Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For August 31, 2022

Around Aug 22

To Chris Gordon and his article about his Reformed Catechism on Human Sexuality and its claims that statistically, there are not enough babies born as being intersex to merit a 3rd category for biological sex. This article appeared in the Abounding Grace Radio Blog.

Regarding those who are born indeterminate. About 1 in 1,000 babies are born intersex each year (see  https://www.webmd.com/parenting/baby/news/20190503/study-about-1-in-1000-babies-born-intersex  ). [Editor's note: other sources found later state that it is up to 1 out of every 2,000 babies who are born intersex. But that change in number does change the point being made]

About 1 in 5,000 male babies are born with Hemophilia A (see  https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/hemophilia/data.html  ). 

There are approximately 5,000 new cases of ALS per year. That is more than the number of babies who are born intersex each year but the numbers are somewhat comparable.

By the logic expressed above, either we don't need to categorize the diseases mentioned above or we need to include intersex as a biological sex. It is not unbiblical to count a third biological sex because we know that nature has fallen as a result of Adam's sin. And thus we know that the presence of a 3rd biological sex does not challenge what God's Word says about  God's original design. 

But to those who are born intersex, not counting that as a classification can feel like a partial denial of their existence. Having talked with some who are intersex, to partially deny their existence because they are not statistically significant is an affront to decency.

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

August 24

To Bradley G. Green and the part of his article that is quoted in a blogpost posted on Heidelblog. His article was about Critical Theory and Christianity.

Bradley G. Green's full article can be found at

https://americanreformer.org/2022/07/critical-theory-and-the-gospel/

It is understandable why some religiously conservative Christian leaders are so opposed to Critical Theory. It is because Critical Theory has gored some of their oxen. In particular, Critical Theory has fallibly but effectively been criticizing some of the fruits of Christendom in the world.

But more than that, like they see social sciences, some religiously conservative Christian leaders see Critical Theory as trespassing on their turf of telling people how to understand the world. So much of the attacks on Critical Theory by these Christian leaders show that they feel threatened by the likes of Critical Theory. Their fear is that members of their flock might incorporate some of what Critical Theory says about the world into their beliefs. 

The basic problem with much of the Christian criticism of Critical Theory is that it is based on the assumption that Christian Theology and Critical Theory operates in all of the same spheres. And thus much of the religiously conservative Christian criticism of Critical Theory seeks to first spiritualize what Critical Theory is saying about society and the world in order to discredit it. Green, in his full article  gives an outline of part of his criticism of Critical Theory. That outline consists of the following subjects: creation, sin, salvation, and eschatology. But when religiously conservative critics use such categories as a framework for their critique of Critical Theory, they imply that society and the world must revolve around Christianity like it use to during Christendom. The problem is that society and the world consists of unbelievers and believers who live in democracies.  And to assume or believe that society and the world must revolve around Christianity is to imply that the Church must have at least a paternalistic relationship with society and the world. 

The religiously conservative Christian view that society must revolve around Christianity points to religiously conservative Christianity's penchant for authoritarianism. Ironically enough, Critical Theorists have addressed addressed that in their finding on the authoritarian personality types. 

Basically, the critique of Critical Theory in the article quoted from above follows the same approach that religiously conservative Christians use on all other disciplines, secular ideologies, and secular theories which they see as infringing on their turf to be the sole interpreters of the world around us. That critique says that the only valuable insights and points that these  disciplines, ideologies, and theories can provide have already been expressed in Christian Theology. And so why bother paying attention to them. Thus, what these religiously conservative Christians are saying to their audiences that they have everything to teach the world and nothing to learn from it. Ironically, such an approach to the world is counterproductive in our carrying out of the Great Commission. That is because the world will see our attempts to control it before it hears our sharing of the Gospel.

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

August 25

To Alexander Salter and his article that states that American Democracy should be defended. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

The question posed by the title of the article begs the question that America has or has had a democracy. If we look at what makes up a democracy, the answer may not be to the liking of those who live privileged  lives.

