Evangelicalism''s Mistress Is Not Christian Nationalism, Its Mistress Is

 There is much merited concern over the rising of Christian Nationalism. Though what is often not also mentioned is that there are several definitions of Christian Nationalism floating around. For example, Anthony Costello defines Christian Nationalism as the reliance on the basic Judeo-Christian for a nation's moral code (click here for his article on Christian Nationalism). While a more common definition of Christian Nationalism is that it merges Christian identity with national identity so that, in America, America is seen as a Christian nation (click here ). A difference between the two definitions is that with Costello's definition, a faithful Muslim could could more comfortably live in America that could the same person live in an America where Christian identity and national identity are one. 

But we should note here before the concern about Christian Nationalism were expressed existed concerns about the close ties between religiously conservative Christianity with political conservatism. And, in fact, Christian Nationalism might be very similar to, if not based on, political conservatism. Growing up in a family and a conservative church where many of the adults merged political conservatism with American patriotism/nationalism, the conflation of the Christian faith with either political conservatism or American patriotism/nationalism, I was taught that that political conservatism was in sync with American Nationalism and that religiously conservative Christianity was closely linked to both. 

In a podcast conversation between Albert Mohler (click here for a bio) and Yoram Hazony (click here for a bio), the origins of American political conservatism are traced back to the English Constitutionalism which consists of several sources starting with the Magna Carta from 1215. There is no single document that contains this particular Constitution. But the key part of this conservatism is to identify what conservatives should want to conserve or preserve.

For Hazony, conservatism is about having the nation still revolve around its religious and national traditions. But that becomes problematic when one looks at those traditions or history. For England, white supremacy was continued not in slavery, but through its colonialism. 

America itself was founded as a white supremacist nation that exhibited those racist beliefs mainly through its treatment of Native Americans and Blacks. And while a significant amount of that racism has been corrected, another significant amount of that racism still needs to be acknowledged and corrected.

It is American conservatism that wants the England part of our traditions and history along with its language to still be the center of how we define America. American conservatism is greatly opposed to recognizing America as being a bilingual, multicultural nation despite the percentage of Americans who are fluent in Spanish or from other nations. It is American conservatism that tries to minimize how much racism has and still exists in our nation. The education bills being passed by some states put a limit on how much one can teach school children of all ages about slavery and racism in America.

When listening to the above referenced podcast between Mohler and Hazony, we hear how conservatives should sometimes collaborate with liberals as long as they outrightly reject and oppose Neo-Marxism and Wokism. Why is that? They reject Neo-Marxism because of how it challenges the conservative notion of American and English history. They reject wokism because they still speak of America as systemically racist. The combination of the two challenges how much we should still favorably look on America's past and traditions. For example, Reagan's Conservativism favors a "colorblind" approach to post American racism which views systemic racism as having been eradicated by the Civil Rights Movement. That is despite the fact that what Martin Luther King Jr was working for was pretty much in line with what CRT would like to see be accomplished now--even though King would probably not approve of some of the tactics and teachings that some later followers of CRT have been promoting. King said, 11 months before his death that while his earlier work was a 'struggle for decency' as compared to his then current work as a 'struggle for genuine equality' (click here for an interview with King).

Regarding America's past and tradition, we should note that most of the contributors to one of the key documents that serves as the backbone for American traditionalism, The Constitution, were believers in white supremacy with many of them owning slaves. There is only one race of people whom original version of our Constitution, including the Bill Of Rights, recognizes as meriting rights and equality: the white race. And though a significant amount of that has been corrected, as noted before, there is a great reluctance for conservatives to fully face the degree of racism expressed or implied in our founding documents and in the history of our nation.

And none of the above even addresses the economic class warfare that has existed in America for much of its history. And conservatives, more than anyone else, have sided with the wealthy. That American Christians would join them would continue the history of the Church in the latter part of the 1900s where the predominant branch a given nation's Church has sided with wealth and power.

There is a simple explanation for why American conservatives resist fully facing and acknowledging America's history of exploiting and abusing people on the basis of race and economic classes. That explanation has to do with the fact that ideologues often struggle with facing the facts as Ted Koppel reminded Sean Hannity (click here for the clip). And traditionalists of all stripes whether they be conservative, liberal, or leftist are, by nature, ideologues. Their struggle with facts is because to ideologues, truth is more often determined by a given source's ideological credentials than by the facts and logic employed by that source. For an ideologue, facts must never end up challenging what is taught by their ideology. And that is what we have with Mohler and Hazony as well as any other ideologue whether they are American or English Conservatives or not. In short, ideologues have a strong penchant for authoritarianism.

American Political Conservatism is what the American Conservative Church is wed to. It just happens that American Political Conservatism is highly nationalistic. And if one would rather say that American Political Conservatism is very patriotic, then realize that patriotism can be the opiate for nationalism.

The solution here is not to get American Conservatives to renounce their conservatism. The solution here is to help all ideologues, not just conservative ones, to recognize that no ideology is omniscient. And therefore, we need hybrid solutions for our nation's problems and governance rather ideological pure ones. And I am saying that as a Christian Fundamentalist who politically leans toward Marx. Realize that I only lean toward Marx, I am not a Marxist ideologue.

References

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXU5XYqEzSE
2. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/08/christian-nationalist-identity-marjorie-taylor-greene.html
3. https://wng.org/opinions/the-evangelical-left-loses-its-prophet-1659699634
4. 
   

What Is Always Forgotten When Christian Leaders Sing The 'Things Ain't What They Use To Be' Blues.

 Ever since the Obergefell SCOTUS decision, many Christian leaders have been remorsefully reminiscencing about the past. It was a past where Christianity ruled the roost in much of the thinking in the West. Even with unbelievers back then, because of Christianity's influence on society, many unbelievers held to theistic views in general. But something happened on the way to the future and now many Christian leaders are singing the blues for a past gone by.

In 2017, Albert Mohler (click here for a bio) wrote such a blues article for Ligioneer Ministries. In that article, Mohler talks about the secularization of America in terms of how and when it occurred (click here for the article). 

In citing Peter Berger, Mohler explains that, unlike the secularization of Europe, the epicenter for the secularization of America was in its universities and it occurred well after the secularization of Europe.

By secularization, Mohler is referring to the change in society when a belief in a deity is no longer the binding moral authority for people in general. The secularization process in Europe took around 150 years and lasted up through WW II, according to Mohler. America itself seemed to have escaped that process for a while, but it is now catching up.

