against some injustice without remembering the times where we have been unjust to others, we have passionately embraced the role of the Pharisee. For the point of Jesus's parable is that because we are all sinners, we can't afford to look down on others.

There is a solution to enabling fruitful discussions about the abortion issue. That solution is to be an advocate for either the pro-choice side or the anti-elective abortion side as the tax collector from the parable. So instead of touting our own moral superiority because we have chosen the right side of that issue, we become more and more connected with our failures and sins. That is because the more we are connected with our failures and sins, the more tolerant we will be with those with whom we disagree. And the more tolerant we are with those with whom we disagree, the more we will listen to them even if listening to them never changes anyone's mind.







 

Controversies And The Necessary Dangers Of Deduction

Ever since the Apostles have died off, because they did not see the  2nd coming of Jesus Christ the Church has had to employ deduction in answering some questions and controversies. Why? Because as time marched on, the Church faced new controversies and questions that were not directly addressed by the teachings of Christ or of the Apostles. The controversy over the Arian view of Christ is an example. Arius, and his supporters, argued that if Christ was begotten by the Father, then Christ did not exist eternally. Such would then contradict His deity. And if Christ was not God, then our salvation in Christ is called into question for it is only the Lord who saves.

Part of the problem in combating the Arian teachings on Christ was that those who followed it did so because they believed that they were being faithful to what the Scriptures literally said. Thus, in how they defined Christ, the Arians felt that they were faithful to the Apostles and Christ because they were most faithful to the language used by Christ and the Apostles. Athanasius, on the other hand, employed logic to deduce that Christ had to be eternal. Athanasius reasoned that because God is eternal, that His begetting of His Son Jesus is also eternal. Here is where deduction was correctly applied to defeat a misunderstanding caused by literalism.

However, deduction can cause problems as well. In determining what should become the law of the land and what shouldn't, some religiously conservative Christians reason that since rulers are to punish evil as stated in Romans 13:1-7 (click here for the passage), God's laws should, either in part or in whole, should become the laws of the land. As a result, we see some Christians conclude that the government must punish the LGBT community because of their sexual practices. Not only that, they want the government to punish all forms of adultery. Their powers of deduction are limited or selective however in that many of these same Christians don't want those who engage in economic exploitation to be punished. Nor do they want those who harm the environment to be punished. Nor do they want their own countrymen who wage unjust wars to be punished. The point is, however, that they show how one can misuse deduction in interpreting the Scriptures.

This brings us to the article to be reviewed. It is actually an open letter from PCA minister Todd Pruitt (click here for a bio) to a fellow PCA member Andrew White who is running to become Governor of Texas. While campaigning, White has said that he both personally objects to abortion but would do nothing but to recognize Roe v. Wade as the law of the land. White also said that he would not let his personal faith interfere with how he governs. Todd Pruitt's open letter uses deduction to challenge White's position (click here for the open letter).

What bothers Pruitt about White's abortion position is that Pruitt believes that White's personal objection to abortion has to do with White's belief that the unborn child is a human life and thus abortion would be taking an innocent human's life. Thus, Pruitt reasons that anyone, especially any Christian, who believes that about the unborn child should object to abortion for it is the taking of human life and thus murder. Pruitt then concludes that since God's Word is important to White because White is a ruling elder in the same conservative denomination that Pruitt belongs, that White is bound to oppose abortion because God's Word does not speak of the life in the womb in any other way than that it is fully human.

Now while Pruitt's logic in his open letter is flawless, he makes a possible error in his claim that the Scriptures do not recognize the life in the womb to be anything else but fully human. In the OPC committee report on abortion, the minority position written by Paul Woolley questions whether the fertilized egg is a human person and thus not fully human (click here for the full report from the committee). Here we should note that the OPC is a far more conservative denomination than the conservative denomination of the PCA. And yet, in its minority report, there is a disagreement on whether the fertilized egg is fully human. And Woolley not only calls such a notion 'rationalistic folly,' he cites an admission from the majority report that says the following:

There is no way to demonstrate, either from Scripture or from science or from some combination of the two, that the unborn child is a human person from the point of conception.

Here we should note that Woolley was not saying that all cases of abortion are not sinful for he wrote that some cases of abortion are. He was simply challenging whether all cases of elective abortion are sinful. 