Certainly universal citizenship and voting are necessary ingredients to democracy. But a quote from Jefferson's 1801 inaugural address also adds an essential ingredient to that list see  https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/jefinau1.asp  ):

All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression. Let us, then, fellow-citizens, unite with one heart and one mind.

During what time period of American history have we had equality for all minorities in our nation? If we are honest, we have to answer by saying that there has never been a time period in which America has not had at least some in the minority who have not been oppressed. Even today,  we still have systemic racism. But it isn't just racism that plagues us.  Many of the wealthy have experienced privileged treatment from the government and that has often occurred at the expense to those in the lower economic classes.

Like Gandhi's response to the question of what he thought of Western Civilization,  when we are asked about what we think of American Democracy, our answer should be the same: 'I think it would be a good idea.'

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

August 27

To Heidelblog and its post that quoted George Orwell's comment about the suppression of unpopular opinions. 

Should all unpopular views have the right to be expressed or do we need to  determine which ones can be expressed on a case by case basis? What about those views that express falsehoods that cause people to unnecessarily put themselves in harm's way? Or what about those views that use falsehoods to promote the oppression of others? Or what about denying the Holocaust in countries like Germany?

BTW, there is a bit of irony in the above post since Clark does not post all legitimate responses to the blogposts on this blog. Notice how Clark explicitly states that comments that 'irritate the management' of this blog will be deleted. The management does have the right to block or delete any comments. But to do so while posting articles and quotes that complain about the silencing of what are unpopular views to society is inconsistent.

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

August 27

To Joseph Pearce and his article that tries to distinguish good nationalism from bad nationalism. This article appeared on the Imaginative Conservative website.

I approach the subject of nationalism in a different way with some similarities. There is a good nationalism: nationalism that means self-rule. When the British ruled India, Gandhi and other promoted that kind of nationalism. That those from India should be able to exercise self-rule.

There is also the kind of nationalism that can become an example of tribalism. A post Cold War definition of tribalism says that it consists of a high degree of loyalty. That loyal can be to an ideology, ethnicity (here, ethnicity can include race, descent, language, national origin, and religion), economic class, or whatever else groups can unite around. The trouble with tribalism is that the higher degree of loyalty one has to the group, and in this case to one's nation,  the more one embraces a kind of moral relativity that says what is right and wrong depends on who does what to whom. 

For an example, we should consider what George H. W. Bush said after an Iranian airliner was shot down by a U.S. naval warship (see https://www.tasnimnews.com/en/news/2018/12/01/1888454/george-hw-bush-after-shootdown-of-iranian-airliner-by-us-navy-i-never-apologize-for-us  ):

'I will never apologize for the United States — I don't care what the facts are... I'm not an apologize-for-America kind of guy”'

See, loyalty to a nation can be good but only if it is held in check. For the greater the loyalty one has to a group, the nation in this case, the more one is disabled from objectively looking at one's own group. The more loyal one is, the harder it is for one to see the wrong that one's group has done. 

Consider also what was called Obama's 'Apology Tour.' Obama, while overseas, denounced some of what America had done in the past. This enraged conservatives because they viewed any such admission of America wrongdoing was betrayal.

By seeing nationalism as a form of tribalism, not only do we see more of nationalism's true dangers, we can get a better idea of why nationalism can go wrong. It goes wrong when there is too much loyalty. And the more personal significance we gain from associating with a group, one's nation in this case, the more loyal one becomes to that group.

As for patriotism, I view it as a religion. I view patriotism as the opiate for nationalism.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For March 8, 2017

March 1

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost message to the Millennial Christians and their concerns with Social Justice and how that compared to the concerned baby boomers had during the 60s. This appeared in Heidelblog.

Half thoughts are really presented here in order to push Clark's opinion. We should note that not all on the left believed in utopia. Some believed in just trying to improve what was there. But one of those who did believe in working toward a utopia was Martin Luther King Jr. So how much of his  thinking should we discard because of his utopian beliefs?