Citing Charles Taylor in a general discussion about the secularization of Western Civilization, the process occurred in stages when there was the impossibility of unbelief in Pre-Enlightenment times to the time where general acceptance of the Christian God became optional as science provided alternative explanations for the world to the current time of the impossibility of belief. Using different names, what Taylor, and Mohler as he echos him, were describing were Pre Modernism, Modernism, and Post Modernism. Pre Modernism was when faith was used as the metanarrative to understanding and describing the world. That was when unbelief was "impossible." The Modern period saw science and reason compete with faith in explaining the world and reality. So faith was possible then but only optional. The current Post Modern time period has rejected the metanarratives of both faith that claims to have exclusive knowledge of the truth and the metanarrative of science and reason. In the end, Post Modernism seems to philosophically be going where no philosophy has gone before. And it has in a sense just as in another sense it hasn't.

So now America seems to be catching up to Europe in unbelief. One of the biggest canaries in the mine used by many religiously conservative Christians to determine the state of Christianity in America is the acceptance of same-sex marriage in society. Mohler is part of that crowd. And he is surprised at the pace of the change as indicated by the failing health of that canary. 

Mohler joins the many other religiously conservative Christian leaders in singing the blues about a lost past, a past where Christianity had more influence over society even to the extent of controlling cultural values to various degrees.

There are two questions that one could hope that Mohler et. al. would address but do not generally speaking. The first question is, what did you expect? Now that question isn't asked because of the effects that Modernism and Post Modernism have had on society. Instead that question is in the light of the makeup of society itself. Society consists of believers in the Gospel and unbelievers. That very fact alone should prepare us not to be surprised when our nation rejects our beliefs in God. This is especially true when we are outnumbered. Because we should not be surprised that a collection of people that includes unbelievers will at times not be dominated by our beliefs. In fact, I don't want Christianity to be in the position of dominating anyone, but that is besides the point. 

And it matters not that that group of unbelievers in our society included those who adhered to different faiths. Our very own Constitution dictated that faith is optional when it declared that we have a freedom of religion. 

Perhaps it is because of a sense of loss that many religiously conservative Christian leaders today for losing their influential position in society that is driving many to be surprised or ask questions. But that should not be and that society consists of many unbelievers should be one reason why many do not believe the basics taught in the Scriptures. But there is another question that is seldom addressed as it should by these same leaders. That question asks us about our own history.

What is rarely mentioned when religiously conservative Christian leaders sing the 'things ain't what they use to be' blues over their lost influence over our nation are the failures of Christians to adequately live up to what the Gospel teaches. To be sure, all of us who take the name of 'Christian' have failed many times to bring the honor to the Gospel which it deserves. And the struggle by past Christians has greatly contributed to the societal shift away from theism that we see today. 

Here in America, prominent Christians have promoted white supremacy, practiced, promoted, and defended slavery, promoted and defended Jim Crow, have had a negative view toward science especially in terms of evolution and climate change, have used the law to persecute the LGBT community, have supported American imperialism, and the list could go on. Note what is absent from the list are the public failures to practice biblical sexual morals by some Christian leaders. Here we should note Post Modernism's beef against religions with exclusive truth claims. Such religions have practiced or supported imperialism, colonialism, wars, slavery, and other means of exploitation and domination. Even just some of that was more than what Post Modernism's outcome-based truth system could tolerate.

This second question points to one of the real contributors to the downfall of the influence of Christianity in our society and culture today. The many failures of its followers has contributed greatly to the secularization of society. And despite how obvious that fact is, it is not asked about or addressed in many of writings of those who lament the secularization of our nation. The failure to admit our own failures as being a contributing factor in the secularization of our nation because that failure to admit our faults and sins are damaging the credibility of not just our own witness, but of what we are a witness too.

Religiously conservative Christian leaders must continually address the above two questions regarding our nation's secularization and fall of Christian influence in our society if they want to fully understand what is going on and possibly how to mitigate the current trend.

Why We Religiously Conservative Christians Don't Get Democracy

 When talking about what to look for in a dating partner and/or potential spouse, I've suggested one should look for someone who is loving, trustworthy, and is aware of one's own faults. The first two traits have nothing to do with the article being reviewed tonight, but the last trait does. That is because if we get involved with someone who is not aware of their own faults, eventually they will project onto us their own faults. This is what might be occurring in the article being reviewed here.

Albert Mohler (click here for a bio) wrote an article, I am not sure of its date, that was posted on the Ligonier Ministry website. The article was about the growth of secularism in America (click here for the article). In that article, Mohler compares the growth of secularism in America with the same in Europe. Mohler stated that there is a difference in the growth of the two except in American universities. There, Mohler claims, that growth secularism in our universities is comparable with that in Europe.

Mohler cites Peter Berger in laying the blame for the secularization in America at the feet of intellectual elites and their influence on and through universities. He first cites Berger as saying that the rate of secularization of America was comparable with the secularization of Europe; it just took another form. Berger, according to Mohler, states that it is the loss of religion's authority that led to the current secularization of America. . Berger continued with a prediction that this secularization along with the loss of religious authority would result in a capitulation of believers in God with the 'secular agenda.'

Mohler then cites Charles Taylor in stating that, because of modernity, religion has now become more of an option in the West. And with that,  belief has become 'an exercise in personal autonomy.' That is belief in the God who has all authority is said to be comparable with any other belief people might have.

Taylor traces the transition of the place of religion in America to 3 stages: the pre-Elightenment years where unbelief was impossible through to the 'late-modern era' where faith becomes impossible. What enabled that transition was the Enlightenment with its multiple ways of looking at the world. According to Taylor, it is the mere belief in a deity that has been lost, but the belief in a personal God who speaks with and exercises authority.

According to Mohler, all of this has caused Christians to become 'intellectual outlaws.' And what is involved in this secularization is not just an intellectual revolution, but a moral one too.

Considering that we have part of the 1st Amendment in The Constitution dealing with the freedom of religion, the only rational response must quote the title of the Miles David piece of music titled 'So What.' Mohler is simply singing the Things Ain't What They Use To Be blues. Things have changed since the time when Christianity was more influential than it is today. But Mohler and his quotations from Berger and Taylor have not told a complete enough story of why things have changed with respect to religion's authority, the Christian religion to be specific, in society. 

Here we might consider the history of Christianity's influence in America. That influence once included its support for multiple expressions of white supremacy against multiple races, America's capitalist economic system which includes a growing wealth disparity between the white race and some other races, America's patriotic zeal for imperialism and militarism. We might even include our slow response to climate science. In other words, being either unwilling or unable to admit our faults has caused us to scapegoat others, such as intellectual elites, for our failures. If we go by the Biblical verse that tells us that we will know God's followers by their fruits, what does American Church History say about what should be Christianity's moral authority?