So the question becomes whether Pruitt either overstated what the Scriptures say about life in the womb or he is misusing deduction to compel White to change his political position on abortion. As one who believes that human life begins at conception, it seems that we should always be willing to reevaluate the definition of human life. At the same time, one should remain faithful to how one sees the scriptural definition of human life.

ONIM For Janueary 29, 2018

10 Best Fact Checking Sites Found Here.

If you are not sure about the validity of a news story linked to below, you can use  mediabiasfactcheck.com to check out the credibility of the source of most of the stories linked to here.


Christian News

• The Misappropriation Of Martin Luther King, Jr. -- Witness: A Black Christian Collective
• Catholic Bishops Side With Labor Unions In Supreme Court Case -- Religion News Service
• Southern Baptist Convention Named In Suit Against Prominent Layman -- Religion News Service
• Guy Benson: I'm Christian, Conservative & Gay...So What? -- Fox News
• Evangelical Leaders Give Trump A "Mulligan" On Stormy Daniels -- Salon
• Graham Defends Trump Amid Affair Allegations -- CNN
• The Trump Evangelicals Have Lost Their Gag Reflex -- Washington Post
• Franklin Graham Wars Of Deep State Coup Against President Trump -- Fox News
• Even If Trump Cheated On Melania, 'All Of Us Are Sinners,' Says Evangelical Leader -- Newsweek
• A Year Of Trump's Presidency Has Made Us More Of Who We Are (And That's Not A Good Thing) -- New Wineskins
• Jerry Falwell Jr. Wraps Up A Bad Week For Evangelicals -- Salon
• 'Make America Christian Again' -- Truthdig
• Life Is Precious -- Gospel Coalition

World News

• Afghan Forces End Taliban Siege At Kabul Hotel -- AP News
• Paul Ryan Collected $500,000 In Koch Contributions Days After House Passed Tax Law -- Huffington Post
• Great-Grandmother, 81, Strangled By Rapist Who Murdered Her Daughter Denied Compensation As Injuries 'Weren't Serous Enough' -- Yahoo News
• Social Media Is Making Us Dumber -- New York Times
• Protestant, Muslim, Atheist, Jew: 4 Leftist Perspectives A Year Into Trump's Presidency -- Religion News Service
• Deutsche Bank Taking Legal Action Over Jared Kuschner 'Suspcious' Fund Report; Company Slams Crazy Allegations -- Newsweek
• Democrats Agree To Reopen Government Without Protections For Dreamers -- Huffington Post
• The Secularist Case Against Abortion -- Cranach
• Massive Earthquake Off Coast Of Alaska Triggers Tsunami Warnings -- ABC News
• Immigration Authorities Detain Woman On A Greyhound Bus After Asking Everyone For ID -- Huffington Post
• The Women's Marches May Have Been The Largest Demonstration In US History -- Vox
• Worker Cooperatives Offer Real Alternatives To Trump's Retrograde Economic Vision -- Waging Nonviolence
• Why The Resistance Can't Win Without Vision -- Waging Nonviolence
• New Alabama Law Would Abolish Civil Forfeiture, Require Convictions To Confiscate Property -- Forbes
• Trump HUD Official Lynne Patton Under Fire For Calling Journalist 'Miss Piggy' -- Huffington Post
• California Rocked By Three Earthquakes In One Day, Scientists Expect More To Come In 2018 -- Newsweek
• Jordan's King Warns Of Instability Over Jerusalem -- Truthdig
• A 'Universal' Flu Vaccine Is In The Works -- Yahoo News
• Health Care Costs Are Still A Crushing Problem -- Yahoo News
• Americans Are Less Comfortable With LGBTQ People Now Than When They Were -- Yahoo News
• US Is Fuelling More Wars In The Middle East -- ZNet
• Syria's War Against Islamists Is Far From Over -- ZNet
• Girl Was Attacked In Her Classroom. Parents Ask, Where Was The Teacher? -- Miami Herald
• A New Study Found That 700 Amazon Employees In Ohio Are On Food Stamps -- Business Insider
• Earthquakes, Volcanoes Rattling Ring Of Fire Region, Including Alaska, California: Is This Normal? -- Newsweek

