Comments Which Conservatives Blocked From Their Blogs For June 12, 2024

May 5

To R. Scott Clark and his article that talks about the real problems and conflicts behind the scenes of the world we live in. In that article, he made a questionable statement that described the status of our world. The article appeared in Heidelblog.

The least we can do when lamenting the problems of the day is to be accurate and fair. But both seem to be missing to some degree in the above article.

'Undergraduates openly calling for the slaughter of Jews, the widespread use of chemical abortifacients, the transgender madness (now magically embedded into Title IX, an act of Congress, by executive order), and seemingly unchecked crime and violence in American cities'

We should note that the first and last items of lament are exaggerations. How many undergrads are calling for the murder of Jews compared how many are protesting the slaughter of Palestinians by Israel's IDF. In fact, there is no concern for the plight of the Palestinians in Scott's article.

Regarding the last item, the FBI reported that violent crime, including murder was down in 2023 compared to 2022. Homicides were down 13%.

And scientists are discovering some physical causes for gender dysphoria. So how much of the transgender craze is really madness?

We need to be more accurate and fair in reporting the status of our world today. Failure to do so could hurt our credibility when preaching the Gospel

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

May 18

To Bill Reddinger and Part 2 of his two part series on Christian ideas that help us be  moderate in our politics. This appeared on the Heidelblog

Radical and Moderate, like conservative and liberal are relative measurements. For example, what was conservative in America during the Cold War was liberal in the Soviet Union. Therefore, being radical or moderate implies nothing about our views.

In addition, it's not whether a position is radical or not that is the problem, it is whether a person believe that they are superior to others to the extent that they believe that they have no need to listen to others.

There are at least 2 areas where this belief in one's own superiority takes place. One is intellectual superiority. This occurs when one believes that they themselves or their own group is so superior to others that they have no need to listen to others. They feel entitled to be the leaders. In fact, they get irritated when someone with different views tries to contribute to a discussion.

The other superiority is spiritual/moral superiority. Here a person believes that they themselves or their own group are spiritually and/or morally superior to others. Here, one can think of the Pharisee from the parable of the two men praying (see Luke 18:9-14) for an example. Note how the Pharisee looked down on the tax collector. This sense of spiritual/moral superiority moves us try to silence those whom we dislike by discrediting them. When we feel spiritually/morally superior to others, we forget that neither is there a day when it is safe to pray like the Pharisee nor a day when we don't need to pray like the tax collector. When we think that we are spiritually/morally superior to others we forget how Romans 2 and James 2 reminds us that either we are in the same boat as the people we judge because we either commit the same sins that they do (see Romans 2) or we commit different sins (see James 2).

When we recognize our ties to others rather than believe that there are areas where we are better than others, it has a moderating effect both on what we say and how we say it. Recognizing our ties to others help keep our ideas more within the realm of reality and prevent us from being too radical in how we express those views.

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

To Heidelblog T. David Gordon and the part of his article on Tocqueville and his view of American exceptionalism which was quoted in Heidelblog. Gordon tries to show that Tocqueville had an ore negative view of America and its exceptionalism. This appeared in Heidelblog.

The article cited:

https://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2023/10/alexis-de-tocqueville-and-american-exceptionalism-exegeting-tocqueville/

In the article cited by the above blog post, the writer reinterprets a Tocqueville statement on America from being a compliment to that of being a criticism. And thus America did not provide a positive reflection on democracy, a form of government and society which Tocqueville preferred. So America's exceptionalism was a negative indicator rather than a positive one.

If democracy means the 'rule of the people,' then how can one have democracy without equality? But if Tocqueville saw equality in America during that time, then he was overlooking the plight of Native Americans, blacks, and women, to name a few.

So if because we don't have equality, we don't have democracy, then what has America been since 1776? Jeff Halper's distinction between technocracies and democracies might help us what America has been and still is (see pg 74 of Jeff Halper's <I>An Israeli In Palestine: resisting Dispossession, Redeeming Israel</I>):

'<b>An ethnocracy is the opposite of a democracy, although it might incorporate some elements of democracy such as universal citizenship and elections. It arises when one particular group—the Jews in Israel, the Russians in Russia, the Protestants in pre-1972 Northern Ireland,  the whites in apartheid South Africa,  the Shi’ite Muslims of Iran, the Malay of Malaysia and, if they had their way, the white Christian fundamentalist in the US—seizes control of the government and the armed forces in order to enforce a regime of exclusive privilege over other groups in what is in fact a multi-ethic or multi-religious society. Ethnocracy, or ethno-nationalism, privileges ethnos over demos. whereby one’s ethnic affiliation, be it defined by race, descent, religion, language or national origin, takes precedence over citizenship in determining to whom a country actually “belongs.” Israel is referred to explicitly by its political leaders as a “Jewish Democracy.”</b>'

Halper's distinction between ethocracy and democracy adds more criticisms to America than what the cited article claimed that Tocqueville was giving to America at that time. That perhaps, Tocqueville didn't understand what democracy was about, which is quite understandable for his time. 

But we also need to add that because of Tocqueville's admiration for British society, perhaps Tocqueville was using British society as his canon for measuring how advanced a society is. That though Tocqueville saw the American experiment as being detrimental for any positive claims one would want to make about democracy because of the lack of advancement in American society, Tocqueville was being unfair in his evaluation of the American experiment. Tocqueville was being unfair because he took for granted Britain's age and thus its time to development vs America's. That is a point that the writer of the article directs our attention to.

Therefore, any conclusions about democracy in society cannot be confidently reached by the comparison of America to Europe. First, there was no equality in America and thus it was not a true democracy during Tocqueville's time. Second, Tocqueville was comparing a just born nation with nations that were middle age if not old. Their stages of development were in two different times.

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

May 19

To Russell Hittinger and his article on the failure of liberal humanism and the importance of basing a nation on Catholicism. His article appeared on the Imaginative Conservative blog.

If liberal humanism includes democracy with equality, then we must ask the question of whether liberal humanism has failed us or have we failed liberal humanism. For what we see when we look at when religion dominates society is a pervasiveness of intolerance and a domination of the other, of those who are different. At least, that is what Church History teaches us. And seems not to matter which branch of the Church is in control over a given region.

Those who call for the dominance of religion are like those who support Trump for President in 2024. For those who support Trump for President do so regardless of Trump's history. It matters not why they support Trump for President. It matters not whether they are true believers in Trump or they just oppose Biden, Trump left the nation in shambles when he was voted out of office.  Trump's bungled responses to Covid, his attempts to overthrow fairly elected new government, Trump's lies, Trump's racist descriptions of immigrants from South of the Border, his setting the future up for disaster by denying climate change, his divisiveness by denying systemic racism, his risking our future by his part in renewing the arms race, his threats to our nation's sovereignty by his friendships with and admiration of several dictators in the world, and his part in threatening our economic future by increasing deficit spending even before the Covid pandemic.