However, we need to return to the first reaction to Mohler's article expressed by this blog article: So What. Again, we have the 1st Amendment and we are suppose to be living in a democracy. Why is there such concern with the increased secularization of America and the loss of influence by Christianity? What does the freedom of worship/religion mean to Mohler and anyone who shares his views here? Does belief in the God of the Bible imply that we should want Christianity to have a dominant place of influence in our democratic society? Is working for such a position for Christianity in society even Biblical? And what about the prevalence of injustice that occurs throughout American Church history? These are the unanswered questions in Mohler's article. And they are also the questions we should ask ourselves first before considering the importance of Mohler's article.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For July 12, 2017

June 20

To Joseph Pearce and his blogpost about how health care should be solved through a subsidiary approach rather than through socialism. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative website.

The above article sounds more like a turf battle between those who want the local communities to solve our problems vs the larger communities as represented by our various government associations. An indicator of this interpretation is seen in the the emotional rejection of government intrusion in providing health care. Of course, the context for that rejection includes government requiring Christian employers to provide kinds of healthcare options to employees that go against their conscience. But in addition to the turf battle, how the government solution to health care, or pretty much anything else dealing with individuals who live in families, is so negatively presented, it is pretty clear that all-or-nothing thinking is being employed here.
On a practical side we need to ask if local resources adequate to help everyone with health care. And we might especially ask that question for people who choose not to belong to the Church. And if they don't choose to follow Pearce's religious views, isn't our government obligated to represent them when they are in need? We might also note how Pearce sees the government as being obligated to follow the Roman Church's social teaching. Certainly, the government should listen to all proposed solutions. But what kind of religious liberty do we have when our representative government is required to follow Church teaching?

Another indicator that all-or-nothing thinking is employed by Pearce is his definition of socialism in his subsidiary vs socialism model of thought. We should note that, at least from a Marxist perspective, large government programs does not make socialism. Marxist socialism puts the first emphasis on who is in control of both government and the workplace. Thus, when big government interferes, if workers do not have an equal or dominant voice in making the decisions, it isn't socialism. But that is besides the point. That the local has absolute sovereignty over any larger community where the larger community involves local, state, or federal government is the giveaway to such thinking. All this amounts to is a greater division within our nation than what exists. For our division is no longer just in terms of ideology, but, according to Pearce, it should be in terms of local communities as well. For Christians to fully benefit from what Pearce is proposing, then Christians would have to move into Christian communities. But then how could such Christians practice virtues like charity when they only participate in their own voluntary communities.

But the local having precedence over the larger communities is not consistently followed by Pearce. For in joining Christian co-ops, one is joining a larger community. Thus, this isn't even a local community vs the world turf battle. Rather, the battle is between the communities one volunteers to be a member of vs society as represented by the various forms of government from local government to the federal government. And such does not provide a solution for everyone.

Pearce does well in recognizing the state of health care coverage before Obamacare. And he has a very legitimate concern over Christian employers having to provide for abortaficient drugs and abortions in their employee health care plans. But his all-or-nothing thinking has not created a viable approach for those who choose not to belong to the Church for certain, and possibly for those for whom Pearce wrote this article. For ties to the larger communities that are represented by governments aren't so easily cut nor should they be.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

June 26

To Dante Stewart and his blogpost on his grief and other reactions to the verdicts of the police officer who killed Philando Castile. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website

Justice is delayed here and at least sometimes that delay is provided in order to give us a chance to repent.

But I think that it is not enough just to attribute the tragedy of the verdict to general truths such as our world is fallen because of sin and that there is much darkness around us. We also need to look at the specific, immediate causes of the shooting and the verdict. And one of those immediate causes has to do with the rise of authoritarianism especially as that rise has emanted from the 9-11 attacks. For some from the West who desired more power have used the 9/11 attacks to make their power grab more acceptable to the masses. In turn, their power grab has sparked an embrace with active authoritarianism by law enforcement and lawmakers and a passive authoritarianism by the populace.
Take away that authoritarianism and we will find more people be willing to ensure that those making or enforcing our laws become more accountable for their actions. Should note, however, that taking away that authoritarianism will not take away sin and darkness from the world. Taking away that authloritarianism can reduce the some of the ways in which that sin and darkness are manifested. 

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

June 28

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost about Senator Sanders unconstitutionally using a religious test in determining whether Russell Vought is fit to hold the office President Trump appointed him to. This appeared in Heidelblog

What is missing here is the original point that could be made. I am not saying that Sanders made this point and I certainly disagree with Sanders analysis and response. But what is missing is Vought's criticisms of Hawkins from Wheaton.  While Vought seemed to have ignored Hawkins distinctions in contexts in how she was answering  questions. Vought himself was associating Christianity with a narrow mindedness and intolerance by his indiscriminate response to her. And because of that association, Sanders unnecessarily saw Vought's confession of faith, as right as that confession was, as a red flag warning of intolerance. Thus all of us who take the label of Christian might be warned that doing so associates all that we do and the stands we take with Christ and the Gospel.

And it isn't that Sanders had to look at Vought's treatment of Hawkins to see an orthodox confession of the Christian faith as a red flag of intolerance; we Christians ourselves have provided multiple reasons why that should be the case. For example, when many of us opposed the legalization of Same-Sex marriage in society or when people have heard many of us supporting Trump's travel ban while ignoring the record that the US vetting of refugees program has compiled, we were wedding orthodox Christianity with intolerance of others in society.

This whatever we do or stands we take we associate with Christ and the Gospel is what we should take away from Sanders' inappropriate response to Vought's confession of faith. But on the hand, with what some of us have associated Christianity with, who could blame Sanders?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

June 29

To Albert Mohler and his blogpost on whether we should opt for religious freedom despite the discrimination against the LGBT community it practices. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition Website.

Considering that Jim Crow had its Christian apologists who used religion and the Bible to defend the segregation and marginalization that Jim Crow promoted, it seem that we've had this debate before. In fact, integration was called 'Communism' by some Jim Crow defenders.

If we consider the history of the LGBT community in this nation, we find that many religiously conservative Christians have spent centuries marginalizing the LGBT community. Why? Because it was their way of exercising control over the situation. Society was employed by the Church to be an extra disciplinary arm to marginalize those who were homosexual.
So there comes two questions here. First, is it possible to preach BIblical standards on sexuality without stating, implying, or suggesting that one group is superior or inferior to the other?