Israel-Palestine News

• Delegitimizing Israel Soon To Be Illegal In South Carolina -- The Jerusalem Post
• Benjamin Netanyahu Noticeably Did Not Applaud A Key Part Of Mike Pence's Big Speech To Israel's Parliament -- Business Insider
• 'I Won't Fly Refugees To Their Deaths': The El Al Pilots Resisting Deportation -- 972 Magaizne
• Dead Sea Scrolls: One Of Last Two Encrypted Ancient Writings Deciphered In Israel, Revealing Secret Calendar -- Newsweek
• When Will The Palestinian Leadership Admit Failure? -- Aljazeera
• Is The US Undermining The Middle East Peace Process? -- Aljazeera
• In West Bank, Teenager's Arrest Sheds Light On Two-Tiered Legal System -- Yahoo News
• Female Journalists Covering Pence In Israel Forced To Stand Behind Male Colleagues -- Washington Post
• Examining 'Ten Myths About Israel', By Ilan Pappe -- Mondoweiss
• Trump's Jerusalem Move Boosts Palestinian Support For 'Armed Struggle': Poll -- Yahoo News
• Were These Palestinian Sisters, Ages 13-23, Planning A Hebron Stabbing Attack? -- Haaretz
• How Not To Measure Americans' Support For Israel -- Atlantic
• Palestine: Jewish Settlers Torch 100 Of World's Oldest Olive Trees -- International Business Times

Donald Trump News

• Democrats Need To Admit Trump Is Boosting The Economy -- Yahoo News
• Trump Signs Bill Reopening Government -- AP News
• Trump Warned 'No More Games, No More Lies' After FBI Says It Wants To Question President In Russia Probe -- Independent
• American Islamophobia Is Helping Trump Kill The Iran Deal -- Huffington Post
• Celebrities Criticize Trump Cuts To Palestinian Refugees -- Chicago Tribune
• Trump Ordered Mueller's Firing, Then Backed Off: New York Times -- Reuters
• Trump Ordered Special Counsel Robert Mueller To Be Fired Last Year -- Politico
• Trump Calls Report He Order Mueller Fired "Fake News" -- CBS News
• 5 Times Trump Has Commented On Mueller And The Russia Probe -- Politico
• Jeff Sessions Praises Trump For Ending A Crime Wave That Never Existed -- Salon
• The White House Dreamer Deal Isn't A Compromise. It's A Racist Ransom Note -- Huffington Post
• Trump Is Heading For Ultimate Failure In Middle East Peace Bid -- CNN
• Trump Challenging Neoliberal Agenda? -- ZNet

Pick(s) Of The Litter

• World's Richest 1% Get 82% Of The Wealth', Says Oxfam -- BBC
• 2 Dead, More Than A Dozen Injured In Kentucky High School Shooting -- Huffington Post
• Kentucky Shooting Was 3rd At A U.S. School This Week -- Yahoo News
• Why Reconciliation And Redemption Are Central To Countering White Supremacy -- Waging Nonviolence
• Michigan State Trustee: Board Has Spent Only 10 Minutes Discussing 'This Nassar Thing' -- Yahoo News
• Entire USA Gymnastics Board To Resign After Being Given Ultimatum By US Olympic Committee -- ABC News 
• Report: NCAA President Mark Emmert Alerted To 37 MSU Sexual Assault Reports In 2010 -- Yahoo News
• Special Prosecutor To Investigate 'Every Corner' Of Michigan State University -- CNN
• America's Syria Trap -- Truthdig
• Why It Costs So Much To Be Poor In America -- Washington Post
• The Doomsday Clock Moves Forward -- ZNet
• Candidates Who Signed Up To Battle Donald Trump Must Get Past The Democratic Party First -- Intercept
• Ending 'Chain Migration' And Destroying Border Water Supplies: When Did We Become So Heartless On Immigration? -- Los Angeles Times
• Vladimir Putin's Top Critic Arrested As Russians Protest Election -- Newsweek

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For January 3, 2018

Dec 29

To Rev Ben Johnson and his blogpost on how an economic principle could restore civil discourse. This appeared in Acton blog.

A significant part of the unfounded confidence in one's own views or the views of one's groups and the rising intolerance for the views of others comes from authoritarianism. The source of authoritarianism can come from cultural values as well as tribalism--we should note that tribalism is nothing more that group authoritarianism. We should note the following about authoritarianism:

1. Truth depends more on the credentials of the source than the facts and logic employed by the source.

2. Hostility and aggression toward those who question one's traditions and authority figures are natural reactions

3. The perception that the world is a bipolar place consisting of us vs tehm. Thus, truth, and the world, is very simple and black-white thinking is common.