What does Church history tell us about religious dominance over a nation? It tells us of religious wars, inquisitions by both Protestants and Catholics, support for imperialism and colonialism, anti-Semitism, the acceptance of superstitions, and the oppression of those who don't believe. All of that was practiced during Christendom. Regardless of any contributions to the understanding of metaphysics, Church History does not speak well of religious dominance.

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

May 23

To David Hall and his article that calls the current protesters who are siding with Hamas the 4th Reich. This was posted on the Heidelblog website.

If the above is not hyperbole, I don't know what is. It isn't that Jewish anti-Semitism hasn't increased or isn't a problem. BTW, I believe that the ADL would tell us that Jewish anti-Semitism occurs in right-wing circles more than on leftist college campuses. But if the 2nd Reich had nothing to do with anti-Semitism, why should we name what's happening today the 4th Reich? Perhaps some so name this present time in order to incite fear and enflame fury against a favorite whipping boy in order to rally the troops.

We should note how the term anti-Semitism is wrongfully used. It is wrongfully used because it is selectively used. We should note that the Semite classification of people does not revolve around ancestry or race. The Semite classification is for people whose language comes from a specific group of languages. And therefore Jews are not the only Semites in town. Arabs, and that includes Palestinians,  and people from some African nations are Semites too. And yet, the term 'anti-Semitism is not used when prejudice and bigotry is expressed against Arabs or certain groups of people from Africa. Quite often prejudice and bigotry expressed against Arabs is called Islamaphobia. And do we associate the same shame that we do with Islamaphobia  as we do with anti-Semitism? BTW, one never has to worry about answering rhetorical questions.

By that, I don't mean that we should minimize what is now called anti-Semitism. But if we believe in equality, then we would either call prejudice and bigotry against any Semitic group of people 'anti-Semitism' or we would rank prejudices against other Semitic groups as being equally wrong as anti-Semitism.

BTW, something that is not well known amongst conservatives. Some of the most famous Pro-Palestinian college encampments are organized by a coalition of Jewish groups and other groups. That was the case at the Columbia University encampment which included an anti-Semitism workshop, Seder service, and, if memory serves, a joint prayer meeting. In addition, along with the encampments. increases in Islamaphobia have also been seen across college campuses. And so why wasn't that reported?

One final point, yes, Hamas is horrible. They want the land from the river to the sea for a pro Islamic Republic. And their means include committing horrific atrocities. But doesn't Modern Zionism want the same land, the land from the river to the sea, for its own people too? The Settlers I spoke to once outside a CUFI conference told me that they view the land that Palestinians live on as their, referring to the themselves, inheritance. Israel has sometimes denied the presence of its Occupation by asking how can one occupy its own territory. And during the Occupation, besides oppressing Palestinians, Palestinian land on the West Bank is being confiscated and annexed by Israel. And yet, none of that is reported by the above article.

Instead, the above article rightfully complains about those who support Hamas. But the same article neglects to report the full context of why some wrongfully side with Hamas. Instead, it seems to suggest that all of the pro Palestinian college encampments are pro-Hamas. Doing so is simply dishonest.

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

June 7

To T. David Gordon and his series of articles that opposes sending an overture regarding regarding transgender procedures for minors to the government. This was posted in the Heidelblog website.

Click here for Article #1

Click here for Article #2

Click here for Article #3

Just perhaps the WCF is the problem. I understand its position in Reformed denominations like the PCA. But when an argument is based solely on the WCF and not first on or even supplemented by the Scriptures, then doesn't that indicate that the WCF is put on too high a pedestal?

The problem I see with the WCF passages pertaining to the issue mentioned in the above article is that it prevents this portion of the Church from speaking prophetically to society and the state concerning corporate sin. Such produces a silence over perceived corporate sins. And as Martin Luther King Jr pointed out in his sermon against the Vietnam War, silence can be betrayal.

The problem I see in sending the above mentioned overture to the government--Civil Magistrate is an antiquated term--is that the Church has not put itself in the position to sufficiently understand the what science has to say about the issue. And so the overture can be based too much on ignorance even though I agree with the positive character assessment of the people responsible for the overture. And I would say the same about those who would support the above article.

We need to see that the Scriptures tell us to oppose sin, which is part of preaching the Gospel. The Old Testament prophets preached against the social sins of their time. And though we don't see much of that in the New Testament, one of the reasons could have been the context of that time. The average American citizen in today's world bears much more responsibility, due to our democratic form of government than citizens in the Roman Empire during the time of the Apostles.

By relying too heavily on the WCF in judging the sending of the Overture, we forget the disparity in the contexts of the time in which the WCF was written and now. To neglect that disparity in determining how the Church should interact with the government today is not a wise thing to do. Instead, adhering to the WCF 31.4 and other related passages in today's setting could indicate a blind obedience to the WCF and the placing of the WCF on too high a pedestal.

 

Is America A Donald Trump To The World?

As Americans, we’ve heard the claim over and over again: America is the greatest nation in the history of the world. The question has rhetorically been asked: What would the world be like without America? We brag about America ingenuity. And we call America the leader of the Free World. The last claim is a curious one since why would a free world need a leader and could a world with a leader be really free?

Or let’s compare the branding of products by both parties. ‘Made In America’ is proudly/pretentiously displayed on products made in this country with the implication that those products are superior to similar or the same products made elsewhere. Have we ever seen the TRUMP label proudly displayed not just on products that his businesses have produced, but on other products too?

Now we have a Presidential candidate who has claimed, in previous campaigns and during his Presidency, that he knows more about ______ than anyone else in the world. He has campaigned on the claim that only he can fix it—whatever it is. And he claims that Russia would have never invaded Ukraine under his watch.

In the past, America has acted unilaterally against those it sees as a threat and those that America claims have violated International Law. We should note that almost every single time, America doesn’t have to prove its accusations in any kind of objective, international setting. That is what is almost always meant by American Exceptionalism. That America is the judge of the world.

This America Exceptionalism assumes that America is not subject to International Law like the rest of the world is. And America will extend its self-proclaimed international immunity to its allies, especially Israel, because it can. In fact, America is now threatening to sanction the International Criminal Court because the Court seeks to put Israeli officials on trial for crimes against humanity over its actions in Gaza. Why can America do that? Because it says so. America can do whatever it wants because it assumes that it alone has the right, actually privilege, to operate by the Rule of Force, though American leaders rarely if even call it that. And it can do so,  rather than depend on the Rule of Law, because of its superiority to all other nations.

And when faced with a possible trial over the January 6 Insurrection of 2021, Trump and his lawyers claim that he should be immune to any criminal charges for any laws because he was President at the time. That the President should not be bound to our nation’s laws regardless of what he does as long as what he does is part of an official act. 

So do we see any similarities yet? If there are enough similarities between the two parties here, does the narcissism in one party mean that there is narcissism in the other? Does the belligerence in one party imply belligerence in the other? Does it follow that if there is arrogance in one party, then the other party is arrogant too? And if one party acts as an authoritarian ruler, is the other party far behind? Are the similarities between the two parties a coincidence or a cause and effect? Do we understand why Trump appeals to his MAGA followers?