Another half though is that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is not a social gospel. What should be implied from that statement? Should the Church make no statements or efforts to bring about social justice because the Gospel is not a social gospel? The statement and the question show what has been overlooked about what the Gospel says about social justice. For certainly the Gospel cannot be reduced to bringing social justice. But it is just as much of a mistake to think that the Gospel has nothing to do with social justice either.

For what is the Gospel? It tells us that we can be forgiven of our sins and receive a new life by believing in Jesus. To do that, the Gospel must preach against sins. Certainly, no conservative worth their weight in theology would neglect to tell those who are engaged in sexual sin to repent of such sin. And yet, when it comes to our active participation or silent complicity in societal and state sins, how many conservatives worth their weight in theology would preach that we must repent of supporting such sins?

One difference in the two kinds of sins here is that while personal sins like sexual sins affect just a small group of people, societal and state sins hurt far more people. And those who are involved in such sins need to hear a message saying to stop and change and ask for forgiveness as much as we need to hear the same message regarding our personal sins.

We should also note that when we fail to preach against societal and state sins, we align the Church behind those with wealth. The Church has done that before during the pre revolutionary times in France, Russia, and Spain and has brought dishonor to the Gospel when having done so. Here we should ask whether those with positions of influence in the Church today who suppress people's efforts to preach against wealth and power are acting from the same motivation as Baby Boomers do when they demand a quiet life in the suburbs.

BTW, we should note something about Reagan's stimulation of the economy. That he did it partially through attacking unions. And one only needs to look at wealth disparity in the US to see if it increased or decreased during and after his presidency. We should also look at his foreign policies in particular his support of people like Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and right-wing armies, paramilitaries, and terrorists who committed gross crimes in Central America. For it seems that what Clark accuses Millennials of doing when they mix social concerns with the Gospel is what some Christian leaders do when they back conservative politics so strongly.

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

March 2

To Joe Carter and his blogpost stating that the transgender issue is a public battle for reality where losing brings dire consequences. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

Certainly reality is an issue in the transgender debate, but it isn't the only issue. Another issue that comes into play is how will we religiously conservative Christians share society with those who have different views of reality than we have? And that question has come into play way before elementary school teachers would have thought about contradicting the idea that sex can occur outside of a monogamous heterosexual relationship. BTW, Carter's claim about what elementary school teachers would not being willing to contradict 50 years ago is just noise. Why? First, because such teachers would not be discussing sex in class 50 years ago. And second, if we are speaking about what teachers believe and would say outside the classroom and school, there is no way to prove this claim.

We could go back to the debate on evolution to see that there are people who view reality differently than we do. Segregation was another such issue that divided people according to how they saw reality. And so the other question comes into play: How will we share society with people who view reality differently than we do? Coexisting as equals is one such option. Certainly we could share society with those who believe in evolution as equals. We could give a voice to both sides in society and school.

But the live and let live approach does not always work and the belief/nonbelief in segregation shows why. To allow those who believe in segregation to have their way, one must impose on the rights of those who don't believe. That is because to allow segregation to hold sway, we must violate the rights of those who don't.

Certainly some Christians feel that their rights and, perhaps, safety are infringed on when they must share a bathroom with those who identify with the other gender than the one they are born with. At the same time, transgender students feel like their rights are violated when they can't use the facilities of the gender they identify with. Yes, we Christians can point to a physical reality. But should we let that physical reality drown out the voices and feelings of those who identify with the other gender? Since we don't really know what is going on in their minds of transgender students, perhaps a much more nuanced approach than the one recommended above or the one insisted on by transgender students should be searched for. After all, taking a more nuanced approach respects the positions of both sides without having to agree with a side. And then we can see whether we have opened the Pandora's box envisioned by the writer of the article.

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

March 7

To Alexander Salter and his blogpost using ethics to support his preference for free trade over protectionism. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

When the writer introduced the idea of introducing ethical concerns in economics when discussing free trade vs protectionism, I held hope for the article. But the following statement dashed all such hope:

I am a free trader. My reasons have nothing to do with economic efficiency. Instead, I rely on a simple maxim—a heuristic, if you will—for what I believe is sound public policy: It is wrong and harmful to prevent benefits accruing to the general public due to fears about the costs borne by a relatively small subset of the public.