Second, If the answer to the first question is no, then is what is being suggested merely an imitation or returning of the favor by one group of the other?

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

July 4

To Joe Carter and his blogpost on American Civil Religion and Christianity. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

Carter's objection to veneration of the nation within the walls of the Church are most appropriate. And yet, this mixing of veneration of other gods with the Christianity can occur outside God's House as well. We should note that we call ourselves Christians, whatever we do or whatever causes we work for or whatever ideologies we adhere to are now associated with Christianity. Thus,  when we associate Christianity with any political or economic ideology, we can also tarnish the glory of the Gospel. And this is especially true when we Christians uncritically embrace political or economic ideologies.  That means that we all have mixed records in terms of what we associate with the Gospel. And failure to show where our favorite political and economic ideologies differ from the Scriptures results our dishonoring of the Gospel by the associations we make just as correcting those ideologies can result in honoring the Gospel.

The above is illustrated by the context of Rousseau's comments, which Carter cites, on Christianity and the state. That context found that the Church during part of Rousseau's time had aligned itself with the aristocracy in passing legislation that favored the two over and against the 3rd Estate--that is the common people of France. Thus, Christianity was understandably seen as an enemy of the people by many who believed and fought for the French Revolution. And that process of the Church becoming an enemy of the common people is all too easily repeated when Christians uncritically adopt political and economic ideologies. For many of those ideologies will involve supporting privilege over equality.

Despite his oversight, Carter makes an excellent point in stating that there is too great a divide between American, or that of any other nation, civil religion and Christianity. However, we can work for a set of civil moral standards. That is what Martin Luther King Jr. worked for. Unlike civil religions, civil moral standards do not necessarily violate a Christian's worship and following of Jesus. But they can if we adopt those standards without examining them in the light of the Scriptures.

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

To Russell Moore and his blogpost on how religious freedom is for non-Christians too. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

I find Moore's take on freedom of religion to be Conservative-American-Christian-centric rather than Christian. One can see that in the underhanded, uncorrected statement it makes about Islam when Moore writes the following:

Some would say, based on their reading of the Qur'an, that non-violent Muslims are inconsistent Muslims, the equivalent of cafeteria Catholics.

And yet, there is an area in which Moore's exploration of religious liberty shows his limited perspective. That area involves equality for the LGBT community. For here, we need to ask whether  opposing Same-Sex Marriage and equality for the LGBT community is a violation of religious freedom. After all, there are those who have no religious qualms over homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage. In fact, some of them claim to be Christians. And allowing Same-Sex Marriage and working for equality for the LGBT community doesn't prohibit us from teaching and sharing what God's Word has to say about marriage and about homosexuality.

As Christians, we need to broaden our perspective of religious freedom and how we see the world. And we need to see that such a broadening can easily occur without our having to compromise any teachings from the Bible. But what we might find is that broadening those beliefs might result in limiting the esteem we have for ourselves.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

July 9

To Joseph Pearce and his blogpost denouncing Obama’s and Clinton’s opposition to Russia while hoping that the Trump can further America’s friendship with Russia. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

I've now seen attempts by both the left and right to support a non-contentious relationship with Russia. Those on left do so out of opposition to US imperialism and perhaps from a romantic notion that today's Russia is carrying some continuity with yesteryear's Soviet Union. Here, the reason for someone on the Right who is supporting deepening a friendship with Russia is for a reason that might not be identifiable. The stated reason has to do with opposing globalism.

It's not that I agreed with Obama's and Clinton's approach to Russia. They were increasing the chances of a nuclear exchange by the kind of conflict they were pursuing. But one only needs to see how dissidents and journalists (see https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/03/23/here-are-ten-critics-of-vladimir-putin-who-died-violently-or-in-suspicious-ways/?utm_term=.ff04a2465ea4  and  https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/05/02/dozens-russian-deaths-cast-suspicion-vladimir-putin/100480734/ ), political opponents of Putin (see http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/27/why-putins-opponent-was-arrested-and-what-it-means-for-russias-future.html ), and the LGBT community have been treated to see that Russia is not furthering freedom and democracy. We should also include Putin's treatment of Chechnya in this list. And perhaps that is why Pearce is supporting a closer relationship with Russia. Just perhaps, Pearce sees Russia as providing an internal example for us to follow where freedoms are taken away and the Church is given greater pull in the State to dictate certain laws. Should note that Russia recently passed laws that  prohibit evangelism by churches that do not belong to Orthodox Church. After all, it appears that Pearce is impressed by Putin's leadership style.

One other point to make here. To say that globalism threatens the sovereignty of all nations is imprecise. Globalism can take many forms. The globalism pursued by the Democrats certainly did weaken national sovereignty of all nations. All nations would be partially controlled by foreign elites. But how much better is it really when the nation is ruled by domestic elites instead? And what kind of general public is served when sovereignty is enforced is defined and enforced by a strong arm leader?


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


July 11

To Rev Ben Johnson and his blogpost on Europe’s possible responses to the US dropping out of the Paris Agreement. Johnson claims that the Paris Agreement includes a ‘market distortion’ because of how developed nations, like the US, should help undeveloped nations in cutting emissions with funding. This appeared in the Acton blog.

Trying to respond to what could be catastrophic climate change in the future is a market distortion? Here the question to be asked is whether the market exists as a piece of a pie or is it the whole pie? If it is the former, why make the 'market distortion' moniker such an absolute judgment as if no other concern should ever change how the market operates? If it is the latter, then all of life must answer to the reality dictated by the market.

As for EU revenge for dropping out of the Paris Accords. Since dropping out can hurt the welfare of others, isn't the call for EU revenge simply a call for sanctions? And aren't economic sanction simply an economic tool that the US so easily uses on other nations whose behavior our leaders disapprove of?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Joe Carter and his blogpost that rhetorically asks if the Free Market should be used to provide health care. This appeared in the Acton blog.