If you are annoyed by Donald Trump or even feel threatened by the possibility of his reelection, can you understand why many parts of the world feel the same way about America? Certainly our allies don’t necessarily feel the same about America as many Americans feel about Donald Trump. At least their leaders do not express that kind of irritation. Some, if not many, of the citizens under those leaders may feel that way, but their leaders are silent. Their silence should remind us of what Martin Luther King Jr. told us in his speech against the Vietnam War when he told us that sometimes, silence is betrayal.

Is what America is to the world what Trump is to America? MAGA followers would celebrate such a comparison. For many of the rest of us, even considering the comparison would be a heart attack to our corporate self image. Of course, the first step in recovering from a problem is to admit one has a problem.

So we should note that during Trump’s Presidency and if he is elected again, karma can be a bitch. ‘That what goes around, comes around.’ That those who believe in American hegemony and exceptionalism have no one to blame but themselves should Trump wins the 2024 Presidential election and rule America the way he wants to. And if Trump escapes criminal sanctions for the crimes he has committed, karma can be a bitch. After all, when has America ever allowed itself to be accountable to the world for its actions? For it seems that Trump is 100% made in America. And so, just perhaps, for some Americans, the realization of what America has been and still is to the world will never be adequately realized until we suffer through an authoritarian Trump government when the gains made in equality for certain groups are thrown away into the ash heap of American history.

Karma can be a bitch, but it doesn’t have to be.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For September 19, 2018

Sept 18

To Joe Carter and his blogpost that cites an article on how to read The Constitution. This appeared in the Acton blog.

Having read the cited article, it seems that there is a missing part to how to understand The Constitution. Paulsen, the author of the article cited, talks about understanding the purpose and history of the writing of The Constitution. But while mentioning the historical context of the 14th Amendment as an example, he neglects to mention the historical context and reasons for writing The Constitution. The reasons for writing The Constitution was the need to respond to the widespread dissent over the then economic times and Shays Rebellion. That putting down the rebellion required the funding of a private militia. Thus, one of the major concerns that were addressed in The Constitution was the need for a federal force that could put down future insurrections. One only needs to look up all references to the Militia made in The Constitution, including the Bill of Rights to check the validity of that claim.

Some more context can be garnered by reading Henry Knox's letter to George Washington (see  https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/04-05-02-0095  ) and the Constitutional debates (see http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/yates.asp  ). Knox's letter shows the concern caused by the times and Shays Rebellion and the Constitutional debates recorded the conversations of the drafters that went into the writing of The Constitution.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Joseph Mussomelli and his blogpost that proclaims how we Americans should still claim American Exceptionalism provided that we follow his revisions. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

There is a huge problem with what is being proposed in the above article. That problem consists of the conjunction between the lessons of WW II and the idea that America is morally superior to others. The combination makes the George Washington form of American Exceptionalism untenable. That is because the belief in our moral superiority along with the perception of threats abroad, compel us to act independent of the cooperation of the UN. In addition, belief in American Exceptionalism itself disconnects us from the atrocities we have committed within our own nation.

American Exceptionalism blinds us to the decadence that justified carrying out Manifest Destiny and promoting white supremacy either in the form of slavery or Jim Crow. How did our ethnic cleansing of Native Americans not affect our notion of our own moral status in the world? We can talk about it only if we are allowed to converse with no sense of horror or shame. To converse with others in that way, we must at some point excuse the gross racism that permitted us to steal, or force Native Americans from, the land. That is often done by minimizing the humanity of Native Americans. So that the only atrocities we should be ashamed of are those committed in other lands. In other words, people of other ethnicities are recognized to be more human than the indigenous people of this continent.

And how should we feel about slavery and the subsequent Jim Crow? Should we not again hide our faces in guilt and shame or can we remain unaffected by the atrocities brought on by both because the Civil War was fought to free the slaves and the Civil Rights movement removed Jim Crow laws? And since our worse immoral crimes are in the past, isn't Mussomelli proposing that there is no sense in beating ourselves up over past. Is that what we would advise the Germans to do with their history of Nazism and all that followed that?

Either form of American Exceptionalism emotionally disconnects us from our past. That disconnect is most apparent in the Wilson intervention type of American Exceptionalism. But all of the necessary ingredients for carrying out the ugliest form of Exceptionalism are an integral part of the recommended, George Washington isolationist type of American Exceptionalism or Mussomelli's revised version of Exceptionalism still lead us to the ugliest form of Exceptionalism. That should be clear by how Mussomelli whitewashes some of our past such as our interventions in Cuba and the Philippines from decades ago.

Finally, why insist on being Exceptional in the first place? Is it because of our religious history that Mussomelli wants us to feel compelled to claim superiority over all others? Or is that insistence on being exceptional is because of a belief in racial superiority of Europeans and Western Civilization? Why insist on being exceptional when our religious heritage contains the parable of the two men praying where the person who claimed to be exceptional was rejected by God? Perhaps the reason why Mussomelli insists on America claiming to be exceptional is because it is the only remaining argument that can be used to prevent America from changing the way it has been.

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

To Emily Kleinen and her blogpost on how we try to distract ourselves from the finality of death, the eternal, and God by our earthy pursuits. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

The article well describes a hospice way of living. That is that we seek to be comfortable until the end comes The hospice way of living is a living for oneself and it certain denies the eternal and God.

However, Reformed theologian Francis Schaeffer, a while back ago, warned us that this hospice way of living, which he described as making a god out of the pursuit of personal peace and prosperity, also afflicts Christians who also have their eyes on the eternal and on God.

The point being that this hospice way of living is not just motivated out of a desire to distract ourselves from death, the eternal, and God, it can also be motivated out of a pure addiction to the material world. In that case godliness becomes a search for being selfishly righteous. That is we live for ourselves as long as we avoid breaking certain taboos.

Regardless of the motivation, what is lost is what the Old Testament talked about such as in Psalms 103 where the Psalmist mentions many of the benefits God grants us and what the New Testament saw the fulfillment of. And perhaps the reason for people losing track of what the Scriptures say is because of our weaknesses in the face of such strong temptations.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For October 12, 2016

Oct 7

To Joseph Mussomeli and his blogpost that requested a revised definition for American Exceptionalism due to the abuses that have come from interventions based on the term. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.


This article on American Exceptionalism has some good points especially on the failures of American interventionism. And the suggestions on how to avoid the pitfalls of both isoloationism and interventionism show progress over the foreign policy principles that both Republican and Democratic Presidents have been following. But in the end, shouldn't we dismantle the term altogether? For the form of American Exceptionalism promoted by Washington and Adams allowed for the 'infant empire,' Washington's term to describe America, to expand and mature while flying under the radar of the saltwater test used to define an empire. For how was our conquest of our part of North America different from the Nazi attempt to conquer Europe or North Korea's attempt to take South Korea? And wasn't our conquest based on the doctrine of Manifest Destiny and thus a form of American Exceptionalism?

The only way to escape the American Exceptionalism trap is to not only submit to international law as all other nations should, but to change the structure of the UN so that there is no Security Council so that all resolutions are determined democratically. That includes the resolving of our grievances against others subject to the UN and/or the ICC. Such an approach becomes the only true alternative between isolationism and interventionism.