For the ethics put on display for the writer's argument for free trade is nothing more than a bottom-line, ends justify the means argument. But it is more than just that, the actual loss of jobs that actually increases the supply of workers for lower pay jobs is more than just a fear; it is a reality. Let alone, the loss of manufacturing, textile, and now information technology jobs  affects more than just a small subset of the people. All of this actually affects a larger percentage of people than the writer either is aware of or willing to admit.

But it is the basic ethic that is unacceptable. What if the general public is benefiting from paying a subset of the population poverty wages, is that ethical? Or what if the general public is benefiting from even slave labor, is that ethical? What we do know is that our general public is benefiting from foreign slave and sweatshop labor? Is such ethical since those people are invisible to us?

In addition, certain assumptions are made about protectionism. For example, Salter declares an absolute truth by begging the question of the statement on which it is made:

There are a host of other reasons to oppose protectionism. Peace between nations is one. A quote attributed to Bastiat goes, “When goods don’t cross borders, soldiers will.”

When the US and UK used protectionism to develop certain industries, did war result from it? What we do know is that conflict can come from forcing free trade on nations where the leaders of those other nations benefit but the people don't.

One thing is for sure, this article shows a shortsightedness in economics as much as it does in ethics. For not only is a bottom-line ethic espoused that  makes the free trade economies of the richest nations resemble the backdrop of what existed in the Hunger Games movie series, the only stakeholders of free trade recognized by this writer are some of the stakeholders of one's own nation. In this sense, it seems that Salter is a nation-first, free trader. And here, the issue isn't whether he should favor protectionism over free-trade. The issue is the ethical argument he uses to support his case.

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

To Joe Carter and his blogpost that opposes increasing the minimum wage. This appeared in the Acton blog.

Carter offers a within the system look at the cost of raising the minimum wage. And it is a limited within the system look at that for it only considers the choices faced by those who employ, not by those who are employed in low wage jobs.  And because Carter views the minimum wage issue from within the system, he lacks any ability to view the system from the outside, to view the system from any ethical perspective. That is because to view the system from the inside alone ends up with us equating reality with the system and thus any bucking of the system is a denial of reality. And part of that reality is that the wages that Carter insists should not be raised are poverty wages that make employees dependent on gov't assistance to survive. And that means us taxpayers are subsidizing the payrolls of companies that pay poverty wages.

The real concern that any Christian should have over this issue is what is right for all of the participants. Is it right for the employers and business owners to treat and pay employees from a self-interest perspective alone? Doesn't such a perspective cause an employer or business owner to relegate one's employees to that of being disposable objects? And doesn't relegating people to be disposable objects deny the intrinsic value of those employees? And is it Christian for us to only view the plight of employers and business owners  without challenging the notion that the decisions of employers and business owners are to be guided by self-interest alone? Is acting from self interest alone the basic ethical principle we learn from the Scriptures? And we can only face questions like these if we are willing to look at the system from the outside the system, rather than from the inside.

Here, Carter aligns himself with employers and business owners. In other words, Carter aligns himself with wealth and he is not alone. Much of conservative Protestantism aligns itself with wealth. And in doing so, these Christians are simply repeating the mistakes made by the Church. For in the pre revolutionary times of France, Russia, and Spain, the predominant branch of the Church in those countries also aligned themselves with wealth and with power. So that when the revolutions came, revolutionaries could only see the Church as being an enemy and this brought great dishonor the Gospel.

As Christians align themselves with either the domestic side of neoliberalism as seen with President Trump's efforts to cut taxes and regulations or the foreign face of neoliberalism as seen in free trade, they align themselves with wealth as the Church has mistakenly done in the past. And while these Christians rant and rail against the personal sins of people, they discredit the Gospel by turning blind eye to the sins of the economic system they have come to embrace and a deaf ear to the cries of the stakeholders of that system who are exploited. They also live in denial of the fact that when those with wealth are allowed to make decisions based on on self interest alone, society becomes more corrupt and its economic system becomes corrosive.