The free market mantra is maximize profits for oneself. So what could go wrong with letting the free market provide for a basic necessity in life? Try people either putting off or not getting treatment for what could be life threatening diseases because of the healthcare costs? Or health care costs becoming a leading cause for personal bankruptcies is something else that can occur. We should note that the free market does its job in reducing or eliminating waiting lists for certain procedures by filtering out those who could not afford them.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For May 17, 2017

April 10

To Joe Carter and his blogpost about how last century’s fundamentalism can teach us about people falling away from the faith. Part of that discussion included how socialism was a side issue that should be included in the discussion. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

The strength of Christian Fundamentalism as originally defined is that it focuses our attention on essentials of the faith: the supernatural characteristics of Jesus and what that implies in his vicarious death for our sins and the inerrancy of the original autographs of the Scriptures. The weakness of Christian Fundamentalism as it started is that it lacked a self-awareness of how the other beliefs, especially social political ideologies, could have been more inspired by men than the Scriptures. For while the distinction between Christian Fundamentalism and theological liberalism revolved around the acceptance of the supernatural vs reducing all of reality to the physical, one side was clearly championing what was taught in the Scriptures. But  when the difference between them rested on secondary issues, such as the political ideologies adopted by the followers of each movement or on the social gospel, then being able to distinguish who was rightfully interpreting the Scriptures and who wasn't became complicated. What modern religiously conservative American Christians often do is to see Socialism, and the social gospel too, as having nothing to teach and everything to learn. Thus, when discussing the fundamentalists vs modernist/liberal theology divide, every political-economic ideology or practice that could possibly be associated with the secondary issues of political ideologies and the social gospel was seen as an affront to the Gospel

There is something that we need to note about Socialism back in the days of the first Christian Fundamentalists. Because it was often associated with the Soviet Union's Communism, it was sometimes thought of as being synonymous with that and thus thought of as being monolithic. Fortunately, the link to Erdman's article on Socialism does not make that mistake. Erdman is careful in distinguishing anti-capitalist movements like Socialism, Popular Socialism (that is the popular version of his day), Communism, and Anarchism. However, he fails to point out that Marxism is more about the redistribution of power than the redistribution of wealth. Therefore, Erdman's view of the three isms mistakenly revolves around  the redistribution of wealth. For when ordinary men could make laws that controlled the behavior of the wealthy, Marx saw that as the abolition of property. On the other hand, Erdman correctly sees the elevation in morality of workers over the wealthy as being wrong and unbiblical.

What we should note is that today's Socialism is not the Socialism Erdman saw. Today's Socialism is more diverse. For example, there are many Socialists who reject the notion that Socialism can lead mankind into some utopian state. Instead, they promote Socialism as being an improvement over Capitalism.
 
Finally, we should note that like Marxism, Capitalism is extremely materialistic and utopian and thus represents two sides of the same coin. For where Marx believed in an absolute utopia, many Capitalists imply a belief in a relative utopia by  boasting that their system is the best system and cannot be significantly improved on by any other system. And because both Marxism and Capitalism focus on materialism by determining the distribution of goods, it matters not which side turns up after a coin flip. That is because emphasizing materialism cannot create any kind of absolute or relative utopia let alone improve society. Being thing-oriented, as Martin Luther King Jr. would put it, puts different groups at odds against each other over the competition for material goods. That is why King declared that for as long as society is thing-oriented, which is when society counts gadgets, profits, and property rights as being more important than people, we will always have racism, materialism/economic exploitation, and war/militarism. Perhaps that is because for as long as groups are at odds with each other over the accumulation of things for their own, tribalism reigns. And tribalism basically says what is right and wrong depends on who does what to whom. In addition, tribalism robs us of objectivity when assessing the faults of our own group and the merit of other groups. Instead, for Socialism to contribute to society, it must work as a facilitator  that brings all groups of people together to work on how to make society more just and sufficiently prosperous.

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

May 13

To Albert Mohler and his blogpost talk on when should we stand with or stand apart from others. This talk is mostly about when Christians should align themselves with or turn their back to those who claim to be believers. But there are two small segments that address how and when we should position ourselves with unbelievers.This  appeared in the Gospel Coalition Website.

While most of Mohler's talk was about when to stand with or apart from others who claim to be believers, two parts of his talk dealt with when to do the same with unbelievers in society.
What Mohler said almost at the 37 minute mark was that Christianity had lost the battle in its control of culture. That tells us much about how Mohler sees the relationship between Christians and their society. It says that Christians should have privileged place over others in society so that they can exercise a measure of control over cultural values. That rules out Christians from sharing society with others as equals.

At the end, Mohler states that we can work with unbelievers provided that it involves no compromising of values and faith. But in warning us about the continued sexual revolution as exhibited through the LGBT Equal Rights Movement, he leaves some ambiguity though a betting man would know where to place his wager. Yes, we must preach what the Bible says about sexuality. But can a Bible believing Christian support equal rights, including Same-Sex Marriage, in society just like we would support freedom of religion even for those faiths that we see as being antithetical, and thus heretical, to our own?
Mohler doesn't say much about how we participate in causes with unbelievers. One could interpret that as suggesting that he advises us to be minimally involved in joint causes with unbelievers. Such might indicate, again, a view that says that Christians should not share society with others as equals. Rather, they should semi-shun them and stick with their own kind. And while Mohler rightfully complains about Christians succumbing to the continuation of the Sexual Revolution, what he misses is this: For as long as we religiously conservative Christians do not work to share society with others as equals, we put fellow believers, especially those who are young adults and younger, who have been deeply influenced by Post Modernism into a position of choosing between a false dichotomy between opposing both inequality and oppression and believing what God's Word has to say. As this choice applies to the LGBT community, Mohler's position has asked Millennial Christians to choose between marginalizing the LGBT community by opposing their equality in society and Biblical sexual standards.
Though Mohler gave an interesting historical perspective of how different Christian denominations arose and joined forces. The most pressing issue for today is how religiously conservative American Christians should relate to unbelievers in society.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

May 14

To Steven Jonathan Rummelsburg and his blogpost condemning those who participated in the March for Science. The basis for the condemnation was that these protesters had embrace an ideology of materialistic reductionism. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

If any article exhibits what is the greatest threat to our nation, it is this article. Why? It is because the greatest threat to our nation is that we have divided ourselves into groups that no longer listen to each other. And because we no longer listen to each other, we are even more inclined than before to take control and rule over others rather than to discuss with each other in order to collaborate with them.

While there are a multitude of charges made against all who marched for the sciences as if all who marched form a monolith, there is no evidence provided to support any of the charges. Rather, these charge are deductively arrived at after demonizing another group. In addition, the charges are vague and/or are inconsistent.

Take the first set of accusations against those who marched for science. They include the charge that the marchers are both ideologically enslaved and are data-driven rather than bing principle-driven. The first problem with these charges is that to be principle-driven, one becomes ideological. But if one is ideologically enslaved, then one is principle-driven rather than data driven. Thus, there is a contradiction if being data-driven and principle-driven are opposites.