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

To Joe Carter and his blogpost that contradicts the notion that having great wealth is evil. His blogpost cites an article written by Dylan Pahman. This appeared in the Acton blog.

In trying to explain why wealth in and of itself is not evil, It's odd that, with all of his Biblical expertise, Dylan Pahman did not reference I Timotthy 6:10 in his article cited by Carter. Paul wrote the following to Timothy:

For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.

Along with the Scriptures referred to by Pahman in his article cited by Carter, the above Scripture verse should move us to seek a middle ground between the belilef that wealth is evil and the belief that being wealthy can be good. It's the 'love of money' is what is labeled as being evil. With that being the case, where does that put the Christian who is seeking wealth? Is the Christian seeking a treasure that could undo his/her faith? The quote from I Timothy seems to indicate that could be the case.

We should note that the love of money can be implemented by both how we set out to make money as well as what we refrain from sharing with others. The presence of rich believers to whom Pahman refers in his article shows that having wealth is not necessarily evil. And that is a Biblical answer. However, what we need to explore is not whether the mere possession of wealth is wrong, but whether seeking great wealth is wrong. Is there a kind of seeking that is honored by the Scriptures? What kind of seeking for wealth shipwrecks our faith? These are the questions that should have been asked and answered in the first place. 

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

Oct 10

To Tim Keller and his blogpost on what Christians can do to help restore civility in the public square. This appeared in the Gospel Coalitiioon website.

There is a missing ingredient here regarding creating a tolerant and civil culture and society. And that ingredient comes from the Scriptures. It comes from the parable of the two men praying. Part of the lesson from that parable is somewhat covered when Keller states that we Christians should admit to having failed in building such a culture and society by our attempts to marginalize groups. 

But there is more to the parable of the two men praying than just admiting past failures. If we still believe that we are superior to others, then no amount of confessing past failures removes us from playing the role of the pharisee from the parable. For while we might admit to some past failures, our eyes will still be focused on how we compare with others and our minds will continue to entertain delusions of righteousness about ourselves which gives us permission to lord our principles over others. 

A model of thought that Keller developed in his book Center Church could be adapted for society to promote civility. That model thought showed a 2-D grid where Keller identified a Christian group in each of the 4 quadrants of the grid according to what each group believed in how the Church should interact with society. And what was great about that model is that Keller listed the strengths and weaknesses of each group of Christians including the strengths of groups other than his own and the weaknesses of the group he most identified with. Perhaps we should do the same here and list the strengths and weaknesses of each group in society so that we could better notice the contributions that are made by others and the problems caused by us. Such a listing puts checks on any group's desire to rule over and marginalize others.

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

Oct 11

To Joe Carter and his blogpost on why the free market should be called the 'initiative-centered economy.' This appeared in the Acton blog.

Here is what the free market should be called: 'Privilege-oriented economy.'  Why? Because what free market apologists say is that the government should take a hands off approach to the market. That message is universal regardless of the kind of government that is in place. Thus, to those governments that act as working democracies, free market apologists say to the people in society: 'take your hands off the economy.' Thus, a free market economy says that the people in given society cannot make rules that would govern how owners in the free market relate to the rest of society. Thus, some of the owners become a privileged group in any society where a substantially free market exists. 

And, according to how the free market works, it is the dollar that determines the value of both the free market and its participants. How people treat each other is not an issue for the free market provided that  "rights" are not violated. How the environment is impacted is not an issue for the free market. And so workers and other stakeholders can be exploited and the environment can be harmed in any economy that employs a free market system. And why is that the case? Because the free market exists when government, even democracies, take their hands off the market. 

The free market not only allows for the consolidation of wealth, but it also allows for the consolidation of what follows wealth which is power forthe  elite owners in the free mearket. And what follows that consolidation of power is government interference in the free market for the purpose of keeping the status quo for the sake of the elite owners. And once we understand that, we understand why The Constituion was written. For The Constitution was written in response to dissent and Shays Rebellion so that our federal government could more effectively respond to future insurrections. One only needs to see all of the Constitutional references to the Militia to see evidence pointing to that interpretation of The Constitution.

Some evidence that supports the above statements can be found in the recent treatment of the TPP by the Obama administration. President Obama has attempted to fast track the legislation that would move the US to join the TPP. Here we should note that one of the provisions of the TPP is that if a government passes a law or laws that could or actually do interfere with corporate profits, that corporation, regardless of the national origin of that corporation, can sue the government passing those laws.  And that lawsuit would be heard in a tribunal constructed by the TPP rather than the courts of the given nation that passed such laws.  In addition, we should note that governments are not allowed to sue corproations under the TPP structure. Such shows what was said above about how power follows wealth so that those who have power can maintain a privileged status over the people of a society even if it isn't their own society. 

Preparing For The Fourth Of July

A week from yesterday will be July 4th. That is the day where we celebrate our independence as a nation, a nation that is alleged to believe in fairness, equality, justice, and opportunity. And when we slip up in the present, we can always resort to the past to set our ways straight.

But like the present, the past ain't what it use to be. Anyone who has read a balanced list of sources about the past can shout 'AMEN.' When we step back and observe how we celebrate the Fourth of July, we should note it has much in common with the other holidays we celebrate in that they are crafted so we can feel good or better about ourselves. On Thanksgiving Day, we feel good or better about ourselves by engaging in gluttony. We make ourselves feel better on Christmas by utilizing crass consumerism. And New Year's Eve and Day we use hope for the coming year and resolutions to feel better about ourselves. On Memorial Day, we prove ourselves by how we honor those who have given their lives in our nation's wars and interventions. As for next week, we will feel good by association as we honor the "independent" spirit of America as demonstrated by our nation's Founding Fathers.

This need, or compulsion, to feel good about ourselves, however, silences important but disturbing voices from history just as it silences the still small voice of our consciences. So we try to celebrate unincumbered by ignoring how our lives and freedom have affected others. This is no more true than when we celebrate our nation's past  and build pedestals for our Founding Fathers so it will be easier to pay homage to them. And to  the extent that we can celebrate their achievements and honor them, we feel connected to them and thus feel better about ourselves.

And yet, history's voices can never really be silenced as disturbing as they may be. Frederick Douglass's speech on what July 4th meant to slave documents this (click here).  For while Douglass praises the accomplishments of those from America's past, he notifies his audience that he has no share in their glory and thus in their joy. Why?  It is becuase of how his people have been treated. They were ripped away from their families and stolen from their homelands so that they could wear chains and live in the service of others. And if they objected, they were beaten and tortured. If they misbehaved like others, they received harsher penalties--much like today. For while the White Americans of his time, as well as our own, congratulated themselves for how they treated each other, they lived in deep denial for how they treated others.