The first studies of authoritarianism were prejudiced toward conservatives by listing conservative overreactions to other views as the list of traits for authoritarianism. This has changed because of the obvious existence of authoritarianism in non-conservative circles. We should note that religiously conservative Christianity tends to inadvertently promote an authoritarian culture for its adherents. And certainly, religiously conservative Christianity isn't the only religion/ideology that does so. As mentioned before, tribalism also incorporates authoritarianism. That is because the strong group loyalty that defines tribalism promotes authoritarian reactions to internal and external challenges to one's own group

The only way economics can help overcome this authoritarian-driven overconfidence in one's own view and hostility to the views of others is when hybrid economic systems are developed. For without hybrid economic systems, economic ideological tribalism reigns and incorporates the thinking that Martin Luther King Jr. attributed to the West in his speech against the Vietnam War (see http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2564.htm ):

The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just.

If we replace the word 'Western' with a fill-in-the-blank,' we can see how far reaching King's statement becomes even in addressing the subject of the above article. The question becomes for us religiously conservative Christians is this: Can we put aside some of our misinformed religious beliefs about the world in order to learn from others?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost on the similarities between defending slavery in the old South and defending abortion on demand. This appeared in the Heidelblog.

I don't see the degree of connection between defenders of a woman's right to an elective abortion and slavery that Clark does, but the denial of the humanity of slaves and the unborn child is a definite connection.
One has to wonder whether  the denial of the humanity of the child has to do with attempts to correct another abusive relationship: the dominance of men over women in society. And in the desire to eliminate all such domination, denying the humanity of the unborn child became necessary for some, not all, to eliminate all such dominance. This might be similar to some Zionists who deny equality for Palestinians because their Zionism is a correction for Anti-Semitism such as that which occurred during the Holocaust and those who oppose Israel's brutal occupation against the Palestinians who are tempted to deny the Holocaust because of how it has been used to excuse the oppression that occupation has caused. Here, both truth and people become collateral damage from attempts to correct the oppression and exploitation  of other people.

Thus, if we who oppose a woman's right to an elective abortion want to influence others, not only do we have to speak out for the unborn, we have to speak out for women who have been dominated by men either by individuals or through systems that run society.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Viktor Orbán, who is the Prime Minister of Hungary, and his Christmas speech article that defends his nation’s treatment of refugees who were fleeing from the Mediterranean. Here we should note that the refugee crisis which has seen hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of refugees descend upon Europe was initially caused by the 2003 invasion of Iraq. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative Blog.

Christianity is a culture and civilization? And the commandment to love one's enemies involves a commandment to love oneself? Here we should note here that the Greek version of the whole statement does not command us to love ourselves. Rather, it assumes that love of self is a starting point. In addition, loving oneself is, by the Scriptures, contrasted with trusting God to take care of us. And then we are not to mix with people from other cultures lest we lose Christianity despite the fact that the Great Commission requires the Church to go out to the whole world to make disciples for Jesus? And what about the many Europeans who are not Christians? Are such people true Europeans? If not, are they a threat to Europe?
This article by Victor Orbán is a ruse for Christians to feel both free and obligated to lord it over others in society to the point of promoting discrimination and oppression against others. This article is really written as apologetic for Hungary's sometimes barbaric treatment of refugees whose plight was the result of their own doing. If Christianity is a culture and a civilization, as Orbán claims, then, since it also stresses salvation for the individual, is everyone who lives in a Christian culture and civilization saved? And does acknowledging that we Christians are not perfect really explain the centuries of religious wars within Europe, the almost 2 millennia of Anti-Semitism, along with European imperialism and colonialism that included Europeans lording it over those in far away land along with practicing ethnic cleansing?

We fulfill the Great Commission by preaching not commanding. We are called to serve others rather than presuming to be their masters. This message by Orbán is like a tick bearing Lyme disease. Only the malady being spread here is just another form of authoritarianism. Authoritarianism is a disease that can easily result as a conservative Christianity subculture--note here that different forms of Christianity can have or promote their own cultures without Christianity being that culture. That authoritarianism not only shows little regard for those who are different, it is downright hostile toward them. And in that, we should recognize that the Christianity of which Orbán speaks is not the Christianity of the Bible.