We might also note that because one supports the sciences, it does not mean that one embraces materialistic reductionism. That would be the case if one believes that science is the only source of knowledge. We might also add that Capitalism is also materialistic. But that doesn't mean that its followers are necessarily materialistic. That would be the case only if one reduced reality to what is learned in business.

Now we might ask how Rummelsburg arrived at his conclusions regarding the participants of the march. Did he use research to identify all of the beliefs of the participants or is such data unnecessary for him to make such a sweeping generalization because he is principle-driven? And if he doesn't use data, how can he verify his conclusions or does he think he needs to?

Furthermore, there is nothing inherently good or bad about being data-driven or principle-driven. Why? Because both are such generic descriptions that by themselves, they carry no implications. Thus, additional information is needed. Thus we need to ask which data  and which principles are being compared. And this is something that Rummelsburg consistently avoids discussing. He avoids talking about the details of why people were marching.

The details include Trump's plans to cut funding for scientific research in climate change, medicine and heathcare. With the former, both the EPA and NASA would have funds dealing with environmental and climate change research cut. In addition, the EPA would lose much of their ability to use regulations to protect the environment. With the latter, the NIH would receive a significant cut in funds and there also exists the possibility of structural changes that could hamper the CDC from operating at its current level. Since the march, we could also include Trump's desire to cut funding that supports the effort to continue to clean up the Chesapeake Bay. If we read why, we find that all of this is due to a politically conservative ideology that wants to reduce the size of the government. And if we follow the money, we see this reduction in the size of government via these cuts in scientific research makes cutting taxes for the wealthy more plausible. Seeing that there are no moral grounds for opposing the investigation of the climate and the rest of our environment to see if our way of life is causing significant problems for the future, then the reason cutting funds for scientific research quite is quite possibly based in materialism. Only this kind of materialism revolves around a more way of life than a metaphysical view of reality. It is the materialism of wealth.
What can be concluded from Rummelsburg's article is that principle-driven conservatives, like him, have nothing to learn from those who marched for Science. They have nothing to learn about the environment and climate change or what is needed to combat any future diseases and health conditions. They have nothing to learn because their principles have already settled those issues. And because their principles have already settled these issues, they have no need to learn from scientists whose data might not confirm what these conservatives have concluded.

And at this point, we might want to ask how different are those conservative principles from the primitive religions observed in different tribes? And if there are no differences, why shouldn't protesters, like myself who marched for science and are Christians, for example, and thus who do not believe in materialistic reductionism, consider Rummelsburg's set of beliefs to contain nothing more that primitive superstitions? I should except such thinking would cause me to believe that those with my perspective have everything to teach and nothing to learn from those who disagree with my perspective. For there are other areas of life to discover besides what we protesters marched for in the March for Science. And there are other sources of knowledge in addition to Science.

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

May 15

To Joe Carter and his blogpost on how protection from religious persecution, especially that of Christians, should serve as the priority in US foreign policies. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition.

Though the above article expresses very legitimate concerns, two problems stand out. What about US foreign policies or allies that promote religious persecution? Why not extend this concern for religious persecution to domestic policies as well?

When we American Christians talk about persecution, we often think of Muslim or state persecution of fellow Christians in specific locals. But we don't talk about Israeli persecution of Palestinian Christians. Palestinian Christians are facing the same fate as other Palestinians in that their is being stolen by the Israeli government. In addition, a Palestinian Christian personally told me that he faced more threats from Israeli settlers than he faced from Hamas. We should also note that Muslims also face persecution. Muslims in Burma and China have been attacked. And what we should ask in all of those situations is what has the U.S. government done about the suffering of these religious communities.

In America, Muslims face persecution from American citizens that is based on ignorance, fear and hatred. In addition, those Americans whose religious beliefs allow them to participate in same-sex relations have been persecuted by those whose religion prohibit same-sex relations. Is Carter calling for stricter sanctions that would protect those being persecuted here in America?
We should note that some Christian persecution around the world is because Christianity has been strongly associated with specific US policies. In particular, some Christian persecution is due to US support for Israel's brutal occupation of the Palestinian territories. Christian religious support for Israel has played a significant role in supporting US policies toward Israel. And because of that association, some have wrongfully but understandably perceived that support as Christianity waging war against Muslims. That perception is wrong but understandable because Christians who give carte blanche support for Israel are misrepresenting Christianity. Support for Israel's existence must be distinguished from support for the Occupation against the Palestinians and its ability to bully its neighbors.

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

May 16

To Joseph Sunde and his blogpost on the need to revive an ‘associational life’ that existed when de Tocqueville visited America. This appeared in the Acton blog.

I wish that those who quote de Tocqueville like Christians who quote the Bible would note the racism that existed in both his writings and the times he observed. He proclaimed that England had the superior society but England ruled a racist-based empire. America itself was an ethnocracy based on White supremacy rather than functioning as a laboratory for democracy through the associations people made with each other. So that regardless of what de Tocqueville saw, Native Americans, Blacks, and women were excluded from decision making institutions and ventures and their interests were all too often ignored. They were invisible people to the Americans whom de Tocqueville observed as running laboratories in democracy. In a very real sense, Furthermore, we should note that de Tocqueville himself did not describe Native Americans and Blacks as being equal to the Whites who had subjugated them.
Certainly there are problems for which the 'middle layer' is best at addressing. But there are other problems that are beyond its abilities to attend to. And telling the difference between the two sets of problems can be difficult. What is noticeable about how America operates today is that we have a strongly elite-centered rule that is not answerable to any democratic process throughout our nation from the lowest levels of government and business to the highest levels. For there is a great deal of political power in America that is wielded from the private sector due to the influence of money. Structurally speaking, we Americans are represented by location, not vocation. Thus whatever positives de Tocqueville noticed have disappeared. BTW, we should note that the Russian notion of a soviet which existed before Lenin hijacked the Revolution functioned as a laboratory in democracy as well.

In terms of a national set of ethics or values, there again, as in the political power resting in the private sector, money rules. Martin Luther King Jr. noted in his speech against the Vietnam war the following (see http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2564.htm  ):

We must rapidly begin the shift from a "thing-oriented" society to a "person-oriented" society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.

But how can we shift from being a "thing-oriented" society in an economic system such as ours? For the engine of our economic system is fueled by greed. That question is ominously answered by observation. And current calls to free our corporations from their social responsibilities to all of their stakeholders and the environment are a part of that observation.
Another ethical or values concern can be seen in how we so rigidly divide ourselves. Ideological tribalism runs strong in America today. Here, each ideological group act as if it has everything to teach the other groups while having nothing to learn from them. Such a mentality is a mortal enemy of democracy.