History tells us that we need to listen, about the barbarity that America's European settlers showed to people of color: to Blacks as well as to Native Americans. Though we know how true this history is, our compulsion to feel good has often prevents us from being fully connected with the past. And while we tolerate our own disconnection with our past, we would never allow others to enjoy such a disconnect. For how would we react to Germans who no longer felt obligated to remember the Holocaust with sadness and a sense of shame. And yet, despite the fact that we had to ethnically cleanse Native Americans from what would become our portion of the continent and use slaves to help build our economy, we often feel offended if someone would suggest that we should include remorse when remembering the past. And what is more disturbing is that both Native Americans and Blacks still suffer from the effects of their ancestors' past while we try to forget past sins.

But today is unlike Douglass's day in that we have spread the suffering around the world by intervening in 50-plus nations with over 30 of them being democracies. And the result of many of those intrusions into the democracies of others have led to dictatorships. And yet, we feel strongly led to still declare that our nation is a 'city upon a hill.' Of course, that declaration is only meant for those who are like us and who share our values. For we now refrain from so flattering our nation because of those others who have infiltrated our nation and have corrupted it. Considering that in 2013, polls showed that America was seen as posing the greatest threat to peace in the world, perhaps we should take the cue for how we are to celebrate our past and present  from others who clearly see what we really look like.

This World Is Not Big Enough For Both Exceptionalism And Justice, Amongst Other Things

In chapter 2 of his book, Fear's Empire: War, Terrorism, And Democracy (click here for book reference), the book's author, Benjamin Barber, makes two important points about American Exceptionalism. His first point is that America is not the only nation to claim to be exceptional. The French have done, the Germans have done it, and even the Swiss have done it, as well as much of the rest of the world. This makes claiming to be special normal.

His second point is that the belief of America's people in their own exceptionalism has kept us in a state of innocence of sorts regarding America's ventures both on this continent and in the rest of the world. By innocence, what is meant is that many of us Americans are either oblivious to or in denial of what America has really done to others both here and abroad. This innocence not only enables many us to justify America's use of force even when self-defense was not involved; it makes proving to us that our nation has been wrong near impossible when we believe that our nation has been following its original principles. That is because with America being so special,  it normally has higher reasons than what other nations have for using force. It also allows other of us Americans to believe that America should practice some sort of isolationalism lest it becomes corrupted by the rest of the world.

The point here is that believing in the exceptionalism of our nation from its beginnings with the founding fathers allows us to assume our innocence rather than having to prove it.

What all of this shows is a link between the belief in the exceptionalism of one's own nation and the acceptance of the use of the rule of force. That is because those who believe in the exceptionalism of their own nation assume that how it treats others is just regardless of the evidence. In fact, to bring up evidence of wrongdoing to people who believe in the exceptionalism of their own nation is to sometimes court abuse if not martyrdom.

This lack of awareness of the sins and immoral acts practiced by one's own nation or, in short, its reliance on the rule of force rather than the rule of law is a normal condition for those who believe in exceptionalism. The rule of law is what the exceptional nation tries to force those inferior nations into following even when the rule of force is needed to do so.

Of course, to rely on the rule of force in a time when the proliferation of WMDs is inevitable is to do more than flirt with being bad, it also tests the ability of all nations to survive. That is because the continued use of the rule of force will invariably cause conflicts between nations or entities that have access to WMDs. And once there is the use of WMDs, there is no guaranteed way of stopping their use.

The problem is here is that belief in the exceptionalism of one's own nation does not just provide a hunting license on the rest of mankind, it is a siren call. Heeding its call brings makes people happy with themselves. 

However, we must face at least two sets of realities here. Because believing in the exceptionalism of one's own nation is natural, it is realistic to expect from the people of many nations. It not only gives people a license to mistreat others with impunity even from one's conscience, it gives people a reason to feel secure and makes them feel good. But such a belief  also not only allows for people to run roughshod over justice, it threatens everyone's future.

We especially see this belief in one's exceptionalism in those purists who call on their fellow countrymen to return to what made their naition so great. This shows another cost of believing in one's own exceptionalism: it shows a puritanical leaning that gives people to be intolerant of those not towing the original line.

We are soon entering a season when celebrating the specialness of America is not just in season, it is expected from all of its citizens. Yes, it is realistic to expect people to believe in their exceptionalism, but, again, there is another set of realities that come with believing in one's exceptionalism. It isn't that there is nothing to celebrate about America; it is whether we will balance that desire to celebrate our nation and ourselves with the knowledge of  the negative realities that comes with too much celebration, a.k.a., the belief in our exceptionalism, brings to ourselves, our neighbors, and the world.

Comments Which Conservative Block From Their Blogs For March 16, 2016

March 2

To Joe Carter and his blogpost whether Christians should vote when we have factions in our political system. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

A few comments here. The Constitution allows for geographical factions to be represented in government. But since the vocation of a very large majority of our representatives are either public servants (politicians with no other skills), lawyers, or business people the vast majority of us go underrepresented or even unrepresented in government when we consider our vocational interests. Such a representation would have occurred in the USSR if Lenin had not dismantled the soviets because his lust for power and his paranoia.  Soviets were workers' councils where the members are voted into the position by their peers and they used democratic processes to make decisions.

Second, yes the President is in charge of the military so that the gov't can provide the nation with security.  But the President can cause the nation to be at risk in other ways than to not employ the military for our defense. When the President employs the military to intervene in other nations and control or even remove other governments, the President has placed us at risk for retaliation. That retaliation  came true on 9-11. And the atrocities of 9-11 were a response for past American atrocities or our enabling of atrocities by others.

Finally, if we are going to make democracy work, we have to be able to escape many of the factions that separate us from others who are different. Otherwise, our factionalism becomes nothing more than tribalism and we, in various situations, adopt a gang warfare mentality that says what is right and wrong depends on who does what to whom.


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

To Don Carson and his blogpost on whether we should call for justice. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

Anyone who has a sufficient understanding of their sins and their place before God, modifies how they call for justice. It is not necessary for such people to want vindication. In fact, such peope who call for justice are concerned with two things: the cessation of injustice and reconciliation. 

Wanting reconciliation instead of vindication allows us to be more consistent in our call for justice. And our call for justice is important for two reasons. First the obtaining of justice ends the unrighteous suffering of ourselves and others. Second, to call for justice is not just to try to help the victim, it is an effort to call the victimizers to repentance.

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

March 5

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost vide on the job of government but is really about exalting the conservative view of American Exceptionalism. This appeared in Heidelblog

What I've noticed about American Conservatives is that there an obsession and compulsion to praise themselves. This is most evident here in the praising of The Constitution and its writers. And writers are often described mythologially as a monolith even though they were neither mythical nor a monolith. And surprisingly enough, such an approach to The Constitution and its writers is an authoritarian approach.  It's authoritarian in that only those who hold to the Conservative mythological view of our founders and The Constitution are counted as valid interpreters of The Constitution while others can be ignored, at the least, or even counted as a saboteur and enemy of the state. So the exceptionalism that is being preached here is not just American Exceptionalism, it is the exceptionalism of conservatism.

We should note what prompted the writing of The Constitution: widespread dissent and Shays Rebellion. Don't believe me? All one has to do to perhaps see my point is to  list all of the references to the militia that are in The Constitution and then add the 2nd Amendment. For the 2nd Amendment couches the right to bear arms in the context of the need for a militia. And, according to The Constitution, the militia was to be armed and supported by Congress, was under the leadership of the President, and its jobs were to repel invasions and put down insurrections.

The Constitutional debates yield even more information. For there was a new kind of aristocracy that was to be supported by The Constitution. This new kind of aristocracy was not based on the privileges provided by one's birth. Rather it was based on one's economic class. And what the writers of The Constitution wanted to do with its document was to preserve the status quo for the benefit of the landed interests. Here we should note that for all of the bragging of the exceptional nature of our founding fathers and The Constitution, the majority were slaveholders who wanted to expand westward regardless of the fact that such would mean the continued displacement of Native Americans.  Now if we add to that that only 5% of the population could vote after the ratification of The Constitution and that 55 consisted of landowners, one has to wonder how any group could put our founding fathers on the pedestal that the Conservatives have when they engaged in ethnic cleansing, holding slaves, and restricting the right to vote. In fact, It was Madison who expressed fear at the thought of elections being opened up to all classes of people in England. He expressed that fear during the Constitutional debates.

Those who have embraced the exceptionalism of conservatism, because of conservatism's constant practice of self-exaltation have most probably joined a cult. And those Christians who have joined this cult can now be considered to be polytheists.

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

March 14

To Joe Carter and his blogpost criticizing the Georgia governor’s attempt to use the scriptures to show that Christian businesses should be allowed to refuse to provide goods and services to same-sex marriages. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website. 

With the line of thought employed by Carter here, then Christians opposing integration during Jim Crow for religious reasons had their consciences wrongfully infringed on when the gov't worked to end Jim Crow. 

We have to realize that in society, the conscience has only a sphere of sovereignty, it is not autonomous. And what is and is not included in that sphere of the conscience should be determined on a case by case basis. Certainly, religion should not be used to violate the legitimate rights of others. Some would point out the abortion issue and a women's right to choose as an objection to that line of thinking. The problem there is that such an objection assumes that the unborn have no rights. And thus once recognizing that the legitimate rights of the unborn, then the state should have the right to protect those rights against the individual choices based on conscience made by those seeking abortion. 

It is one thing if the state was protecting religious institutions from having to provide public services to those functions that it could not participate in in good conscience. But that isn't the case here. The issue here is whether Christians business owners have the right to deny goods and services to same-sex marriages, not just weddings, in a Capitalist economy? Here, Christian business owners need to adequately explain why such participation is a true violation of conscience and not an attempt to marginalize the LGBT community in society. So far, I have not heard any legitimate explanations that show it is a true violation.

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

March 15

To Denny Burk and his blogpost citing Russell Moore’s voting philosophy which consisted of voting for 3rd party candidates when the candidates from the 2 major parties offer no legitimate moral option. This appeared in Denny Burk’s blog.

Though I don't fully agree with Moore's approach,I respect it for it shows independence and conviction. And we need more truely independent voters like Moore.

Though I am pro-life, I no longer use a stand on abortion litmus test in voting. Why? Because tthere are multiple issues that should be associated with pro-life that are not. With some of these issues,  at least one of the alternatives would move us closer to destroying the world. And to me, if we wreck the world by waging war or destoying the environment, abortion becomes a moot issue. So unless candidates become more consistently pro-life, I can't use the aborition litmus test in voting.

In addition, to make the judgement seat of Christ our #1 concern in voting turns our vision inwards. What will happen to me if I vote for candidate x or candidate y. I think we need to turn our vision outward to see how candidates x or y's election will hurt or help people, especially the multiple varieties of vulnerable people, should determine how we should vote and resign ourselves to whatever judgment God gives..

Finally, the word on my street is that conservative voters have no credibility when it comes to speaking about opposing abortion with pro-choice advocates. The reason for that is consistency. So perhaps it is necessary in order to effectively bring an anti-elective abortion message to more people that we put it on the backburner for now and wait until we show more consistency in our pro-life convictions before making abortion an election issue again.

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

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost citing an article that says all forms of socialism end up with the same tyrannical result as was seen in Stalin’s Russia. This appeared in Denny Burk's blog.


Dr. Clark,
To treat socialism as a monolith, as the article you referenced does, is ignorance for some, but not for all. To ignore the criticisms that socialists had of Lenin's model of government in order to group all socialists together so one can conclude that Stalin's gov't is the destination of all forms of socialism is to deliberately ignore the different forms of Socialism that has been tried and discussed. And limiting one's sources on Socialism to just its antagonists is simply intellectually dishonest.

Yes, there have been forms of socialism that have led to tyranny. For example, when Iran's (1953) democratically elected leader Mossadeg moved to nationalize oil resources, both England and the US orchestrated a coup that replaced Mossadeg with a brutal tyrant, the Shah. When Chile's(1973) democratically elected leader moved to nationalize certain industries, the US orchestrated a military coup to install the tyrant General Pinochet as its leader. Pinochet would later be indicted for crimes against humanity but died before he could be tried. When Guatemala's (1954) democratically elected leader Jacobo Arbenz pushed land reform, the US orchestrated a coup that installed the military dictator Carlos Armos. When it was possible that Greece's 1967 election could have produced a left-leaning government, Colonel Papadopoulos used a NATO plan designed to keep Greece from falling to communism to orchestrate a coup prior to the election so that a military junta would rule Greece. BTW, one should read the LBJ quote that was part of the conversation between the Greek PM who was in power before the coup  (see http://www.ahistoryofgreece.com/junta.htm   ). 

Of course anti-Capitalists experiments like the Paris Commune and the Spanish Revolution serve as stark counterexamples to the claim that Socialism always leads to a Stalin type tyrannical regime. So do certain forms of Socialism such as Libertarian Socialism. Libertarian Socialism does not support a central state government.

But what is even more disengenous than what was written in the article referenced is that Sanders has carefully equated his idea of Socialism with FDR's New Deal. If FDR's presidency could be called Socialist, then the result of FDR's programs contradict the basic claim made by the article referenced. But what we have seen instead is a more gradual approach to the trend established above. We are now classified as a oligarchy, not a democracy. And part of that oligarchy has been a move away from FDR's programs to what existed before (see  http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746  ) because such programs interfere with state Capitalism--something Eisenhower warned us against when he spoke against the Military Industrial Complex.

At Westminster, we were constantly challenged to go to the original sources to learn about what was being taught. But such a principle doesn't apply on this board when talking about Socialism. And the information is easily available. One could read Rosa Luxembourg, Anton Pannekoek, Noam Chomsky, and others to see what Socialists are saying for themselves. The road chosen by this board is to remain insular and only read Socialism's antagonists to learn about Socialism. Of course, doing so is like investigating Christianity by only talking with Bill Maher. 

Quite simply, the article this post referenced is intellectually dishonest. And if I was a nonChristian, it would give me grounds for not believing any gospel preached by you since you refuse to go to original sources to see what Socialists say for themselves. If you were to do that, you will find a variety of views of Socialism.