To really address the problems in our nation, we need a significant structural change that equally incorporates all sectors of American society rather than just the wealthy who can buy elections at all layers of society, not just in the middle layer. The above article's call for a more associational life makes some legitimate points. And we need a change in values. The question is do we have the resolve to make the necessary changes? Reality from both history and the present say 'no' while reality from the future tells us that our survival depends on it.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For July 6, 2016

July 2

To Albert Mohler and his blogpost that was a reaction piece to Mika Edmonson's article comparing Blacks Lives Matter to the Civil Rights Movement of the past. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website

There are two points to be made here. The first point is that while Mohler points out the distinctions Edmondon made between the Civil Rights Movement of the 60s and the Black Lives Matter movement, he neglected to point out the similarities between the two. According to Edmondson, the similarities were the tactics used, the near-term goals, and the rejection of social passivity.

The second point is a criticism of Edmonson's recognition of who belonged to the CIvil Rights Movement. For while Edmondson forcussed on King and the SLC, other groups were involved too such as SNCC, NAACP, the Black Panthers, Malcolm X, those who riioted and others. All of them worked for Civil Rights and are part of the Civil RIghts Movement.

All of this points to is the bar we set for individuals and groups who would be recognized as valid challengers to the status quo reflects our resistance to change. Quite often we set the bar unreasonably high so that unless those challenging the status quo appear as saints, we often reserve the right to discount what they have to say and what they are trying to do. All we have to do is look at the Palestinian struggle for life against Israel's Occupation as an example. Since the Palestinian struggle for freedom is marred by the use of violence, many of us have sided with the Occupation despite its brutality and the injustices that are carried out. The same applies here.

The  Civil Rights Movement encompassed a variety of groups, some of which would be difficult for us to discredit while others were not. But if our tendency is to first discredit those who are seeking to change the status quo in order to relieve some suffering and injustice, then we are acting just like those who resisted even the best parts of Civil Rights Movement. 

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

To Joe Carter and his blogpost on a court ruling that struck down a pro-life law passed in Indiana. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website

What today's abortion issue brings up are the faults of those on both sides of the issue. Of course, the one side has promoted the position that the determination of what is human life worthy of rigths can be a subjective judgment depending on the group that life infringes on. Roe V. Wade must be overturned and Federal law correctly defining what human life is should be written.

On the other hand, many pro-life supporters use the abortion issue to play the role of the pharisee from the two men praying. For while they point to their opponents' sin of not caring for human life in the womb, they fail to see how America's policieis, both foreign and domestic, share the same lack of concern for human life regardless of the location of that life. Policies that impoverish regions where people live or that involve violence cause hardships and death. To not at least question those policies and the violence is to show the same lack of concern for human life that they accuse pro-choice supporters of having.

 

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

To Kyle Hanby and his blogpost on Capitalism, Cronyism, and Socialism. This appeared in the Acton blog.

The first problem with this article is that both socialism and capitalism are spoken of as monoliths. Though undoubtedly, Hanby is thinking of Socialist examples like the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, North Korea, and possibly Venezuala as not being heroic. And his view of not seeing them as heroic is probably based on comparing them with the West, and the United States of the 20th century in particular. 

But what is often missed in those comparisons is context and I say this as not being a fan of the political outcomes of most of these nations. What Hanby misses is the context of those revolutions. Whether you are talking about the severe suffering that took place in totalitarian regimes that preceded the revolutions in Soviet Union, Cuba, and partly in China, one has to look at the revolutions as heroic. What is missed in all of that are the hardships some of the "socialist" nations have had endure from other nations, some of them Capitalist, that 20th century US did not have to endure. For example, after winning the Revolution, the Russian gov't had to fight against counterrevolutionaries and that also included having to fight against several western nations that joined the fight. In addition, America's significant losses during WW II are almost insignificant compared to Russia's losses. That America emerged from WW II as a superpower was due in part to the location of the theaters in which it fought in WW II. Russsia lost tens of thousands of villages and tens of millions of people because of Germany's invasion. In addition, it was forced into an arms race which it didn't want by the United States. That arms race contributed to growing the authoritarianism and economic problems experienced by Russia were contributed to by Western actions.

Now we should note what happened to Cuba. We essentially fought a terrorist war against Cuba attacking civilan targets and later on enforcing an embargo.

In Venezuela, there is evidence that we supported the attempted coup of 2002 and historical precedents that say that their current eonomic problems might have been created partially by other nations. After all, before the 1973 coup in Chile, we attempted to destabilize the nation as Britain did after Mossadegh started to nationalize oil resources in Iran. We also supported terrorist attacks, for which we were convicted, Nicaragua in order to influence their elections.

So the aftermath of many socialist revolutions have not worked out, but we should note that most of those revoutions were against dictators before the revolutions only to be met with hostile policies by the United States.

There are examples where Socialism did not result in tyranny and offered economic promise but it was prevented from meeting that promise because it savagely attacked afterwards by others in a number of nations, especially by Capitalists. Such examples include the Paris Commune, The Spanish Revolution, Chile in the early 70s, Iran in the early 50s, and Nicaragua in the 1980s. And what was found with some of those examples along with Venezuela is that there were those who were helped, in particular, some of the poor.

The claim of today's capitalists is that their system has contributed more to human flourishing than any other system in history. But what is overlooked in that claim is that the bar they had to meet to make that claim includes increasing the number of people who were living on more than around $1.35 per day--not a very high bar at all. Try living in a western nation on that. Another problem is that the two nations where the largest number of people who have been lifted out of abject poverty by global capitalism are the two nations that have the most slaves in the world: India and China. And the number of those enslaved there is either stagnant or increasing.

But the biggest problem Hanby has in making his case here is that while on one hand, Capitalism measures itself solely by its materiistic results. On the other hand, Hanby says that a combination of free-market Capitalism and moral values is what helps people. Here, we should note that the moral values Hanby says are needed are hostile to materialism and vice-versa. In addition, free-markets reject the imposition of moral values. As a result, we have a global economic system that is increasing wealth disparity in many nations. But not only that, it invites conflicts, it also is significantly contributing to the destruction of our environment

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

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost that reposted the Declaration of Independence. This appeared in the Heidelblog.

I think that we sometimes become too easily enamored by the wrong set of actions. For example, we are in awe of how our founding fathers regarded and treated themselves by declaring that all men are created equal. But if we judged their words and actions by how they regarded and treated others, would we come to the same conclusion? Here, we should note Frederick Douglass's  speech on what the 4th of July meant to slaves (see http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/what-to-the-slave-is-the-fourth-of-july/  ):

What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July? I answer: a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciations of tyrants, brass fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade, and solemnity, are, to him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy — a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices, more shocking and bloody, than are the people of these United States, at this very hour.

Go where you may, search where you will, roam through all the monarchies and despotisms of the old world, travel through South America, search out every abuse, and when you have found the last, lay your facts by the side of the everyday practices of this nation, and you will say with me, that, for revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a rival.

Yes, slavery is now illegal here though that has not been completely eradicated in our nation. Also, we should note that the above words seemed not include the plight of Native Americans. Finally, we should note that there are others who have received and still do receive injustice after injustice as a result of our domestic and foreign policies. So while we celebrate ourselves and our founding fathers for what was written and done in history, we might rephrase Douglass's question of what Independence Day meant to the slaves of his time to the following: What does our Independence Day mean to today's marginalized and vulnerable who are the victims of our domestic and foreign policies? For it is their numbers that give the best indication of how much we really believe in the statement,  'all men are created equal.'

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

July 3

To Caroline Roberts and her blogpost on how Socialism has and will bring economic destruction. This appeared in Acton's blog.

What best indicates the fear Conservatives have of Socialism is demonstrated by what regimes they label as being socialist. This article provides no exception to the rule since the Nazi economics was described as being socialist and is used to counter the renewed interest in Socialism in our society. Why the interest in Socialism? It is because the failure of our economy both with the collapse of 2008 as well as the disparity that existed in the recovery from that collapse and the wealth disparity that exists in general. In addition,  supporters of our current economic system view the mere recognition of climate change as a threat to our economic well-being. In addition, our economic system is uncomfortably symbolized by the society from the Hunger Games movies. In that movie, there was the Capitol where life was good and the Districts where people lived in economic subsevience to the wants and whims of those living in the Capitol. What has made people more aware of the similarities here is that we are creating more and more domestic districts. This was one of the reasons why Occupy Wall Street took off in 2011.

The Nazis could, in no even remotely reasonable way, be labeled as Socialists from the Marxist tradition. And that shows the first error of how socialism is described in this article. For here, Caroline Roberts talks of Socialism as a monolith even though neither Socilaism nor Capitalism are monliths. Libertarian Socialism, for example, is a kind that is neither described nor mentioned. In fact, there is no Marxist related Socialism described or mentioned in the article above. Rather, what the Nazis tried to install is treated as if it was the epitome of Socialism

Another problem with the above article is that it is suggested that Socialism was the Nazis' problem. Here we should note that Hitler did lift the nation out of its economic woes. What reintroduced those economic woes was the losing of the war. And, btw, it was nationalism that caused Nazi hubris to result in the utter destruction of the nation. That Gregg, the person whom Roberts cites, would attribute to one variable the post war economic timeline of Germany shows an inadequate understanding of economics as well as an opportunistic attitude. Why didn't the German economic take off right after the war? Such should be a rhetorical question.

The next problem is that Roberts, following Gregg, made the Nazi economy the epitome of what happens when you have Socialism. If Roberts and Gregg are following the principle of universality here, then they should not mind if people used the overthrow of Allende and the installation of Pinochet's reign of terror as a predictor of what happens when you force free markets onto a nation. Chile is still trying to recover from that 1973 coup and its after effecs.

We might want to note that perhaps our economy has more similarities with Nazi Germany's economy than any socialist economy has. After all, Hitler's policies were supported by industry leaders, not workers. In a real socialist economy, workers would have control. And here we should note that present day Germany employs some Socialist mechanisms here because in all companies that have 2,000 or more workers, workers get a substantial amount of direct representation on the board of directors.

In short, what is labeled as socialism in the above article doesn't even remotely resemble it as it comes from the Marxist tradition. Thus, one has to ask what is Roberts really writing about.

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

To Joe Carter and his blogpost entitled Is The Declaration Of Independence A 'Christian Document'? which was really about how only social conservatives literally believe in the line that declares 'all men are created equal.' This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website

This seems to be one of those bait-and-switch articles. That is that it uses the title to draw in those whose focus would be on the Declaration of Independence while surprising them by spending too much time on building a pedestal for social conservatives on which to stand. So in essence, this article is more of a marketing tool to sell social conservatism.

The question is this: Do social conservatives deserve the pedestal provided for them by this article? This pedestal is the claim that only social conservatives literally believe that 'all men are created equal'? One only needs to examine both the present and the past to answer the question. To believe those words to be literally true would include not having an opinion on equality for women. But suppose we include women in the mix. Have or do social conservatives literally believe that all men are created equal? Let's test that by looking at what they have and currently support. 

When we go back to the days of the Civil Rights Movement, we at least find an absence of support for it from social conservatives. The reaction from social conservatives to the movement ranged from apathy to opposition. And there was a belief among at least some social conservatives that Whites should maintain a privileged place of supremacy over Blacks in society. Some opposed the movement because they feared that civil liberties would be violated by laws that acquiesced to the demands of the Movement. Here we should note the difference between civil liberties and civil rights. The former stressed liberatiranism and freedom from gov't coercion while the latter stressed the need for gov't intervention to prevent racially-based oppression from the private sector. 

In response the claim that social conservatives either opposed or were apathetic to the Civil Rights Movement, many conservatives would point to the suppport Republican lawmakers gave to Civil RIghts legislation. But consider the following. First, not all Republican lawmakers were social conservatives. Second, voting on Civl Rights legislation was determined more by location than party affiliation so that the highest correlation for lawmakers who supported Civil Rights legislation was for those lawmakers who represented northern states.  Third, after the passage of Civil Rights legislation, we saw a great migration  of Southern Democrats over to the Republican Party as a backlash to President's Johnson's support of the Civil Rights and Voting Rigths Acts.

We might also ask how social conservatives feel about LGBT rights today. Do social conservatives support or oppose those state laws that allow people to be fired because of their sexual orientation? Do social conservatives support the legalization of same-sex marriage? Are social conservatives supporting or opposing the current wave of anti-LGBT laws? 

Finally, we might ask social conservatives how they feel about our foreign wars and interventsions. Why ask about that? Because their belief in the equality of all men could be, at least partially, measured in their concern for the welfare of non-white civilians and whether it rivals their concern for the safety of American citizens and American troops.

When we address these three tests that would measure the claims that social conservatives literally believe that all people are created equal, we find that the pedestal built for social conservatives in this article is unwarranted. Thus Carter's claim that only social conservatives literally believe the words 'all men are created equal' seems to have insufficient grounds.