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

To Joe Carter and his blogpost on how increasing economic freedom can reduce human trafficking. This appeared in the Acton blog.

There is no doubt that greater financial opportunities can lead to less human trafficking. On the other hand, greater economic freedom isn't always used to increase the flourishing of all people. Some economic freedom, such as a relaxation of labor or environmental laws, allows the beneficiaries of economic freedom to exploit others. Allowing employers to pay employees poverty wages is an economic freedom for the employer which does not help the employee. Allowing owners to offshore jobs can bring economic freedom to owners but that freedom  is used to take advantage of places with inadequate regulations and laws. In addition, allowing economic freedom for some can also mean excusing owners who benefit the most from infrastructure from paying taxes to maintain that infrastructure. We should also note that some who have become victims of trafficking were lured into captivity by the promise of economic opportunity.

IN short, to talk about economic freedom in general as a tool to help people escape dire circumstances is very similar to talking about reducing regulations to help businesses. The general concept is too ambiguous to be meaningful and thus what is needed is not talk about increasing economic freedom in general, but talk about whose economic freedom is being created and what specific freedoms are being afforded.

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

To Joe Carter and his blogpost containing a video presentation by William Voegeli on Government growing too big by trying to provide too much for its people. This appeared in the Acton Blog

This presentation is rather intellectually dishonest in a couple of ways. When talking about the government intended by our founders, we need to realize that since The Constitution was written in response to widespread dissent and Shays Rebellion, it was written to strengthen the Federal government by increasing its ability to respond to future rebellions that were challenging the status quo. One only needs to read all of the references to the militia made in The Constitution to see substantial evidence that would support that interpretation.

In addition, while the presentation talks about the growth in the government outlay for social benefits, the two largest social outlays are self-funded: Social Security and Medicare. In fact, Social Security is the biggest holder of our National Debt. And cutting Medicare expenses has been hampered by Federal law that prohibits the from negotiating on pharmaceutical products. The prices of our drugs cannot be explained by R&D costs since bulk of those costs are paid for by taxes that fund the research performed by the NIH. Rather, the pharmaceutical prices are there to allow pharmaceutical companies to provide an ever growing ROI for its shareholders. This is what the price gouging of opportunists like Martin Shkreli points out.

In addition, what is not mentioned at all in terms of the growing percentage of government spending in relation to our GDP is the prosecution of unfunded wars such as the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. In fact, Chalmers Johnson pointed out in around 2008 that the total US spending on defense, which is well distributed among several federal budges such as the DOD, Treasury, and the Atomic Energy Agency to name a few totals over $1 trillion. Why was that never mentioned? And another omission is how our Federal gov't continues to support our financial institutions in ways that allow these institutions to significantly increase profits.

It seems that the conservative approach to discussing big government is to lay the blame for such government at the hands of the vulnerable with many of those vulnerable having been victims of our economic system. Such is morally wrong and the way it is discussed is intellectually dishonest.

Finally, we should note that government is like love in one way: size doesn't matter, fidelity does. A small impotent government is has harmful to the population as a large government whose first love consists of certain private sector elites--this is commonly called Crony Capitalism. Government should be big enough to protect the people from both internal and external threats to justice. And people living in poverty provide examples of injustice especially when that poverty is caused by exploitation and the hoarding of wealth.

We should note that here in America, the Conservative Church is coming alongside of those with wealth and power just as the Roman Church did in France and Spain prior to their Revolutions and the Orthodox Church did in Russia prior to its Revolution. The protection of wealth and power by the Church caused the Church and its Gospel to be despised by those seeking revolution. Will the Conservative Church repeat an ugly part of Church history? Only time will tell though we should note that with time running out, it looks like it will.

A Socialism That Republicans Passionately Embrace

Having to take a week off of blogging because of bronchitis allowed me to think more deeply into whatever subject I would write on next. And there is more than one subject to address. I could write about the latest campaign scuffle between Bernie Sanders supporters and the Trump campaign. A group of alleged Bernie Sanders supporters actually shutdown a Trump campaign stop and was done with apologies from neither Sanders nor the protesters. Such is an ominous sign that for all we know about voting, we know nothing about democracy.

And Trump's response of encouraging his supporters to be defensive and strike back should give us a deja vue experience of Germany during the 1930s.  For it was during that time when the Communists and the Nazis felt entitled to take their fights to the street. We should note here that certain aspects of Trump's campaign and the behavior of some of his followers have already reminded some of this time period in Germany.

But I am not going to write about that. There are simply bigger fish to fry. And one of those bigger fish consists of the foreign policy philosophy adhered to by the surviving Republican Presidential candidates as expressed in the CNN Presidential Debtate in Miami (click here). The foreign policy portion of the debate begins at the 47:25 mark of the debate when Trump was asked about whether all Muslims hate us. The discussion then morphed into a discussion on Israel-Palestine, Cuba, Russia, and then the rest of the world. The basic defense for the Republican approach to foreign policy is their claim that the world clamors for America's leadership. And only Republican leadership of America can provide the strong leadership that the world requests.

The basic Republican approach to foreign policy is that the US must show the world that it is the boss. Regarding the Muslim world, there is recognition of hatred of the US, but there seems to be a deliberate obliviousness as to why. This is true even though we know that the Israel-Palestine conflict is an important issue to Muslims (click here and there).  One should consider what it means to be pro-Israeli to the Republican candidates. That is because the US, though it is still aligned with Israel under Obama,  has expressed criticisms of Israel. And this criticizing of Israel is an anathema to the Republicans. Thus, Obama is described as being anti-Israel. In addition, the Republicans view the Israeli-Palestinian conflict completely in black-and-white terms. None of the candidates view the Palestinians with any sympathy or as having any merit. 

The problem with the Republican view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is that it is not backed up by the facts. The Republicans seem not to acknowledge that Israel has violated numerous UN resolutions (click here), broken ceasefires (click here), and violated human rights (click here). There have been times when, even by their own admission, they have not lived up to promises to work for peace (click here). This listing of Israel's misbehaviors are not put forth in order to paint an opposite black-and-white picture of the conflict; the Palestinians also have numerous faults and sins. But the listing of Israel's violations is there to show that the Republican view that Israel is innocent and only the Palestinians are guilty is not supported by the facts.

In addition, there seems to be little awareness of how past American actions including overthrowing of governments (Iran in 1953 and Iraq in 2003) and supporting dictators (Saddam Hussein during the 1980s, the current Royal Family in Saudi Arabia, and Mubarak and el-Sisi in Egypt) could cause friction with the Muslim world. And those actions do not include the US administration of UN sanctions that are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children during the Clinton and Bush II administrations.

The rhetoric to Cuba and its government is similar to the rhetoric to the Palestinians and the Muslims who hate us. One of the Presidential candidates lamented the fact that Obama apologized for past US actions against Cuba. Another candidtate complained about how Cuban harbors those who have committed crimes against the US and how they have provided a place for China to 'listen' to the US. Do those candidates know that, for a time period between Castro's overthrow of the US sponsored dictator Batista and the Cuban Missile Crisis, the US conducted military attacks against Cuban civilian targets  and that the US has harbored those who committed crimes against Cuba? And, as during the Cuban Missile Crisis, do the Republican candidates acknowledge that we had and are still placing military bases on Russia's border (click here)?

And as the Republican candidates vented their anger against Russia's crimes in Crimea, did they also acknowledge American crimes against Central American countries during the 1980s and possibly in Honduras in 2009?

Not only is there no acknowledgement of American wrongdoing by the Republican candidates, they express anger at the implied acknowledgement of such that a mere apology provides. And all of that tells us one thing about all of the Republican candidates and their view of America's leadership roll in the world: they believe that we are entitled to rule the world. They call it leadership, but when no one is allowed to judge our past and present interventions, then we are no longer talking about leadership; rather, we are talking about the Republican view that the US not only has the right, it has the duty, to rule the world. And according to some of the Republican candidates, it is entitled to rule the world by virtue of the world's request. At least one of the candidates talked about how the world was looking to the US to lead and that Obama has utterly failed to provide the leadership. 

These candidates seem to be unaware of a recent 2013 poll that reported that the nations viewed the US as posing the biggest threat to peace in the world (click here, there, and there again).  Below is a global map showing which nations view the US as posing the greatest threat to peace (click here and advance to the 21 second mark of the video for the source with a country by country detailed report found there).

Note how this opinion of the US spans across the whole globe including Europe and much of South America. And it also includes the public opinion from our allies like Germany, Australia, and Sweden as well as Spain, Turkey, and Greece. Also note that this is not the opinion of world leaders, this is the opinion of the world's people and that this poll was taken in 2013 so knowledge of its results has been readily available for some time.

But none of the above facts matter to the Republican candidates simply because they believe that the US is entitled to rule the world. And the morality of those who feel entitled to something allows them to only recognize what others do wrong. And often what is judged wrong is any challenge to what the entitled believe is theirs. This is why those who feel that Israel is entitled to the land can only recognize Palestinian wrongdoings. It also explains why the Republican candidates believe that America has nothing to apologize for in its past.

We should conclude that a person with the moral compass described above is not competent to be the leader of the most powerful nation in the world. And while Obama has apologized for past US actions, his moral compass and that of the Democratic candidates are not different enough from that of the Republican candidates.

In the end, the control of the world that the Republican candidates believe is rightfully America's is the same kind of control they fear Obama is exercising over America especially with his use of executive orders. These Republicans call such control 'Socialism.' Since these Republicans believe America should exercise that kind of control over the world that they call 'Socialism' when exercised here, then we could say that we found a "Socialism" that the Republicans can like. But they not only do they like this kind of "Socialism," they passionately embrace it.

Even As Victims, Americans Are Exceptional. That Is Sometimes

Having attended to some business matters in New York City, the wife and I decided to play tourists for the time remaining. We eventually ended up at the 9-11 Memorial.

The 9-11 Memorial is a solemn place. It appropriately pays tribute to the victims and shows us some of the remains of the atrocities that took place in Lower Manhattan on September 11, 2001. The most difficult item to see was that which listed the fire companies and police units lost in the attacks. Their sacrifices should always be honored as should the fate of the civilian victims. The 9-11 Memorial plays appropriate homage to those lost in the attacks.

But unfortunately, the suffering of victims is just another place where we see American Exceptionalism. But it's not in the Memorials to our lost loved ones and heroes where we see our exceptionalism rear its ugly head, it is in the neglect or lack of awareness of the losses suffered by others where we proclaim our exceptionalism.  For where are the memorials built to honor the innocent victims of Chile, Vietnam, Cuba, Nicaragua, El Salavador, Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, amongst other places where innocent civilians were slaughtered by either our policies and troops or by those of our allies? Where? Weren't they innocent victims too? Didn't their lives count to their family members and loved ones as much as our lost family members and loved ones mean to us?

If memory serves, one of the tapes playing in the 9-11 Memorial stated that no matter where one was in the world, each of us remembers where we were when we first heard of the attacks. I remember where I was. I was at home listening to Art Tatum as I was grading papers. A student called me to ask if we would be having class because of the terrorist attacks. I had to turn on the tv to find out what was happening. 

See, we call on the world to remember our sufferings and losses. But how many Americans remember where they were during first 9-11 attacks, the ones in Chile where, in a bloody coup which we supported, the democratically elected government of Chile was replaced by a brutal, military dictator who, until his death, was charged with human rights violations and hundreds of crimes. We should note that Pinochet earned support from both the United States and Great Britain for the kind of capitalism he forced on his people. Where were we when we heard of the atrocities of that 9-11? We might even want to ask if we even heard of those atrocities.

And where were we when we heard of the civilian targets in Cuba who were hit by our armed forces before we finally agreed not to attack Cuba again? Do we know how many people our nation slaughtered in those attacks? Do we even know that our nation attacked civilian targets in Cuba? And what do we know about the millions of people killed because we first decided to help France regain control of Vietnam and then later decided to invade the country in order to prevent reunification with North Vietnam? How familiar are we with those losses? And where were we when we first heard of the hundreds of children who were killed in Israel's Cast Lead operation during one of their invasions of Gaza? 

We could go on and on but the point should have been made. While we call on the world to remember the traumas our nation has suffered, we show little, if any, concern for the losses other people have suffered when those losses are at the hands of either our policies and troops or those of our friends.

The 9-11 Memorial was a most appropriate monument to build. It is important that those of us who can visit it, do so. It is a solemn place. But it isn't the tribute we build to the people we've lost which is the issue here. Rather, the issue is the lack of care and concern we have for the losses we've forced on others. 

The idea that those whom we've lost are worthy victims while the losses suffered by others are not is what is at the center of the issue here. This division between worthy and unworthy victims was well described in Chomsky's and Herman's book, Manufacturing Consent. And this idea of worthy vs unworthy victims can even have a domestic slant to it. As I try to tell many of the my friends about the problem with the police shootings of unarmed Black Americans, they show a lack of feeling for the losses of others. It seems that there is a presumption of guilt made by too many Whites on those Blacks who have been killed by the police. And here, this blogpost is not saying that every time a police officer shoots a Black person, that the police have done wrong. But the number of police shootings of unarmed Blacks can only indicate that racism and police abuse of power are major problems in our nation. And Blacks and some other minorities are bearing the brunt of that problem.

Thus, if the fact that America's losses are to be mourned by the whole world while the losses we cause to others are not worthy of grief indicates American Exceptionalism, we could say that the lack of concern many of us have for Blacks who have unjustly died at the hands of the police could indicate an attitude of White Exceptionalism or Supremacy. And considering our history, we should take seriously the possibility that any of us could have this form of exceptionalism residing in our minds and hearts.

The trouble with exceptionalism, regardless of who exhibits it, is that it feeds our conflicts. It causes them to grow. And in feeding our conflicts, not only are all of us eventually threatened, all of us become more qualified to be indicted for the losses suffered by others.